Jump to content

Talk:Television content rating system/Archive 1

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

Canadian television content ratings

Are Canadian broadcasts rated individually per episode or is one rating applied to an entire series? NorthernThunder (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Canadian programs are rated individually. For example: Total Drama Island's most episode is rated G, but some episodes (rarely) are rated PG. It was P class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjinho213 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/K All shows are rated individualy based on content if im not mistaken. The rating of a series can and will change. Sanchasmcdude (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thailand Section

There are actually logos for the Thai rating system which can be found from the Thai wikipedia which has the link on the left (I don't know how to add pictures). Can someone please? Thanks. 124.157.237.232 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please someone add them, I don't understand Thai, so I don't know how to exactly move them correctly! The Wikipedia page full with the logos is here การจัดระดับความเหมาะสมของรายการโทรทัศน์ไทย --203.106.151.237 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible fake info?

There is an un-cited television show listed under the United States section, subheading "TV-Y," which is titled "Poopster Sheep." Sounded suspicious for an all-ages television show, and I didn't see anything on Google. Can anyone verify if that is a legit show, or should it be deleted from the list of programming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.13.197.100 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be deleted. I don't know it to exist, and why would a kids show be called Poopster Sheep? --UnicornTwilight (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A Question

Is TV MA the telivision version of R,or is it the telivision version of NC 17

I don’t even know an expert, but here’s my 2¢ anyway: TV-MA VSL is the highest TV rating. NC-17 is the highest movie rating. I guess the next step down, TV-MA with no subratings, is equivalent to R. —Frungi 03:50, 7 June 2006 f**k
While TV-MA is a clear corollary to R, I'd say that in actual usage, TV-MA begins at a strong PG-13. For example, episodes of South Park are often rated TV-MA, and in my opinion, few, if any, of them would be rated R under the MPAA standards. -- DImfeld 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish Ratings

Does anyone know the Irish Ratings? I can't remember any of them off the top of my head. Richy 17:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Icon after every commercial break

Should we put some more details on the description about why an icon should be shown after every commercial break? This ensures that the show should be appropriate for families. I know about why the TV-14 rating is one of the most hated ratings in the television viewing industry. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

GA (General Audience) - a programme that would be acceptable to all ages and tastes. Ch (Children) - a programme aimed specifically at children ages 5-11. YA (Young Adult) - a programme aimed at an adolescent audience. That is to say it would not be of great interest to an adult. However, it might deal with issues which affect the teenage audience, e.g. relationships, sexual activity, sexuality, soft drugs. Parents and guardians could expect that "YA" programmes might contain such material and may choose to limit their children's access. PS (Parental Supervision) - a programme aimed at a mature audience (i.e. It might deal with adult themes, be moderately violent, frightening or contain an occasional swear word.) and the classification label invites parents or guardians to consider restricting children's access. MA (Mature Audience Only) - a typical "post-watershed" program which might contain scenes of strong sexual activity and heavy violence, or the dialogue might be profane.

Opposition

I think the whole television rating system is basically a farce. It's annoying to see that little box sporadically pop up (especially if I'm recording the program). Besides, when I was a child, I would have used the system for the opposite reason and made it a point to specifically watch things with a higher rating. DtownG 3:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And your parents would have blocked those programs. Using the V-chip to block certain ratings is kind of the point of the ratings, isn’t it? That works, from what I can tell. —Frungi 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also: it may cause interference to the background - it's a waste. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Put your opinion on your own Blog or something, it has no use to state it here. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

Some programmes exceed the guidelines and have special notes like AO 9:30 p.m. or later when sexually related body parts and/or situations might appear.

I've never seen a note like this myself, although I may be too young to remember it (I'm assuming it's an outdated mode of classification?). There is nothing on the TVNZ website about this particular issue. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks! --HughL [talk?]/[contribs] •  12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The NZ Free-to-Air Code of Practice [1] declares "AO 9.30pm" as a separate classification (see Appendix 1): These programmes may contain a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language, realistic violence, sexual violence, or horrific encounters -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper order

On NBC, I don't know why the TV-14 subrating order is "L", then "D". That's not proper in terms of alphabetical order, the standard. Do you know why does NBC do that, unlike ABC and CBS? --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also Degrassi: The Next Generation on KCPQ was rated TV-14-VL, not TV-14-LV. And the font for 14 was inappropriate for a tv rating icon.

