Talk:Kennel club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Which vs that

Sorry--I have to point out that 'which'->'that' is arbitray; is there a particular Wiki usage preference operating here? Quill 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to point out that which/that is not arbitrary ;-). Which is used for nonrestrictive clauses; that for restrictive clauses. Another way to say it is that a nonrestrictive clause provides extra info about something that is not necessary to identify the thing; restrictive clauses help to identify the thing. ("My hat, which is blue, is my favorite." (I have only one hat. You don't need to know its color to identify it.) "The hat that is blue is the least expensive of the ones for sale". (There are a bunch of hats and you need more info to know which is which.)) Refs: Chicago section 5.36; Strunk and White "That vs. Which". Unless it's arbitrary in, say, British English, in which case I'd definitely change it to match this style, if in the other case it doesn't matter. But most British stuff I've read follows the same usage. Elf | Talk 19:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now, now! Let me be more specific ;) You and I know enough to know that usage of 'that' vs. 'which' varies enough and has enough associated rules as to enable the erudite to make an argument for just about any usage. In the sentences in question, there is enough evidence of usage by writers of good repute to make the choice of 'which' or 'that' in these clauses a matter of personal preference rather than a hard-and-fast rule.
However, I know perfectly well that it is of no use arguing with what we used to call the 'dead grammarians' and many of us stubbornly follow Messrs. Strunk and White despite all logic or evidence of modern use (not a dig at you; I've been known to do it myself). For the record, though, from Merriam Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed.: "usage That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses..."
No, no, be antagonistic, we all know that edit wars are the point of wikipedia anyway.
...OK, not really. So what does ol' Merriam know anyway? It also says there's such a word as irregardless!  ;-) Now, if it were *Noah*-- OK, a lot of people use which and that interchangably (obviously). It looks wrong to me. So if it's interchangeable to you and wrong to me and Mssrs S & W, then it still won't matter if I change it. Am I right, or what? Elf | Talk 03:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Really, Madam! No, now really! Allow that '...a lot of educated people use that and which interchangably' (at least in this instance) and I'll happily call a truce!
'Irregardless'?! Nay, not so! You sent me scurrying to the book first thing this morning--really--grammar on an empty stomach--it's not to be borne! Now let's have the complete truth--it's stated clearly that 'irregardless' is an incorrect word, and one is to use 'regardless' instead.
You're quite correct on this point: if the use is interchangable it does not matter which one is used, which is why you should have left it alone and why (you will notice) I did not change it back (big of me, wasn't it?). In all seriousness, my only motive in questioning was to find out why the edit had been made, as it looked fine to me.
By the by, a wikipedian who shall remain nameless (but whose initials read like a fairy-creature) let 'pre-existing condition' pass in another article, which I suppose is an 'existing condition' to the Wikipedian gramatically-challenged.
Just for my own edification--do you follow the School of the Dead Grammarians on everything? Messrs. S&W have gotten me into more than one argument, so I'm just wondering how you manage...? I remember a particularly nasty incident where a boss insisted that I change 'composed of' to 'comprised of'--insisted, mind you--and I could not have been more right. I swore that one day I'd be in a position where no one would be able to do that to me again....but I'm over it now...no, really, I'm fine...I am....
Quill 22:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Discussion continued on User talk:Quill. Elf | Talk 01:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Starting kennel club stubs

Copied from User talk:Elf as this is a question of general interest:

I am compiling a list of Kennel Clubs, may be 50 or so, I would like to start a brief article for the one's that have not already been started to get them into the encyclopedia. Once in people tend to add on to them. Do you have a suggestion for a generic I can copy and paste for each kennel so that they will be long enough to not be deleted, etc. For example:

NAME Kennel Club is an organization dedicated to supporting dog breeds and their owners.

-External links-

Category:Kennel clubs

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribs) .

