# Talk:Shamrock Rovers F.C.

The crest mixes a shamrock and football in order to resemble what's called globus cruciger (cross bearing globe), a medieval representation of the power (or whatever else) of Christ on Earth. Maybe it's worth to mention it.Strutturaintreatti (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just modified an edit to say that the club was founded in 1899 and that 1901 was just used to mark a centenary in 2001. The club history as written by Robert Goggins in his book referenced in the article states that the club was founded in 1901, and cites a program from 1941 stating this also. So 1901 is clearly not a new date. 1899 is believed by many to be the actual year of founding however so I've left a note to that effect. I guess this will remain unresolved until someone can trawl through the newspaper archives from 1899-1901. Officially 1901 is the date used by the club so we'll use that here. --Albert.white 10:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think at this stage that the article is good enough for Good Article status, so I've nominated it. The main points about the club are covered. At least we'll see where there is room for improvement. --Albert.white 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 22, 2007, compares against the good article criteria:

Well written?: Fail. Difficult to quantify in a concise statement, but the article could do with a thorough copyedit. As an example, I've gone through the Colours and Crest section below. Following the advice given in User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a may be of benefit, particularly for eliminating redundant words (phrases such as "over the years" and "in addition").
Factually accurate?: Fail. Several sections are completely unsourced, and need references, preferably in the form of inline citations.
Broad in coverage?: Pass, covers the major aspects of the club.
Neutral point of view? Borderline. The passages about the Tallaght Stadium perhaps give an undue weight to the legal matters. There are a few instances of weasel words and peacock terms e.g. ...added the Harmon Cup to make it a memorable double, Shamrock Rovers were still, to many, considered the most prestigious club in Irish football, announced exciting plans to bring Rovers to a new stadium.
Article stability?: Pass, no obvious issues here.
Images?: Pass, contains two images with free-content licenses
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. Oldelpaso 12:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


### Improving the prose: using colours and crest as an example
It isn't easy to describe exactly what the issues are with the prose, but hopefully this will gove some sort of idea.
The club's colours are green and white hoops. Shamrock Rovers originally played in green and white stripes. The green and white hooped jerseys were adopted after Belfast Celtic donated a set of their hooped jersies to Shamrock Rovers in the 1920s. The first game with the hooped jersies was against Bray in a cup match in 1926. 2007 sees the first season where the hoops are not continuous around the jersey, this is due to a FIFA regulation which states that clubs with hooped or striped jersies must have the players number on a square of plain colour.
The section starts with a number of abrupt sentences which convey related ideas. The flow could be improved by linking the most closely related of these ideas:
Shamrock Rovers' colours are green and white. The club originally played in green and white stripes, but in 1926 the club adopted green and white hoops after Belfast Celtic donated a set of hooped jerseys...
The club crest has always had a football and a shamrock. Though some very minor changes, such as the style of the shamrock and width of the diagonal lines, have occurred through the years.
Consider the following:
The club crest features a football and a shamrock, and has done so throughout the history of the club, with only minor alterations. Changes include the style of the shamrock and the width of the diagonal lines. Oldelpaso 12:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that back to what it was previously. Those figures are given by Louis Kilcoyne in an RTE Documentary. Louis company, not the club, profited from the sale of the ground and its in his interest to give false lower attendance figures and so is not a credible source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert.white (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 
I edited the below 3000 attendances as this is an over-estimated figure for the actual numbers going to games at Milltown.  In the cited RTE documentary http://youtube.com/watch?v=rsiZuZA-ku8 Both Gerry Macken former player and KRAM participant stated "the crowds didn't come and watch the games, it was as simply as that".(2 mins 10 secs).  Louis Kilcoyne CEO of Shamrock Rovers stated "typically the average attendance ranged from 400 to 1500, the regulary Rovers' support had just given up." (2 minutes 39).  Bernard O'Byrne states "One of the things that stuck in my memeory was they were very small gates, 5, 600 people going to matches but yet when they said they were going to sell the ground all of a sudden there was 30 or 40,000 people protesting."(5 minutes 04). 
It unfortunate the contributor above has made an unsubstaniated comment and deleted testimony on Shamrock Rovers move from Glenmalure Park.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.128.150 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 

Whats in the programs and books would support the average of < 3,000. I've no doubt that there were games with ~400 at them in the 80's but thats certainly not a reflective number for the average during the 80's. Edit in that the figure is disputed if you like... --Albert.white (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The RTE documentry falls within wikipedia:verification and NPOV signed Timmy.

