Talk:Remilia

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://lol.gamepedia.com/Remilia. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The text in question is available under CC BY-SA 3.0. On the bottom of the Leaguepedia website it says, "Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Game content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of their respective publisher and its licensors." The text is not "game content [or] materials" and is written by wiki editors; it is not copyrighted by anyone, the same way Wikipedia's content (for the most part) is not. I also included an attribution in the bottom to clarify this and to follow the relevant terms of the license. Centre Left Right  ✉ 04:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Historical articles are useless without birth names
This person was not born "Maria". Concepts like "deadnaming" are anathema to actual history. Either they assumed a "stage name" or did a legal name change. Either way, any proper biography was factually identify the persons' actual identity. 70.163.147.152 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * From MOS:GENDERID: " calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name." Even if you disagree with this guideline, Creveling's birth name has never been released publicly, so there are no reliable sources that could verify one and warrant its inclusion. Centre Left Right  ✉ 21:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is nobody concern what her birth name was. Including it on description would be disrespectful and also useless, since she had legally changed her name years ago (your apportation would be valid in case her legal name was missing, for instance, and we had only have her nickname). But in that case, it is completely irrelevant to know, since it would be the same as wanting to include her favourite color or dish, but difference is that this information would be, even though completely prescindible, not offensive to post; unlike the birth name of a transgender person, which would be both.


 * Thank you for the apportation and hope mine is clear as well. SinglewingedAngel (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Death references
Shouldn't the death fact refer to the tweet by Richard Lewis? The articles that are the references now all just refer to the same tweet, so why not cut out the middleman? Citing news sources does not increase credibility over using their source directly. It was like that before: revision 932889717 Richard Lewis' tweet Džuris (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Richard Lewis' tweet does not mention details in the sentence that are verified by the other sources listed, specifically how and at what age she passed away. Centre Left Right  ✉ 21:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It would also be useful to perhaps add some more information on the topic, since health problems were not specified nor the conditions she was facing in the event. Nevertheless, speculation should be avoided in order to be respectful, as there is yet nothing confirmed about the death cause itself (it would be good to mention this as well).


 * Thank you SinglewingedAngel (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)