Jump to content

Talk:Motion picture content rating system/Archive 2

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

Table changes

Adult content vs Adults only

There have been several attempts to convert the "adult content category" to an "adults only category". This is not particularly helpful because "adult content" is a content classification, not just an age restriction and there is often an important legal distinction between the two. For example, the Motion_picture_rating_system#United_Kingdom has two "18" ratings, the standard 18 which is just an age restriction and "R18" which is an "adult content" catgeory. Both are "adults only", but the R18 carries further legal restrictions because of the type of content it classifies. The "blue" category exists to specifically indicate adult content, and altering the description to "adults only" loses the defining aspect of the category. If the category is positioned at age 18/21 in the table then it is obviously "adults only" anyway and we don't need to explain what is obvious to the reader, but it should be clear to the reader that these categories are distinct from other age restricted categories by virtue of the type of content they classify, otherwise there is no point having it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Color coding

An anonymous editor has altered the table highlighting as follows:

  1. Converting the purple "prohibited" catgeories to brown.
  2. Converting the "adult content" categories to black.
  3. Converting the "other" column to purple highlighting.

Most of these are long-standing arrangements and I do not feel the aesthetic changes ar in the best interests of the article, especially replacing the purple highlighting with the brown. It is a poor contrast for the red, and someone who is color blind may not be able to distinguish between the two highlights. This category was originally shaded brown but an earlier editor changed it on the grounds that the contrast did not offer enough clarity: [1]. The magenta was too bright for my eyes, but I concurred with the underlying criticism and changed it to purple, which offered a better contrast in my opinion: [2]. All the other colors have been a long-standing feature of the article selected by other editors, and I honestly don't think the changes are an improvement. These are the two versions if anyone else wants to weigh in:

As for the other two changes I think the previous versions are a better aesthetic "fit" for the article. "Blue movies" are highlighted blue accordingly, and I think the black highlighting works better for the "other" column because in most cases this category is not part of the official rating system so it helps it slide into the background a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the desire to use black for restricted ratings, but I think the long-standing version is probably better. Having red next to brown can be tough for some people to distinguish. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: The entire color scheme is negotiable of course, but obviously whichever scheme is adopted has to be designed to provide sufficient contrast. It would be helpful if it were consistently applied across the whole family of articles too. Beyond that the specific colors themselves are a secondary concern to me. When you say you understand the use of black for the "restricted" ratings, do you mean the "adult content" ratings or the "banned" ratings, and what exactly is the rationale for that? For instance I understand why adult movies are coded blue, and why the general category is green, and the age accompanied category is red etc, but does "black" have a common color association in this capacity or is it just an aesthetic consideriation? Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the IP has persisted with their changes so I have had no choice but to request protection. In the latest change they also changed the "green" highlighting to limegreen. I have used a contrast checker to check the combinations and this is what they come up with:
Status Color 1 Color 2 Contrast
Old Springgreen Green 3.82
New Springgreen Lime 1.57
New Mint Lime 1.89
New Mint Green 1.98
Old Red Purple 2.36
New Red Brown 1.77
New Red Magenta 1.27
Old Blue Purple 1.11
New Black Brown 2.96
New Light gray Gray 2.64
As we can see not all the changes are bad, but some are. Using lime instead of green reduces the contrast by more than 50%, so this change is obviously a non-starter. We can also see that the existing red/purple combination offers a greater contrast that the new red/brown combination. The worst combination is actually the existing blue/purple combination but the proposed replacement (replacing the blue/purple combo with the black/brown combo) causes problems with the red. Clearly the table would be better served by replacing the blue. I am open to suggestions but the talk page is the place to resolve this, not through constant reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The first problem, I think, is that there's nothing wrong with the long-standing scheme. If the IP editor would explain why he/she is making these changes, maybe we'd have something more to discuss. But, yeah, I think it's best to stick to colors that strongly contrast with each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the contrast problems that the IP was causing with the color scheme alterations. I think, however I might be wrong, that he/she was just trying to get a smooth merge in color form green to yellow to red to black. Using brown instead of purple allows red to slide in to brown and then to black. I'm not sure why they would put purple in the "Other" column, neither do I know the solution to the "lime instead of green" incident. Now, about the pink in another of these articles, I do not know what they were doing. My understanding of this is that the uses of green to red and black may be reflecting to the uses of "good-bad" uses, as after red they would decide to merge to the black. I hope my little observations are helping you. Although I don't like the contrast problems I actually prefer the new version myself. 220.141.164.205 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If you understand and accept the contrast problems caused by the lime and brown then why did you go ahead and install the problematic scheme at Mobile software content rating system? I have reverted back to the previous existing scheme, and I would appreciate it if you refrain from changing it again. If you are not happy with the existing scheme and acknowledge the problems caused by the new one then please propose an alternative high-contrast scheme here that will accommodate the concerns dteailed above. While "smooth" transitions may be aesthtically attractive, Wikipedia is not an art project and the primary goal is to provide information and make it as accessible as possible. Betty Logan (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually like 126.155.0.231's idea about the whole color merge thing. The only thing I don't like about it is that they changed green to lime, as Betty Logan said, that reduced the contrasting by more than fifty percent. And the pink on the video game rating system... may be a bit of contrast improvement? I don't know what you think about it, but I kinda like his/her idea of this color merge smoothly idea. Think you can help me? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of options available in regards to color schemes, but providing contrast is the priority. If you have any suggestions then please propose them here so we can assess their suitability. Furthermore, if any of the other comments posted at this discussion under IP numbers are yours then please declare which ones are yours, because creating the illusion of multiple editors in a discussion to support a particular stance is WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
None of them are mine. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Which color contrast checker have you been using? SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It has come to my attention that the rating system articles in other languages are using the problematic color scheme in the comparison tables. I'm pretty sure 126.155.0.231 noticed this and edited the English table to make it the same as the others, for consistency sake. I hope my little observations are helping you. Even though I do spend a lot of time at content ratings articles I am still trying to figure out what they actually did myself. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no consistency across the different language articles. For example, the German edition doesn't even have a table. Meanwhile the Spanish edition uses black in place of purple (but has no "other" column which is where we use our black tone) and retains the blue for pornographic films, as this article does; it also uses lime instead of green which is perfectly fine in the Spanish version because they don't have a two-green tone meaning they can select any version of green and there won't be a contrast problem. Obviously if a foreign language version has a good color scheme then we can may be able to adapt here, but ultimately we are not beholden to what the foreign language Wikipedias do. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That's the thing. I kinda like the Spanish edition of the color scheme, however what can we put in the Other column? Maybe 126.155.0.231 just needed to replace spring green with mint, then everything would be fine? Maybe spring green just needed to be reconsidered, or else I might reconsider his/her benefits rather than problems. Using the black/brown combination with the contrast of 2.96 got rid of the blue/purple combination with the 1.11 contrast. The problems with the red caused by that then - either way, there's got to be positive and negative aspects of everything. Focussing on the negative (a la contrasting) does not always work (think to the 1.11 in the long-standing version). What I would do is just take some consideration into the positive aspects, rather than through constant reverting. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
If you are going to have two greens they need a strong contrast, so two light greens or two dark greens simply doesn't work. If you want the lime in the table then it would need to replace the other "light" green i.e. the spring green. And as I said before the black/brown combination simply isn't a suitable replacement because the brown has low contrast with the red. There is no point replacing a contrast problem with another contrast problem. The only color which *needs* to be replaced is either the purple or the blue to eliminate the purple/blue problem, but not with a color (such as brown) which causes a contrast problem with the red. I suppose we could replace the purple with black like in the Spanish color scheme, and replace the black with dark grey (see above table) in the "other" column (since the "other" column isn't for proper ratings so I don't think it should have a proper highlight). Betty Logan (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't want two greens! I want lime and mint! SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Mint is a shade of spring green as you can see at Spring green#Mint, but as you can see above it provides poor contrast with both lime and green, so mint is a non-starter I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal The color scheme in the Spanish version of the motion picture rating article has come to my attention since I voted in the survey below. I have proposed use for it and have installed it in the table, but have not removed the warning message because I would like to open it up for discussion rather than reverting to the one that is in discussion now. Feel free to notify me if you have questions or comments about the scheme. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 8 colors in the comparison table?

