Jump to content

Talk:Motion picture content rating system/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Australia

A user added[1] the "C" rating to the Australian rating list. However the web site[2] doesnt not show anywhere even for films that would[3] have got the rating if it existed. So it is unconfirmed ( and i rv'ed it ) --2mcm 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

C is a television rating, not a cinema rating. Other tv only ratings are AV and P
Australian Section Redone done due to very outdated and inaccurate information. Boochan 15:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Spanish concerns

On ratings in spanish, such as the brazilian one, it has to be a-ene (the n with a wavy thing over it)-o, because that is years, whereas ano is asshole. I would fix this, but i dont know how

I don't think Brazilian is a good example of "ratings in spanish" - they speak portugese in Brazil. However, the point is a good one. Astronaut 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

"Parental guidance category, "PG" - Children under 12 years old must not view.... The English abbreviations used here are for information only, as they are not used in Taiwan." Information? I don't see how they can be for information when they're so misleading. PG means something very different in the UK, US, Ireland, most other English-speaking countries. So if the term PG isn't even used by the Taiwanese, there seems no case for putting it here. Incidentally, on IMDB, the Taiwanese film certificates are listed as GP, PG12, R12, R18. It seems (my best guess) that these correspond to what Wikipedia calls G, PG, PG12, R! It seems the IMDB abbreviations are somewhat less misleading, but if the Taiwanese don't actually use these letter-codes, mightn't it be better to delete them from the article? -86.134.90.115 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Language

I'm missing hints to the reasoning behind the believe a certain kind of language could harm younger people. Any wiki links or explanations on this? --Mudd1 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? There is none, really. Whatever the rationale is, it's not that particular words are intrinsically harmful. 218.103.247.247 02:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Removing examples

I'm going to remove all of the examples from the various country listings. As it stands now they are unevenly applied, only showing up in a few countries, and subject to listcreep.[4] If there is a desire to include examples, there needs to be some criteria developed. Pairadox (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Malaysia

Hello. Today I've rewritten the whole section of Malaysia because I've found that it is inconsistent to what is true. I can't imagine how the previous author can be so terribly wrong. This is my first article. Every thing's cited and written as accurately as I possibly can. Feel free to elaborate on some points that I might have missed out on. I think it would be nice if someone could get the symbols of the movie ratings like what they have in some of the other countries. I did a search on the Internet and couldn't find any. I think someone's got to create them somehow. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.251.119 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

France

There is something unusual about the system in France. It seems that most films are unclassified. Very few films are restricted as being prohibited to those under a certain age (12, 16 or 18 years). For example among recent releases, Casino Royale(PG-13 in the US), Borat(R), and The Devil Wears Prada(PG-13) had no apparent restrictions; whilst Pan's Labyrinth(R) was only prohibited to under 12's. However, a few films are indicated as being suitable for children, or for children over a particular age (3, 6 10 years). Text indicating the suitability for children accompanies the cinema listing ("Film pour enfants", "Film pour enfants à partir de 3 ans", "Film pour enfants à partir de 6 ans" or "Film pour enfants à partir de 10 ans"). I'm not sure how official these ratings are or if they are enforced in any way.

I'm not sure how this all fits together but I would be surprised if films were cut instead. Perhaps someone more familiar with the system in France and the Ministry of Culture's rules could update the article. Astronaut 13:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What's so shocking in "The Devil Wears Prada" ? 88.162.18.38 (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No idea, but the MPAA gave it a PG-13, while the French Ministry of Culture seems happy for anyone to see it. Astronaut (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb info

Hi. I added some info from imdb [5] you might argue that this is not bullet proof info, but what is. The problem is that there is no explanation on what the ratings mean. I could have just added what seems obvious, but since I´m not sure I´d rather leave it as it is until someone who knows the official info can add it. Thanks --213.149.121.69 10:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other sources of information about film and film ratings than IMDb. For example, [this one]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.171.140 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

USA

The USA section needs to be seriously rewritten. Numerous spelling errors and words are censored. Looks like it was written by a 5th grader.

I agree, ""d***, s***, @$$, b@$****, b****" is just strange. Shouldn't it be removed? --Steinninn 05:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states at one point, that at a PG-13 category, "Marijuana is the mildest drug that can be used in this rating." So basically, anything harder than marijuana is okay, including crack, opiates, etc. I'm beginning to like this rating, even though it probably ought to be the exact opposite. Could somebody verify?George Adam Horváth 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a major reducion to the definitions of the 'unrestricted' ratings. I withdrew about a hundred instances of where films have been given an exception to ratings. Please, if anyone wants to review all thiese or even move them to a new artical then look back to my edit.Leemsy (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, I do feel that the whole United States section is very boggy compared to others. The page of Motion Picture Association of America film rating system contains a much deeper explination of the countries rating system. How about we simplify this pages information down to... maybe the size of the United Kingdoms?Leemsy (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Local authorities have the power to raise this age to 21"? That makes no sense. The MPAA ratings sistem doesn't involve the "Local authorities".80.42.115.1 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

UCCB Movie ratings

One of the oldest rating systems in the United States is from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. [6] They used to rate certain films as condemned, not just up to "morally offensive."

As approximately 20% of Americans are Catholic -- and many readers may be interested in the "moral" rating on a film -- I'd like to add a section on the USCCB ratings under the US section. Any objection??--GodBlessYou55 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

why are some of the rating systems for non English regions written in the language of the region. this is an English wiki and English speakers do want to understand how rating systems work in Quebec, Argentina, Österreich, België, Brasil, България and Romania. in a most you can't even recognize the region it refers to, in a couple the other language makes its so one has to take it on faith that its rating system. can we please have a translation of the rating systems of these regions and move the home languages to there own wiki's. 142.110.227.231 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aytein Inodur

In the article there says something about India being renamed to Aytein Inodur on January 1st, 2009, by a guy named Azu Jeuk. Will India really be renamed or is it made-up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.144.16 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were true, it's just vandalism when placed on this page. I've removed the India section for the time being, can someone recreate a propper entry for it? Otonabee (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No sources and bad english

In October 2008 Ministry of Information and Culture Anounce That Many Under 15 Or 18 Enter Rescrited Movies Even With Parents And Started The Prove Of Age Meaning They Should Tell How Old Are They It's Only Use In 15+ And 18+ Movies

In the UAE section Gsp8181 12:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The image File:CHVRS-14A.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Isreal

A long time ago I remember that Isreal's rating system was added to the page. What happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.144.58 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

United States Unrestricted

This is a really confusing sentence:

Since PG-13 has been on 100 number of films once a year, PG-13 is the world's only highest record movie rating in the MPAA history.

