Talk:Queen of the South F.C.

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

"Doonhamers" is evidently dialect for "down-homers", but why are they known as that....? ChrisTheDude 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Not exactly in depth, but the writer (scottish, aka David Ross) is a respected Scottish football historian. In a Scottish context, Dumfries is in the South, thus "down". Caledonian Place 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is "lallands" colloqual scots for down home, as in "im ga'n doon hame", although they are better known as the queens locally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.230.252 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

It's not 'questionable' that QOTS are the only British club mentioned in the bible, Bury & Reading are also mentioned. [1] & [2]. Thus, I have edited article accordingly. [User:Aleksandr_Tank|Aleksandr_Tank] 22.24 20 April 2008.

I am not sure this merits a mention at all, and certainly not in the lead, unless it can be referenced. I have removed it from the lead meantime. --John (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi do forigen teams allow a mention ? If so what about The Famous South American Team CORINTHIANS ? As the 7th and 8th Versus in The New Testament are called 1st + 2nd CORINTHIANS. Also if you study all The Place Names in The Bible you will find many place names that are related to Forigen Teams. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevieRB64 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aleksandr,

It was myself who added the words, 'reading' and 'bury' to this page originally stating that this is evidence that QOS aren't the only team mentioned in the bible. This was discarded by a wikipedia editor and thinking about it I can now see why. Words in passing do not necessarily mean that a football club is listed in the bible. Think of the context in which the word appears in the bible and ask yourself if it fits that of being a football club. Best test I can think of is to add the words 'football club' after each alleged club name in the bible. This gives us for example:-

1) Acts 8:32 "The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:"

Would become:-

Acts 8:32 "The eunuch was reading football club this passage of Scripture:"

2) Genesis 23:15 "Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between me and you? Bury your dead."

would become:-

Genesis 23:15 "Listen to me, my lord; the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between me and you? Bury football club your dead."

3) Matthew 12:42 "The queen of the South will rise at the judgement with the men of this generation and condemn them"

Does that work as, "The queen of the South football club will rise at the judgement with the men of this generation and condemn them" - ? Absolutely it does. I must though admit that I have watched them play often enough where it has been men of this generation of the other team who risen at the judgement and condemned Queens. That's football though. My point though is that all the stuff on who is mentioned in the bible is very much debatable and questionable. I suspect if you asked the people at Reading and Bury football clubs if they wanted the above to be classed as a listing for them in the final I suspect you would find that they prefer would not.

Great to see you taking an interest in Scottish football.

For info depending on which version (and there are loads of them) of the bible you read the word arsenal also gets a mention.

Hi John,

The bible reference is one of the things that the club is best known for. With the media coverage of the recent semi final (and know doubt that there will be surrounding the final) the biblical reference is 1 of the things that was picked up on first. And of course it makes for fun conversation round a dinner table or over a drink. Of course though please note that in the edits I have done I have always added the word 'humourously'. Can I thus respectfully suggest a brief mention for this on the header page?

Thanks for your time guys and I look forward to discussing with you more.

Regards, S—Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talk • contribs)

If it's about context though, you could argue that while the context of QOTS' entry 'makes sense' it's only as worthwhile as Bury's mention. Reading I'm not entirely would count either way, as it's not pronounced the same, but Bury is. QOTS obviously doesn't mean the football club while it's in the bible, and Bury doesn't mean Bury FC while it is in the bible, the words are still there and the words carry their meaning (unlike Reading).

Cheers, S—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandr (talk • contribs)

Hi again Aleksandr, While football is a religion for many people I agree with you completely in that Of course there references to these words in the bible were not written with football in mind. The wording though does allow an intepretation for Queen of the South that it does now allow for the other clubs (or not that I have so far anyway, I am always happy to be enlightened). If it's OK with you can I have a little time to think of some wording that we may be able to agree on?

Best regards as always, S Socheid (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again gents,

How about this:-

"Queen of the South are often humorously cited as the only league club in the United Kingdom to be mentioned in the Bible. Luke 11:31 states "The queen of the South shall rise up at the judgement with the men of this generation and condemn them..."[54] Queen of the South is similarly quoted under Matthew 12:42. In the biblical quote the "Queen of the South" is considered to be the Queen of Sheba.

The bible also contains the words 'reading' and 'bury'. However the context in which these words are presented in the bible do not avail themselves to cross interpretation to mean the either 'Reading' nor 'Bury' football club. [55] The subject is open to debate and intended in good humour and without blasphemy. No club has claimed to be literally referred to in the bible."

Seem fair?

Regards, S Socheid (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfect.

Aleksandr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandr Tank (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Aleksandr,

Thanks for your time and your consideration. I'll update the article.