Withdrawn

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 articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with 8 colors that has improved contrast than the previous two? Here are the two options if anyone wants to weigh in:

  • Option A – [3] (current scheme)
  • Option B – [4] (proposed scheme)

Please indicate your preference below. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option B – While it is possible to make a color scheme have high levels of color contrast, we also do not want to lose any information. Take for example the child category and the general category. The child category is assigned to material intended specifically for children. On the other hand the general category is suitable for all ages, however the material inside it may not be of interest, or, is not necessarily intended for, children. Same thing goes for the restrictive age category and the pornographic category. Some adults don't like pornographic content. If they see a "black" rating, it is an age restrictive category, but the rating may be of pornographic content. And, again, while Option A is specifically designed to be accessibility contrastive it is possible to make an 8-color scheme as accessible as possible. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT – This is the third RFC in 48 hours and SlitherioFan2016 is abusing the RFC system. The first RFC finished 48 hours ago after running for a month, and after not getting the answer he wanted he has refused to accept the outcome and started another RFC straightaway. The second RFC was closed after an admin asked him to close it, and within 24 hours we have yet another RFC. There is a case filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_topic_ban_for_SlitherioFan2016 to discuss his conduct and your comments would perhaps be better served there. Betty Logan (talk) 06:28, 25 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

173.228.205.51 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC).

Iceland

Resolved
 – Sources found and entry corrected

Iceland uses the Dutch Kijkwijzer system. It uses the same age rating as the Kijkwijzer except it also includes 18. It is operated in Iceland by FRISK - The association of righsholders in the TV and Film industry. Under Icelandic law children 14 years old are admitted to films carrying an higher age rating if accompanied by an adult.

L 6 9 12 16 18

Broadcasting for content 12 years old or higher is not allowed before 9:00 pm. weekdays and 10:00 pm. on weekends

Mostly, these icons are used along with other symbols, displaying if a movie contains violence, sexual content, frightening scenes, drug or alcohol abuse, discrimination, or coarse language. 157.157.254.240 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC) [1]

References

  1. ^ www.kvikmyndaskodun.is
Do you have a source for children aged 14 and over being admitted to a film if accompanied by a parent? http://www.kvikmyndaskodun.is/Page/Article/4 does not appear to specify this restriction and states that parents have the final responsibility in what their children watch. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on colours

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Enough. Within the last three months, there have been at least six discussions on this matter (some of which were RfCs at one point or another), and it is far too soon to kick this off yet again. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we use more and brighter colours in the table of the article? Someone missed the previous colours used on the table because they are bright. Should we install a brighter colour scheme in the table? Please indicate your preference below with SUPPORT, NEUTRAL or OPPOSE.--120.17.58.180 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

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.

