Talk:Jeopardy! (video games)

Fair use rationale for Image:NesJeopardy.PNG

Image:NesJeopardy.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The Host Your Own Jeopardy! and Classroom Jeopardy! articles are almost word-for-word duplications of each other. There is no need for an individual article for each, since they're almost exactly the same product, and most of the information can be merged into this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clean up both pages by correcting spelling mistakes, adding the Jeopardy! template at the bottom, and overall making both articles easier to read. They may still look very similar, however at least they're free of spelling errors and bad sentence structure. Daniel Benfield (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge; this proposal has been up for a while now, so I went ahead and did it. Most of the information in the articles was unnecessary, especially the items in the bulleted lists, so I did not copy those over. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]