This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

@Greenpickles987: I have repeatedly asked you to discuss changes to the highlighting here. Once again you have altered the highlighting so that the table becomes inconsistent, and does not reflect the sourced summaries. Moreover, you have altered the wording to some of the summaries in such a way that it does not reflect the sources. Here is a summary of the problems this time:

• You altered the entry for Nigeria to state that it had "adopted the BBFC classifications". Apart from being ungrammatical, the source does not mention the BBFC at all.
• You altered the highlighting for Fiji suggesting that "Y" is advisory" and that "A" requires parental accompaniment. The summary does not mention parental accompaniment at all; indeed, the source makes it crystal clear these are prohibitive age restrictions i.e. people under that age are not admitted.
• You have reinserted the wording for Lebanon that have I have previously reverted. I have already provided the reasons in the above section, but yet you have ignored them again. Once again you are adding wording that is not included in the source, and fundamentally altering the meaning of the classifcation.
• You altered a key word in the summary for the United States. This is not consistent with the source. The MPA has chosen specific terminology for a reason.

I am now running out of patience with you. It is clear you are WP:NOTHERE and have no intention of observing WP:Verifiability. Practically every single edit you have made to this article has been to make the highlighting in the table contradict the key, and make the country summaries contradict the source. If you do this again then I am going to report to WP:ANI and request that your account is blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenpickles987: With your latest edit you changed the highlighting for Taiwan's "12" rating from "prohibited" to "restricted" despite the fact the source for Taiwan explicitly says otherwise. I have repeatedly asked you to not make changes that contradict the sources. You are going to have to give me a very good reason for this latest edit, otherwise I will report your account tomorrow at the Administrator's noticeboard and request that it is blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Greenpickles987 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone use this report in English from L'Orient-Le Jour to expand on Lebanon's film classification (and censorship) system in this article's "Lebanon" section? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is relevant. This article is about Lebanon's rating system, not censorship. Most countries have some system of banning or censoring films, which this article does not get into. If you want to discuss censorship in Lebanon specifically then Cinema of Lebanon would probably be the best place to do it, although several countries have dedicated articles covering the topic, such as Film censorship in the United States and Film censorship in China. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your tip. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 01:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor is repeatedly changing the background highlighting for the III rating in the Hong Kong entry from black to purple. This edit is making the entry inconsistent with the key and other prohibitive ratings. As explained in the Hong Kong entry, the III rating is a restricted category that is strictly enforced, prohibiting audiences under the age of 18. This can be verified at here. The purple highlighting is for advisory categories, so is incompatible with for this rating. If the rating has been changed then the summary needs to be updated with a new source. Repeatedly changing the table entry so that the rating contradicts the key without providing an edit summary is disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Cambodia’s film rating is concerned, should I post this reference or it has to be on countries film ratings official website?

Example:

• G General viewing

• NC15 NO CHILDREN UNDER 15 YEARS.

• R18 ADULTS ONLY^[1]

FireDragonValo (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or on this website link: https://cambodiacounsel.com/media-content/ FireDragonValo (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this update?

==Bulgaria==

The Bulgarian film rating system is defined in the Film Industry Act of 2003 and administered by the National Film Rating Committee.<ref>((cite web |title=Film Industry Act |date=2004 |publisher=Union of Bulgarian Film Makers |url=http://www.filmmakersbg.org/zakon-kino-eng.htm |access-date=16 August 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012846/http://www.filmmakersbg.org/zakon-kino-eng.htm |archive-date=24 September 2015 ))</ref><ref>((cite web|title=MOVIE RATINGS|url=https://www.cinemacity.bg/static/en/bg/movie-ratings|publisher=Cinema City|access-date=4 December 2023))</ref>

* '''A''' – Recommended for children.

* '''B''' – No age restrictions.

* '''C''' – Not recommended for children under 12. No persons under 12 shall be admitted unless accompanied by an adult.

* '''C+''' Not recommended for children under 14.

* '''D''' – Prohibited for persons under 16.

* '''D+''' – Not recommended for children under 14.

* '''X''' – Restricted to adults only. Prohibited for persons under 18, for licensed venues only.

* '''?''' – Not rated yet.

* '''N/A''' – No rating. FireDragonValo (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ok. Are the C+ and D+ ratings resticted like the C rating? It's not clear from the legends. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The source does not say anything about them. But the D+ rating's description is "Not recommended for children under 16 (not 14)". SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a separate color for "restricted to licensed premises/venues", given how many countries (Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, Kazakhstan, etc.) provide ratings for limited exhibition. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible. We are limited to five color groups: H:Colorblind. It would add no great benefit, because licensed premises are just another form of prohibitve category. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a high resolution version of the current Canadian Home Video System icons. However, it is in jpg format and I tried to convert it to SVG but it ended up in terrible results. Here’s the archive link to the jpg version: https://web.archive.org/web/20160414170741im_/http://www.mpa-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mpa_canada_ratings_121130_hi-res-01.jpg. If anyone can convert it to SVG perfectly and/or to find it the best possible, let me know. Also, here’s the link to it also: https://www.customaniacs.org/forum/CM_show_preview.php?attachmentid=883497 Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: I already converted to SVG and it’s now on pages. Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add new Brazilian ratings (AL, A10, A12, A14, A16, A18) to comparison table? FireDragonValo (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for these new ratings? We shouldn't be adding anything to the table until the ratings are sourced in the summaries. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have the proof or source and here’s the link for that: https://www.gov.br/mj/pt-br/assuntos/seus-direitos/classificacao-1/simbolos-de-autoclassificacao FireDragonValo (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how does "self-classification" work then? Who does the classifying, and what are the conditions? Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This document states that self-rating is for television shows, while cinema and home video must apply for a rating. Has this changed? Are there any examples of self-rated movies? Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the self-rated symbols because the classification guide states they are not used for cinema/home video (page 38). I suggest adding them to the television ratings page though. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks. I’ll let you know if there’s more proof and sources if you want. FireDragonValo (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Betty Logan Why did you revert my edit on the Italian ratings in the table? The current version makes no sense, the ratings VM14 and VM18 are repeated twice. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VM14 and VM18 are not repeated twice. According to the summary they have two age components. For example, 14A is prohibited for under-12s, and restrictive for under-14s. If this is correct then the representation is consistent with the key above the table, and with all the other ratings in the table that have two age components, such as Finland and Norway. If English is your second-language perhaps you have misunderstood the table guide? Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that there was no objection in principle, as I added rulers not on an aesthetic whim but due to an accessibility issue personally experienced by me. I don't have a disability, but this is hardly your typical table. The idea was to have a ruler every ~20 rows (not countries), evenly spaced (with height-padded and wrapped-text rows counting for two).
• While I don't see harm in the ruler being there, I don't object to @Betty Logan:'s point about Canada and Quebec. My line placement was not politically motivated. Incidentally, the line might not have gone there if Canada and Quebec (along with a few others) weren't padded by height styling (IMHO unnecessarily).
• I would suggest that partially objecting editors shift the ruler(s) they object to instead of reverting everything (WP:REVONLY). I believe this would take less of everyone's time than discussing each line separately and delegating all changes to me. I'm not attached to exactly 20 rows spacing, but going much wider would defeat the purpose. Gamapamani (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]