The current statement does not as citing Louis is clearly not NPOV. Furthermore the article now states 'by the 1980s the club's crowds averaged between 400 and 1500' The RTE documentary does not even indicate this timeframe. --Albert.white (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a "dubious" tag to part of the following statement:
"Ultimately a combination of poor results, the competition from televised football from abroad and other attractions meant that by the late 1980s the club's crowds averaged about 1,500".
The reasoning behind adding the tag is that the suggestion that the club's relatively poor period through the 70's was a significant reason for the drop in attendances from 20,000+ to "1,500" is rediculous. One of the main reasons is mentioned and should be emphasised, i.e. televised/british football & other attractions resulted in the majority of the Irish public turning their backs on the league. The other key reason which should be mentioned is the role of the FAI. The four in a row period showed that results had virtually nothing to do with the huge drop. One other issue with the above statement is the cited average attendance for the late 80's. It's common knowledge that average attendances for the period in question were about three times the figure above and it should be changed accordingly if a source/reference can be provided. In the meantime, I'll correct the reasoning for the drop in attendances if a reasonable argument isn't forthcoming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.85.50 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 

I think that the subsection/list of supporters clubs is unnecessary and may also come into conflict with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY. I also believe that notability is an issue regardless of the fact that half of them are essentially redundant. They don't do the article any favours especially if you're looking for a GA. The opening few lines before the list can be incorporated into the section on supporters and rivalries where the clubs and ultras are already mentioned. The page on supporters clubs on the official website can be used as a reference and should be updated anyway. I'm going to edit it in accordance with the above if an objection isn't forthcoming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.191.162 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 

I've added an article on the history of the club which I put together and referenced. I've also added it to the page on the History of Shamrock Rovers F.C. which I intend to expand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.95.251 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

I've nominated the article following an extensive edit and referencing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.167.8 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 

The following image would be useful to a number of Rovers related articles and should be valid under PD-Ireland. http://i38.tinypic.com/nmi6g386.45.92.12 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This would be ideal for the supporters section if permission could be gained. http://www.flickr.com/photos/16975981@N04/2104590378/ 86.40.180.37 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user posted the following on the article:
"The dates are wrong Glasgow Celtic founded 1888 Belfast Celtic founded 1891 Rovers jersey comes from Belfast, Celtic maybe but not for another 10 years."
--Odie5533 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a page about Shamrock Rovers Football Club who thankfully have no connection with glasgow celtic or any other british club.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.189.169 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 

I removed both of these sections as both were redundant. The "selected" players section had no criteria for inclusion and the managers section contained only a small list of relatively recent managers. I merged the players and managers sections for now and added links to the respective categories so all the information is available. I'll be creating separate pages/articles for both soon but tidy up was necessary for ga review.Onetonycousins (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the information from here worth putting in the supporter's section? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Not notable enough, it's fine where it is.86.45.97.49 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth adding a sentence about the match against Real Madrid in Summer 2009. It got very wide-spread coverage, was Christiano Ronaldo's debut and broke the record for attendence in the Tallaght stadium.
Pnelnik (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we sort out this issue here, rather than edit-warring through summaries? Referenced material should not be removed without discussion. That does not necessarily mean that just because something can be referenced it should be included. Thoughts please. RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be removed imo. It's a rarely used and when it is is usually used by foreign media who simply drop the rovers bit of the name to refer to the club to shorten the name as they do for example by referring to Blackburn Rovers as Blackburn. So although there are references to it, it is not in common usage and is not a nickname for the club and should not be listed as one. Albert.white --192.18.43.225 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Times article cited says, "During the era [70s and 80s] the tensions between the supporters boiled over on more than one occasion, and in recent years there have been several regrettable scenes linked to the rivalry between the sides."  This does not justify the assertion that there is "bitter" rivalry between Rovers and Bohs.  If there was bitter rivalry, the article would have said so up front. In fact, "several regrettable scenes" would be unremarkable - that's to be expected when clubs are bitter rivals; the fact that it is reported that way suggests that it doesn't reflect the general relationship between the clubs.  The article finishes by saying, "when Rovers travel to Dalymount on Friday they will arrive as confident visitors, but with the local knowledge of a home side."  That's not how you talk about bitter rivals!  As for the club's founding in 1901, if that's what the source says then that's what the article should say.  If you believe it was founded in 1899 then find a reliable source that says so.  By the way, "Read good articles, don't vandalise them" is not a very clever edit summary.  Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First, let me just say that the above is complete nonsense and smacks of extreme ignorance. I can only assume that you're not in to the League of Ireland or football in general. You obviously don't understand the author's "local knowledge" point and you clearly know nothing about the foundation of SRFC, even though all you had to do was scroll down the page to understand why the word "recognised" has to be used. Now...
Irish Times:
"For decades, every meeting of Bohemians and Shamrock Rovers has raised the temperature on the pitch and in the stands"
"During the era the tensions between the supporters boiled over on more than one occasion"
Both statements back up my assertion that it's "extremely heated". If you think that a reference has to be matched word for word then you'll struggle with this wikipedia thing.
Those statements about tensions boiling over in the stands and on the pitch also point to the bitterness that goes with a Bohs vs Rovers match. The author also gives examples, citing the game in March 2000 being stopped for more than 20 minutes because of fans fighting on the pitch and the Inchicore game in 2003. These incidents don't happen at other fixtures. Former Hoops players don't get pigs' heads thrown at them when they play for Shelbourne. Tony Grant got one thrown at him because he signed for Rovers' "bitter" rivals, Bohemians. Goodnight. Onetonycousins (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this article to Good Article standard.  I can see that you put a lot of hard work into it.  However, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.  Please also read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Language like "complete nonsense and smacks of extreme ignorance", "you clearly know nothing about the foundation of SRFC" and "you'll struggle with this wikipedia thing" do not reflect well on the editor of a Good Article.  For your information, I've done "this Wikipedia thing" far longer than you, and I also have a Good Article to my credit.  Now, let's see if we can discuss this article intelligently:
"It is an extremely heated and quite often bitter fixture which has developed most since the 1970s and has traditionally attracted large attendances" is poor English.  A fixture is incapable of being either heated or bitter; only individual games can be.  Likewise, a fixture cannot "develop", never mind "develop most"; if you are trying to say that the heat or the bitterness, or both, have increased since the 1970s then say so.  Attendance is not a tradition; it "attracts large attendances" or, if it doesn't, it "used to attract large attendances".
The phrases "raised the temperature" and "boiled over" do indeed say that matches are "heated", but not that that they are "extremely heated".  Since that kind of heat cannot be quantified, the phrase "extremely heated" is opinion;  Wikipedia requires verifiable facts, not opinion.  Either way, "heated" matches does not equate with "bitter" rivalry.  If you read some of the other references (which I presume you have) you will see that both club management and individual fans have condemned the actions of a few hooligans - there is no "bitterness" towards the other club evident in any of their statements.  And by the way, "author's local knowledge" is specifically disallowed under Wikipedia:No original research.
Even if the word "bitter" was appropriate in that sentence, that is no excuse for using it twice more in the article, and then once more in the "Rover v Bohemians" one just for good measure!  Again, that is just poor writing.
I am a reader as well as an editor.  If I cannot understand the nuances of the foundation date it is because the article has failed to explain them to me.  Good Articles inform the reader.  Does the sentence mean "it is a recognised falsehood that the club was founded in 1901"?  Because that is what you seem to be saying.  In the end, it doesn't matter whether I as an editor can grasp the nuances or not.  Wikipedia requires verifiable facts.  If reliable sources say the club was founded in 1901, then the article should, too.  What was said on the talk page doesn't enter into it.
I will not revert again tonight.  I don't do edit wars.  I would ideally like to see you self-revert.  Then you can either edit to improve the article or collaborate here on the talk page.  Scolaire (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you won't be seeing me self-reverting anything, I only revert vandalism and nonsense. Secondly, this article and the sentences which you object to haven't changed since they were deemed sufficient to fall in to the Good Article category. Basically, you won't find any "poor English" in it. 

