Talk:Motion picture content rating system/Archive 4

C13 C16 C18
Vietnam C13 is not 14+. It's 13+. Vietnam C16 is not 17+. It's 16+. Vietnam C18 is not 19+. It's 18+. Please alter them correctly.121.139.207.87 (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

✅ Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Portugal's highlightings seem incorrect. M/3 is set "prohibitive" but M/6 is set "restrictive". They seem incorrect. Please alter them correctly.211.203.35.206 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the sourced summary section you would see that the ratings are correct. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

All Portugal ratings are prohibitive. See:
 * Para todos os públicos – For all the public (especially designed for children under 3 years of age).
 * M/3 Passed for viewers aged 3 and older.
 * M/6 Passed for viewers aged 6 and older.
 * M/12 Passed for viewers aged 12 and older.
 * M/14 Passed for viewers aged 14 and older.
 * M/16 Passed for viewers aged 16 and older.
 * M/18 Passed for viewers aged 18 and older.
 * P Special rating supplementary to the M/18 age rating denoting "pornography".

A is for all ages, but "M/3,M/6,M/12,M/14,M/16,M/18" do not carry parental supervision recommendation. They are all black.211.203.35.206 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the summaries and the sources before raising issues on the talk page. The Portugal summary clearly states in the second sentence "In cinemas the ratings are mandatory (subject to parental guidance) whereas for video releases they are merely advisory, except in the case of pornographic content." So yes, the ratings carry compulsory parental guidance restrictions. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

M/3 still seems incorrect. All ratings carry compulsory parental supervision recommendation, but M/3 is set as "prohibitive". M/3 should be red if you're correct.211.203.35.206 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * M/3 does not legally require parental consent because a child uner the age of 3 cannot be legally admitted. This isn't rocket science. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're correct, children under the age of 3 can only see A(Para todos os públicos) classified films, can't they?211.203.35.206 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can read my replies here then you can read the Portugal entry in the article where all of this is clearly explained. Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

What's this?
See it: One IP user changed Japan's PG12 rating color red to purple, with the comment "Children below the age of 12 are unrestricted from viewing PG-12 films, but parental guidance is strongly recommended for them.". It means that purple also means (strong) parental guidance but unrestricted. However, unrestricted parental guidance color is two: yellow and purple. So, either has to be removed.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It needs clearing up. It could be a proper parental guidance category like the American PG or it could be more like an age advisory rating like the PG-13. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

However, both Japan's PG12 and US's PG-13 are purple. Their name has PG (Parental Guidance). In fact, they all mean that children below the certain age are unrestricted from viewing the films, but parental guidance is strongly recommended for them. Then, an age advisory rating means strong parental guidance. So, yellow and purple don't need cleaning up.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All unrestricted ratings are implicitly parental guidance. Parental guidance ratings as defined here are essentially when the film is aimed at a particular age range but with parental supervision. So the American PG is a proper PG. However, PG-13 films are not meant for children under the age of 13; it is basically an age advisory but permits parental discretion for younger children. It is irrelevant if it includes the words "parental guidance", what matters is how the rating actually operates. So in the case of Japan, if PG-12 films are appropriate for children under parental supervision then it should be yellow; if the films are unsuitable for children under 12 (but allow for parental discretion) then it should be purple. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, both purple and red might mean that they are unsuitable for children below the certain age though with parental consent/guidance, but permits parental supervision for younger children. So, either has to be removed. Moreover, despite unrestricted rating (e.g. US's PG-13 or Japan's PG12 etc.), some or many cinemas use restrictive policy. However, black can't be removed 'cause this is prohibitive category. White also can't be removed 'cause this is suitable for all though without parental consent. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know quite what you mean. If the category is not restricted then there are only two options here: either a yellow strip 1–11 (like the Romania entry), or a purple strip from 12 upwards (like the US entry) depending on whether the rating works a like a US PG, or a US PG13. If we don't know which it should be then perhaps we should leave it as it is, because the editor who made the alteration seems to know the rating better than we do. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Umm, I mean that many theaters refuse unaccompanied children below the certain age (e.g. age 13 in US PG13, or age 12 in Japan PG12), although this is unrestricted. So between purple and red are unclear, so either has to be removed.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "either has to be removed"? If it is not a mandatory rating then the edit is correct. If theaters initiate their own policy then that is their prerogative but has no bearing on this article. The purpose of this article is to document the actual rating system and it appears the rating is only advisory, so purple is the correct color in that case. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 9 colors in the comparison table?

