Talk:Club (organization)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:916:4A88:111:7623:3FF3:3B9E (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

The reference to the Hoboken Turtle Club mentions that it existed as of 1911. In fact, the club existed much later than that -- at least until 1939. Should this be changed? My source for this is a New Yorker article that makes mention of it from that year: http://web.archive.org/web/20061211133042rn_2/www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/010219fr_mitchell?010219fr_mitchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.72.88 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the paragraph beginning, "The number of regularly established clubs in London is now..." be safely omitted? It seems to be just a list of clubs current as of 1911, and thuse irrelevant to the modern day even in a historical sense. -- April

Probably. I just cut and pasted this one since I have an aesthetic aversion to empty pages, I don't know anything about the club scene myself. Bryan Derksen

And I'm grateful! The history of clubs is quite interesting, actually, and we may want to keep some sections of it. But modernizing the end of it will take work - there's everything from the club scene to chess clubs to cover. -- April

I removed three more paragraphs specific to turn-of-the-century English clubs. Historians can always go to the 11854564564897944844888845844444 Britannica if they're curious. :) -- April

The article Club rhubarbs for ages about stuffy London gentleman's clubs, but next to nothing about the sort of ordinary sport or whatever club that very many ordinary people are in. I split off the Roman clubs section and the Greek clubs section onto separate pages.Anthony Appleyard 06:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of famous members of the Bread Street/Friday Street Club, I'm trying to add links for them all. I can't figure out who Beaumont or Fletcher are. There aren't any famous Beaumonts of the period in WP, and there are two famous Fletchers, both literary (John and Phineas). Can anyone with a direct knowledge of the club itself help me out? --Trinite 16:43, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I placed the {{cleanup-date|September 2005}} tag on this page. I think it's too long and meandering--it need sections, etc. --Kewp 17:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the cleanup request, I split this article into sections, and rearranged some stuff to match. To balance it out, some material on ancient clubs may have to move back, and additional material on political and social clubs included. ClaudeMuncey 17:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club (disamgibuation), Club, Social Cub and their relatives have an illogical structure.

The official club disambiguation page (Club (disambiguation)) is not very good. It is incomplete and only lists one category of social club, while discussing sports clubs, country clubs, health clubs and gyms at the same level of detail. For example, social clubs and country clubs are listed as distinct categories. This page (club) does a step further and gives disambiguation at a higher level of detail, which is necessary because there are so many types of social clubs, many of which overlap. Furthermore a search for "club" takes one to club not to club (disambiguation). The whole structure of the club subject is fraught with logical errors.

The Club (disambiguation) page does not have a link to Social club! That could be corrected, but there are other problems. In reality country clubs should overlap heavily and be cited extensively in the article, social clubs, but the latter ignores many classes of social clubs and partly social clubs.

Furthermore, Club (disambiguation) is inaccurate, since Gentlemen's club is a common euphemism for a strip club.

Again, there is no need for references in this article because they are provided in the individual articles. --Zeamays (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The fact that individual articles have references is OK for lists, but this is not a list and it should be referenced. I have not reverted your removal of the tag, but I think we should try to get consensus here. --Bduke (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zeamays that the club family is imperfect: the answer is to correct the errors and improve the overall structure. I agree with Bduke that this article, club, is not a list but a proper article, and as such should be properly referenced. There are articles I have contributed to in which virtually every section begins with a "main" tag, and one of the chief jobs of those who watch the article is to hone the contributions of the eager many, and direct their enthusiasm to the separate articles. One example is horse, which is long, but which nonetheless spins off as much as possible into daughter articles. Although the club family of articles is not likely to attract the level and rate of editorial additions that horse does, I think it is a perfectly valid method of controlling and shaping a group of information.

Two points of fact: gentlemen's club is a legitimate term with its primary meaning the long-standing one. They are still important features of the British establishment, not merely archaisms or historical footnotes. We have encyclopedic standards to maintain; it is entirely appropriate to have an article about strip clubs, and indicate that they are also known as gentlemen's clubs, but that is a euphemistic colloquialism.