Interesting question. I'm not sure that simply having boilerplate with no information about the club itself really adds value by existing; it's my feeling that having an open link and no page is a better invitation to someone to try to create an article with actual useful info in it. But that's just me.
My second question would be what kind of kennel clubs you have in mind. For example, many of the major English-language kennel clubs are already listed on this page. I know that there are others of lesser import or that are considered by some to be primarily puppy-mill registries... In general, dog-project discussions have agreed that not every breed club in the universe is significant enough to warrant its own article. For example, the Continental Kennel Club, although unpopular in many circles, is certainly a large-scale registry; the Middleburg Kennel Club or the Kalamazoo Kennel Club, on the other hand, are merely minor local clubs of which there are a gazillion and probably aren't significant enough for their own articles. If you gave some examples or an explanation of what you had in mind for those 50 clubs, I could offer a clearer opinion on what I think.
All that said--take a look at American Kennel Club for a pretty thorough article that shows some of the things that could be said, and The Kennel Club for a pretty stubby article that says just above the minimum that's actually useful. I would think that the very minimum would be close to what you had, but more like:
'''NAME Kennel Club''' is a [[kennel club]] based in [[(countryname)]] 
(or otherwise identifies the region it covers)
that (does something...e.g., provides a [[breed registry]]... 
or specify how is related to...) [[purebred]] [[dog breed]]s.  
(Add some claim to fame or importance or its mission or something useful here, 
as in the Continental Kennel Club article.)
(Among other things, could be:)
This national kennel club is [[countryname]]'s [[Fédération Cynologique Internationale]] member club.

==External links==
*[http://abc.com/ NAME Kennel Club]
{{dog-stub}}

[[:Category:Kennel clubs]]
Elf | Talk 02:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It will be based on the FCI 80 national members. That will allow an entry for most of the main kennels around the world. This is a good thing for related articles looking for an internal link. Anyway, if you suggest leaving them open, I will certainly consider that option. I will leave the list open to start and see if there is any sort of concensus from others. Thanks SirIsaacBrock 03:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That set of KCs makes sense to me. As I said, it's my opinion about open links. But if you actually have the time to add a few sentences to each rather than just a single boilerplate sentence, that'd be good. Elf | Talk 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elf Edits

Hello Elf, with respect why the heavy duty editing ? Why take Crufts out, this provides a good summary of the history of Kennel Clubs and how they grew ? Why take out Modern dog shows ? The first line is normally a brief definition now three paragraphs of information. Are u claiming some type of article ownership ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As noted in history, material is moved to better places (more appropriate locations), specifically Crufts and dog show and, in fact, an article that's long been wanting, Championship (dog). This is an ariticle about kennel clubs and those sections were, in the first case, about Crufts only, which has nothing to do with kennel clubs in general; and in the second case, about dog shows in general with almost nothing to do with kennel clubs. This article should talk about kennel clubs, what they are, where they came from, what they do. Diverging into what dog shows are, where they came from, etc. should go into the appropriate articles. There could probably be an additional subheader somewhere earlier in this article, although intros are often more than one paragraph. I'll put something in. Elf | Talk 05:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks SirIsaacBrock 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FDSB

(copied from User talk:Elf:)

I think the FDSB is more accuratly classified as a kennel club. The definition of a kennel club is "A kennel club (known as a kennel council or canine council in some countries) is an organization for canine affairs that concerns itself with the welfare, promotion, and maintenance of more than one breed of dog." The FDSB meets all of the requirements of the definition although it stuck with a traditional name. At the time it was formed the term kennel club was not so widely used.

--Counsel 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that much about registries vs kennel clubs, and I can't tell exactly from reading FDSB's main page. Can someone else help clarify this? Elf | Talk 02:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that opening definition (which I wrote) needs to be expanded to include some of the information under subheading "Role"? Conformation and showing is a vital part of what kennel clubs do; even the clubs that claim not to be particularly interested in conformation must have some standard for determining what is or is not a Border Collie or a Jack Russell; such clubs have shows or trials or sports or photo competitions or something. There is also a social and a learning aspect to the kennel club, so that if you're in the hobby of dog fancy, your specialty club or kennel club is the outlet for that hobby. You get together with other members of your club and talk about dogs. The breed club or kennel club also keeps the record of the lineage of the dogs that form your hobby. However, if you are a hunter, the FDSB is not the domicile of your hobby in the same way, if I understand the website; the hobby group might be the Lesser St Upton Gundog Society, the Little Spotted Feist Fanciers Assn, or the Smallville Pig Shooters Club, and the FDSB is one place among several where you can record the lineage of the dogs you use in the course of your hobby; in other words, it's a registry. There is nothing at the website that leads me to believe that the hobby of dogs is housed at the FDSB. So dogs recorded at FDSB may be important or even integral to the hobby, but they are not necessarily the hobby itself; big difference from what happens at a kennel club.
At least, that's my understanding. Not claiming to know anything about the FDSB other than what I've read, so always willing to hear from others.
Quill 06:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I will agree that the web presence of the FDSB is minimal. I think that this speaks more to the preferences of the typical FDSB dog owner. Conformation competition lends itself much more toward the sharing of images than does performace competition. Hunters will generally make decisions dog ownership based upon how a dog works rather than how he looks. Conformation owners cannot afford to dismiss appearance in the same manner.