I'd fix it, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PG-13

PG-13 is a separate rating, according to the MPAA, which promulgates the rating system and rates the films. On the MPAA Web site, it's listed as as a separate, more restrictive rating. Yet, the Wiki article, by not listing it as a separate rating, practically ignores it. It's no more a part of the PG rating than PG is part of G and NC-17 is part of R. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

India/Aytein-Inodur

Has India been renamed to Aytein Inodur yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.144.17 (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Language and One-Sided Bias

I agree with you completely. That's why I changed the language in the edit I made. I also added support for the other main school of thought on the issue. Although I did not show my personal opinion in the edit, I feel that censorship is more harmful to children than language will ever be.

I did not add reference (even though looking back on it I should have), to the idea that children learn and pick up things in their surroundings quickly because as I learned in Psychology class in college a few years ago, it is common knowledge in the scientific community, and can be supported in an over abundance of essays and studies by well-proclaimed scientists. Many people dispute the extent of that. But all I was trying to do is elaborate on the comment a previous user made about the idea that there are debates about the "Usefulness" "Purpose", etc. of the ratings systems. That other user also made an unsupported claim that some people intentionally, like "teenagers," and people looking specifically for "Excessive" violence or sexual content.

I should have also added other points to the debate. In fact now that I think of it, that could have been it's own separate article in itself.

As I said in my talk page regarding the article, it is a work in progress, and I thought that first section was so bad that it compelled me to register for a Wikipedia account immediately and change it. I don't want some innocent 10 year old looking at the page for a school report and quoting some biased, one-sided and unsupported article about how in America he or she will grow up to be evil if they watch certain movies.


~Seeright (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)User:Seeright

Inconsistencies

This is especially irritating to me, and I'm sure others agree. Some form of consistency needs to be established for listing and describing each country's individual film ratings system. As most of the articles are already in this format, I suggest:

  • (Rating) (Translation or extended name) - (Definition and extended description.)

Any input would be great. WooTisI (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need consistency in style and anti-bias. People should add external links to the rating systems' websites. And another thing is in the example of the section for Australia, what is "The classification board is comprised primarily of liberal members, therefore the OFLC has a strong influence on 'Informing your Choices'" supposed to mean? There is no elaboration whatsoever on this thought, and what is the background of who these "liberal" members are? How are they selected?

Another issue that I have seen on this page are spelling errors. This is a fairly easy issue to fix. On Mozilla Firefox for example, there is a quite extensive spell check dictionary that automatically checks spelling for user-submitted forms. That is what I use. Also you can use any modern word processing program and use that program's spell check and/or grammar check feature and it will automatically check as you go (same with Firefox).

These are just a few examples of ways that the article can be improved.

Is there any out there who is a well-studied expert on the film media field that can fix a large percentage of the factual errors on this page?

~Seeright (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Seeright

Section One Formatting

Whoever fixed up the aesthetics of that first section, Thank you. After I edited it, there were hanging html chads in the article (I am new to Wikipedia, never took a programming class, so this something I have almost never done.) ~Seeright (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Seeright

Biased

At least in Europe the supporters of rating systems do not argument with religion at all. The text indicates wrongly that the only pros for those systems are from religious points of view. A scientific view is completely missing. --94.221.86.94 (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased

At least in Europe the supporters of rating systems do not argument with religion at all. The text indicates wrongly that the only pros for those systems are from religious points of view. A scientific view is completely missing. --94.221.86.94 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Need more information

Hey, folks, I see that we're all working on this at the same time. I'll stop and let you hack at it!

We need information on the Australian, New Zealand, and British rating systems, as well as others. Anyone up to the Hays Code? -- GABaker

Someone accidently deleted teh britsih australian and britsih colubians ratingts

I've reverted to the previous version of the article, which includes the brief overview of the British, Australian, and British Columbian rating systems, and leaves the detailed history of the US systems for the separate article. This article should (I think) just give a brief sample of what the systems look like; details belong in separate articles. (Which, additionally, can thus be linked to directly.) --Brion 21:54 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

True. I need to add on the Indian film industry and its problems. That should be under film censorship. -- GABaker 22:35 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Hong Kong has something called a censorship authority (refreshingly honest!) which actually carries out classification, -- William Avery Dec 14 2003

There is something wrong with the Entry about the german rating System. I don't know if its right to write in here but I think it might be better if someone adds the information whom native language is english.

All Movies have to be rated for every release. That means that a Movie has to be rated for the theatrical relase, the VHS Release, the DVD Release and for every format it will be released, seperatly. A usual Movie rating costs about 2000,-€ or more, depends on the playtime. If you let your movie rate for every release it will often double or triple the costs. Usually all unrated movies are rated as indexed (porn etc.). That means no advertisement. You can buy such movies in usal electonic stores if the cover doesn't show anithing young people shouldn't see (gore pictures, porn pictures). But you can release every movie without rating but then the customer has to be 18 years old.

You can make advertisement for every Movie with an FSK sign. If your Movie doesn't have it, than the Movie is either indexed or not rated and advertisement ist forbidden.