TV-AO

There used to be something about a "TV-AO" rating in the article, but now it's gone. Will there be a "Tv-AO" rating, and why was it removed from the article?

not that i no of. it doesn't say anything about that rating at tvguidelines.com. --69.235.93.81 04:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TV-AO Was Deleted From this Article. JordanBaumann1211 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SVG

How would you feel if I converted those rating icons into vector graphics? I wish to make the Canadian rating icons vector images as well. --  Denelson83  09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Australia section

Whoever wrote the Australia section obviously doesn't know what they're talking about. There's no 14+ ratings, but there are 15+ (MA15+ and AV15+). Also, there is no such thing as "MAV". SBS uses the standard ratings, and as far as I know, the ABC doesn't televise anything over M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.139.24 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

You're correct - the 14+ ratings are 15+. However I used to see the "MAV" rating on SBS before the AV15+ rating came out. I do not know if SBS still uses this or not. While it's true there are not many MA rated shows on ABC, I'm not sure that this means they do not show MA rated shows at all. Unless there's a verfiable source for the MAV rating and the fact that ABC doesn't show anything over M I would suggest these are left out of the info.

I have done some edits to the section based on the Commercial Television Code of Practice (http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/television/documents/CodeofPractice-July2004.pdf) - is it worth noting this doesn't apply to SBS or ABC?

SBS is not covered by the ACMA (late ABA) or the commercial television code of practice, meaning they are free to use whatever ratings they want. they do however use the same rating system, but back when AV was first introduced, SBS chose to call it MAV, presumably because it is effectively MA with previously MA level violence, where the MA rating's violence level was toned down to M level. SBS never changed to the commercial television equivalent of AV 15+. ABC does show MA 15+, usually very late, Rage is rated MA 15+ from its start until 6AM when it becomes G until its end. actual evidence of an MAV 15+ rating can be seen here ( http://www.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.html?id=1061#4.5 ) Dangaz 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Similarly, the ABC's classifications are covered by their own Code of Practice. The ABC does not use the "MAV" rating like SBS does (I had made the presumption on this article that they did; my bad, as I thought I had seen MAV-rated content on-air on ABC before) - however their guidelines require MA15+ programs to start at 9:30pm, which is the time used for AV on the commercial stations (and SBS) and instead of the 9:00pm required of MA15+-rated content on those stations -Spiky Sharkie [ talk ] 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of Rage being MA15+ rated. It's always been rated M as far as I know, with the show reducing its rating to G after 6am. Sillygostly 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Page getting large

This page is getting awfully large. Perhaps it's best to start dividing it in more country specific articles. An example Television rating in the Netherlands uses the same system that also rates movies, games etc. An article named Media content rating in the Netherlands that would contain the current Dutch sections on this page and the Motion picture rating system page, would probably be better suited and could be linked from this page. what do other people think? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the split apart template in order to attract a bit more attention to this problem.

Article split

The ideas are this:

  • Create a new "List of Television rating systems" that link to all the individual systems currently on this page.
  • If one system is used for all television rating in a country, we create a new article for it called [[Television content rating in <countryname>]], [[Film content rating in <countryname>]], [[Game content rating in <countryname>]]
  • If one system is used for all mediaratings in a country, we create a new article for it called [[Media content rating in <countryname>]]
  • If the system has a distinct name, use that name instead TV Parental Guidelines, Kijkwijzer, and if it's the only system in a country, redirect the [[<media> content rating in <countryname>]] links to it.

TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Restrictions?

This is an article from Canada with two facts:

1. Canadian Television is sometimes a little lighter on the "S" word.

    • A Canadian TV show can have minimal use of the word and be rated PG. Medium-frequent use will make it 14+ at maximum.
    • American TV-14 shows in Canada, however, remain unchanged and still have that word "bleeped" out.

2. On five out of the seven major U.S. networks that I do receive (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, and FOX), I don't see any TV-MA programs that air on a regular prime time schedule (Movies are NOT included). Some Canadian over-the-air networks air 18+ programs during prime time. The proof can sometimes (but only sometimes) be found in their national schedules.