The members (if that is the right word) of the FDSB do get together though for Field Trials rather than conformation showing. The Magazine the American Field is an integral part of this and taking a look at that site may be helpful as well. I do not know whether the FDSB publishes its own breed standards as the AKC does, but the associated breed clubs certainly do. The Border Collie and JRT examples abover would not be Kennel Clubs either if I understand correctly. THe Kennel Club would be an organization that brings a group of breed clubs together for events involving multiple breeds. Activities such as the Field Trial Hall of Fame and others seem to reach beyond the activities of a registry, but again it simply depends upon the definition. Granted, the AKC has the ability to provide a great many more bells and whistles, but this is possible when they recieve registration fees for 137,000 Labradors and the many event premiums. --Counsel 19:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What?! Don't misunderstand me--the amount of web exposure interests me not at all--I'm not an "I-googled-it-so-it-must-be-right" kinda guy. No, you missed my point as to BCs and Jacks, I brought them up because they have working dog kennel clubs as opposed to conformation clubs, but they are most definitely kennel clubs. I think we're getting to the questions that need to be answered: does the FDSB itself function as a kennel club, or does it EXCLUSIVELY or PRIMARILY function as a registry?
Would this be solved or helped by a CATEGORY:breed specialty clubs or CATEGORY:dog registries?Quill 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think ultimately this is a definition question. I do not know how may registries organize events or whether doing so would diferentiate a kennel club from a registry. My guess is that there is not a bright line between the two. I think that the registry function of a club like the AKC is a smaller percentage of the business conducted by the AKC that it is for the FDSB. That is to say, the FBSB clearly has fewer functions than the AKC. The difference is primarily involvment in conformation. I am not sure that a separate category would be helpful for those using Wikipedia. I think that if an organization arguably fits within the definition of Kennel club, we should include it. Dividing up the information would only make it harder to find.--Counsel 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kennel club definition

Hmmm, by the new description, FCI isn't a kennel club--it defines shows, but it's not a registry and doesn't maintain pedigree info and in fact on its own doesn't even maintain breed standards; it just publishes those from member countries. Elf | Talk 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you wrote the definition ? SirIsaacBrock 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I've written ALL the dog articles on WP. ;-) ...See page history and recent changes. Elf | Talk 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Smarty-pants!!! I wrote "concerns itself with". That doesn't mean "handles each and every function directly". Well, at least I now know where the discussion is....Quill 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We have only the utmost respect for you and your work. <grins> No, really! Elf | Talk 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennel Club definition, years later

Maybe no one is interested anymore but ...

Things have changed and are changing even faster, breed registry-wise, due to the internet. Anyone with a few bucks a month to spend on web space and rudimentary knowlege of HTML can create their own "breed club" or even "breed registry". I've found on internet webmaster sites people looking for advice in setting up such registries, mostly to sell nice looking certificates to puppy-mill producers or pet shops. There's money in it. In addition there are other privately owned registry businesses, often ones that have adopted the acronym of a well known kennel club as their own, which exist primarily to dodge the rules of the oldest and best-known registries. So should all of these start-ups be listed on Wikipedia? After all, "everyone knows" that the Kennel Club (UK), the Fédération Cynologique Internationale and its members, the Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, etc. are "only in it for the money" (I'm being sarcastic, but that's an important belief for some.) So why not list every internet startup puppy mill paper producer as a Kennel Club too?

The alternative is to make some sort of distinction between credible and non-credible KCs. Is that even a remote possibility? --Hafwyn (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)