That's not true! You can release any Movie without any rating whatsoever in Germany and advertise it as you like. only if the movie gets indexed, which requires interference by some youth welfare office and the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons, you are not allowed to advertise it anymore. -- SuNotísima (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The rating System was changed on 1. April of 2004. When a Movie has the FSK 18 Sign than it can't be indexed because it already got the FSK Sign. Previous releases can have the FSK Sign and can be indexed also. "From Dusk Till Dawn" has a FSK 18 Sign and it is also indexed. If the Movie would be released now and it would gain the FSK 18 Sign it couldn't be indexed any more. The FSK 18 Sign is known, since 1. April 2004, as "Keine Jugendfreigabe" - no youth admited. I have checked that after I wrote the Text.

If a educational Film is included in a product, for example a Tape that shows you how to use that airbrush you just bouth, it does not have to be rated because its obvious that there is no need for a rating.

The Rating System is also in use for TV Stations. That means if a Movie has FSK 6 it can be shown at every daytime. A FSK 12 Movie can literly be shown at every time but the TV Station should take care for younger Children. A FSK 16 Movie can only be shown from 10p.m. and a FSK 18 can only be shown from 11p.m. Indexed Movies can be shown in Movie Theaters but not on TV, except there is a cut Version of the Movie rated FSK 18 oder FSK 16.

Movie Companies often cut their Movies for a lower FSK rating to gain a wider release. That means you only can see a cut Version in Movie Theaters but you get the rental Version as FSK 18 and the Homerelease as FSK 16 and FSK 18. "From Dusk Till Dawn" was released as FSK 18 that has been indexed afterwards and as a FSK 16 Cut Version were 17min have been deleted. That means that the whole beginning of the Film was cut to release it with a lower rating. Thats an strange example but two different rated Versions of the same Movie is nothing unusal in Germany. TV Stations often cut their Movies to show it earlier in the evening.

FSK 12 is now like the PG in the USA as it is described in the entry but FSK 16 is only allowed for Persons at the age of 16 or older. Its not like a PG for Teenagers as described in the entry. It has not changed.

There was also a FSK 14 rating. I only know one Movie who had this rating. It was a movie that schools can rent for educational purposes but it was a not an educational movie specially made for schools it was a movie that has been released in Movie Theaters also. So it might be a unused rating now, the Movie is now at least 20 years old, or it is only for educational purposes. I couldn't find any information about the FSK 14 rating on the official FSK Homepage.

The Movie "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is banned in the uncut Version. There is a cut Version thats indexed but not banned in Germany. If a Movie is banned it can be rereleased again if it has been cut. Most Movies that can't be released by all means are usually Nazi Propaganda Movies like Jud Süss. -- sorry no Account.

The FSK is probably the remains of Nazi Germany!Thank god I live in the US.Some of these systems are absolutley insane! --Z.Spy 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The US military authorities gave the FSK the right to do so. The FSK has been foundet in 1949, at this time West Germany has not been sovereign. Without the US admission it would have been impossible to found the FSK. The State Alaska has a law that says: "Its legal to shoot a bear but its illegal to wake him up to take a foto." Insane! -- sorry still no account.

YouTube

Is it really true that there is a rating system in YouTube? I can't find it on YouTube! --84.113.33.181 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think YouTube has any rating system or at least not one that is used ever.
It exists but is almost never used, I have encountered it 2 or 3 times.

Contradiction much?

The article contains contradictory statements: "for most of the time all County Councils generally accept the BBFC rating, although, films can technically bypass the BBFC [...] due to practicality this is rarely done. County Councils often ignore the BBFC advised rating and rate films with anothe BBFC certificate in their county only". FWIW, I'm pretty sure the first statement is accurate (councils almost always accept the BBFC ratings) and not the second (saying that they often ignore the BBFC). 86.178.79.98 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Table à la here

Why dosen't this article have a Comparison section with a table like Video game content rating system? It would be a neat way to summarise the article's content, and, at the same time, compare each rating system with each other. ajmint (talk•email•contribs•subpages) 16:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Subject of vandalisim

Just recently, there has been some vandalising on the article(and in particular the sections in Australia, Chile, Quebec, Japan and Singapore). As a result I have done some editing to restore the page back. This is a rather stupid thing to do on a Wikipedia article, and I am refusing to make it happen at any point. These types of incidents shall never happen again and shall NEVER EVER be tolerated in the near future, so NO MORE VANDALISING THIS ARTICLE, OK?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkyblinky (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

Section: Section on Russia has some grammatical errors, incorrect translations. Would fix myself but am not a regular editor.

46.211.205.83 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

The ER rating don't exist nowdays in brasil, soneone got to correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.106.42.102 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 19:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Italy

What about Italy?


Well, what about Italy? - the preceding post is unsigned and undated.

  • Italy obviously uses different criteria for determining age-appropriateness from that in the U.S. The full uncut 109-minute version of Giuseppe Tornatore's 2000 film Malèna (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213847/) carries a green T' "per tutti" ("for everyone", equivalent to a U.S. MPAA "G"), whereas the U.S. version had to be cut to 92 minutes to get an "R" rating. At that link to IMDb.com, see the "Parents Guide content advisory" for details. Aside from the nudity and sexual situations, one of the problems in the U.S. is the boy's being underage, in his early teens. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

comparisons between different countries

It seems clear that regardless of the specific classification systems used for films in different countries, the criteria used for those classifications can vary widely from one country to another. I've just now posted an interesting example of this under the Italy section of this talkpage, above. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrible comparison table

The huge comparison table is very confusing, full of errors and of questionable interest. Most of the information is found further down under each country in more detail, but the table doesn't always tally up with that info and has virtually no references. Also, for some countries it refers to the home video classifications only (Canada for instance), but this isn't even explained. Although it may be of some limited interest to compare the number of classifications each country or organisation has, and what ages they cover, it's very questionable if this is interesting enough to justify this enormous and confusing table. Comparing how individual films are classified in different countries would be much more interesting, as that demonstrates how differently countries judge displays of sex, violence and drug use.