Secondly, social club and country club do not overlap to a great extent in Britain, where I am writing from. If the former article is missing information, please add to it.

I have put many hours into some of these articles, especially club and gentlemen's club. Frankly, they were pretty dire before I decided to get my hands dirty; and they are still far from adequate now, particularly with regard to references. I welcome constructive engagement with them, but I may not be able to contribute much over the next couple of weeks -- it depends on my activities outside WP, which are a bit unpredictable. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say, I don't know how to arrange it, but it would be great if a search for "club" would go straight to the dab page, not to this one. People might be thinking of golf clubs (the implements) or juggling clubs or any of many other meanings. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (2010)

The proposal is to merge Voluntary association to here. As far as I can see, there are no significant conceptual distinctions – although there are of course differences in connotation; one wouldn't call a gentlemen's club a gentlemen's voluntary association. --Lambiam 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST There is a significant legal distinction in that the word "club" is used colloquially but the term "voluntary association" is often used to distinguish a legal entity from other types such as a cooperative, domestic corporation, charity corporation or so on. Clubs may choose what type of legal entity to be, but the phrase voluntary association often has a precise and technical legal meaning. Rorybowman (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbing

It is said that clubbing is injurious to health.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveM123 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club → Club (organization)
Club (disambiguation) → Club

– I do not believe that the organizational concept is the primary topic of "club", or that the term has any primary topic. The club as a weapon is older, and many incoming links are intended for the music genre. bd2412 T 15:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Club → Club (organization) per no primary topic.

Oppose Club (disambiguation) → Club. The title topic Club in this listing of many types of club needs itself to be disambiguated from all the many items listed within its own listing. A redirect to Club (disambiguation) provides a suitably solution for the disambiguation of the list. Greg Kaye 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposed. GregKaye's proposal would result in a malplaced disambiguation page, which is something he seems to disagree with, but as yet has little support. older ≠ wiser 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad Please consider definition of malplaced which do not apply. How is a disambiguation page malplaced at a location that presents it as containing disambiguations and in a way that disambiguates the list content presented from any and all items on the list? Greg Kaye 04:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should reside at the base name. older ≠ wiser 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: see WP:MALPLACED. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TY BDD surely it is also a violation of WP:ASSERT to claim that an article is "malplaced" when no reasoned argument for this claim is given. Greg Kaye 19:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is reasoned argument for this--only you happen to disagree with the argument. That doesn't mean there is none. older ≠ wiser 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support a club is a blunt instrument used to bludgeon and strike things. Further, it is a suite in a deck of cards. Tertiarily, it is an organization. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a club could be many different things which is why the disambiguation page should stay at Club (disambiguation). Greg Kaye 05:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under your approach, Club would be a redirect to Club (disambiguation). That would make this title inconsistent with literally hundreds of thousands of titles that avoid such a pattern. I am not at all averse to discussing whether that is the more precise title, but we should do so in a general policy discussion, not in the context of creating a single outlier. bd2412 T 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club (disambiguation) is a perfectly sensible article title for a list of disambiguated articles that relate to the term club. No confusion is generated. Please explain the problem. The article is not about a club and has a different content. There is an extremely close natural association between article titles Club (disambiguation) and Club. How does this, I think, reasonable suggestion constitute a generation of an outlier? Are there no other examples that follow what seems to me to be a logical and grammatically sound solution? Greg Kaye 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the disambiguation should be moved per WP:MALPLACED. kennethaw88 • talk 00:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonably strong oppose for several reasons. This seems like a pretty straightforward primary topic to me, especially since we ain't writing a dictionary. I do join the chorus of voices that Club must not redirect to a dab page. If consensus ends up deciding that there's no primary topic, the dab page must be moved here. Red Slash 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary topic, if there is one, is the blunt object, which has historically been an element of many crimes and much warfare, and most of human pre-history and history. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the type of organization is not the main topic 76.120.162.73 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.