Talk:Australian Classification Board

Untitled

I've deleted material relating to TV ratings and restrictions as this is not relevant to the Classification Board (they have no involvement with TV classification)-this should be placed in a separate article, or on the Australian Communications and Media Authority article. Oscillon (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Forming of classifications

It's relevant that this article mentions they DID have R18 and X18 for games ratings in 1993. This was covered by HYPER>> magazine in 1993. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31090938&l=b85b668eee&id=1167150741 (Image courtesy of "R18 Games Australia" on Facebook.) - 58.179.252.95 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:OFCL Australia Lit Rating - R1.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

The following images, used in this article, have been nominated for deletion: File:OFCL Australia Lit Rating - R1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFCL Australia Lit Rating - R2.png has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFCL Australia Lit Rating - UM.png has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFCL Australia Lit Rating- U.png has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC small MA15+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC small R18+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC small X18+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large G.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large PG.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large M.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large MA15+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large R18+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 File:OFLC large X18+.svg has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

E and RC

It seems that OFLC don't use anymore E and RC ; and CTC replace E ? --82.233.90.235 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Refusals

"Any classified literature that does NOT fall into any of the above categories is rated Refused Classification (Banned)." Is this strictly accurate? After all, surely if something has been refused classification then by definition it hasn't been classified. 86.164.76.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

File:OFLC Games G.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OFLC Games G.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:OFLC Games G.svg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

M rating "restricted"?

I noticed several IPs keeps on introducing factual errors by listing the M rating as "restricted". According to the Australian Classification Board website, only MA15+, R18+ and X18+ are "legally restricted", and the word "RESTRICTED" on the bottom black border is marked on each of these ratings. The M rating (like G and PG ratings) doesn't show the word "RESTRICTED" on it, so it's not legally restricted. Hounder4 (Talk) 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article needs a bit of cleaning up, especially the section dealing with Parental classifications. The English in this section is very poor and some of the content doesn't seem factual and has no citations. Daaanieeel (talk) 13:13 16 July 2012 (+8 GMT) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Parent Classification

"This classification is only for adults and people may not watch it if they are not an adult since they might go to juvey." You may not watch it if you are under-age, because you may go to juvenile care? Shouldn't it be, you may not watch it if you're under-age because it's against the law? That is, if it is against the law. DukeTwicep (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OFLC

"Office of Film and Literature Classification which was dissolved in 2006" & "In 2005 the OFLC was dissolved" - so, when was it dissolved? -Yodonothav (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In some cases legislation is enacted or amended in one year with conditions for the establishment (or disestablishment), the following year. This document says it was abolished on 30 June 2006 while this report say dissolution occurred in 2005. In this case I think the Australian Classification Board started taking over roles and functions in 2005 while the office wrapped things up and that is what has caused some confusion. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Added an image

I've added an image here to this article:

Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

with this caption: Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change it as you wish. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the PG-13 rated films were MA 15+

There's none of the PG-13 rated films were rated MA 15+ in Australia. Is that false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:858E:E6CF:F658:81E7 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

M Classification

Hey Guys,
I heard that films that contain the word "fuck" even just once will usually results in a M classification and NOT a PG, can someone please verify if this is the case?
Many Thanks,
Toyota Phuebe (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The ACB guidelines do not pertain to specific words. This is made clear in the article: Coarse language should be mild and infrequent for PG films while Coarse Language may be used in M rated films. It is down to the board's discretion what constitutes "mild" and "infrequent". The full guidelines are available online. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Replaced by single authority in 2013

In the year of 2013 the Australian Federal Police and Canberra Forensic Services decided that all Russian dating websites when translated by US translation services into English would amount to child sexual abuse exploitation material of a criminal nature unless a professor was keeping the translated materials for his own personal records and reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.96.219 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuing issues with video games

The end of the article seems to imply that the ACB now deals with video games in the same way as other media before mentioning games that were refused classification. It's a little confusing and could do with some tidying up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.69.37.149 (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Classification Board. 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/20120125050930/http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification to http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