    • One of the OTA networks airs Nip/Tuck at 10 PM on Saturdays, and formerly aired The Sopranos. They were both rated 18+.
    • The three fully national, and many semi-national OTA networks in Canada each show at least one movie per year that is rated 18+ on TV.

Is there a ban on airing TV-MA rated TV shows and movies on the fully national over-the-air networks in the U.S.? And is there a ban on intense swearing on the same networks for just TV shows?

Isn't it just okay to air after water shed? I think it doesn't really matter if it's broadcasted after 9:00pm(water shed). Kjinho213 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rating name change

Anyone know the reason the original TV-13 was changed to TV-14. Please explain. Georgia guy 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TV-G vs. TV-Y7

Who believes that TV-G programs are more appropriate than TV-Y7 (with or without "FV") programs? Jonghyunchung 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that TV-Y7 programs have little to do with content, but rather, signify that these programs are specifically aimed at children, whereas TV-G programs are simply considered appropriate for all ages. In actuality, some TV-Y7 content may be worthy of a TV-PG rating if these shows weren't aimed at kids. Sillygostly 03:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
So I guess if a family-audience program contained "Y7" content, it would be rated TV-PG, would it? Jonghyunchung 11:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ya it would probably --Coolgokid 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Canada-C8.gif

Image:Canada-C8.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Different languages

If someone didn't have the time to get to their language's Wikipedia, shouldn't the different country we are talking about be in the same languages? Pacguy19 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

TV-Y7 content

I noticed some different content in the TV-G section. Drake and Josh (Show on Nickelodeon) occasionally has the words "oh my god" and it's rated TV-Y7. Was the TV-G section edited improperly? Pacguy19 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TV-G Language controversy

Stupid is not cursing in the TV-G book. It is only crude humor. The Suite Life doesn't have cursing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.67.175 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From Pre-disclaimer to DLSV

Because I haven't seen a single pre-disclaimer content warning on national television in the U.S., this means that the DLSV and the TV-*(*) would both have to be alternatives to this. The Canadian maple leaf has absolutely no room to paste a D, L, S and or V on it. The Canadian pre-disclaimer also includes forensics. This is equal to TV-14 M. This means that there would be DLMSV instead of DLSV.

  • Examples: This means that in Canada, Bones would just be rated "TV-14 M", Inuyasha rated "TV-PG D", and House "TV-14 (Nothing)". When I say nothing, it means none of the letters of DLSV are included.

Doesn't Canadian TV just air "viewer advisor" instead of DSLV? Kjinho213 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

split up

split this up into a wikiproject with an article for each country's rating systems / censorship. 76.85.197.193 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not for each country, but larger sections like the US system with many available secondary sources may be a good idea. User:Dorftroffel 22:52, February 21, 2008

How about those in East Asia (Chinese)?

I always see these ratings that look like some sort of Traffic lights, i just want to know if anyone knows what are the green, yellow, blue rating mean... 122.3.25.26 (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. We need some more info on Asian TV ratings. --70.143.59.119 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cat2france.png

Image:Cat2france.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cat3france.png

Image:Cat3france.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cat4france.png

Image:Cat4france.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cat5france.png

Image:Cat5france.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Danny Phantom

Under the TV-PG section, it said that Danny Phantom was rated TV-Y7-FV until season four, which was rated TV-PG. I don't think that this is true so I removed it.--Particleman24 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Danny Phantom does not have a Season 4 actually all episodes were scrapped after Phantom Planet Imitating Kitty: Ooh this makes me so mad (blows a kiss of death to Viacom) Matthew Cantrell (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing text

"Programs are rated by either the organization that manages the system, the broadcaster, or by the content producers themselves. This is conducted by calling people and asking what show they are watching."