I therefore think the table should be scrapped altogether. Due to the complex coding, it will anyway not be kept up when individual countries do minor changes to their system, while the information below the table, for each country, can easily be updated. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia

Hello, on 27.05.2012 (User: C3F2k) has been deleted of this article, including Slovakia section, I wonder why. Thank you. --Pirios (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Complete revision to entire article

Over the last few days, I have done some extensive revisions to the article to give the article a more neutral point of view, to remove excess trivia, to remove unnecessary comparisons/equivalents to U.S. ratings, and to show only the country's official ratings board (and not any non-official boards like "VoMeR"). If you have any questions about my edits, feel free to ask.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Chris

Since you have an interest in this article, how about a discussion or at least an inclusion of the former MPAA rating of "M" (for Mature Audiences), predecessor to the former "GP", predecessor to the current PG? ("GP" was generally mistaken as meaning "General Public" and being synonymous with "G", and "M" sounded like a stronger stricture than it really was since in practice anyone could view the film, as with the current PG. Also, the history of how "X" was expropriated by the producers and exhibitors of hard-core porn, since unlike the other ratings it was never copyrighted in the U.S. and could be self-applied. In the beginning (late 60's), serious films such as Midnight Cowboy and A Clockwork Orange were rated "X" by the MPAA, and this generally was not violative of the lease provisions on cinemas in most locales until later on, when the rating became pretty much synonymous with hard-core. Also, "PG-13" began with the original Red Dawn and not with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as in the current version of the article; I remember this but am hoping that you can and will source it. 72.104.151.125 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary and irrelevant.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Chris

Wikipedia itself

Often, when I read about a film on Wikipedia, the article does not include the film's rating. Why is this? It would seem like a no brainer to me to include this information. Isn't a film's rating a part of the full description of the film? L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As the English language version of Wikipedia is not intended only for those in the US or the United Kingdom, but for all countries that have English as an official language, this would be a very cumbersome task. In some countries, like Canada, a film may even have several different classifications, as each state/territory runs its own classification bureau. However, it could of course be of interest to see how differently countries judge things like sex and violence, and there is nothing stopping editors from adding classification information, as long as they clearly state which country/state/region it applies to. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The MPAA rating is the most useful of all, as it clearly gives the reasons for the rating with keywords like language, violence, nudity and is not prone to compromising. In some countries local distributors are pressing for a lower rating to reach a bigger audience and maximize profits (for example FSK 12 in germany instead of R in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.115.6 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

australia

"M" in Australia is recommended 15+ not 13+ as the table erroneously shows. Also "PG" does not have an age range (certainly not 7-13 as the table implies) but is simply means parental guidance is recommended for persons under 15. Can someone please fix this.49.183.33.100 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it to accommodate your concerns. The only way I could think of doing it was to make the color bars horizontal. Anyhow, if it doesn't adequately address the problem feel free to revert. Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Negative; M does not have an age recommendation.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Chris
Actually it does: Films and computer games classified M (Mature) contain content of a moderate impact and are recommended for teenagers aged 15 years and over. [7] Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

US PG rating

There has been a spate of recent edits to the US entry in the comparison table. It is difficult to see what is being changed from the diff, but essentially the editor keeps altering the PG certificate in the US entry to indicate an age specification of "10 years old". As described in the US summary and at the MPAA's own guidance page, the PG certificate does not carry an age recommendation or restriction. The only ratings that do are PG-13, R, and NC-17; the MPAA does not offer age guidance for the G rating or the PG rating. Setting the PG rating to 10 years old is clearly inconsistent with the MPAA's own guidance page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple incorrect article edits

There has been a spate of erroneous edits recently that are inconsistent with the sources in the article such as [8], [9], [10] and [11]. The edits have either added incorrect information to the article or changed the color coding so that the classification is inconistent with the key. If you are going to make changes to the article that alters it at a content level then a source MUST be provided. Betty Logan (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How old is

How old is Jack Kelly in Newsies, a 1992 film rated PG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:858E:E6CF:F658:81E7 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the Philippines

There has been a spate of edits altering the Philippine entry in the "comparison" table. The edit involves changing the PG bar from a red bar that starts at age 13 to a yellow bar that starts at age 1 and is not consistent with the description at Motion_picture_rating_system#Philippines. While the rating may well be called "PG", it is closer in operation to the British 12A and American PG-13 ratings. The Philippine government source clear states "Viewers below thirteen (13) years old must be accompanied by parent or surpervising adult when admitted into a "PG" film" (Chapter IV, Section 1.B). Thus, it is actually a restrictive rating for minors under 13 rather than an advisory parental rating. The changes are not consistent with how the table codes the information, nor the source that the information is based on. I would be grateful if any further changes are discussed here first. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Section headings

I see what you are trying to do and minimize the length of the TOC. It is a good idea. However, this has to follow in the framework of WP:MOSHEAD and TOC comes right before the first section header per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. Both of these are for accessibility reasons.

Maybe have the individual country headers be level 3 (===) with a new section before the list of countries called == Rating in individual countries == or something similar. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

owned

You really got this articled owned up, don't you, with the ridiculously saturated and in some cases undifferentiable colors ("spring green" and "green", "red" and "brown"). Glad I spent an hour on that for nothing. My color scheme wasn't intended to be pretty (not that the competition is either), but to be slightly more contrastive (4 out of 6 colors have higher contrast ratios) and less "in your face with glowing red and green". You might want to be less revert-heavy. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And you might be more polite to other editors who have invested more time than you in the article. If you mean by "owned" that I spent a few months last year updating all the rating systems and adding sources so that the article was actually functional, then yes, I suppose it is "owned". If you mean that I keep an eye on it and revert changes that clearly contradict the sources or the wording contained therein then yes, I supposed it is "owned". If you mean I didn't let you change the longstanding color scheme—that predates my involvement in the article and thereby inaugurated by another editor—then yes, I supposed you can consider it "owned". I find it ironic that I am the one with the apparent "ownership" issue even though you were the one who tried to impose your own preferred color scheme on the article without even initiating discussion about it. Also, for someone with apparent "ownership" issues I was remarkably tolerant of all your other alterations, retaining every single one except the color change. Betty Logan (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Brown category