A fixture (continuous, i.e. substituted for "rivalry" rather than a one off match) is perfectly capable of being either heated or bitter, all it requires is for each game to be played in a heated or bitter atmosphere. Bohs vs Rovers games are invariably played in both, largely due to the attitude of the fans but often as a result of the players' behaviour. I could make a valid case for saying that a fixture can "develop" but the reality is that "fixture" was used instead of "rivalry" (more appropriate word), as "rivalry" had been used in the sentence before. If the use of the word "fixture" is your main objection then I'll use "rivalry" instead. "... has traditionally attracted large attendances" is perfectly accurate and grammatically correct. Large attendances are a tradition of the Bohs vs Rovers rivalry and continue to be. I can stick a "relatively large attendances" in there instead if that's what you're after. Anything to shake you off and let you try to nitpick with/annoy someone else.
If something boils over, then you can take it that it's "extremely heated". The phrase is used precisely to imply the extremity of something. Boiling is an extreme action. I'm sure the sentence contradicts a wiki rule or two, I'd say half the article contradicts a wiki rule or two if you look hard enough and get bogged down with the exact reliability of words, but it's an accurate and reasonable statement. As for the bitterness, the pig's head incident and the instances of violence clearly support the claim and none of the references quote fans suggesting otherwise. For the record, the throwing of the pig's head was an appropriate gesture and to this day is almost, if not 100% supported by the fan base. If you'd like an example of some bitterness at management level, I can provide an article on a controversial request made to the FAI by the Rovers board, but really, if you understand football then you'll know that rivalries are mostly about the supporters. For the 2nd time, you've completely misread and misunderstood the part where the author (of the IT article) talks about Rovers' "local knowledge".
I don't need an "excuse" to use a valid word or description, I'll use it 20 times if I have to. The GA reviewer asked me to write a complete and proper lead, so I did. The word "bitter" was a nice brief and accurate one for using in a summary. It emphasised the enormity of the situation in "The homeless years" section and it described the main feeling involved when I used it in the "Supporters and rivalries" section.
The article is a very complete and informative one, but it's not a miracle worker. If you are an idiot or blind, then you may struggle. The GA reviewer was happy with it. She read the Shamrock_Rovers_F.C.#Foundation_and_early_history section and since then, she knows that while the club has now adopted 1901 as the year of foundation, complete confirmation has so far proved elusive. It remains a point of contention within the club and wikipedia shall reflect that. You can buy a copy of the book I used as a reference to find out more but in the meantime, please don't vandalise the two articles. Onetonycousins (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine!  You are asserting ownership of the article;  any attempt to improve it is vandalism; and the editor is to be called names ("an idiot or blind" is a good one.  Well done!).  Well, I won't have anything more to say on the talk page, and I'll take the article off my watchlist.  Unlike you, I don't believe the world will stop turning if my edit isn't preserved in amber.  Keep your article, and I wish you joy of it.  Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Not once did I call you a name, not once did I assert ownership and not once will I allow an article on SRFC or the LOI to be vandalised. Onetonycousins (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree that you are overly protective of this (and other) article(s). There is no need to start conflicts over minor edits just because you have a differing opinion. We are all trying to improve wikipedia and it's hard enough without fellow editors making it harder. Thanks. Fionnsci (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
You're naturally entitled to your opinion, but a quick look back through the history of the article will show that I'm completely in favour of positive edits and improving the article. Removing referenced facts and starting conflicts over reasonable and referenced statements does not constitute a positive edit or an improvement. It's vandalism and in that case, I will continue to be "overly protective". Onetonycousins (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the only thing I'm going to say on the matter...trying to improve an article in good faith is never vandalism, so it should never be referred to as such. Second, just because an article is passed as a Good Article doesn't mean it is perfect and doesn't mean it cannot be improved. In fact, I like Scolaire's version better, as words like "bitter" sound kind of peacock-y...don't say a feud is bitter, prove it with the facts. Nikki♥311  00:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OTC, please stop throwing the word 'vandalism' around, you clearly do not understand its meaning. You have already deterred one editor from future contribution, I suggest you stop trying to indimidate. Fionnsci (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Nikki, good faith went out the window pretty quickly when scolaire started removing referenced fact from the article. He seemed intent on claiming that SRFC were definitely founded in 1901, when definitive proof is not available. This is detailed clearly in the first paragraph of the History section. You seem to share his frankly bizarre grievance with the use of the word "bitter", despite the presence of facts to prove it, so here's some more reading material to put you all at ease: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Constructive edits are always welcome here at Wikipedia. Onetonycousins (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent history should not be under the subsection 'The homeless years'. That's an obvious one, otc, it's hard to see what your problem could be with it. I'm putting it back. Fionnsci (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As you may have seen, a slow-burning edit war is developing regarding how big the 400 club's membership is, so it'll be a good idea to try and sort this out here instead. So two sources have been presented, one on the club website stating there are more than 500 members, and one at Bleacher Report stating the membership is 510. However, an anonymous editor have been reverting these stating that these sources are incorrect but failing to provide a source to support this view. Please Mr Anonymous, if these figures are incorrect as you claim, could you provide some proof in the form of an acceptable reference that can be used on this article? Bettia (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Those links are incorrect is all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 
I think the club website is a credible source. We can always say how the membership total is a certain amount. Even if we have to put it as "as of" 2009, 2008, 2007 etc. Kingjeff (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Club website link is from last January. "As of January 2010 SRFC has 500 members" would be sufficient.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 