What? --64.149.33.176 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think 'D' stands for 'dialogue' not 'drugs'

S'what this says: http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Ratings.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.123.202 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

How about Sweden? Egon Eagle (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Too much stuff

For lack of a better word, this article is turning into a doorstop. I plan to overhaul it by the end of the week. There is too much clutter and the examples are overkill. And the quality of the article is suffereing. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started to move things a bit. And by move, I mean cut some excess material. Three or four examples are enough. There is no need to give a list of 20 shows that air with a certain rating. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

TV-MA-DSV

According to Major Boobage it is possible to rate "TV-MA-DSV", however this article does not state "D" as a valid subrating of TV-MA. --80.63.213.182 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Step by Step

Do not remove my sources becuase according to ABC Family they use those ratings for an example a TV-PG D episode would be Make Room For Daddy because of Dana,Karen and Al talking about guys butts. Matthew Cantrell (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


TV MA does have a D with it

I recored House a a couple of nights ago and it was on fox. ITs was rated TV MA DLSV , so TV MA does have a D with it, Fox does aires TV MA shows, and sometimes House is rated TV MA. Doent belive me I Took pictures of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcangelLaMarivilla (talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added 216.136.4.136 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Some broadcasters do add "D" on TV-MA, but it is not officially used. tablo (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

TV MA does not have a 'D' subrating

D as a subrating was used was used with TV-M, but ever since TV-M became TV-MA, D isn't used as a subrating. For clarification purposes, TV-MA LSV is the most mature rating a show can receive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.221.248 (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What about israel?

Somebody can add israel too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ye co (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Israel also have television rating content system? I want to know. MrFawwaz (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia

STV1, STV2, Markiza, TV Doma, TV JOJ & JOJ Plus have got a tv content rating system.--188.47.100.109 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Image problem with MA15+

Hi there! There is a problem with MA15's image. If you find a good image on Google images, you can put it there. Thanks. StormContent (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have found the file from an earlier version of the article page; never mind. StormContent (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore

"The Classifications for Television Viewing introduced in the Yugoslavia in 2009." - as far as I know the state Yugoslavia collapsed in the beginning of 90's. To the person, who made this terrible mistake: did you mean "Serbia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.13.156 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Asian ratings

That section lack references. Maybe I can delete it ASAP? 121.1.55.87 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

C8 Rating on Canada.

I believe they changed it to 8+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The United States Section

This section discusses issues in the section on the ratings system used in the United States. Consider moving previous discussions related to the U.S.A. into this section.

Time zone

There is a reference to a rating applied to shows that are most often scheduled to appear after 9:00 PM. Considering that most broadcast networks and pay TV channels are nationwide, to what time zone is the 9:00 PM time referring?

I suspect the writer was suggesting 9:00 EST. Considering some programs are delayed for the Pacific,Hawaii and Alaska time zone, some clarification might be appropriate.

All about UK

Does the UK already proposed a rating system? If they did, can you cite me a reference? Kiddie Techie (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. On their websites (VOD/catch-up services), the BBC, ITV, 4, 5 all seem to use a "G" for over-16s or over-18s content. But on live TV I have never seen any of the broadcasters other than 5 specify a rating. There is sometimes a descriptive warning instead ("the following programme contains ..."). 86.148.37.96 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:General Patronage.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:General Patronage.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 30 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Article appears to be cleaned up very well; no longer any need for the template at the top of the page. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Union Paint

What on earth is Union Paint? Is that a country? If so, a Wikipedia entry for it should probably be created. 86.148.37.96 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

UK Rating Systems

I'm baffed, confused... perplexed. There is no ratings in UK. Now they don't know if the show or channel is for children or not. Please add the ratings to uk, or i got a picture of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.168.8 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Russian Content Rating System

Since September 2012, Russia finally established it's own content rating system (with indication and whatnot). It's suggested to port information about the Russian Content system into the article.--Andzlatin (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

South Africa

Why there are 16+, 18+ ratings and why there is no 14+? in South Africa 14 year old teenager is like a 21 year old adult because in south countries there are more Vitamin D emiting from sun, so the people grew faster as well, so do you can correct it? 109.174.115.191 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion notice

Article British television content rating system is a redirect here; it contained a previous deleted article (see talk. Diego (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Television content rating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Television content rating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Article needs a table

Unlike the Video game rating system and Motion picture rating system articles, this article has not got a table. Add a table to this article in order to let the article meet the Structure criterion, then do a B-class review. (This article should meet C-class). 86.22.8.235 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Spurious changes to the table

Several editors have been making problematic changes to the table which invariably involve one of the following:

  1. Alterations that make the table entry inconsistent with the summaries below the table.
  2. Alterations that are unsourced.
  3. Alterations based on personal interpretation, rather than a literal summary of the actual classification.