The Brown and Red category (meaning restricted exclusively for an older audience) is deceptive. Revert it back to the age-appropriate colors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the previous color scheme too, so I have restored it. However, what exactly do you mean by "age appropriate" colors? Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Some ratings such as 7+ or 5+ represent approximately PG values. The brown ones correspond to highly restricted audiences, just below 18+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The color codes represent the types of categories, not the age groups. Some rating bodies use guidance categories and some use age restrictions and the color coding reflects this reality. Since there is a visual representation of the age range the rating applies to it is obvious to the reader which age groups they cover. The reader can immediately read from the chart that a brown colored 7+ is restricted hard category which denies admission to anyone below that age, and a red colored 7+ is a soft restricted category which admits audiences below that age if accompanied. If we arbitrarily change the color of those ratings to yellow then it would not be very helpful, since the reader would not know which type of rating it is. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe we can add special symbols while keeping the color, to distinguish soft and hard restricted categories, and warning categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the color codes already differentiate between the different types of categories—including soft and hard restricted categories—adding symbols would be redundant. Not only that, it would potentially be confusing too since we have table of symbols, and adding symbols that are not part of the rating could cause confusion. I am failing to see what the issue is. We have a color key so readers know how to interpret each and every rating. Looking at the chart a reader can immediately identify the Australian "M" rating as an advisory rating, and the Irish 15A rating as "accompaniment" rating, or the UK "15" rating as a restricted rating. The whole point of having a key is to remove ambiguity from how the ratings should be interpreted, so the reader does not have to read the summaries below to know what each rating means. If the colors mean different things for different country then it defeats the purpose of having a key in the first place. There are no comments from readers on this talk page complaining that the table is not clear, so I honestly think that what you have is a solution looking for problem in this instance. If it aint broke then don't fix it! Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Austria does not have provinces

Austria does not have provinces, so the "province of Vienna" is imaginary. Wikipedia says, "Today, Austria is a parliamentary representative democracy comprising nine federal states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Japan:When they started rating

It says Japan started Eirin Rating in 1998.But I was checking some NEC and Hudson's game console,The 'PC Engine 'game.These games are supposed to be released before 1998. No1:http://www.pcengine.co.uk/HiRes/AV_Tanjo_front.jpg (1995) No2:http://www.pcengine.co.uk/HiRes/Body-Conquest-II-Back.jpg (Unknown Released date,but absolutely before 98,because Pc engine discontinued in 95)

There are R rated and PG-15 Sign on the cover.So I was confused about the time japan actually start Rating game.

Some people claims that the pc-engine's adult game and PG game was freely sold to children in japan at that time(year 89-95 the time pcengine activates).Is that true?

Because This is important since Japan was and still is a big gaming country.The pc-engine console is also important because it was the first console that can actually read a cd-rom.cd rom can contain large amount of date,thus leads to the problem of adult game,because of the porn graphic contains in the game. Haliredfield (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this article is about film classification, and what the article actually says is that the ratings that Eirin use today were introduced in 1988 (see [12]). I don't know much about Japanese classification but it seems to me this date only pertains to the current four categories for films. Eirin quite possibly had different ratings prior to 1988, and it is quite possible that if they use the same categories for games they were introduced at a different time to what they were for films. You'd be better off asking at Video game content rating system. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

：[1] according to the page it's started around 1956(the 映倫 organization).It may differ from game to film.Maybe before CERO,japan consider gaming as a kind of video product,like video tape（I will ask Video game content rating system to prove）Thanks you

Haliredfield (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.eirin.jp/english/index.html

Indonesia

There have been a spate of edits altering the ratings for Indonesia. Please note that all changes must be sourced per WP:Verifiability. The Indonesian film censor site clearly gives the ratings as SU (suitable for all) 13+, 17+, 21+. The ratings can be viewed on the right-hand side of the page under "Lulus Sensor" as a flash animation scrolls through each rating. If this information is out of date then please provide an up-to-date source so that the information can be updated in the proper manner. Any unsourced changes will be simply reverted if they cannot be corroborated. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam does have a motion picture rating system!

All movies that are produced or imported to Vietnam must be classified by The National Cinema Department. Since they don't have a website that written in English so I don't have any sources for my contribution so they're removed. They're a few websites (unofficial) that list all the informations. Can I use them as a source? Phuckhang15 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please list here all the sources you have available—including both the official non-English one and the unofficial English ones—and we can then consider which ones are acceptable to use. In several cases we use a combination of non-English official sources and unofficial English sources so that will probably be the best solution here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 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, 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) 08:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uhm wrong language?

Hey, wouldn't it be nice, having the WHOLE page in English, rather than having the Austrian part in German and the Russian Part in Russian? Of course - the original rating "sentence" should be in the original language - but the explaining text around it? This is sill the English Wikikedia isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.15.250 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A bad bot has played with this page. It needs to be corrected. I just replaced the "Bulgaria" part with the old text I wrote (in English!!!). It seems that the text was translated with some sort of automatic translation. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Megara, I fixed your contribution by changing "persons" to "people" because I felt it was more... how do I say it? Um... "politically correct". "Persons" would have been okay if this article were about grammar, not about motion picture rating systems. I hope you understand my rationale behind the change. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unrated means banned?

