Talk:Neverwinter Nights: Kingmaker
Fair use rationale for Image:NWNKingmakerBox.jpg
edit
Image:NWNKingmakerBox.jpg 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Merge
editI think Neverwinter Nights: Kingmaker (module) should be merged to this article. The module doesn't have any notability on its own and since both articles are stubs it would fit easily here. --Mika1h (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now. I think both have enough notability, especially the module. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, what notability does the module have on its own? Even the expansion pack has only one review on GameRankings: [1]. Better to have one fleshed out article than many tiny stubs. --Mika1h (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Merge. Whether it's notable or not, if there's not enough information to make an article, then merge it. Maybe a List of Neverwinter Nights Premium Modules (or something similar) could be made, but this module alone does not have enough info to merit its own article. -Rycr (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- So, what notability does the module have on its own? Even the expansion pack has only one review on GameRankings: [1]. Better to have one fleshed out article than many tiny stubs. --Mika1h (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Merge the article on the modules are unreferenced and in poor condition. This is LONG OVERDUE. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:36pm • 05:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There doesn't sem to be any disagreement on this, so I suggest you go ahead with it; you presumably know more about the subject than I do. Swanny18 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(PS: Notifications sent to talk pages: I have removed the merge tags; if no-one wants to do this, there's no point in maintaining them. Swanny18 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC))
Done —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:26pm • 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
