Talk:Kings of Tory

Future
The future section should be included, as the position of king of Tory has had no official recognition for at least four centuries, and so has been an informal position since then. For this reason it would not be a problem if the website were not validated. The website could be both free and valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. In terms of the points about:
 * a "source being free and valid": These two interlinked webpages (comprising perhaps 120 words and a "contact us" form) do not represent a reliable source. Anyone can create a free Wix.com webpage and pretty much write anything at all on it. Such sources fall within the scope of WP:SPS, WP:RSSELF and WP:UGC. If a reliable (secondary or news) source is available, that indicates some form of accepted initiative (by a community group or Comharchumann Thoraí Teo or similar) involving an open-call for a new "king", then please provide it. That webpage isn't enough. Even to support a "this webpage exists" claim.
 * "unofficial positions not requiring official sources": This isn't how WP:VER and WP:RS works. There is no such thing as a Werewolf. But that doesn't mean that nonsense sources can be used to support the related article. Kissing the Blarney Stone doesn't actually make someone more loquacious. But that doesn't mean I can write a 100-word webpage, claiming that it gives you wings and add it to the related article. WP:RS guidelines apply to folklore, local traditions, and other forms of "unofficial stuff" just as much to scientific, academic or "official stuff".
 * Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)