Talk:Fun Little Movies

Thank you

Thank you all for your hard work at Wikipedia, it is greatly appreciated. With a great tool like Wikipedia, there is also temptation to abuse such a resource, and creating guidelines to prevent its misuse is necessary if Wikipedia is to remain legitimate and useful. I have written this paragraph on the talk page because my last two attempts to create this article have been deleted before I understood what was going on. When you see it again, I would love the opportunity to defend my decision to have created this article in the first place. Thus, I will be referring to the two, cited, sentences that catalogue Fun Little Movies. Previous iterations I do not understand how to reach, and will not discuss, although I believe that they, too, agree with the following defense.

This page does not violate the Spirit of those guidelines, nor the letter. Those guidelines require that an article not (a) exclusively promote a company, nor (b) require fundamental rewriting to become encyclopedic.

In reference to the first requirement, the first sentence simply lists what the purpose of the company is, and where it is located. This is in line with the first few sentences of FOX and Disney , and actually is reserved more reserved than either site about the information given. The tone is factual, didactic, not promising nor exaggerating. The second sentence only states that a recent production of theirs had won a prestigious award this year. Stating such a fact is not inherently promotional, any more than stating that Woody Allen has several Oscars, or that Steven Spielberg has won an academy award or two. Only facts relevent are mentioned. If listing the type of business that a business engages in, and the general location of said business is any kind of promotion, then the Disney and Fox Articles are not only also guilty, but have transgressed further by giving more information. Likewise, acknowledging that a work has received an award is not promotional, but simply an aspect of that work, and if a company had produced such a work, it would be important to note that it had produced such a work of note. But, clearly, giving information, especially in an impartial tone, is the point of an encyclopedia. What, then, is promotion? According to Princeton, it is, "advertise: make publicity for; try to sell (a product)". This article does none of those things.

It does not advertise Fun Little Movies or a product of Fun Little Movies. The both sentences are purely informational, not advancing Fun Little Movies as superior to any competition, nor even as competitive. It does not request nor solicit business, nor even indicate such business is desirable or possible.

It does not make publicity for Fun Little Movies any more than a page for FOX Entertainment. But, one searching Wikipedia for Fun Little Movies would presumably already know of the existence of Fun Little Movies, and therefore, the existence of an informational page in an encyclopedia does not create publicity.

It does not try to sell Fun Little Movies, not sell any of their products. Although Turbo Dates is viewable online, no effort is made to inform the reader, nor does it mention where to find Turbo Dates, which is the only product of FUn Little Movies that Fun Little Movies is presumably attempting to sell.

Presumably, if the promotion of the company Fun Little Movies were the goal, this article would poorly serve that goal indeed, if it even does so at all.

If you check each Fun Little Movies page, all of the listed facts are true. None of them unambiguously promote Fun Little Movies in any way, any more than listing the location of Disney Corporation promotes that company. The facts listed are relevant to the company. The tone is didactic and impartial. Only facts are given. This article would not have to be fundamentally, if at all, rewritten to be encyclopedic. Thesupersfox (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox

References

Time for expansion and cleanup

The company "Fun Little Movies" apparently has significant covergae in reliable sources: Google News "Fun Little Movies". The term "mobisode" is growing in comtemporary usage: Google News "mobisode". Diligent use of these sources should allow the stub to blossom quite nicely per its potential. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of personal preference I would strongly discourage you from using neologisms like Mobisode (TM FOX) or webisode. Any so called "mobisode" can be just as easily be described as a clip, a trailer, or if it is any good perhaps even a short film. Also I think a print encyclopedia would make much more of an effort to be accessible and avoid neologisms to help avoid looking outdated or unprofessional. The article now is so much more impressive than it was when deletion was proposed and I last saw it. I would still wonder at how notable this article is but you've put in an impressive amount of work and I do hope the article can be retained. -- Horkana (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that on Fun Little Movies ho,e page, www.funlittlemovies.com, they state that they are no longer affiliated with Rok Entertainment Group. 02:59, 24 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.36.174 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fun Little Movies. 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/20111007165700/http://handhelds.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=33141 to http://handhelds.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=33141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211070955/http://digitalhollywood.com/07DHFall/DHFl07Mon8.html to http://www.digitalhollywood.com/07DHFall/DHFl07Mon8.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/clips/2005/05/24/ComingSoonFORBES.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)