And the other two references are dated July, and all three sources confirm the figure as over 500, so why on earth do you keep removing these references and adding a figure which contradict these sources? Bettia (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've checked the club reference again as you've asked and it clearly says "With over 500 members at this stage". Is there any reason (and more importantly any proof) why this and the other two references stating the figure as 500 are incorrect? Bettia (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Check the website: www.shamrockrovers.ie/members It quite clearly says "With over 400 members at this stage......" So the real question is why on earth is the page is protected?
Also its user 62.40.32.24 who continues to consistently vandalise Rovers related pages. 92.251.210.46 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC). 

The reason I asked for this page to be protected is because a lot of reverts were being made and I wanted to make sure this matter was discussed properly before anyone got blocked. Removing referenced information can be seen as vandalism, but I don't believe anyone has been vandalising the page here, it was simply a difference of opinion. Looking at the flyer on the club website, it looks like it's been recently updated. Just a week or so ago it said "over 500", and it now mentions the club winning the 2010 championship. Seeing as the club have changed their figure, I'm happy to go along with that - I'll change this to "over 400", remove the other two references and retain the club as this is the most recent. I'll also unprotect the page. Bettia (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been a slow-running revert war on the topic of how many seats exist in Tallaght Stadium since at least October. The first claim I became aware of was that the stadium had 8,600 seats. This was bolstered by this source which states "Rovers have installed an additional stand containing 2,500 seats at the car park end of the ground to bring the capacity up to 8,600. The club plans to put in additional seating following the Rubin Kazan game." This was soon changed to 8,513 seats and no source was offered. The current claim is that the stadium has 5,947 seats. This claim also fails to be verified by sources. I have tagged this claim as needing a source and this problem needs to be corrected before the tag can be removed. To recap, here are the claims and their respective proofs:

8,600 seats - Rovers have installed an additional stand containing 2,500 seats at the car park end of the ground to bring the capacity up to 8,600. The club plans to put in additional seating following the Rubin Kazan game.
8,513 seats - [citation needed]
5,947 seats - [citation needed]
One of the threshold issues at Wikipedia is verification by reliable sources. If anyone can find any sources other than the 8,600 source then please present them or else the verifiable 8,600 claim should be restored. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And now a new unverified figure has been added:

