Talk:Canadian motion picture rating system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canadian motion picture rating system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Canadian / Filmmaking

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Canada Start‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Superseded ratings

I've found indications that an "F" rating was used at one time in Canada in the 1970s, but it isn't listed in the article, perhaps because it has been superseded or dropped. Perhaps someone more familiar with the history of the ratings system could add early ratings such as this with a word of explanation of when and why they were changed or dropped. — Quicksilver^{T @} 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian motion picture rating system. 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: 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) 03:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPA removing a citation to British Columbia's Film Classification office

Twice now, Moviez123 has removed a citation to the British Columbia Film Classification Office, and replaced it with sub-standard references. On the first occasion it was replaced with a citation to IMDB which despite not being a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB didn't even corroborate the claim in the article. On the second occasion the citation was replaced by a source of dubious quality. Neither of these are of comparable quality to the BC Film Classification Office and I do not really understand why the editor is pursuing this. We have a high quality source in place and there is no reason to replace it. These edits are the only edits made by the editor and seem motivated by the determination to remove a link to the BCFCO rather than improving the article in any discernible way. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]