The table is simply a visual realization of the worded summaries beneath it, and therefore there should be no inconsistency between the two i.e. adding age restrictions where the classification itself does not indicate one, or interpreting a guidance rating as a mandatory restriction, or leaving out classifications included in the summary or including classifications that are not present in the summary. Please ensure all additions/changes are adequately sourced and that the entry reflects what the source actually says rather than interpreting the classification yourself. All information in this article needs to comply with WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Table edits inconsistent

There has been a recent spate of edits to the table by Ortiz Gaytan making the rating highlights inconsistent with the key. Will editors PLEASE make sure that the highlighting is consistent with the key. Here are just some of the incorrect alterations:

  • Argentina: Ortiz Gaytan converted 16+ to red and 18+ to purple, despite the fact that they are the same category of rating. According to Television_content_rating_systems#Argentina all three ratings are simply age recommendations with identical wording. By making one category red that imposes the condition that children may watch if supervised, and making another category purple denotes that it is a prohibitive rating. Neither of these are accurate. The Argentinian ratings are simply age recommendations and therefore should be shaded orange according to the key!
  • Australia: Ortiz converted the MA15+ and AV15+ shadings from purple to red. This implies that content with this rating is suitable for children below those ages if they are supervised. This is clearly not the case according to Television_content_rating_systems#Australia which states in no uncertain terms that such content is not suitable for children below those ages. Therefore these categories should be shaded purple according to the key.
  • Brazil: Ortiz changed the 10 rating to yellow (denoting parental guidance) and 16 to red (denoting that children below that age should be supervised). Both of these changes are not backed up at Television_content_rating_systems#Brazil, which clearly states that 10, 12, 14 and 16 are simply age recommendations. It makes no mention of parental guidance or adult supervision, so these ratings should be highlighted orange in accordance with the key.

There is not much point having a key if the shading is arbitrarily assigned. The highlighting needs to be consistent within each color and it needs to accurately reflect the correct interpretation for each rating. The whole point of the shading and a key is so a reader can instantly assimilate what the rating means without having to refer to the summaries. A reader can look at MA15+ and see it is shaded puprle, and instantly realize that the rating is prohibitive for children below that age. Likewise, they can look up the 16 rating for Brazil and instantly realize that it is a recommendation and not a directive. If you change the color so it contradicts the key then the reader will end up with the incorrect interpretation, which defeats the whole obejct of the exercise! Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

Add the greek TV ratings to the comparision table, but try to keep the table in alphabetical order.

86.22.8.235 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-open this request here if you have the sources. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?

(Non-admin closure) Per consensus at Motion picture content rating system. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 December 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 Television content rating systems introduce a new category? An editor has attempted to add a new category to the table, which means "advised that people under the age should not see it without parental guidance but not restricted". There are currently three options in contention:

  • Option A: [2] (current version)
  • Option B: [3] (proposed version)

Would editors please indicate their preferences. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option A - As the editor filling this RfC and the author of Option A, it feels as if the new blue column is redundant. If it is not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted, the meaning I get from this is that the material requires a mature perspective but is not deemed too strong for younger viewers, as the material is not restricted. With the new blue category, it says that it is advised that people under the age should not see it without parental guidance but not restricted. Once agin the material is unrestricted, so I feel exactly the same as I would when I see the orange category. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Option A - Agree that blue appears redundant, and the existing shading in A seems quite appropriate. On a side note, the notes column also seems unnecessary, and if there are any notes, perhaps they could be placed in a note seciton below the table. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: The thing with this survey is, though, is about what editors think about the new blue section, not about the contrasting. So if you don't mind, could you please tell me why you added an Option C and voted for it? No offense, though, just saying. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
If we are selecting a color scheme we may as well let editors have all the options, but I agree that adding a further category is not particularly helpful. There are too many redundnant categories as it is because the table is meant to represent restrictions, not compare content. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 23 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Television content rating systems. 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) 11:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the color scheme