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

Should the comparison table in content ratings articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with 9 colors that has improved accessibility than the previous one? Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There are currently two options in contention: I suggest this color code ("Option C" (proposed scheme) —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)):
 * Option A – (current scheme)
 * Option B – (cf)
 * Cerulean – Aimed at young audiences.
 * Green – All ages may watch.
 * Yellow – Parental guidance is suggested.
 * Red (i) – 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.


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.

Option D: See

Please indicate your preference below. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option D – 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. Also, it can decrease ambiguity. And, again, while Option A is specifically designed to be accessibility contrastive it is possible to make an 9-color scheme as accessible as possible.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO RESPONDERS – The color scheme has already been comprehensively discussed in an RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_1. The reason the current color has been adopted is to be consistent with Wikipedia's accessibility requirements, inparticular our obligation to color-blind users. The current 5-color scheme is designed to be consistent with the recommended color schemes at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users. As you can see numerous colors in the proposed scheme such as red and green are not compatible;  purple and blue arenot compatible. It is not obvious how cyan and orange would be interpreted either, alongside blue and red. Wikipedia's accessibility requirements are not optional and must come before aesthetics, and if anything I think some of the extra categories are redundant anyway i.e. why do you need a "restricted to adults" category when you already have a "restricted to older audiences" category? The only difference is the age threshold which is apparent from the visual rendering anyway, so it is just adding extra colors for the sake of it. Unfortunately, a single editor starts an RFC on this issue every few months and all they do is waste the community's time. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is in fact a difference between "restricted to older audiences" and "restricted to adults". This is reflected in the Australian rating system; R18 would be purple and X18 would be blue under the proposed new system. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no substantive difference in restriction between an "adult" rating and an age limit that is set to 18. In both cases you have to be 18 to access the material. I don't know what the distinction is between the Australian ratings, but the UK has a similar situation with 18 and R18, and the only difference is one of legality i.e. it is actually a criminal offence to let a minor view R18 material under child protection laws. However, the main purpose of the table is to be a basic guide to age limits and types of restriction so I question the utility of attempting to capture that level of nuance, especially if it introduces accessibility issues. Betty Logan (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you are British and color-blind. Please answer me, if you don't mind.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the survey you linked is 2 years ago. That is plenty of time for consensus to change — it only took three months for BJAODN to go from a "keep" MfD to a "delete" MfD. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A WP:Local consensus cannot opt out of policy or the MOS, no matter how long ago the last RFC was. We have clear guidelines on which color combinations are effective for color-blind users. Asking random users what they can and cannot see is not a scientific approach. Somebody with red/green color blindness will obviously have no problem distinguishing shades of blue, violet, indigo and purple, but somebody with tritanopia will do. If you are not familiar with the different forms of color blindness and their various effects then you shouldn't be selecting color combinations. That is why we have Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users to offer advice on color selection. If somebody thinks they have discovered an 8-color combination that can be perceived by users with different variants of color blindness then they should take it to WT:WPACCESS first to get it checked out. If it checks out then the guidelines on color combinations would be updated and could be used at this article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is correct: "A WP:Local consensus cannot opt out of policy or the MOS, no matter how long ago the last RFC was. We have clear guidelines on which color combinations are effective for color-blind users." It's clear WP:CONLEVEL matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer the systems that distinguish between more options because they provide more useful information to the reader. I will need to investigate further on how we can make these useful to readers with regular color vision while making them distinguishable for colorblind readers. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest 9 colors. Here:
 * 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).