8,000 seats - [citation needed]
Again, we need a figure that can be verified otherwise these numbers may as well have been made up on the spot by vandals. I've restored the only verifiable figure for now. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
THE SOUTH STAND HAS BEEN REMOVED. Therefore the capacity reverts back to 5,947. It is not hard to comprehend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 

Unless you can provide a single source for your claim that there are 5947 seats in Tallaght stadium I have to assume at this point that you are making this figure up out of thin air. I've asked you for references dozens of times now. Please stop reverting to your made-up figure. -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
How it can be possible that it is made up?? Answer that. Can you read? The south stand is not there anymore, it is gone.
It is spelt Tallaght by the way. Suggest you stop vandalising again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.233.238 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 

Read what? You've provided nothing to read whatsoever. It's your word against that of a reliable source. I must trust that the reliable source is correct because you have given absolutely no contrary proof that you are correct. By this point I believe it is much more likely that you are just making it up for your own reasons because you seem to be incapable of proving your claim in any way. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
YOU are incapable of understanding that the south stand is gone. Why would anyone make that up???????? In the original link for the south stand it clearly states that it is a temporary structure to be used just for the Europa League group stage. The source was reliable for that time. 
Read slowly: THE SOUTH STAND HAS BEEN REMOVED.
Congrats anyway you have blocked the pages. Now you can get back to your nintendo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.90 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 

I am not incapable of understanding anything provided that you can furnish evidence that what you say is true. I don't know why you'd persist in offering facts that you've made up just recently, but seeing as you cannot find even a single source for your claims it seems obvious that you are probably the source yourself. And I don't trust your word on the subject any more than I would think you should trust mine. Having read the reliable sources, I understand that the number of seats is 8600. I will continue to know that this is the correct number of seats until I see evidence that it is not. Having dealt with well-intentioned morons a lot in the past, you have to understand my unwillingness to trust your bare word on the subject without evidence. Despite the intelligence that shows in your writing you may well be just another well-intentioned imbecile.
Let me highlight the central issue: You need a source for your claims. Like all other editors here you must follow policy. It's a shame that the page had to be protected from your harmful edits, but the intention is to get you to either provide a source or to leave. Getting angry won't help you. If what you say is true then there should be plenty of evidence for your claims available in print and on the web. Surely this isn't a secret that you are breaking for the first time on Wikipedia, right? Where did you find out that the temporary seats had been removed? How do you know that the capacity is 5947? From grade 2 maths we both remember that 8600 minus 2500 doesn't equal 5947 so you must have some reason for claiming this specific figure is accurate. Did you count the seats by hand maybe? Are you the foreman in charge of seat-repairs at the stadium? If you need help finding reliable sources, I suggest that you post at WT:FOOTY. You could also do with a brush-up on WP:V and WP:NPA. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You are obviously incapable of understanding. It is in the link that you keep putting back on the page. Additional seats were put in for the Europa League group stages. THE SEATS WERE TEMPORARY. The additional seats brought the capacity up to 8513. Now that the seats have been taken away the capacity reverts to 5947. No offense but a child would understand that.
How are my edits harmful if I am telling the truth? The link is the source. 
You could do with a brush up of basic maths. More sources:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfgbojojeycw/rss2/
http://www.echo.ie/p_32/News_Article/a_89/Rovers_games_to_bring_%E2%82%AC5m_to_Tallaght
You have no right preaching from thousands of miles away when you are the one vandalising. Rovers fans have been driven from wikipedia by pedants like you. We are trying to providing up to date information.
Lastly I have the seat plans for the 2 main stands and they add up to 5947.
Judging by the amount of time you spend here you do not have a life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.157.69 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 