Colors

I missed the previous colors used on the table, They were amazing because they are bright--66.50.41.11 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The current color scheme is subject to an RfC consensus, so that is what we go with. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What does that even mean?--173.228.205.51 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
See here. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Add many ratings to that by copying of that!! This is the difference: Other colors used and using all game organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.205.51 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I thinked of this: --173.228.205.51 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Cyan  – Aimed at young audiences.
  •  Lime  – All ages may watch.
  •  Yellow  – Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  Blue  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted. .
  •  Red  – Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Gray  – Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Black  – Exclusively adult content / Further restrictions usually apply to exhibition
  •  Light Gray  – No rating / Exempt from classification / Banned from viewing.
Per :Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users, the colors red, brown and green cannot co-exist together. If you think there is a good reason why they should be together, please state it or else the color scheme will be rejected. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of discussing this. There was a consensus at #RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users? to use a color scheme that it is accessible to color-blind users. I'm not opposed to discussing further schemes but they must be within the framework outlined at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. Obviously you cannot use red, green and brown in the same table, nor can you use blue and purple together. As for cyan, we would have to get it checked to be sure, but since it is a mixture of blue and green that is probably not compatible with either. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Better?--173.228.205.51 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No it's not. Read the RFC and then read the link I gave you. At most we can only have five colors in the table. If it were possible to come up with eight compatible colors we would have done it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the coolest one, like?--173.228.205.51 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't colorize the text. Instead, please use black or white, whichever has better contrasting for the text and the background. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT A color blind simulator has brought to my attention that one of the 8-Color schemes in which I can't remember which one that I have been disruptive with previously doesn't really have any problems. For any of you that would like to give it a go, the link is here. --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting find but it doesn't let you test the actual page. There is a site at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ which allows you test the actual pages for the main three types of color blindness and you can see the problem on your last version:
  • Protanopia: Orange does not contrast well with green and red (but if orange were dropped this scheme would otherwise be ok)
  • Deutanopia: Red does not contrast well with orange and brown (but if red were dropped it would be ok)
  • Tritanopia: Purple and red do not contrast well (but the fix for Deutanopia would fix this)
In all three instances there is very low contrast between lime and spring green so one of those would need to be dropped. So say spring green, orange and red were dropped that would leave sufficient contrast between the remaining colors in all three main types of color blindness, but then you are back down to five colors: Lime, yellow, brown, black and purple. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Try taking a screenshot of the color code and importing it to the link provided above. If that one doesn't work try the other variant of my preferred color scheme. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You can see from the colorfilter site above what the problems are with your previous scheme. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I just tested the other variant of my preferred color scheme and the results are as follows:
  • Protanopia: Scheme seems fine. Not a great contrast between Orange and red, but should be OK due to wavelength (shade) of the color.
  • Deutanopia: Seems fine other than problems with Mint and Yellow, Orange and red. Again, it should be okay due to the shade of the color. I would like to discuss the conduct regarding the problems here caused by Mint and Yellow.
  • Tritanopia: Scheme seems fine.
After checking this I think the color scheme should be okay, you may ping me o reply on my talk page if you have any questions or comments about my color scheme. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is clearly not "okay". You have extremely low contrast between green and orange, and the contrast between mint and yellow is very low as well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Could you replace brown with red? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. The issue is settled as far as I'm concerned but if you want to consider further schemes then I suggest setting up a few examples in draft space and I will take a look at them. I think it's going to be very difficult though, because a color scheme that is acceptable for one type of color blindness seems to not work so well for the other types. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I am talking about your other five-color scheme, the one with lime, yellow, brown, black, purple. I think we could replace brown with red for that one, or should we just leave it as brown? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I am unsure which scheme you are referring to. If you provide a permalink I will take a look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: There is no permalink for the scheme I am referring to. You made a comment while we were discussing the issues for this one and said that taking out a few of the colors would being us back down to these five: lime, yellow, brown, black, purple. I want to replace brown with red in that scheme, so the color scheme would be as follows: lime, yellow, red, black, purple. Is that possible? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
So it would be like the current scheme, but with lime instead of white? Well we can try that scheme and see what it looks like in the color blind simulator. If you want to give it a try set up a replica table at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/draft2 and we will see what it looks like. Betty Logan (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Done. --SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've tested it and the lime/yellow/red/black/purple scheme seems to be ok according to the color-blind filter. I tried replacing red with brown but in some of the tests it has low contrast with purple, so on that score I don't have a problem with the one you set up in my draft space. My only criticism is that I think red works better as a "restrictive" category because it is more intuitive, but other than that I think the color scheme works. Each color comes out as unique, distinct color with reasonable contrast for each typ of color blindness so it fulfills the accessibility conditions. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What are people's thoughts on this color scheme? It has more differentiated and less-saturated colors.
  •  Aquamarine  – Aimed at young audiences.
  •  Green  – All ages may watch.
  •  Yellow  – Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  Orange  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  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.
  •  Purple  – No rating / Exempt from classification / Banned from viewing.