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.


 * How can we make these useful to readers with regular color vision while making them distinguishable for colorblind readers? Which color scheme do you suggest?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that scheme is my first choice. I'm using a website right now to see what that color scheme looks like for colorblind people. My hunch right now before doing this is that it won't work as is, but after that I will adjust the colors to produce something close to it. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would advise switching anything where availability is restricted to licensed premises but not completely banned from black to blue. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B is NOT a proposed scheme. It's only cf. (You can ONLY choose A or C) Then, what's your suggestion? Please write and explain specifically like me.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not colorblind so I used this website as well as a browser extension to test. I was able to get improved (not sure if they're acceptable though—again, not colorblind) results with the following palette (with that change incorporated):
 * 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 (may be restricted to licensed premises).
 * Black – Banned from viewing.


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.


 * Another possible option would be darkening some colors. What I think we would all really appreciate here is the input of some colorblind users (including anonymous users) regarding all the options. That's the only way we can guarantee we have a color scheme that works, and I don't think we should change anything until some colorblind users weigh in. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's use color correctly and let's use black for anything where availability is restricted to licensed premises but not completely banned.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cerulean – Aimed at young audiences.
 * Green – All ages may watch.
 * Yellow – Parental guidance is suggested.
 * Amber – 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.


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.


 * This is our proposal.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What should we now?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we need colorblind users to weigh in on the proposed system. Also I would change "deep sky blue" to "cerulean" because it's shorter. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone said above, if our proposal color scheme is not suitable for color-blind users, what's your another suggestion? Please write and explain specifically like what you did.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I don't know. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't give up. We can find better suggestion. Both you and me. Let's find another better proposal.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me unless it is essential. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 00:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our improven proposal.
 * Cerulean – Aimed at young audiences.
 * Green – All ages may watch.
 * Yellow – Parental guidance is suggested.
 * Red (i) – 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.


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.


 * Let's use italic-text in red instead of regular-text in amber.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One step at a time. As has pointed out, an accessible colour scheme was worked out and agreed by RfC two and a half years ago. The first thing that should be done is to determine if there is an actual need for more colour levels. Only if such a need is established should any actual colour values be suggested. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone and I said, we need more colour levels because they provide more useful information to the reader. For example, 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. Also, there is in fact a difference between "restricted to adults only" and "restricted to licensed premises". AU R18 would be blue and AU X18 would be black under the proposed new system. How can we make these useful to readers with regular color vision while making them distinguishable for colorblind readers? What's your suggestion? Please write and explain specifically like me.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redrose64 probably doesn't disagree with you. I think the table could benefit from an extra color for films "aimed at young audiences", although I see so qualitative difference between R18+ and X18+ as far the level of restriction goes so I think you are perhaps trying to add too much nuance to the table. But as we keep explaining technical limitations exist as far as color combinations go. The guidelines suggest using techniques such as "cross-hatching (stripes, checkers or polka-dots)" and that is the way forward here. What isn't clear to me is how we implement that at the technical level. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As you said above, if our proposal color scheme is not suitable for color-blind users, what's your another suggestion? Please write and explain specifically like me. In fact, I don't know what is appropriate.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What should we now? I wonder what your suggestion is, if our proposal color scheme is not suitable for color-blind users. In fact, I don't know what is appropriate.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I used this website. I got improved results with the following palette:
 * Cyan – Aimed at young audiences.
 * Yellow Green – All ages may watch.
 * Yellow – Parental guidance is suggested.
 * Gold – Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
 * Red – Restricted to an older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
 * Magenta – Restricted exclusively to an older audience.
 * Blue – Restricted to adults only.
 * Black – Banned from viewing/Restricted to licensed premises.


 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.

This palette is for both red-green color-blind and yellow-blue color-blind.

Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this version more, however: a) the yellow-green probably lacks sufficient luminosity for black text; b) all of this should be run by people at WT:MOSACCESS. Significant research has already been done on such palettes and their accessibility.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

a) What's your another suggestion? Please write and explain specifically like me. b) What should we do now?Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D – I also used this website and I made a table when color-blind users see in my sandbox. ProtanopiaABOChannel (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — ABOChannel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * OPPOSE ALL 9-COLOR SCHEMES not developed in conjunction with WP:WPACCESS While simulators are good for double-checking schemes they only simulate color-blindness and do not replicate the conidtion i.e. just because something looks ok to us in a simulator does not mean that a color-blind person will actually see the scheme that way. Color combinations should be guided by proper empirical research, and I still maintain an article-specific RFC is the wrong approach. If more combinations are needed then they should be developed in full conjunction with WP:WPACCESS. If suitable combinations are discovered then the guidelines should be updated, and then this article should select from what is available. If there are insufficient combinations Category:Articles_with_images_not_understandable_by_color_blind_users recommends cross-hatching techniques. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This website's color scheme will help us, maybe.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I used this Chrome-extension program, and I made a revised table when color-blind users see in my sandbox. So I support Option D. Original source: Me:Protanopia Deuteranopia Tritanopia This color scheme is by this website's color scheme.ABOChannel (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I used this Chrome-extension program and this website's color scheme. I got improved results with the following palette: "Option D"
 * Violet – Aimed at young audiences designed age range.
 * Blue – All ages may watch.
 * Dark Green – People under the age may not see it unless accompanied by an adult but not restricted. Parental guidance is recommended for designed age range.
 * Yellow – People under the age may not see it unless accompanied by an adult but not restricted.
 * Orange – People under the age may not see it unless accompanied by an adult.
 * Red – People under the age may not see it.
 * Dark Red – Minors may not see it.
 * Black – Banned from viewing/Explicit sexual content/Restricted to a specific audience.

This palette is for both red-green color-blind and yellow-blue color-blind. Also, I've tightened and clearified language.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * White – No rating/Exempt from classification.

Then, I suggest this one. -- Rhapso  DJ  (Talk) 10:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * White – No restrictions: Suitable for all ages / Aimed at young audiences / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
 * Yellow – No restrictions: Parental guidance is suggested for designated age range.
 * Purple – No restrictions: Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
 * Red – Restricted: Parental accompaniment required for younger audiences.
 * Black – Prohibitive: Exclusively for older audience.
 * Black (Italic) – Prohibitive: Restricted to licensed premises / Banned.


 * 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.

Please note that the proposer tried to make kowiki users make a new proposal: last section #1, last section #2. &mdash; regards, Revi 09:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How to read the table?
I am not sure how are we supposed to interpret the table. For example, what does the red R at 17 in the United States mean? A clarification is needed. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Summaries are provided below the table for each country: R (Restricted) – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, but how would you get this information from the table? My question is about how to read the table. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? The red bar starts at 17 to demarcate the age restriction at 17. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it's really not. It's very counter intuitive for me. Another example is PG-13. The definition is "(Parents Strongly Cautioned) Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.", but it covers slots 13 to 15. Why? What is the relevance to 14 years old for example? And for "R" there is no requirement for 17 years old, only for younger, so why is it in the slot 17 and not in all others? I really don't see the logic of this table. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The table is meant to be used in conjunction with the summaries. It is a visual aid. PG-13 starts at 13 because as the rating explains it advises that PG-13 content is unsuitable for audiences under that age. The bar finishes at age 16 presumably because the R bar starts at 17, which is the next level up. I didn't design the table (my work is predominantly confined to fleshing the article out with references) but when I came across it I found it intuitive and easy to understand. Once you understand how it works for one entry then it allows the reader to digest a huge amount of information at a glance. It might be confusing if you had only the table to go by, but the summaries literally decode it for you: G and PG start at age 0 because there is no age component; PG-13 starts at 13 because this is the age recommendation; R starts at 17 to demarcate the age restriction; and the same for NC-17. They generally carry on up to the next demarcation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"PG-13" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PG-13. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 04:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that the sections for individual countries be split into a separate page called Motion picture content rating systems by country. While the content of the current page is certainly on-topic, it seems that this article could be re-focused to a general discussion of the concept of film ratings, the global history of film ratings, controversies surrounding ratings and the practice of re-editing, and *maybe* the comparison table only. Especially as similar discussion of ratings themselves has not yet been done on the even more general Content rating page, I think this would significantly improve navigation and coverage. A link to the "by country" article could then be in the "see also" section, a sidebar, and perhaps a hatnote. These sections are certainly large enough to make their own page and if nothing else it would improve navigation on both this page and the new one. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the country summaries were split out what exactly would be left? Also, the country summaries support the table so separating them makes no sense. This proposal isn't well thought out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Betty Logan.

