Talk:Queen's Park F.C.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen's Park F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football: Scotland Mid‑importance

	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
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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changes to text

Changes have been made to the early section of the QP page to bring it in line with the club entry in the 'Combination Game' page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.5.112 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do they not play most of their games at a ground called lesser Hampden?

No. When redevelopment of Hampden occurred this was the case sometimes, but QPFC do play their home matches at the Real Hampden. Check the links to see pics of QPFC games at Hampden.

It does seem odd though that QPFC still play their home matches at Hampden, it seems ridiculous, with all due respect, for such a huge stadium to host a club that only draws crowds of a few hundred to most games. The atmosphere must be really strange in there.

I guess they could keep access for it if they're ever drawn at home to Celtic or Rangers in the cup, but wouldn't it be more sensible on the whole for them to be based in a new purpose built stadium which seats, I don't know, 4-5000 or so? Martyn Smith 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read on the England 2012 site that Queen's Park owns Hampden, not renting it or anything. I'm not sure what the details are, or even if this is accurate. It does seem a bit far-fetched that they would own such a ground. Here is the link: http://www.london2012.com/en/ourvision/sport+and+venue+information/list+of+all+venues/Hampden+Park.htm.

Yes, it's true. [1] --Guinnog 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they own the ground - Queen's Park were a massive team at that time. They used to own a ground that could hold four times the current capacity. Queen's Park and the Scotland team go hand in hand. --Revolt (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Resposible for..."

I've removed the first sentence from the history section because it is not accurate. The Sheffield Rules of 1862 already included both crossbars and half time and free kicks were introduced to the code in 1866 or before. This all pre-dates the creation of Queens Park. josh (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for above is: term "crossbar" used by sheffield in Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle (London, England), Saturday, March 09, 1872; Issue 2,697

also, I am sure that the contemporary evidence shows that the blue shirt of scotland with thistle was used before the 1872 Glasgow international in the earlier rugby international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballwecan80 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English leagues

"Queen's Park also played in the English Leagues in the late 19th century and even came close to winning the league, when their kit was green for a short time as the owner at the time believed it would bring them luck." - this is simply not true, QP never played in the English league. They did however play in the English FA Cup with some distinction..... ChrisTheDude 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other codes

I have removed "as at this time there was no official code" because there clearly were (FA, cambridge rules, rugby and various other school rules).

Recentism

I've added a recentism tag to the History section as the vast majority of this covers just the 21st century. Dancarney 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QP Cup withdrawals?

Does anybody know why Queen's Park kept withdrawing from the 'English' FA Cup in the years before they made their first final? Was it just too difficult to arrange travel, did the SFA put pressure on them to withdraw or did the matches keep clashing with Scottish Cup ties? And why did the FA keep allowing them back in each year, even giving them a bye to the semis on one occasion?

If anyone knows please edit this page... http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Scottish_football_clubs_in_the_FA_Cup... accordingly. Cheers Villafancd (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scott black Goalkeeper

scott black ues to play for Stranraer he left becaues fans the Stair Park club were shouting at him. he left for Auchinleck Talbot. he went there to win the scottish cup with them and there did. He went to Queens park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.96.35 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest ground still in use of the world..

I think that is not Hampden Park the oldest ground still in use today.

The City Ground, Nottingham Forest's stadium was inauguraded in 1897, still in use yet.. before that Hampden Park. Excuse my english. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.170.146 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Goodison Park was opened in 1892 and is still in use today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.92 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maidenhead United's York Road, 1871 Cls14 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Newspaper

The current reference to the Graphic newspaper is deeply flawed to say the least. It was a weekly newspaper, not a daily, which explains the delay in publication. To suggest that it cannot be considered contemporary is staggering - coming as it did only two weeks, and only the second possible date for publication, after the actual game had taken place. The article is written as a contemporary first hand account. The suggestion that the writer could not have been at the game is without foundation (he does not make any reference to this in the article) and there was also a sketch artist present at the game who produced the famous series of sketches (specific reference to this is made by the writer in the article). The Graphic's account, if you read the full article, gives across important information relating to the game which is not covered in the other journals. The other journals of course do not give reference to the Scots being 'adepts at passing'. If the Graphic writer had based the article purely on other reports, which don't use this specific term, why did he use it? The argument currently being put forward is that the other papers don't specifically refer to a 'passing' game (so, by implication, it didn't happen) but this paper, which mentions a passing game, could not have been present, even though there is evidence in the article that they were present! Hardly the foundation of an objective take on the history of the club! More sinisterly it looks like an attempt to play down the club's contribution, and if that is the case then that is truly sad.

From a less subjective view point, the references to 'team work' and 'working well together' which are to be found in the other journals complement the reference to passing which is conveyed in the Graphic and provide compelling evidence for the club's pioneering role in the development of the passing game. This would be a fairer take on the club's achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation

The following line appears to have been lifted from an account given in the Wikipedia article on the 'Combination Game' and is turned on its head to play down Queen's Park's contribution to the scientific passing style which they pioneered... "After a “hand” within thirty yards of the Wanderers’ lines, Weir got possession, and, successfully charg[ed] the English forwards". In the existing context the stress has been placed on physical charging as the sentence starts with, "Queens Park FC's playing style involved the rough and tumble of early soccer even in the mid 1870s". There is no reference to the advanced passing game that they are playing at this time.

