Talk:Fun Little Movies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
Note icon
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
Note icon
This article needs an appropriate infobox template.

Thank you[edit]

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 [1] and Disney [2], 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[3]. 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)"[4]. 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

Time for expansion and cleanup[edit]

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,, they state that they are no longer affiliated with Rok Entertainment Group. 02:59, 24 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)