I just checked the MPAA's web page and it said nothing about an unrated rating that makes us unable to watch movies in our house if we're under 21 or sell them in a store. Where did you hear that? I'm gonna have to ask for a source cause that seems erroneous. Should I fix it?Limejello10512 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should fix it, because "Unrated" does NOT mean "Banned", it simply means the movie (or in British English, "film") has not yet been sent for review by the MPAA (or the equivalent thereof in the UK) to receive a definite rating. Be aware that this process takes time, because MPAA raters must watch the movie/film at least twice before deciding on a final rating. This is because, the first time they watch it, they may think that the movie (or "film") is okay to be released as it is but then, after watching it a second time, they may find out there was either sex, foul language, drug use, underage drinking, cigarette smoking, violence and other factors that may change the MPAA's mind (for example if a film was to be released with a G rating but then they watched it again and discovered a scene with underage drinking they may pump up the rating to either PG-13 or R.) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for "anti-semi protection"

I'm not exactly sure this whole semi-protect thing works. Maybe perhaps we could give the editor using the IP address "126.155.0.231" another chance to be more constructive? However, anyone can take the action they please if he/she does it again, and considers it as disruptive. 220.141.164.205 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If the editor wants to be constructive then they can come to the talk page and join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My only concern there is that he/she may only come and be more constructive when pages are not protected or semi-protected. I don't think any other editors would do such a disruptive thing to the table colors, anyway. 118.163.130.216 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not make further changes to the color schemes as you did here at Mobile software content rating system without obtaining a consensus first. The color schemes across the content rating articles should be consistent across all tables, and as you can see in the table above the red/magenta combination has poor contrast qualities. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
They were just trying to get rid of the 1.11, I think, and changing it to 2.96. I think they can see the problems caused with the red and brown, but anyway both the long-standing and the new version have good and bad contrast levels. Now, about the pink in Video game rating system, I didn't think they had understood the consistency policy. I hope my little observations are helping you. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Brown then Red ratings, little N/A blocks

I was trying to think of a scheme for the color blind in the question above, but rapidly became confused. The table currently lists as brown, restricted exclusively to an older audience, the younger portions of stuff like "FSK 12", but lists the older portion as allowed when accompanied by an adult. I'm guessing this is backwards? I mean, the way it reads to me, the younger kid is allowed in but the older one needs a parent with him.

Also, what the hell are the little N/A blocks in some of the columns that are split in half? Why aren't the top halves of those blocks just brought down to cover the whole cell? Wnt (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Some ratings are composite. For example, for the US R-rating you need to be accompanied by an adult to be admitted to the film so it is highlighted red, while no-one under 18 is admitted to an NC17 so it is shaded brown. However, in the case of the German FSK 12, there are two requirements for audiences under 12: they must be aged over 10 (hence the brown bit) and accompanied by an adult (hence the red bit). Granted the visual representation of these ratings isn't ideal, but visualisation is limited by the software. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I just want to swap them. The red part (which I would also want to underline) should be for the younger portion, indicating an adult is required, while the brown part (whose description might bear rewording) indicates when kids of this age are permitted to enter the theater and watch on their own. Ratings without this kind of split would be all brown, since kids of that age are permitted to enter and watch also. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with swapping them is red indicates that children lower than that age can watch the movie, so if you have the red bit starting at 10 then that implies children under the age of 10 can watch an FSK12 which is not the case, and if you have the brown starting at 12 that implies children under the age of 12 are not admitted, which is not strictly true either. You can think of the FSK12 as being two separate ratings: a brown rating starting at 10, and a red rating starting at 12. I'm not saying the current way of doing it is the best way, but flipping bthe colors would make it even more counter-intuitive. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah. I noted that in order to be consistent with this, the U.S. part of the graph should have a third bar that extends the red "R" box all the way back to 0, since kids of any age can enter with a parent. (or to go with what you say, that could be a separate brown bar) The bottom line here really is that using the red to indicate that "this rating extends back further" is generally hinky. We should have some kind of clear graphical distinction between with-a-parent ages and without-a-parent ages. I think this chart needs too many colors because of underlying logical flaws. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I should add another gripe to the current coloring, which is that there is no clear indication of the default condition. For example, a relatively sensible country like Denmark allows anyone to self-label a video "15+"; the purple "F" in that case simply indicates material to which rating is not relevant. But the same column and color for some of the other countries indicates banned material. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. In my proposal I wanted to make a clear distinction between banned films and those that are exempt/educational with unrestricted access. There are two ways this can be done: using a bi-color scheme (black & white in my proposal here) or you can simply bring the exempt/education categories into the main table and treat them as "general" categories, because the only real difference is semantic i.e. in the case of the UK's "Universal" and "Exempt" there is no type of access restriction, whereas there is a huge difference between something being "exempt" and the BBFC banning the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Right now we have a situation where for a few countries that allow children of a younger age into the theater with parents, but not all children, these ages are marked with brown blocks; but in the U.S. and other countries where any age is allowed in, there are no brown blocks. I think that:

a) we should remove all of the accompanied-only ages from the main section of the table for each country

b) optionally, we can have a narrow bar underneath each country, or some countries, listing ages for accompanied minors, or alternatively have a separate table for them, or leave them out and only describe these in the text at right.

c) if we don't have a bar showing accompanied ages under each country, we retain the red (not necessarily the color, but that class of label) to indicate that younger children can be admitted with these categories; but if we have that bar, we no longer need to mark these categories differently since people can just compare, so red and brown can be merged into one hue.

Wnt (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can do a quick mock up below for one of the countries affected for each of your options so we can see exactly what you are proposing? Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Orange/white combo

Despite an ongoing RFC slitherioFan has started making further alterations to the color schemes, this time, replacing the orange/black combination with an orange/white combination and misrepresenting his actions in the edit summary by insisting he has not altered the color scheme. Apart from the fact that it is poor form to alter something that is subject to an RFC the change is terrible since orange/black provides a far better contrast, if we are to retain the existing color scheme. White on orange does not have a high enough contrast. Betty Logan (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. What I meant by not altering the color scheme is that I kept the spring green/lime/yellow/orange/red/brown/black/purple scheme for the background, but thanks for the information and I will try to be more aware of text contrasting as well. Could I please request temporary 30/500 page protection also? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The orange/white coloring is a clear violation of MOS:COLOR "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about idea viability

Is it possible with the current Wiki technology to have one chart, but then switch the colors based on a user clicking something? Somewhat akin to how images on Muhammad can be hidden per user? If possible, that seems like it would please everyone. --Tarage (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Something like that would be great, but I have never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Please remove the accessibility low color contrast tag if the RfC is complete. Than you.