If I am to be honest with you, the reason I don't like the 5-color schemes is that it drops the color difference between regular "restricted exclusively" films and pornographic films. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@SlitherioFan2016: Please see your own comment at the top of this section, timed at 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC). Then please read WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I am still open to discussing further color schemes, as is Betty Logan. All I want is an 8-color scheme that satisfies the accessibility requirements. That said, I was trying to tell the IP why we had to use the current color scheme in the table, hence starting this discussion. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional rating

(non-admin closure) Long term talk page lies by an IP and not citing a source for the new system. Enough is enough.

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.

They forgot this rating system:

  • 1. KID SAF
  • 2. G
  • 3. PG
  • 4. PG-13
  • 5. PGR
  • 6. R
  • 7. NC-17
  • 8. ADULT

108.65.82.76 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not much use without (i) a reference and (ii) the name of the country or territory where this system is in use. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This system is used everywhere for DVD players. 108.65.82.76 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not used in the UK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
It is used on all DVD players in all locations. 108.65.82.76 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
(i) Not my DVD player, which is a Sony DVP-NS355; (ii) Please provide a source, per WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Source: [5], and click on "How do I change the parental lock level?". 108.65.82.76 (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
That is a FAQ page for the Philips PET710/37, and says nothing about any other DVD player, nor that it is applicable to all locations. How do you know that the same scheme applies outside the United States? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
This same principle applies to all Philips DVD players, and many players of other brands, no matter where they're used. 108.65.82.76 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no rating system built into my Philips DVD player, just a child lock. Besides, that user guide just outlines a lock level for pre-rated movies. Philips isn't actually rating movies i.e. you set your lock level to PG-13 and you can't play anything above that without the override code. The movies themselves are still subject to the MPAA ratings, which are no doubt limited to the US. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
This standard rating system is a mix of all the rating systems in the world. 108.65.82.76 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're curious about the ratings themselves, here's what they mean.
1. KID SAF (spelled in all caps and a missing "E" in safe)--safe even for kids to watch.
2. G (General Audiences)--Suitable for most audiences. May contain minimal mild language and/or violence.
3. PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)--Suitable for most audiences, and parental guidance is suggested. May contain more mild language and/or violence. This rating is typically the lowest rating that is typically available.
4. PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned)--Recommended for audiences 13 or older. May contain moderate language and/or violence.
5. PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended)--This rating is between PG-13 and R. Discs rated PGR are not necessarily inappropriate for children. but viewer discretion is advised, and it is recommended that children under 17 have parental guidance.
6. R (Restricted)--Recommended for audiences 17 or older. May contain strong language and violence. This is typically the highest rating that is typically available.
7. NC-17--No one 17 and under admitted.
8. ADULT (spelled in all caps)--only for adults. Also, these discs can only be sold in locations for which they are specifically allowed.
108.66.233.174 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note that these ratings are country dependent. These explanations for the 8 rating levels are just a general rule. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you expect us to do. DVD player manufacturers do not rate movies, which is essentially what this article is about. There is no global DVD rating system. In the UK for example, DVDs are rated using the same rating system as films for the cinema i.e. PG, 12, 15 etc. As explained at http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/cpindex.pl?ctn=DVP3880/58&dct=QAC&faqview=1&refdisplay=HAV_GENERAL_MCDXXX_011&refnr=0060842&scy=HU&slg=ENG what you are describing is a sophisticated child lock i.e. if you set your DVD to PG-13 mode then it won't play any R-rated or NC-17 disks. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
They expect us to take their word for it and accept that this time it isn't vandalism or trolling and, hey, let them edit. Why should they be inconvenienced by their years of vandalism, trolling, block evasion, etc.? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this is the global DVD rating system. For example; you set your lock level to PG-13 and you can't play PGR, R, NC-17 or ADULT-rated discs. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no source that says this. You have apparently been lying on talk pages for years. We're done here. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:49, 15 January 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

Could someone please check the article for typos, grammar and spelling? 110.147.183.191 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New color code

Resolved

I suggest this color code:

  •  Cyan  – Aimed at young audiences.
  •  Green  – All ages may watch.
  •  Yellow  – Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  Orange  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  Red  – Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Purple  – Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Blue  – Restricted to adults only.
  •  Black  – Banned from viewing (restricted to licensed premises).

This is because a spectrum looks better in the tables, and it can be more specific about whether all ages may watch or parental guidance is suggested. Also:

  •  White  – No rating/Exempt from classification.

What do you think about this system? 108.65.82.146 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you either have not read, did not understand or chose to ignore all of the prior discussion on this issue. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I chose this because a spectrum looks a lot better in the tables, and because it is a lot more specific for what the ratings are. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I get that you like that better. Do you understand the problems discussed repeatedly on this page with combining red/green and blue/purple? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I get it now. #PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad 108.66.232.14 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you don't get it. Making content accessible has nothing to do with "political correctness". If it will get you to stop making the same request repeatedly, yes, it is political correctness gone mad. Whatever. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Color code

To be politically correct, here is a new color code

  •  White  – Aimed at young audiences.
  •  87.5% Gray  – All ages may watch.
  •  75% Gray  – Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  62.5% Gray  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  50% Gray  – Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  37.5% Gray  – Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  25% Gray  – Restricted to adults only.
  •  12.5% Gray  – Banned from viewing (restricted to licensed premises).
  •  Black  – No rating/Exempt from classification.