I'm sorry you find following the rules of editing here so confusing and tiresome but I'm glad that you are actually trying to follow them now. You should consider using less of a combative tone in your comments and you might also reduce the number of insults you use. They are unhelpful.
Your linked sources all demonstrate that additional temporary seating has been added. That was never in question. Figures for capacity in these sources range from 8000 to 8600, though. The most recent source (from Sept. 9, 2011) indicates that the capacity is at 8600. None of your sources show that any of the temporary seating has been taken down or that the capacity was ever 8513 or 5947.
But... If the seat plans you posses show the total to be 5947 then this could potentially be the reliable source you have been struggling to come up with for so long! Do these seat plans exist in any form online? If so, could you provide a link to them? If not, then can you tell me who produced them? If they were published by the Rovers or by Tallaght Stadium then they count as self-published sources and we can use them in the article as a source for your claim! Do you know how to draft proper citations? If not I'd be happy to point you to the appropriate place for help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"Well intentioned morons" was one of your gems and as a moderator maybe you should tone it down. The linked sources still show that the seats were TEMPORARY. I still fail to see how this is confusing for you. Either you are a WUM or are obtuse.
The seat plans are from the project architect and are not online.
Do you know how to read sources? If not I'd be happy to point out how:
http://www.sportsfile.com/more-images/1109086/
8 September 2011; A general view of temporary seating at Tallaght Stadium, where Shamrock Rovers are due to play Rubin Kazan in the first of their UEFA Europa League group stage games. Tallaght Stadium, Tallaght, Dublin. Picture credit: Brian Lawless / SPORTSFILE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.90 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC) 

I'm not a moderator. And I never called you a moron. Morons do exist online though, and the way Wikipedia protects its integrity against morons (both badly- and well-intentioned) is to require sources for the claims made by its editors.
The images you have presented as a source again demonstrate the temporariness of the seating, but they do not give the the total seating as either 8513 or 5947. I agree that the seating installed was temporary. That was never in question. The question is whether the temporary seating has been removed and, if so, how many seats there actually are. From the source that is currently used it is apparent that there will be 6100 seats available after the temporary seating is removed. None of the online sources seem to report either your 8513 or your 5947 figures.
I am truly happy to see you making an effort to provide a source for your claims but I think we must find better sources. I'm unsure whether the project architect's seat plan would be usable as a source so I have written to WikiProject Football for help in clarifying the issue. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The folks at WikiProject Football have now made it clear to me that the seating chart will probably not be usable as a source since it is so difficult to verify. But they have provided good sources for the seating figures as reported by the Rovers themselves (6,500 seats) and by Tallaght Stadium itself (6,000 seats). Between these two, the 6,000 figure is much closer to the figure you have recently supported (5,947 seats) and anyway it seems more likely that Tallaght Stadium would be the source that has the greatest incentive to accurately report their figures since they make their income from selling seats. So I'll replace the figure in the article with this for now. If you can find a verifiable source that demonstrates the figure to be 5,947 then we can still change this figure later. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough but if you are finally understanding and accepting that the seats were temporary why then the confusion over whether they were removed. Again the word temporary applies.
Cheers is not thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.90 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 

Whether or not they were temporary seats was never in question. The question was when they would be or when they were removed and what the actual total seating is now. You claimed they were removed after a Europa League game but you couldn't produce any evidence at all. Simple. It seemed very likely that you were making it up since you refused to give evidence in your own support. I still think your 5,947 figure is probably your own original research if not a figment of your imagination. But if you can produce reliable sourcing then we can alter the current figure. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you some sort of short term memory loss? Obviously if they were installed specifically for the Europa League group stages they would be removed when Rovers exited the competition. On the 16th of December they were removed as the club was renting them. Why would anyone make that up? It is simple logic.
I have already explained to you that the 5,947 figure comes from the seating plans submitted by the project architect. Remember???
BTW your grammar on the Rovers page is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.222.119 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 

The simple fact that the seating was temporary was never in dispute. Your unsourced claim that the specific number of seats was 8,513 or 5,947 or whatever was challenged. You weren't able to back it up with verifiable sources so we're using the figures that the WikiProject Football provided (with sources). Sorry, but if you can't find any verifiable sources for your figures then you'll have to give up trying to change the info here. Some advice: it's really not worth getting all worked up over. If you can't find any verifiable sources then just move on with your life. I wish you good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ha you need to heed your own advise judging by the amount of time you dedicate your life to this. Read slowly:
I have already explained to you that the 5,947 figure comes from the seating plans submitted by the project architect. Just because you pedants dont believe the project architect from the stadium does not mean its not verifiable. It is in the real world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.90 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 