101.161.22.105 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: It will be removed once the RFC is formally closed. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Color scheme proposal

A color scheme with less saturated color from early September last year has been brought to my attention while I was scanning through the history section of Motion picture rating system. I took the scheme and changed a few of the colors in adherence to the current color scheme. This is what the snook.ca color contrast checker says:

Status Color 1 Color 2 Contrast
Old Spring Green Lime 1.02
New Aquamarine #CCFFCC 1.09
Old Red Brown 1.77
New Light Coral Sienna 2.17
Old Black Brown 2.96
New Black Sienna 3.74

It looks like all the new colors have increased the contrast level of the comparison table. One editor stated in the RFC that "[the current scheme] is ugly, because the very-saturated colors clash". Taking this into account, I went forward and did this. This is the proposed scheme:

  •  Aquamarine  – Aimed at young audiences.
  •  Green  – All ages may watch.
  •  Light Yellow  – Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  Orange  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  Light Coral Red  – Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Brown  – Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Black  – Exclusively adult content / Further restrictions usually apply to exhibition.
  •  Indigo  – No rating / Exempt from classification / Banned from viewing.

Feel free to add any proposals here if you have any. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is point discussinbg further color schemes until an admin closes the RFC above. If there is a consensus for one of the proposals that is what we go with. If there is no consensus then we can consider other schemes. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
That I have taken in mind. We can postpone this discussion until after an administrator closes the RfC, though. In the meantime, however, we can leave the color scheme as it is and discuss it later, perhaps. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?

Closing. There is consensus for Option B. Certainly more people support B. It does not appear that anyone has found a scheme with 8 colors that satisfies the accessibility requirements. Those favoring 5 colors (i.e. Option B) argue that they achieve accessibility while not losing much information. Nobody who favors A claims that accessibility is met. User:Wnt did not support either A or B, but does not yet seem to have found an option that satisfies him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the comparison table in the Motion picture rating system#Comparison_table section in this article and at other articles such as Mobile software content rating system, Television content rating systems and Video game rating system use a color scheme that is deemed WP:ACCESSIBLE to color-blind users? Specifically, Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users suggests compatible color schemes for items that use color to convey meaning. There are currently two schemes in contention:

  • Option A: [13] (current scheme)
  • Option B: [14] (proposed scheme)

Would editors please indicate their preference. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option B – As the editor filing this RFC and author of Option B, I favor using a scheme outlined at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. This option entailed a couple of compromises to get the scheme down to five colors (combining the age prohibited/adult categories, and the general/child categories) but I believe it is not to the detriment of the article since the distinction between the categories were mainly only semantic. I believe this family of articles should adopt option B because I believe we should fulfil our commitment to make Wikipedia as accessible as possible, and while I appreciate the option B is not as aesthetically attractive as option A I do not consider it a primary consideration. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B – a clear improvement taking into account MOS:Accessibility with regard to colors. I do not consider that arguments on consistency with other rating systems pages are particularly useful. Rather, other ratings pages should be made consistent with this page to promote accessibility. Robevans123 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A – More categories allows you to separate one unrestricted/restricted rating from another with confidence. Merging some of them causes confusion as in which rating falls into which category. Furthermore, combining the child-specific ratings with the all ages rating does not seem to work, since ratings with the all ages category are sometimes not intended specifically for children. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    The highlighting is principally there to distinguish between types of restriction, not types of content so it is not essential for the table to distinguish between childrens' ratings and general ratings if the type of access is exactly the same. Same with adult ratings too: you need to be licensed to sell R18 films in the UK but it still carries exactly the same age restriction as an 18 rating i.e. there is no difference in who can access the material. The specifics of each rating can be found in the summaries anyway. Unfortunately, if we are to make the table accessible to color blind people then we are limited to five-color-scheme so merging a couple of categories where there is no fundamental difference in the type of restriction seems a reasonable compromise to me. Moreover, it is fairly obvious from your repeated changes to the color scheme that you do not care about the table's acessibility problems, because you have used a scheme that uses four colors (red/brown/lime/spring green) that are indistinguishable from each other. Even if your point was justified—that reducing an 8-color scheme to 5 is too much a of a compromise—then the colors that are available could be better utilised to make the table more accessible than it is now. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    An 8-color table with accessibility standards is what I am after. I only reverted to the original so we could either finish the survey, or discuss a new scheme with 8 colors. I hope that makes sense to you. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    If you read the introduction to the RFC you will see that an 8-color version with full accessibility does not exist. The choice is between 5-color version with full accessibility or an 8-color version with accessibility problems. Since it is only necessary to distinguish between categories that have different access restrictions then the 5-color scheme will suffice. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    @SlitherioFan2016:. You're more than welcome try and develop an 8-color table with accessibility standards, but please develop it in your sandbox. I wish you luck with that. I spent some time years ago trying to get above 5 differentiable colors and failed, which is not to say it is impossible. Also, so far I've also failed to find any other color palettes on the web that satisfactorily get above 5 colors, unless they also add some sort of cross-hatching or patterning within the colored areas. Robevans123 (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Why did you link my name to the Ping disambiguation page? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Oops. Used square brackets rather than curly brackets. Sorry. Robevans123 (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A per SlitherioFan2016. More colors is more helpful, and in my opinion, looks much better. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mulligan. Losing the three distinctions of color is harmful. But more can be done to make this table accessible. The key thing we need to start with is a jury of color blind readers. We need some folks to give solid feedback. We also need some technical advice how to make shades distinguishable. I am skeptical that the very bright green and the rather dark red hues shown are actually hard for red-green color blind people to distinguish. We could do this figure with 8 different shades of greyscale and everyone could see it - but if we assume that all readers can view some out of a list of primary colors, we should be able to combine that with grayscale intensity to make a figure that is easily interpreted by all. (I see that Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users says this cannot be done, but I'm calling "citation needed" on that!) Wnt (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Wnt: I am certainly open to an 8-color scheme if one can be created. I tried to put together an 8-shade grey-scale scheme but 8-shades made it too difficult to distinguish. However, I was struck by another idea since then that perhaps multi-tonal shades from the five bands at Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users#Tips_for_editors could be created. For example, we could use four shades of blue for the unrestricted categories (currently the two greens, yellow and orange) since someone who is blue-blind should be able to distinguish between two shades. For the four restriced categories (red/brown/adult) we could use three shades of red, which someone who is red-green blind should be able to distinguish between. Banned films could be shaded black. Do you think something on those lines could be a potential solution? Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know if the light blue gets confused with yellow, for example. It seems possible. At the moment, as described below, I'm having some problems with the current table coloring without the color-blind issue! But I'm thinking of making additional markings, such as underlining the label in situations where children are permitted in with an adult. That way the color blind people can look at this difference while other viewers can also have pretty colors. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B. For starters, accessibility is very important. Beyond that, even for non-colorblind readers, option B is at least arguably more comprehendable -- Option A being arguably poor information design, trying to jam too much info into its color scheme end ending up too busy. This is a matter of opinion. But accessibility is the trump card here. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Other than the bright green in Option A, I like the scheme. In option B, I just assumed the non-colored blocks were empty until I looked again. However, I think we need the feedback of actual colorblind people here. I'm slightly with Option A, but I want to hear from people affected by the current scheme. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 10:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A per SlitherioFan2016. Option B drops the color difference between 16+ and 18+ 18+ and special restrictions, which makes those harder to distinguish. Pppery 21:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is actually no color distinction between 16 and 18 in either scheme. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Weird. In some cases, 18 is black with underlined text, and in other cases it is brown. Pppery 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B. (I came here from the RfC notice.) Option B is better in terms of accessibility, and that matters. In Option A, it's difficult to see the difference between Green and Spring Green. And in my opinion, Option A is ugly, because the very-saturated colors clash. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B. In option A, I can barely tell the two greens apart myself and my color vision is fine. When filtered for red-green color blindness e.g. by http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ they also become indistinguishable from the yellows. Option B clearly distinguishes the colors both to my eyes and to the color blindness test. Accessibility is not optional and takes a higher priority than someone's idea of aesthetics. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced changes to the summaries