What do you think of this system? 108.66.232.14 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to tell some of them apart. The current system is superior. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

8 rating levels

What I mean about this being a global rating system is that DVDs are sometimes recorded with parental control levels (1 to 8). Here are their explanations:

  • 1. KID SAF: Aimed at young audiences.
  • 2. G (General Audience): All ages may watch.
  • 3. PG (Parental Guidance Suggested): Parental guidance is suggested.
  • 4. PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned): Must be 13 or older.
  • 5. PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended): Not necessarily inappropriate for children, but parental guidance is recommended for audiences under 17.
  • 6. R (Restricted): Must be 17 or older.
  • 7. NC-17 (No one 17 and under admitted): Only for adults.
  • 8. ADULT: These can only be sold in premises for which they are specifically allowed.

Sometimes, however, DVDs are not rated. This is indicated by rating level 0 (--). 108.65.82.146 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a global rating system, because the levels 1 to 8 are in the DVD standard, and thus used on DVDs around the world. The equivalents of these ratings are country-dependent. In general, however, the explanations are as above. For example, you set your lock level to 4 (PG-13), and you can't play anything above that (levels 5 (PGR) to 8 (ADULT)) without entering your six-digit password. 108.65.82.146 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Prior to your block, you repeatedly made this claim. We are still waiting for independent reliable sources to confirm that this is a rating system, as opposed to the child lock found on some DVD players using rating systems already built into the discs. Without such sources this cannot be added to the article. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the child lock. The ratings recorded on the discs are levels 1 to 8, which is why I mentioned this. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
DVDs can be recorded with rating levels 1-8, which is why this is the global rating system.
One of my sources is: Here. In the parental setup menu, "Rating level" is the setting. Rating level 8 is marked as Adult, and rating level 1 is marked as Kids Safe. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a "parental setup menu" in the table of contents or the index. I have no intention of looking for it. What page number? - SummerPhDv2.0 00:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Page 73. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So far you have demonstrated that two DVD manufacturers have eight levels of parental locking and use similar names for 1 and 8. If this is a rating system, who is rating these discs? From the list here, the ratings seem to be MPAA ratings, meaning this is not a content rating system, but a usage of an already discussed content rating system. (If this is not the MPAA ratings, it is a remarkable coincidence, worthy of a lawsuit.) - SummerPhDv2.0 01:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a standard, because the DVD standard includes eight Parental Management Levels (PMLs), and is thus used globally, and the names for the ratings are country-dependent. Some DVD players allow you to select the rating system and see which levels correspond to which ratings. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The names and descriptions you have provided above are copyrighted material. IMO, this is not a separate rating system. This is the MPAA system for theatrical releases. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
KID SAF, PGR, and ADULT are not MPAA ratings. Many DVD players allow you to select the standard which was used to rate the disc and view the corresponding ratings to each level. This is standard, because the DVD standard includes 8 Parental Management Levels, and is thus used globally. The names I listed were the ones used by some but not all DVD players (such as the Philips PET710/37). 108.66.232.14 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Virtually everything in that rating system is identical to MPAA ratings. This is not a content rating system. Time to move on. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Not KID SAF, PGR, or ADULT. 108.66.232.14 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing verifiable about a "motion picture content rating system" here. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Change in Greece the age of "under 17" with "over 15" and the "under 18" with "over 18(adults)". BillyJNicks (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Color code...again.

  •  White  – Aimed at young audiences / All ages may watch / Parental guidance is suggested.
  •  Yellow  – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted / Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Red  – Restricted exclusively to an older audience / Restricted to adults only / Banned from viewing (restricted to licensed premises).
  •  Black  – No rating/Exempt from classification.

What do you think of this? 108.66.232.14 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for this. (This editor has just been blocked for 1 month for trolling and possible sock puppetry/evasion.) - SummerPhDv2.0 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Red and purple are indistinguishable to some color-blind users. 108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
You have been blocked repeatedly for this and similar failure to hear the consensus. It is well past time to drop the stick and move on. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

DVDs

I am not joking about the 8 rating levels. Just look up "parental management levels DVD" and you'll find out about them. In general:

  • Level 1: Aimed at young audiences.
  • Level 2: Suitable for all ages. (G)
  • Level 3: Parental guidance suggested. (PG)
  • Level 4: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted. (PG-13)
  • Level 5: Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult. (R)
  • Level 6: Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  • Level 7: Restricted to adults only. (NC-17)
  • Level 8: Restricted to licensed premises. 108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a dead issue. There is still nothing verifiable about a "motion picture content rating system" here. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

R

Children under 13 are not admitted to R rated films at all. Between 13 and 16 (or 17 in Tennessee), you must have an accompanying parent or adult guardian. 108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hogwash. This is not law, this is individual theaters'/theater chains' decisions. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Red PG

Philippines had a red PG instead of Yellow PG. This is what the PG's normal color means:

  •  Yellow  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for a younger audience, if applicable.

and it doesn't say that sometimes PG is in another color. If this happened to all organizations:

  •  Red  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for a younger audience, if applicable.

Please don't tell me it has a mistake what I said. I KNOW IT IS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAS 13 YEARS I AM SMART AND I KNOW ALL THE SOURCES AND ORGANIZATIONS. Please do it with this options:

Right=The PG rating is always yellow

Wrong=The PG rating can be purple, red and black

--72.50.79.77 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a misnomer because it is really the equivalent of the BBFC's 12A because it imposes a restriction on under 13s. See Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Philippines. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I add the rating labels for the motion picture rating system of Vietnam?

Since 1/1/2017, Vietnam has updated its new motion pictures rating system, consists of 4 ratings (instead of 2). I want to add the labels, like the article in Vietnamese wiki page, P, C13, C16 and C18 ratings.

