This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Board of Film Classification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "British Board of Film Classification" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction is, I believe, wrong.
The BBFC is not legally responsible for film classification. Cinema licensing is a matter for local authorities (who 99.9999% of the time require cinemas to follow the BBFC rating).
On the other hand, the BBFC is responsible for video classification, having been nominated to perform that role under the Video Recordings Act 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.89.57 ( talk) 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Why does someone keep adding Happy Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 as an example of a 12A? Sure, the Odeon website says it is but the film hasn't officially been rated yet. I've changed it to 500 Days Of Summer, which is a recent(ish) 12A I'm sure most people have heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.171.67 ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have an issue here that editors - many anon IPs - are constantly changing the example films listed with each different certificate, often it seems due solely to favouritism. Nick Cooper ( talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Description/Notes column for the PG rating currently has the following:
"May contain moderate violance if justified..." - should be violence
If you have an account and you see this and have a minute, might be worth fixing.
92.10.49.235 (
talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed the list of examples from the BBFC table since I do not believe they have any encylopedic value. They have been restored with the edit summary "examples are there so we know". Know what exactly? Going back a year there were just a couple of examples for each certificate, but that has now ballooned to an indulgent dozen. It is certainly not necessary to have a dozen examples for each certificate, and it is debatable whether we should have any examples at all.
All of these examples have been arbitrarily selected by editors (the BBFC gets by without providing any examples in its summaries of the classifications) and it is possible we are mis-stating the BBFC's position here: some older films have had their classifications revised several times down the years due to the BBFC revising their criteria, so it is entirely possible that older classifications are no longer representative of how the BBFC classify films. While I actually think that including commentary on the classification process (i.e. why a film is rated 12 rather than 15, say) would benefit the article such examples whould be accompanied by sources and explicitly tackle the reasons for the classification. The examples column as it stands does not really offer any real insight into the classification process and seems to be just another form of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph says the BBFC is a non-governmental organization, but further down under Responsibilities and Powers the article says it is a governmental organization. This needs to be clarified but I don't know enough to fix it. Caffeinated42 ( talk) 04:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a renewed discussion going on concerning the question of whether the BBFC is a QUANGO or some other sort of NGO. Some interesting comments have appeared within a "dubious" template attached to the statement that "the Board is a QUANGO" in the Responsibilities and Powers section of the article, as well as in some recent edit summaries. I'll repeat them here to make further discussion easier:
It's an NGO
It's a QUANGO
References
In its statutory role the BBFC will become a large quango accountable to no one but the Secretary of State.
The BBFC (in its role of video censor) will become a quango, accountable to no one but the Secretary of State, undemocratic and secretive.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Polly Tunnel ( talk) 13:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
What is with the separate message that sometimes appears on U rated home video releases. The logo is a family sat at a sofa and the annotation reads "it is recommended you watch with younger children on their first viewing", as can be seen here [1]. Sure this is not a distinct certificate, and it accompanies U films that I guess aren't quite unsuitable enough for young children as PGs are, except presumably on that first viewing. I just wandered if it was the BBFC or someone else that brought this in.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
British Board of Film Classification. 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 to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on British Board of Film Classification. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
File:BBFC 18 TBC.gif missing in the list of certifications. Possible meaning: To be confirmed? Also it may be added on TBC (disambiguation) -- Manorainjan 14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for low resolution, could not get any better source than that: [4] -- Manorainjan 14:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A link to the Motion Picture Association film rating system has been repeatedly added by Halbared, on the basis of being "culturally relevant". I am not entirely sure what "culturally relevant" means in this context, but either way the only criteria that matters for a "see also" section is if the link is subject relevant. MOS:SEEALSO states "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I disagree that you would expect to find a link to the American ratings system in a comprehensive article about the British ratings system. The current links in the "see also" section all relate to censorship and content classification in the UK, which are all intrinsically related subjects. The rating systems in other countries are only tangentially related and adding them to "see also" sections of other country based systems just clutters up the section and turns it into a link farm. If readers were interested in researching film rating systems in general then they would be better served reading Motion picture content rating system which summarises the whole topic, and is already provided as a link in the infobox. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Amazon.co.uk also list MPAA Ratings for media for sale in the UK. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201957160 Halbared ( talk) 21:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has taken it on himself to delete the previous corporate names of the BBFC from the infobox. I consider this an erroneous course of action. Several film trade unions created a limited company (Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers) to administer film classifications. The company established a board known as The British Board of Film Censors to perform this function. The company and board names were aligned in the mid-1980s as The British Board of Film Classification and again in 2003 as British Board of Film Classification. Zacwill is persisting with removing the previous corporate names under the rationale that the article is "about the BBFC, not the company that operates the BBFC". I think this is flawed for two reasons:
By removing some of the corporate information and leaving other bits in leaves the infobox failing in both summarising the company's history and also the board's history. I acknowledge the corporate naming history is confusing and the article did not explain this well so I understand why someone would be confused, but persisting with the edits after the issue has been addressed is tendentious. Betty Logan ( talk) 07:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Board of Film Classification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "British Board of Film Classification" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The introduction is, I believe, wrong.
