Talk:Four Word Film Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303224121/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=9 to http://webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018083615/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051010%2FSCANNERS%2F51010001 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051010%2FSCANNERS%2F51010001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified