Talk:Crufts

Clarify
Maybe the page needs clarification for non-specialists. Mostly in the area of the class names. --DomCleal 21:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe it needs deletion. It's nn dogcruft. --SPUI (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel someone needs to expand this article and explain a few points more clearly. Reading it, I get the impression the original author had only a vague idea what they were on about. I would do this myself, but I'm kind of busy with grade 12. I know that sounds uppity and like I think I'm smarter then the person who wrote the article, but I don't - I just think it needs a bit of editing and explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wizard of Magicland (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Original author" consists of about 15 people so far who have added info from a variety of sources. Anyone who has the time & resources to expand parts of the article is encouraged to do so, even if only a sentence here or paragraph there! :-)  Elf | Talk 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would say that most of what is here is accurate, just presented in an odd way.--The Wizard of Magicland 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what a "dog competition" includes. i was hoping this article would elucidate that. are they judged on breed, agility, good looking-ness? i have no idea. the criteria should definitely be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.81.103 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an article link down the bottom to "An Idiot's Guide to Crufts" - this explains it all pretty well! --Katheryn witha Y (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedigree Dogs Exposed Link
I came here to disagree with the link to PDE at the bottom refering to it as "45-minute TV programme about Crufts 2009": it was about dog breeding in general, not Crufts in particular. But on following the link I would like to point out that it actually goes somewhere completely different and irrelevant. Can someone a) please change the wording and b) please fix the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.177.231 (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crufts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221073744/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk:80/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2040/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crufts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415084038/http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3 to http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are a terrorist mouthpiece being used on this article
PeTA are a terrorist organisation and why are they being used on this page. They are not a reliable critic, and there are far better criticisms which can and have been sourced and have been sourced form the main article the terrorists do not even appear on the main article so why are they being used as the only organisation here. I smell a POV bias towards this terrorist organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.232 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I am not the first person to disagree with the inclusion of PETA in this article. I know they had a nutter run in the ring. But really do we need to cover it in the way it is. Why is it given such promotional language of their extremist cause. PETA are a bunch of loons and one wanker running on should not e given such prominence. Better wording would be a protester from PETA stormed the ring in 2018. There is no need to promote his vitriol and unsubstantiated bile in this article.