M

WHY DO THEY PUTTED AN M IN MINECRAFT?!?!?! WHY WHY WHY?!?!?! Although M is NOT to shabby. I DON'T CARE!!! MINECRAFT IS FOR CHILDREN 7+!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT X, R, MA, M OR PG <NRC> BUT G!!! PLEASE ACB, FIX THIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.226.18 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

1. Is better saying "rating" than classification 2. M was given to MCPE 3. PG is supposed to be aimed fo 8 years WARNING! Do not fix these mistakes.--173.215.232.156 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The article uses the terminology that the Australian Classification Board itself uses, and it refers to "classifications" not "ratings". In regards to PG the only age that is given in any context is 15 (see http://www.classification.gov.au/Guidelines/Pages/PG.aspx) so it would be WP:Original research to state something the Board itself does not state. I do not understand your second point. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean everyone uses a bad rating that I don't want to Minecraft PE--207.204.162.90 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

PG rating

I know one PG rated film has the f word. 2001:8003:30E4:1400:64A4:8953:EDB3:E073 (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What is that film?--207.204.162.90 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Classification Board. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C15534581-421%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416025140/http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=92&filename=92.pdf to http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=92&filename=92.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html?n=46&p=156&sTitle=baise-moi&sMature=1&sMediaFilm=1&sMediaPublications=1&sMediaGames=1&sDateFromM=1&sDateFromY=1970&sDateToM=1&sDateToY=2007&record=176380
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008233651/http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=219&filename=219.pdf to http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=219&filename=219.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) 03:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, add more ACB age ratings.

You need to have a few more:

• ACB P (Preschoolers) - Used for preschoolers (those have not started kindergarten), nothing that can offend children by viewing. Made for 3 and up. The content is advisory.
• ACB C (Children) - Used for children (those may have started kindergarten), may be frightening under 6 years. The content is advisory.
• ACB AV15+ (Adult Violence 15+) - Content is restricted as it has a strong+ impact. It exceeds the constraints of the MA15+ rating but did not reach the R18+ rating yet. May be frightening under 15 years. Shops are not legally allowed to sell kids under 15 AV15+ games without an adult present. It was used until December 1, 2015 but older games with it may still show the rating.
• ACB YP (Young Person) - Rating is targeted for 13 years and older but not restricted, mainly teenagers using it. The content is mild+ impact which exceeds the PG's mild impact but not reaching the M's moderate impact. Children under 13 can legally access this content. The content is advisory. (Added already, you just have to add YP for a young person rating.)
• ACB games that exceed R18+ are RC (refused classification). Please add this fact.

Please make sure to add the rating images from the Category:Australian Classification board page from Wikimedia Commons. I hope you add them. :)

Thank you! Cdmxm8807i8x (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Just looked up the ACB and they do not have these ratings listed. You will need to provide a source if they are to be added. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

P and C are TV ratings (as well as AV15+ before it got folded into MA15+). YP doesn't exist as either an ACB rating or a TV rating. PalZer0 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Late, but the YP rating was part of a review into classification reform in 2020 (Page 19 on this document). While I do support the rating's addition, it's WP:TOOSOON to add it to the article. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting information on ratings used in 1970s

I've seen some conflicting information on the historical ratings used in the 1970s - mainly that PG was not used at that time and was NRC (Not Recommended for Children). Unfortunately, without any independent verification, I can't determine whether there should be any corrections made.

Source: https://www.refused-classification.com/censorship-timelines/film/#1970 (scroll up to "1971 - November 15)

Can anyone confirm this? PalZer0 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

New video game classifications

I amended the end of the controversies section to better reflect the new video game classifications as outlined in https://www.classification.gov.au/about-us/media-and-news/news/new-classifications-for-gambling-content-video-games, but does this development belong in that section? Is it important enough to warrant discussion in the article proper? Emeraldnickel (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)