Talk:Four Word Film Review

Removal[edit]

Koli has questioned why I took out some of the material in this article and claimed that other people had been dismayed by my edits. To which I say, then fix them. Which people seem to have been doing. My most serious concerns were with what seemed to me to be promotional material for the site, as I noted in the comment space when I made the edits. More power to FWFR, by the way. Part of the reason for my edits was that a serious site deserves a serious article. John FitzGerald 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been told by another (perhaps) user that the comments I made when editing don't help them understand why I took certain things out. I still have not been told, though, what these certain things are. John FitzGerald 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I like the current edit. However, some sources need to be provided. John FitzGerald 14:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the recent edits by Wildhartlivie, which, among other things, provide sources. Why people had to come and insult an old man before doing that, though, is a mystery to me. John FitzGerald 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades discussion[edit]

Gee, if I was self-obsessed I'd take that sample review by Salopian as a dig at me. If it is a dig, it's a nice touch.

I explained to Koli early on why I changed this article. At the time it was too obviously written by a devotee. Two of the results of that were that it went into an enormous amount of unencyclopedic detail and was often unnecessarily redundant (yes, you can be necessarily redundant), all of which obscured the important information about the site. Believe it or not, I like the site.

At the moment the article still has the air of an article written by a fan, and in particular I still think it goes into too much detail about the site. I could be wrong, of course. Anyway, the excess no longer obscures the important information, and a slight excess of information is preferable to a shortage.

I have a suggestion for revising the accolade section, which is confusing. Because it's confusing this revision could be wrong, so I'll leave it to others to decide if it is helpful. Anyway, here's my suggestion:

In addition to voting, FWFRers may compile sets of their own reviews of films with a commonly defined feature. Examples are all the films in a series or a franchise (the Star Wars films, The Terminator series, et al), all the films featuring a certain actor or made by a particular director, or films featuring a day of the week in the title. These sets are called accolades, since completion of such a set is considered to be praiseworthy. In fact, each FWFRer's personal page includes a "trophy cabinet," showing every accolade he or she has completed. As of [date], Randall, the most prolific completer of accolades, has more than 1100 in his trophy cabinet.

There is no central or group review of accolades. Accolades are created and maintained by individual contributors. Accolades must be unique, however. If two contributors compile identical accolades, either contributor may ask the webmaster to remove one of the two accolades.

Any number of accolades may be created, and no guidelines have been set for their creation. An accolade can include as few as one film, or every film in the database.

If I'm mistaken about what an accolade is, at least you now know what is misleading. The revision removes some details, but still leaves others in which might profitably be left out. I check Wikipedia only occasionally now, so there's no benefit to be gained by delaying a revision until I can be straightened out or asked for comments. John FitzGerald (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal, John FitzGerald, except for the part where you write, "either contributor may ask the webmaster to remove one of the two accolades." In practice, any contributer may ask to remove an accolade if it is a double. Let's hear from one or two more people before we change the current version to match your proposal more closely. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that some of the article could stand with a bit of a clean up. The accolades section needs clarifying. Perhaps something along this line:

In addition to votes, FWFRers may construct accolades with a commonly defined feature, such as films in a series or franchise, films featuring a certain actor or made by a particular director, or films featuring a day of the week in the title. When reviews have been accepted for each film in the accolade, a trophy is earned. Any number of accolades may be created, and no guidelines have been set for their creation. There is no central or group review of accolades. The creation and maintenance of accolades is on an individual basis. An accolade can include as few as one film, or every film in the database. Each FWFRer's personal page includes a "trophy cabinet," showing every accolade they have completed. To date, Randall, the most prolific completer of accolades, has more than 1100 in his trophy cabinet.

I don't see a need to over-explain, and there is a Wikipedia caution against instruction creep, which may be what has happened with the explanation of eliminating one of identical accolades. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If trophies are "gained" for reviewing movies, from whom are they gained if there is no central review? And how does a set of reviews constitute a trophy? Aha! Is the point that these are trophies awarded to the movies? If they are, perhaps this essential point should be made clear. John FitzGerald (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I re-wrote this section (I've been a fwfr regular since 2003). An accolade works like this:- - A fwfrer makes a group of movies, this group is recorded on the site and called an "accolade" - The fwfrer assigns a trophy to the accolade - Other fwfrers review every movie contained in that accolade (if they wish), and upon having a review posted for every movie in the accolade they receive said trophy in their trophy cabinet. So the word "accolade" is used on the site to refer to the group of movies. It is called an accolade because a fwfrer will receive an accolade in the form of a trophy when they have reviewed every movie in the 'accolade'. Aptenodytes (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. This may now be the last accurate article left on Wikipedia. John FitzGerald (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades[edit]

A couple of pieces of information would give me a better understanding of accolades:

How they are constructed – are they simply lists, for example?
What their purpose is (if there is no formal statement of purpose that is an interesting piece of information in itself).
Whether there is any central or group review of accolades, and if not, if there are any procedures for avoiding duplication etc.

I don't know that the information about the user with the most accolades is encyclopedic, but I do believe too much information is better than too little, so I'm not suggesting that it be the article, only that its value be considered. However, I believe that if the information is important, the actual date at which the observation was made should be provided.

I suppose I should emphasize that I am not implying that the article is not already a good one. Borogroove 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades are simply lists of films recommended for reviewing.
An accolade and its purpose is described here.
There is no central or group review of accolades. There is no procedure for avoiding duplication. The creation and maintainence of accolades is on an individual basis. Occasionally there will be two competing accolades and if one sees it, he or she can ask the webmaster, Benj Clews, to remove one of the two. For example, a while back there were two different accolades listing the films in the American Pie series. Obviously, both lists had the exact same films and so if someone achieved one accolade, they would achieve the other. It didn't seem right to have two accolades for the price of one. --GHcool 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who is familiar with the site add some or all of this information to the article, then? Borogroove 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The added information is very useful. Thanks. However, the source for the first footnote in this section says that an accolade is an award, while other sources at the site seem to imply that it is simply a list. Could someone clarify that? I'm not trying to be picky. I like the site (although i am not a member) and I would like to understand more about it. Borogroove 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the quick modification. However, I'm still baffled – users appear to give these awards to themselves. Anyway, don't change this section again on my account. Maybe I'm just thick. Anyway, I can live without knowing what an accolade is, and if some day I can't I can join the site and find out. Thanks for trying to enlighten me; I do appreciate the effort. Borogroove 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Four Word Film Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050608011020/http://www.fwfr.com/ to http://www.fwfr.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four Word Film Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]