The BBFC is not legally responsible for film classification. Cinema licensing is a matter for local authorities (who 99.9999% of the time require cinemas to follow the BBFC rating).
On the other hand, the BBFC is responsible for video classification, having been nominated to perform that role under the Video Recordings Act 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.89.57 ( talk) 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Why does someone keep adding Happy Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 as an example of a 12A? Sure, the Odeon website says it is but the film hasn't officially been rated yet. I've changed it to 500 Days Of Summer, which is a recent(ish) 12A I'm sure most people have heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.171.67 ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have an issue here that editors - many anon IPs - are constantly changing the example films listed with each different certificate, often it seems due solely to favouritism. Nick Cooper ( talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Description/Notes column for the PG rating currently has the following:
"May contain moderate violance if justified..." - should be violence
If you have an account and you see this and have a minute, might be worth fixing.
92.10.49.235 (
talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed the list of examples from the BBFC table since I do not believe they have any encylopedic value. They have been restored with the edit summary "examples are there so we know". Know what exactly? Going back a year there were just a couple of examples for each certificate, but that has now ballooned to an indulgent dozen. It is certainly not necessary to have a dozen examples for each certificate, and it is debatable whether we should have any examples at all.
All of these examples have been arbitrarily selected by editors (the BBFC gets by without providing any examples in its summaries of the classifications) and it is possible we are mis-stating the BBFC's position here: some older films have had their classifications revised several times down the years due to the BBFC revising their criteria, so it is entirely possible that older classifications are no longer representative of how the BBFC classify films. While I actually think that including commentary on the classification process (i.e. why a film is rated 12 rather than 15, say) would benefit the article such examples whould be accompanied by sources and explicitly tackle the reasons for the classification. The examples column as it stands does not really offer any real insight into the classification process and seems to be just another form of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph says the BBFC is a non-governmental organization, but further down under Responsibilities and Powers the article says it is a governmental organization. This needs to be clarified but I don't know enough to fix it. Caffeinated42 ( talk) 04:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a renewed discussion going on concerning the question of whether the BBFC is a QUANGO or some other sort of NGO. Some interesting comments have appeared within a "dubious" template attached to the statement that "the Board is a QUANGO" in the Responsibilities and Powers section of the article, as well as in some recent edit summaries. I'll repeat them here to make further discussion easier:
It's an NGO
It's a QUANGO
References
In its statutory role the BBFC will become a large quango accountable to no one but the Secretary of State.
The BBFC (in its role of video censor) will become a quango, accountable to no one but the Secretary of State, undemocratic and secretive.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Polly Tunnel ( talk) 13:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
What is with the separate message that sometimes appears on U rated home video releases. The logo is a family sat at a sofa and the annotation reads "it is recommended you watch with younger children on their first viewing", as can be seen here [1]. Sure this is not a distinct certificate, and it accompanies U films that I guess aren't quite unsuitable enough for young children as PGs are, except presumably on that first viewing. I just wandered if it was the BBFC or someone else that brought this in.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
British Board of Film Classification. 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 to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on British Board of Film Classification. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
File:BBFC 18 TBC.gif missing in the list of certifications. Possible meaning: To be confirmed? Also it may be added on TBC (disambiguation) -- Manorainjan 14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for low resolution, could not get any better source than that: [4] -- Manorainjan 14:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A link to the Motion Picture Association film rating system has been repeatedly added by Halbared, on the basis of being "culturally relevant". I am not entirely sure what "culturally relevant" means in this context, but either way the only criteria that matters for a "see also" section is if the link is subject relevant. MOS:SEEALSO states "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I disagree that you would expect to find a link to the American ratings system in a comprehensive article about the British ratings system. The current links in the "see also" section all relate to censorship and content classification in the UK, which are all intrinsically related subjects. The rating systems in other countries are only tangentially related and adding them to "see also" sections of other country based systems just clutters up the section and turns it into a link farm. If readers were interested in researching film rating systems in general then they would be better served reading Motion picture content rating system which summarises the whole topic, and is already provided as a link in the infobox. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Amazon.co.uk also list MPAA Ratings for media for sale in the UK. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201957160 Halbared ( talk) 21:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has taken it on himself to delete the previous corporate names of the BBFC from the infobox. I consider this an erroneous course of action. Several film trade unions created a limited company (Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers) to administer film classifications. The company established a board known as The British Board of Film Censors to perform this function. The company and board names were aligned in the mid-1980s as The British Board of Film Classification and again in 2003 as British Board of Film Classification. Zacwill is persisting with removing the previous corporate names under the rationale that the article is "about the BBFC, not the company that operates the BBFC". I think this is flawed for two reasons:
By removing some of the corporate information and leaving other bits in leaves the infobox failing in both summarising the company's history and also the board's history. I acknowledge the corporate naming history is confusing and the article did not explain this well so I understand why someone would be confused, but persisting with the edits after the issue has been addressed is tendentious. Betty Logan ( talk) 07:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)