The quote in full, however, reads thus,

After a “hand” within thirty yards of the Wanderers’ lines, Weir got possession, and, successfully charging the English forwards, passed it on to Herriot, who in turn placed it to Campbell, who by a well judged kick dropped the ball just below the bar, thus securing another goal for the Scotsmen in sixteen minutes. No sooner had the English captain started the ball than Herriot, Weir and Lawrie, by neat passing sent it back, and after the backs and half backs had shown good play, the two M'Neills brought it along the left side, and passing it to Lawrie, the latter made a shot for goal, but the ball passed just outside the goal post. The play was now in the centre, the Queen’s Park men dribbling and passing, while their opponents indulged chiefly in heavy kicking. In 33 minutes from the commencement of operations H. M'Neill, obtaining possession, kicked the ball to Herriot, who unselfishly serving it to Lawrie, the latter again made a shot for goal, this time with more success, as the ball, passing above the goalkeeper’s head, went clean through thus obtaining the third goal.

A sinister misrepresentation of information is being presented to play down the significance of the club - it is particularly unfortunate that it should be done on a page specifically designed to represent the club's history. The passage in its entirety sums up the game of the mid 1870s (note that the reference to charging is not omitted from the original quote) - the rules remained rudimentary and had to develop over time to curb the excessive physicality of the game. Within this context Queen's Park tried to play and promote their passing game. Indeed Richard Saunders, quoting from the same game (in his book, Beastly Fury, London, 2009, P81), writes

The Scots were 'very sorely tumbled about', said one report, but the English 'found it was no use knocking them over, as they just rolled onto their feet again.' Their star striker James Weir, in particular, delighted the crowd by shrugging off charges from both Alcock and Kinnaird, then calmly placing his foot on the ball before firing home.

Within this context Weir and his team mates played a passing game...

Crossbars

Richard Robinson in his history of the club explains the situation regarding crossbars...

The introduction of the cross-bar into the rules of the Association is due to the initiative of the Queen's Park, though it was not at the time, nor until some years later, made obligatory. Prior to this, however, the Sheffield Association, founded 1867, which had then a set of rules of its own, abolished the tape, and made the bar compulsory.

The crossbar, therefore, first appears in the Sheffield Rules code and did not feature in the Association code until 1875 when Queen's Park tabled their motion at a meeting of the Football Association. Sheffield should be given due credit, but is it fair to say that while Queen's did not invent the cross bar the club was responsible for it's introduction into Association football? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's v Wanderers, 1872

Author, Richard Saunders, quoting from contemporary sources, conveys a passing game being played by Queen's Park in the FA Cup semi final match of 1872 (Beastly Fury, London, 2009, P66)

'They dribble little and usually convey the ball by a series of long kicks, combined with a judicious plan of passing on', wrote The Field. The Glasgow Herald noticed the same phenomenon. 'The play of the Glasgow 11 was most creditable, as their forwards worked well together, and their backs kicked with great accuracy. On the other hand, the Wanderers dribbled and played skilfully....but collectively they hardly showed so well as their antagonists,' it wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.124.220 (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Match Between Queen's Park and Rangers

The text currently states that the two clubs first competed in March 1879, and yet they contested the final of the 1876/77 Glasgow Charity Cup.

The 'Scottish Football Historical Archive' site states that this was played on 28 April 1877.

Worldwide11 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldwide11 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Queen's Park F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Queen's Park F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Queen's Park F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen's Park F.C.. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120307185642/http://www.nas.gov.uk:80/about/071112.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/071112.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen's Park F.C.. 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/20120307185642/http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/071112.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/071112.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?curpageid=183
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.black-history-month.co.uk/articles/andrew_watson.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amateur association football teams

As Queen's Park voted to end its amateur status in 2019 I wonder if the article (and Category:Queen's Park F.C.) should be removed from Category:Amateur association football teams? My only slight doubt about this is due to the fact that the club held amateur status for 150+ years, and was arguably one of the most famous amateur teams in the world. On the other hand, by being in the category it possibly would imply that it was still an amateur club. I would welcome thoughts on this. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed, as it's potentially misleading to keep QPFC in these categories. I thought for a moment we could create a sub-category for clubs that have held and then abandoned amateur status, but the problem is that a lot of clubs would have been amateur. This is particularly true for those founded in the 19th century, before national leagues were established. This discrepancy could look worse in future, as it appears that QPFC are making a serious effort at becoming a competitive team BBC Sport. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also go for remove – it obviously doesn't tell the full story of their history, but categories often don't, and there's plenty of reference to the former status in the club article and others, so hopefully anyone interested in that history will be able to find it easily. Crowsus (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I think your arguments are correct and remove probably is the way to go. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed it from the category and also from Category:Amateur sport in the United Kingdom, and will also remove Category:Queen's Park F.C. from Category:Amateur association football teams. Dunarc (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Is there a better way of displaying the history section of the article rather than just listing the managers?

Perhaps something similar to the Kilmarnock or Rangers history sections? The Celtic article just has everything under one History sections and that's it. 98AL (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there most definitely is. If there's someone in charge for a long time, that can often work as a good way to break it up but it's unnecessary to split it after each manager when they aren't there very long. Feel free to have a go at changing it and improve the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]