Talk:Saved by the Bell: The College Years

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Premise section

This needs to be removed. According to MOS:TVPLOT, it doesn't matter whether you call it a plot, premise, synopsis, or overview, but it very clearly states that "an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary." Naming the section Premise rather than Plot doesn't change that rule. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, uh, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Clarification: 'Plot' vs 'Premise' sections, and MOS:TVPLOT – you have misinterpreted what MOS:TVPLOT is actually saying on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lede is supposed to summarize what's in the article, so just because something is stated in the lede doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be mentioned in the rest of the article – quite the opposite in fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. I'm trying to figure out why we need to mention the series' cancellation in both Production, which typically refers to the nuts-and-bolts making of a series, and Reception, which deals w/ the response from the viewing public. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is sometimes done when a show is cancelled for "ratings" reasons – cancellations are generally properly handled in the 'Production' section, but ratings themselves are usually discussed in the 'Reception' section. So, sometimes people will mention cancellation in both sections, as it's relevant to both. So here, the reason for the show's cancellation is briefly mentioned in 'Production', but the details of the ratings that led to cancellation are handed in the 'Reception' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

CLOSED

Agree to merging of the article(s) as per policy-based Consensus expressed by supporters. There is no need for our readers to jump between two short articles to get the full picture of the season. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging Saved by the Bell: Wedding in Las Vegas into this article. The movie is best represented as the series finale and doesn't have enough RS or SIGCOV to carry its own article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a reasonable proposal. The Saved by the Bell: Wedding in Las Vegas article has all of one decent source (probably a few more can be found, but not that many more!), and is basically WP:ALLPLOT. A merger of that article to here seems reasonable as per WP:NOPAGE. Similarly, Saved by the Bell: Hawaiian Style should be merged to Saved by the Bell for even clearer reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may just go ahead and redirect Hawaiian Style. The couple of paragraphs over at the main SBTB article are substantive and properly sourced enough to stand on their own. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to merging. There are 2 RS, which is enough to pass WP:NFILM and warrant it's own article. Also added a review from Variety for Hawaiian Style. Merge and redirect will be disputed, send to AfD. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources is not enough to justify a standaolne article, as per WP:NOPAGE among other things. And right now neither article even has "two (valid) sources" anyway. Sending articles in these conditions to WP:AfD is a pure WP:BURO move. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFO says, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.". Two RS reviews satisfies the critic part, and widely distributed is satisfied by being on a major network. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's really not it. For once thing, TV movies probably fall more under WP:NTV than WP:NFILM, where it's better if there are reviews and production info. But even NFILM is clear that it's "two or more nationally known critics". Variety and the Sun-Sentinel would meet that criteria – but that's still just one each at each article... Regardless, WP:TV generally would like to see more than this. As per WP:NOPAGE, I think User:Just Another Cringy Username has made a good argument that these TV movies are less suitable as standalone articles, and more suitable as sections at the respective parent articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the personal attack you leveled at me during the last AfD, I'm finding it harder to AGF on your part. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The requisite week has elapsed w/ two for, one against. Although that is a majority, I have posted this article to WP:PAM in order to ensure the merger is evaluated and performed by a neutral party. Just Another Cringy Username (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.