There was a recent RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_the_comparison_table_in_the_article_use_a_color_scheme_accessible_to_color-blind_users.3F that dictated that the color scheme must be color-blind accessible and consistent with the color combinations at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. At most there can only be five color combinations and the blue code added by JordanBaumann1211 is not compatible with the existing purple shading. I am going to remove it once more and any further changes should be discussed here first. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I Can Do It What Do I Want, Please Take The New Blue Section Back Once. Thank You! :) JordanBaumann1211 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly advise that you don't follow that course of action or your account will most like face sanctions. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

TV-Y7

There are tons of TV-Y7 shows that are mature, can someone add red to TV-Y7?--207.204.187.102 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This needs quick reply--207.204.187.102 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
TV-Y7 is a children's category aimed at 7 years and above. It is not a restricted category which is what red highlighting indicates. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Example: The amazing world of Gumball, Looks mature and it's TV-Y7-FV--207.204.187.102 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
TV-Y7PG must exists which adds:D, L, S, V and FV to see if that show's a little mature--64.237.148.212 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are just content labels, not ratings. You can see what teh ratings are at https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/v-chip-putting-restrictions-what-your-children-watch. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Please add the pp-semi template to the article. I noticed the article has been semi'd but no padlock. 101.175.134.41 (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
IPsock of SlitherioFan2016.

TV parental guidelines

I think it would be a good idea to change the TV parental guidelines in the table to this:

Country/System 0/1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Other
United States TV-G TV-14 (D, L, S, V) TV-MA (L, S, V) N/A
TV-PG (D, L, S, V)
TV-Y TV-Y7 (FV)
Country/System 0/1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Other

108.71.122.17 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lots of age ratings have secondary guidance labels but it ultimately it has no bearing on the age restrictions themselves and it would clutter up the table too much. This is why each country has its own summary section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it would look like this:
Country/System 0/1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Other
United States TV-G TV-14 TV-MA N/A
TV-PG
TV-Y TV-Y7
Country/System 0/1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Other

108.71.122.17 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is basically what is in the table now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The differences are: 1. TV-Y is now 0+ instead of 2~6, 2. TV-Y7 has the FV removed (for consistency with TV-PG, TV-14, and TV-MA). 108.71.122.17 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In the first case that would misrepresent the rating which stipuates the content is aimed at ages 2–6, and in the second case TV-Y7-FV is an actual rating, not a descriptor. Read https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/v-chip-putting-restrictions-what-your-children-watch. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the official definition for TV-Y in the 1st case is "All children", and the FV is a descriptor in the 2nd case. 108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
All children ratings are suitable for all children, but the specific age range the rating is aimed at is 2–6. And TV-Y7-FV is not a descriptor, it is an actual rating with its own logo. You can see that in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the V-chip menu on a TV. (the X represents that it can be selected).
       D  L  S  V  FV
TV-Y
TV-Y7             X
TV-G
TV-PG  X  X  X  X
TV-14  X  X  X  X
TV-MA     X  X  X

108.71.122.17 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think it would be? 108.71.122.17 (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Requested move 20 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. No objections, closing as uncontroversial technical move. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Television content rating systems → Television content rating system – Consistency with Motion picture content rating system and Video game content rating system 108.65.82.200 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

TV-Y-FV

TV-Y-FV doesn't make sense. I saw this in Scooby Doo: Frankencreepy. A show for children 2-6 year old has fantasy Violence. I saw this in the info.--65.23.215.137 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Poland: Criticism about TV content rating system

In Poland there is a lot of criticism. Mainly on the Internet forums. Points of criticism about TV content rating system:

  1. May cause Screen burn-in for whole duration of program.
  2. Despite analog switch-off continues screening for whole duration of program.
  3. National Broadcasting Council still ignores complains from viewers due to incorrect ratings mainly for animated movies mainly on commercial broadcasters TVN and recently Polsat to evasion of restriction on unhealthy food commercials.
  4. Poland has probably the worst TV content rating system in Europe and in the world. Takes ca. 90% of daily screening. For comparison: Spain takes ca. 80% of daily screening, Hungary - ca. 66%, Slovakia - ca. 60%, Romania - ca. 50%, Serbia - ca. 35%, Croatia - ca. 30%, Wallonia (part of Belgium) - ca. 9%, Slovenia - ca. 8% and France - ca. 5%.

--5.172.234.246 (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Television 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Television 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.

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) 11:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Television_content_rating_system/Archive_1&oldid=1114266267"