  • P rating
    P rating
  • C13 rating
    C13 rating
  • C16 rating
    C16 rating
  • C18 rating
    C18 rating

--Phuckhang15 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest this color code...

Please watch...!

  •  White  – No restrictions: All ages may watch/Aimed at young audiences/Exempt/Not rated/No applicable rating.
  •  Yellow  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for a younger audience, if applicable.
  •  Orange  – No restrictions: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  Red  – Restrictive: Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Dark Red  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Black  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to licensed premises / banned.

--RhapsoDJ (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not considering color-blind users. Then, How about this?

  •  White  – No restrictions: All ages may watch/Aimed at young audiences/Exempt/Not rated/No applicable rating.
  •  80% Gray  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for a younger audience, if applicable.
  •  60% Gray  – No restrictions: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  40% Gray  – Restrictive: Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  20% Gray  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Black  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to licensed premises / banned.

--RhapsoDJ (Talk) 09:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There isn't sufficient contrast. The decision has been made via an RFC and the consensus is to follow the suggestions at Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users#Tips_for_editors. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan motion picture rating system

Hello there. I have strong reason to believe that Taiwan's film rating system was born in 1987 not 1994. Could you please find some good source? thanks. This is for Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Taiwan and there is another more in-depth page relying on the 1994 description at Film_censorship_in_China#1994_to_the_2010s. But take a look at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Annotated_Republic_of_China_Regulations/Regulations_Governing_the_Classification_of_Motion_Pictures/1988 and you could see it should have been 1987. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the first sentence. Most of the other entries don't state when their rating systems were introduced either so I don't think it's necessary to include such vague information. The source used in the article just states what the ratings are anyway and does not provide any dates. b:Annotated_Republic_of_China_Regulations/Regulations_Governing_the_Classification_of_Motion_Pictures/1988 may or may not be correct, but either way it is not a reliable source so we should resist drawing information from it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Age-based system started in 1983. The librarian from gaz.ncl.edu.tw aka National Central Library Gazette Online is extremely helpful. She pointed me to article 30 of the 1983 law. It's now affirmative. You could read the law text in Chinese yourself. It's nice to truly do some original research.Supermann (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information but obviously this being Wikipedia we still need a verifiable source if we are going to put a date in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No need to put the date. I think the year of 1983 is enough. The source is extremely reputable and verifiable, because it's Taiwan's national library that hosts the Chinese text of the 1983 law. But I assume you want to read the law in English or as explained by somebody else in English in a book. I have updated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_China#1949_to_1983 to give a timeline Supermann (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Motion picture content 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Motion picture content 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Philippines PG

NO ACTION
The plaintiff (in this case an anonymous IP editor) in this dispute contends that the PG entry for the Philippines, should be highlighted purple instead of red. The key points are as follows:
  • The red highlighting indicates a restrictive rating whereby the film is "Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult."
  • The purple highlighting indicates a non-restrictive rating whereby the film is "Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted."
  • The offical MTRCB guidelines (p. 4) found on the Filippino government website state the following:

    PARENTAL GUIDANCE (“PG”) – Viewers below thirteen (13) years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult when admitted into a “PG” film. (emphasis present in document)

  • A further source (provided by the plaintiff) reiterates the same condition:

    A "PG" (Parental Guidance) rating means viewers below 13 years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult.

The following observations apply:

  1. The MTRCB guidance as described above clearly mandates that children under 13 must be accompanied by a supervising adult to be admitted to a PG rated film. Since the presence of an adult is required (implied by the word "must") rather than simply recommended, the table key dictates that the highlighting should be red, since this indicates a compulsory restriction rather than a recommendation.
  2. The editor has repeatedly argued ad nauseum that this is incorrect, but has refused to directly address the MTRCB wording in their replies, simply arguing that it is wrong.
  3. Laws do change over time, and guidelines are subject to updating so it cannot be ruled out that the restrictive nature of the rating has changed since the guidelines were last updated. However, WP:Verifiability dictates that all claims must be verifiable and the WP:BURDEN of proof is on those making the claims. Despite repeated requests the editor has not offered any verifiable evidence that MTRCB guidelines as worded above have changed in the interim.

This discussion has been closed because the plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily address the key issues that would need to be settled before changing the highlighting. This would essentially require a new source to replace the existing source, which currently indicates that adult supervision is a compulsory requirement. The highlighting in the table simply reflects the restrictions as described in the country summaries, which are backed up by sources. Ultimately any changes have to be made at the source end first.

Another reason this discussion has been closed is because the behavior of the editor has made it extremely unlikely that a resolution will be reached that will satisfy them. They have not displayed a willingness to engage in discussion, and only started to contribute to the discussion here after the article was semi-protected, due to their edit-warring. They had previously deleted the discussion, so were aware of it but simply chose to not engage. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2018 (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.

An anonymous editor has repeatedly [changed to the highlighting for the PG category from red to purple, on the grounds it is "not a restrictive catgeory. This is not backed up by the country summary at Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Philippines and the accompanying source at http://www.mtrcb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2004-IRR-as-amended.pdf. Those are the official government guidelines, and I will quote directly from them:

Viewers below thirteen (13) years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult when admitted into a “PG” film.

