Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Sheep fur-skins

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sheep fur-skins[edit]

Sheep have wool, not fur. This should be renamed to Category:Sheepskins Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is probably right. It is named the same way (nearly) all other haired skins are named, see Category:Furs by species. --Kürschner (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason, technical, encyclopedic or usability, why category members need to be named with rigid consistency, if this is against the actual use of the term. Would you also suggest replacing sheep by "sheeps" as a plural, because that would then be consistent with with dogs and cats? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I am not a native English speaker, I only can guess the right use of terms. The idea behind is, to differentiate between fur and leather, skin with hair aund without hair. --Kürschner (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with move, disagree with rationale. "Sheepskins" is definitely a more common word to describe what's in the category. However, I believe "sheep have wool, not fur" is a misunderstanding of the difference between wool and fur. Fur is simply skin with hair (sometimes called the hair is called wool, or confusingly, fur), taken off the animal. If you remove the skin from a sheep but keep the wool on the skin, what you have may also be described as "fur". Deryck Chan (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Can a bot rename all files when we rename the category? --Kürschner (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think once you replace a category description with {{category redirect}}, some bot will empty its content into the new category automatically. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me, this makes a redirect, not replaces?! --Kürschner (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
See User:RussBot. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I understand, thank you! --Kürschner (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a technical difference between wool and fur, in that the hairs of a wool pelt are intertwined such that they can't be combed smooth, as a fur pelt can. Thus skinning a sheep gives a pelt, but not a fur.
There are sheep fur-skins, but they are obscure: astrakhan is the pelt of a baby (or unborn) lamb. At this age, and not later, the sheep's pelt could be described as a fur.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the term for the skin of a premature birth astrakhan lamb is broadtail or breitschwanz. - The problem seems to me to find the right general commercial term in the English speaking fur branch for sheepskins. In Germany all sheepskins which will be worked to garment are called lamb (lambskin), excluding very rustic skins, like for shepherd coats. Nevertheless the upper term sheepskins would be right. I think, "sheepskins" and "sheepskin (clothing)" should be ok? --Kürschner (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done as proposed --Kürschner (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirected to Category:Sheepskins. --rimshottalk 23:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)