@Eyesnore: All the classification information needs to be accompanied by a WP:Reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. All the information in this article is sourced and any alterations need to be similarly sourced. You have made two changes recently, removing the "10" rating from the South African summary without providing any rationale or source, and also changing the Korean "R" rating to "18", again without providing a source or explanation for this change. Both these changes contradict the existing sources. The official South African ratings guidelines (page 21) list a "10" rating, and the official Korean ratings do not not include an age symbol for the "18" rating (unlike the 12 & 15 ratings), which the English language Korean media refer to as an "R" rating. I appreciate that ratings are commonly updated and renamed but by making alterations and not providing a source it is impossible to assess how valid your changes are. If you are going to make changes please provide sources, and also check the official ratings body to ensure that the interpretation is consistent with the current classifications. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: So there seems to be an error in this site: in http://www.fpb.org.za/ratings/ there is no 10 symbol. But it is right here: http://www.fpb.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Classification-Guidelines.pdf. Eyesnore 18:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eyesnore: It's more likely that one source is out of date, probably the one I link to above (published 2012) and that the "10" rating has been retired. On that note I have no objection to you removing the rating, but do you now see why it is crucial to update the sources as well? Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I have changed some of the FPB ratings from purple to black because of one of the lines in this document stating that "Material classified as "(10/13/16/18)" is prohibited from distribution, exhibition, sale or hire to children under the age of (10/13/16/18) years." Eyesnore 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, that is fine. See how easy things are when communication is taking place! Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should we propose a new 8-color scheme in the comparison table?

RFC withdrawn: [15]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the comparison table in content ratings articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with 8 colors that has improved accessibility than the previous one? There are currently two options in contention:

  • Option A — [16] (current scheme)
  • Option B — [17] (proposed scheme)

Please indicate your preference below. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

There is consensus for Option B. Certainly more people support B. It does not appear that anyone has found a scheme with 8 colors that satisfies the accessibility requirements. Those favoring 5 colors (i.e. Option B) argue that they achieve accessibility while not losing much information. Nobody who favors A claims that accessibility is met.

Please note that Option B (the 5-color scheme) in the original RFC is actually Option A in this new RFC. The choice being offered here is basically a choice between a 5-color scheme that is compliant with Wikipedia's color-blind accessibility requirements and an 8-color scheme which is not. SlitherioFan2016 does not substantiate his assertion that his proposed 8-color scheme "meets the criteria that the scheme is accessible to most". It certainly does not as verified by the fact that Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users clearly stipulates that red, green and grey cannot co-exist together. Neither does he establish whether orange can co-exist with yellow and red either. The proposed 8-color scheme does not address any of the problems that his 8-color scheme posed in the original RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Do you remember the IP address "153.217.207.181" edit warring and installing the previous 8-color scheme we had? There was an even older one before that. We had purple in place of the brown, and blue in the place of the black, and black in place of purple, and green in the place of lime. In the contrast table underneath "Color coding" you said that the blue-purple combo had a contrast of 1.11. However we shouldn't replace the blue or the purple with a color that causes accessibility concerns with the red (e.g. brown). How I created that scheme was: I took the 8-color scheme in the original RfC, and took your comments into account. Combining these together, I came up with the proposed 8-color scheme. One more thing, though, I'm not sure colorblind people will have difficulty with red/lime/gray, since the lime is lighter than red and gray, there will be a totally different "brightness" value. Same thing goes with yellow/orange/red. Different wavelengths, different shade. I hope my little observations are helping you. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: User:SlitherioFan2016, I recommend that you withdraw this new RfC. It looks like you are just re-running the last one. If someone can actually find an 8-color scheme that meets accessibility, that might be enough reason for a re-run, but this is not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_1&oldid=1251497407"