Read WP:V slowly. Your unsourced figures are unverifiable for Wikipedia's purposes because they were not published. Still have a problem with the rules? Take it up with WP:FOOTY. -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

41.35.233.132 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Honours
Won Wexford Cup 2015
http://wexfordfootballleague.com/
85.226.90.111 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (talk to) TheOtherGaelan('s contributions) 18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Their fans are also known to be complete bastards when they set a Sligo Rovers flag on fire, but being the idiots that they are, they accidentally set fire to their own flag too.
This should be removed as obviously was put here to slander the club & Shamrock Rovers would like this removed. 
Alex Murray SRFC (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done It appears that bit of vandalism got through before the page was semi-protected and no-one caught it. ~ RobTalk 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nickname is 'Ireland's Shame' - handy if this was removed, cheers.

Alex Murray SRFC (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done JQTriple7 talk 23:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to update the player of the year winner for 2020. The award was given to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Lopes_(footballer,_born_1992). Benn9707937731 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please insure player stats are update to appear professional  Benn9707937731 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done DigitalChutney (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please change the title wins to 19 2A02:8084:81:5880:FCA1:7CE8:795:BF5D (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the request below. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

X League titles 18 
Change to
Y league titles 19
Shamrock rovers have 19 league titles won the league on the 29th of October 2021 with a 3-0 win over finn harps 2001:BB6:369:8258:4C00:66B9:3DB:20C8 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.	Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Shamrock Rovers have supplied more players to the Republic of Ireland national football team (62) than any other club. This needs to be changed to 64 with Graham Burke and Jack Byrne recently capped:
https://theleagueofireland.com/2019/09/11/a-night-to-remember-for-jack-byrne/
The list of European matches is missing the 1982 games v Fram and Universitae Craiova plus the overview needs updating:
Competition	P	W	D	L	GF	GA
European Cup / UEFA Champions League	20	1	6	13	9	33
Inter-Cities Fairs Cup / UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League	34	7	6	21	30	61
UEFA Europa Conference League	4	0	2	2	4	6
European Cup Winners' Cup / UEFA Cup Winners Cup	16	5	2	9	19	27
UEFA Intertoto Cup	6	3	0	3	7	10
TOTAL	90	21	17	52	82	152

Club website: https://www.shamrockrovers.ie/history/#1614198448678-98d1bb1e-a834

Please update to new correct logo Pgonnelly (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

X = League Title 20  Y = FAI Cup 25 
The Club has Won the League of Ireland Premier Division Title for a Record 20 times and 
Won The FAI Cup for also a Record 25 times
JasonWalsh78 (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please update listed chairman from 'Jonathan Roche' to 'Ciarán Medlar', who has been in the role since October 2020. Zdemsc (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

i just thought that a place with some of the clubs chants would be cool Conorflygaminghs (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

can you add a key to explain the stars in "Honours".
04:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 121.98.30.202 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Add to the below paragraph, adding context to the debts paid off.
They paid off a portion of the club's debts and assumed responsibility for running it.[142] 
Within the debts paid off Preferential creditors received 4.25% of what they were due, while unsecured creditors were paid 2.12% of what they were owed. Preferential creditors were due more than €444,700, while unsecured creditors were owed €1.66 million.
They received the largest tax write off in the history of the Irish state, paying back just 4%  (€40,000) of their €1.5 million liability owed to Irish Revenue.
Source = https://www.irishtimes.com/news/shamrock-rovers-firm-to-pay-40-000-to-revenue-1.473900 2001:BB6:4432:CC00:69AA:B7F8:44B7:4188 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added information regarding the amounts due and what percentage they received. Omitted "They received the largest tax write off in the history of the Irish state..." as the Irish Times source doesn't make the claim, and so we cannot include it. —Sirdog (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Ownership section needs a correction. The Members Club own 50% not 25%. Ray Wilson owns 25% not 50%. Dermot Desmond's ownership percentage of 25% is correct. Cheers KOH. Thenorthseamusic (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Need the sources. If it is already on the page, re-open and provide the link (please do not provide the ref number as they dynamically change). —Sirdog (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)