Their emphasis not mine. This category while labelled "PG" is a very atypical PG catgeory, in that unlike most other PG ratings it attaches a restriction to the rating. This is not a suggestion, the guidelines insist that children under this age must be accompanied by an adult! This is completely consistent with the red highlighting which is used for ratings that are "Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult", as explained by the key above the table.

Unlike say in the case of the BBFC, the Filipino guidelines do not distinguish between cinema and video. If these ratings have separate legal obligations then please correct summary and provide an appropriate source before changing the comparison table. The comparison table is supposed to reflect what the sourced country summaries state. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The PG rating in the Philippines is not restrictive but de facto restrictive, it should be needed to highlight to purple. It is not recommended for viewers 13 below but not restricted. This is not a suggestion, the guidelines insist that children under this age. This is completely consistent with the purple highlighting which is used for ratings that are "Not recommended for a younger auidence, but not restricted. Advisory, but de facto restrictive", as explained by the key above the table. (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not what the MTRCB guidelines above state. They clearly state that viewers below that age "MUST be accompanied". It is clear that is a restriction, not a recommendation. If the guidelines are incorrect or have changed since these were published in 2013 then please provide a source and we will update it, but based on the current MTRCB source the red highlighting is the correct color for this rating. On a separate note do not remove my comments from the talk page again, as you did here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi I'm very sorry, you don't understand what I am saying here, since you're from the other country, I think you didn't know what the PG means, okay. According to the MTRCB from PG, 'Elements that 'SUITABLE' to young children 13 below'. I saw it also when I buy tickets on cinemas. Please it should have to be purple, you got to regret that. And of course there are some children under 13 never been prohibited in a PG rating, also there is a security personnel there, again PG is 'NOT A RESTRICTIVE' rating, and should have to be purple, thank you. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. We add content based on WP:Reliable sources, and so far you have not produced any to back up your argument. The official MTRCB guidelines contradict what you are saying. You are not going to win this argument by ignoring what the official MTRCB guidance says, and repeatedly asserting your point. Nobody is going to support your argument unless you provide us with evidence of your claim. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I'm very sorry, you are wrong and you didn't understand here the guidelines, however, there are no restrictions on the PG rating, only R-13, R-16, and R-18 does. Unfortunately PG needs to be purple. Example, please read this Facebook post of SM Cinema Manila (a Philippine movie theatre partnered with MTRCB) https://www.facebook.com/pg/SMEntertainmentManila/posts/ , 'For R-13 AND R-16 movies: Please bring birth certificate or I.D with proof of birth. MTRCB rating is strictly implemented' because when entering on restrictive ratings like R-13, R-16, R-18, you will need a valid I.D. and birth certificate with birth of proof and does not apply to a PG rating. Thank you and I hope you understand and get my point here.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.193.84 (talk)

That is one cinema chain, not an official source for the MTRCB, and it does not comment on the PG rating. If the PG rating does not carry a restriction why does the official government guidance stipulate that "Viewers below thirteen (13) years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult when admitted into a “PG” film."? Please stop avoiding my question. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope you didn't get it, and I hope I didn't avoid your questions, and I hope you need to change to purple because it is not a RESTRCTIVE rating. Children below 13 are very smart. I hope I'm not wrong so thank you, and I hope you need to know what PG movie rating in the Philippines means and it is not handles by BBFC. I hope you answer my question and you accept that it is purple thank you. 00:18 130.105.193.117 (talk)
How many times do I have to ask you this? If the rating is not restrictive why do the MTRCB say that children under 13 must be accompanied? I am not going to alter the rating unless this question is satisfactorily answered? Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please watch this video first before you complain. 'Children below 13 years old may require parental guidance and direction' (no restrictions, and it is suggested). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0mlYmnmr8Y 130.105.193.117 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.214.144 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That video does not say that children under 13 can attend unaccompanied, which is what you are implying. Now please answer my question: if children under the age of 13 can attend PG-rated movies unaccompanied why do the official MTRCB guidelines—hosted on the official government website—state that "Viewers below thirteen (13) years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult when admitted into a “PG” film."? Unless you directly address my point then the table will not be changed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi I know that you should need to change it to purple, you didn't understand my questions, please. Sorry for that. Even though in public buses in the Philippines only show G and PG films, but they prohibit R-13, R-16, and R-18 films in public buses. 'During the inspection, Villareal oriented bus drivers and conductors that they can show only "G" or "PG" materials on their videos on board.' No restrictions on public buses. Thank you. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/metro/356817/mtrcb-reminds-bus-operators-only-videos-rated-g-pg-allowed-on-board/story/ 130.105.193.117 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.214.144 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
And to quote from that article:

Under the MTRCB's classification system, a "G" rating means a general audience, or viewers of all ages, may watch the film or video ... A "PG" (Parental Guidance) rating means viewers below 13 years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult.

That is fairly unambiguous. And yes, there is a restriction on buses because presumably there will always be a supervising adult present who is responsible for the passengers i.e. the driver. That is entirely consistent with the MTRCB guidance which states that children under the age of 13 must be accompanied by a supervising adult, and that type of restriction encoded red in the table, as clearly explained by the key. Which part of "viewers below 13 years old must be accompanied by a parent or supervising adult" and "Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult" (Red) do you not understand? Clearly something is getting lost in translation here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi it needs to purple, but the PG movie rating is 'de facto restrictive', and I hope I understand the guidelines, and you must understand my questions, you are not accepting my understandings. Thank you. 130.105.193.117 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.214.144 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2018 (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.