Regards, S Socheid (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for coming to a compromise. However I felt the disclaimer was a little on the long side so I've trimmed it. The reading and Bury references could be brought back if there is a reliable source for the claim. Otherwise I don't think we need it. --John (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only league club referenced in the Bible

I've read the abouve and it seems to me that the fact of QoS being the only league club in the Bible is only mentioned because it fits in with the passage. Well, I've discovered that that claim is not correct as Arsenal are mentioned in the Bible in Jeremiah 50:25 and the words football club can be added easily to it

"The LORD has opened his arsenal
and brought out the weapons of his wrath,
for the Sovereign LORD Almighty has work to do
in the land of the Babylonians. "

The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous fans

This is a little crufty for my taste. Can anyone see a point in keeping it? I have a feeling there was a project consensus a while back that such sections were inherently unencyclopedic; I'll try to find it. --John (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

Mind helping me along please with a definition of 'crufty'?

In my humble opinion fans are the lifeblood of sport. Those listed are all factual.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'its'

Greetings one and all,

I undid a small change (the removal of the word 'its') as it appeared contextually incorrect in my humble opinion. This has generated a response from the user in question to go through the entire article to seemingly deploy the word 'its' in the same context as many times as possible.

This seems strange to me but I'm not Wordsworth so who am I to lay down the law so to speak? To try to understand why I've taken a look at the profile of the person concerned and maybe I see what has happened. The person concerned (who I will be inviting to this discussion via his talk page) is American. I thus suspect that the use of the word 'its' may well be American English.

Can I invite all please to comment on the most appropriate choice of language to use. To start the ball rolling on the discussion can I suggest that the non 'its' wording used previously is more appropriate for two reasons:-

1) It is the style of English native the country of the club in the question

2) It is the style of English used in the source articles

Can I invite all for an opinion please? Is it wikipedia mandatory to use American English for all articles, including those with non American subject material?

I have swapped the article back to the non American English language used previously for the simple reason that the article existed fairly happilly until that Americanisation. Of course though if it is agreed by all that the format with the mass use of 'its' is more appropriate then of course I will go along with.

All constructive contribution is much appreciated.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I should have added. I am a relative new comer to wikipedia as no doubt will be fairly obvious to experienced contributors. Could someone tell me please, I am going through the correct etiquette by raising a question such as this 1 above on this dicussion page? Again all constructive comment is much appreciated.

The its changes were in line with the singular Queen of the South is a..., as opposed to plural Queen of the South are a... in the introduction. As for using American English, I'm not sure I follow. It is policy to use day-month formats in UK-oriented articles and month-day formats in American articles. Please refrain from making further such reversions without familiarising yourself with the finer points of Wikipedia. Thank you. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudesleeper,

Many thanks for the timely reply to the request I left for you asking for your input. Also I am sure we are all looking forward seeing the results of the major edit that you are actioning on this page.

Hi all,

Anyone else have any input please to the discussion?

Best regards all, Socheid (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on my watch list, along with several other British football clubs. The use of either singular or plural verb and pronoun forms with the name of the club seems to be inconsistent across them. Many use the plural form, (for example, Hull City AFC are an English football club...), as this seems to be a fairly common construction with singular collective nouns in British English use. The featured article for Arsenal F.C. follows this use.

However, the examples give on the project's European football club template page seem to recommend the singular verb/pronoun form. There's been a lot of talk on the template discussion page, but nothing about standardising verb/pronoun use that I can see. Perhaps this discussion could move there to try to achieve a broader consensus? Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section

This section is absolutely massive, far to big for a club article. I suggest that a new article be started, called History of Queen of the South F.C., and a condensed version be left on the main club article. Dancarney (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the split; a summary still needs to be moved back here, per WP:SUMMARY. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players

This section appears to be a bit of an essay, and there are no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, making it original research. Without criteria, these sections become lists of editors favourite players, and an endless cause of debate. Therefore, unless there is something like a 'Hall of Fame', 'Greatest Ever XI' or something like that, then this should all be replaced by Category:Queen of the South F.C. players, which will take in all players notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dancarney (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has not been resolved after over a year, so I'm going to be bold and replace this prose with a link, as detailed above. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://qosfc.com/legends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.111.144 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Strip and Trophy Room

Would it be possible to show pictures the clubs Strips over the years and a picture of the trophy room ? Thanks for the opportunity to add my comment. Aĺl the best for the rest of the season. StevieRB64 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:StevieRB64 any appropriate images from Wikimedia Commons can be added to the article by anyone by following the guidance at Help:Pictures. If you have images that you own, and are willing to release under a compatible license you may upload them there yourself. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DDC7:75BD:E444:D6B6 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]