Talk:Saved by the Bell: The College Years

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)


 * Yeah, uh, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television – you have misinterpreted what MOS:TVPLOT is actually saying on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Merger proposal
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Donald D23   talk to me  11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Donald D23   talk to me  17:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)