Quebec

The name of our province of Quebec in English is Quebec, not "Québec."
Please correct.
Thank you, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

BBFC 12 doesn't carry parental supevision recommendation?

We know that BBFC 12A is cinema only, and BBFC 12 is home video only. Therefore, BBFC 12A cinemas get BBFC 12 rating if in video release. 12A is not for under 12 unless under supervision. Can children under 12 buy, rent or watch(play) BBFC 12 films (video re-released) or games if under supervision?211.203.35.206 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Children under 12 are prohibited from purchasing 12-rated videos. They cannot buy them even if they are accompanied by their parents. However, the ratings only apply at retail level, so there is no regulation in the home. Betty Logan (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Motion picture content 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change them unless they're incorrect.

  • Ireland, Malta, UK's PG carry parental supervision recommendation for under 8, so they should be red.
  • UK's U is age recommendation, so it should be purple.

I can't edit 'cause this article is semi-protected. 211.203.35.206 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The highlighting is correct for the same reasons as explained at Talk:Television_content_rating_system#Some_Edit_Request. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

However, UK PG recommends parental guidance for under 8, so UK PG is 8+. And Malta PG recommends parental guidance for young children but there's no age recommendation(such as US PG), not 8+. And UK U is 4+(while UK Uc s for all ages). They aren't incorrect, are they?211.203.35.206 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

U-rated content is suitable for all children, but generally aimed at a children over 4, therefore it is correctly highlighted white. If U-rated content is aimed at pre-school children the rating will specifically note this. PG does not restrict access to children under 8, which is what the red highlighting would imply. It is a general content rating that anyone can watch, aimed at children over 8, and under parental supervision. It is not like 12A which prohibits under-12s from viewing unless accompanied by a parent. Again, please read the summaries and the accompanying sources. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here:

  • UK PG (Parental Guidance) - General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A PG-rated film should not unsettle a child aged around eight or older. It should be purple, neither yellow nor red.
  • Malta PG (Parental Guidance) – General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. It should be set like US PG.

Am I incorrect?211.203.35.206 (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect. U is "suitable for all" but mostly for children over 4, with a few exceptions. However, there is nothing in U-rated films that is unsuitable for children under 4. In the case of the UK, Malta and Ireland which all use a very similar system, PG-rated films are generally suitable for children over the age of 8 with parental guidance, and in some cases are unsuitable for "young children". If these were highlighted red or purple this would eliminate the parental guidance aspect of the rating for children in the specified range. They are not the same as US PG-13 because there is no parental guidance requirement for children over the age of 13. Betty Logan (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are these correct?

  • UK, Malta and Ireland PG recommends parental supervision for children 8 and over.(but under 12)211.203.35.206 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ireland recommends parental supervision for under 12's. Malta and the UK use the same system, and they don't have an upper limit, but they have the 12 rating which does not require parental supervision for 12 and over, so this suggests a sensible upper-bound for PG. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In Ireland and UK's case, there is lower-bound for PG (8) but in Malta's case, there is no lower bound for PG. Please remove Malta's lower bound (8) in comparison table.211.203.35.206 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Malta uses the exact same classifications as the UK i.e. the BBFC classifications. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Color scheme for achromatopsia

Currently, Motion picture content rating system, Television content rating system, Video game content rating system, Mobile software content rating system, International Age Rating Coalition article uses 5 colors: white, yellow, purple, red, black. But achromatopsia people see purple like #343434, and they see red like #4c4c4c. They can confuse them. Let's change color purple to blue. They see blue like #1d1d1d. It doesn't confuse with red. Thank you.

  •  White   White 
  •  Yellow   Yellow 
  •  Purple   Purple 

It can conflict with red. Better: Blue   Blue 

  •  Red   Red 
  •  Black   Black 

211.203.35.206 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So I suggest this code...

  •  White  – No restrictions: All ages may watch/Aimed at young audiences/Exempt/Not rated/No applicable rating.  White 
  •  Yellow  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for designated age range.  Yellow 
  •  Lime  – No restrictions: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.  Lime 
  •  Blue  – Restrictive: Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.  Blue 
  •  Red  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to an older audience.  Red 
  •  Black  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to adults only/licensed premises or banned.  Black 

211.203.35.206 (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Red and lime are not compatible color combinations. You can view the acceptable combinations at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. In principle I don't have a problem with replacing the purple highlighting with blue. Betty Logan (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Red (ff0000) is seen by achromatopsia as  4c4c4c  and  Green (008000) is seen by achromatopsia as  4b4b4b . They are almost the same color(4c4c4c and 4b4b4b). But lime doesn't confuse with red color. See:  Lime (00ff00) is seen by achromatopsia as  959595  211.203.35.206 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is more than one type of color-blindness. If you have red-green color blindness (the most common form) everything looks green, which is why you cannot mix red and green. This has already been discussed at great length and the consensus is to use a basic 5-color scheme consistent with the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users article clearly states that blue is better than purple. Moreover, you can use italic style instead of color change. Therefore I suggest them... See:

  •  White  – No restrictions: All ages may watch/Aimed at young audiences/Exempt/Not rated/No applicable rating.
  •  Yellow  – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for designated age range.
  •  Red  – No restrictions: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
  •  Blue  – Restrictive: Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
  •  Black  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
  •  Black (Italic)  – Restrictive: Restricted exclusively to adults only/licensed premises or banned.

211.203.35.206 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_2&oldid=1160883987"