Not a good idea. FireDragonValo (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing text with symbols
Once again, you have symbols to the text section of the article, despite the fact I have asked you NOT to do this. The article has a defined style. While visual representations of the images are welcomed the article has a clear style: the symbols are added in table to the right-hand side of the article. Please stop incorporating the symbols into the prose. Besides causing accessibility problems for screen readers, it makes the article more difficult to read for normal readers. I don't why you are persisting with doing this when the article already has a consistent style. Nobody is preventing you from adding the symbols, but please do so in the defined manner of the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I’m not trying to change, I’m just trying to add it. Also, adding tables are too complicated for me. I do apologize and now I fully understand your concern. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Also how do I do in the defined manner for the rest of the article? Let me know. FireDragonValo (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The defined style is a table at the right-hand side of the article, just like every other section in the article that includes rating symbols. Just copy a table from one of the other sections and adapt to the section you are working on. Betty Logan (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me an example? FireDragonValo (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at Australia if you want a basic example. Just copy the table over and adapt it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok FireDragonValo (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you send me a screenshot of it? FireDragonValo (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just click to edit the section and you can view the code. You have been editing this code the last few weeks (suc as Turkey and Netherlands so I don't see what the problem is. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

FireDragonValo (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. FireDragonValo (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, but the description needs fleshing out. Readers will want to know why there are two sets of symbols. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this?

FireDragonValo (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me know. FireDragonValo (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great! Betty Logan (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool FireDragonValo (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as the comparison table is concerned for Turkey, is it okay if I change to this?


 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;"|6+
 * colspan="3" style="background:black; color:white;"|10+
 * colspan="3" style="background:black; color:white;"|13+
 * colspan="2" style="background:black; color:white;"|16+
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;" |18+
 * rowspan="2" style="background:white; color:black;"|N/A
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white"|6A
 * colspan="3" style="background:red; color:white"|10A
 * colspan="5" style="background:red; color:white"|13A
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white" |18A
 * FireDragonValo (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white" |18A
 * FireDragonValo (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Or this?

! rowspan="2" style="text-align:left" | 🇹🇷 Turkey
 * rowspan="2" colspan="5" style="background:white; color:black" | General Audience
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;"|6+
 * colspan="3" style="background:black; color:white;"|10+
 * colspan="3" style="background:black; color:white;"|13+
 * colspan="2" style="background:black; color:white;"|16+
 * colspan="3" style="background:black; color:white;" |18+
 * rowspan="2" style="background:white; color:black;"|N/A
 * style="background:black; color:white;"| Refused classification
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white"|6A
 * colspan="3" style="background:red; color:white"|10A
 * colspan="5" style="background:red; color:white"|13A
 * colspan="3" style="background:red; color:white" |18A
 * style="background:white; color:black;"| Educational purposes
 * style="background:white; color:black;"| Educational purposes

Let me know what you think. FireDragonValo (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't an 18A as far as I am aware so I have adjusted your code slightly and added it in. Betty Logan (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I need your help with this one.

FireDragonValo (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to do here. The current entry for South Africa looks correct to me. What exactly do you think is wrong with it? Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding the yellow PG, red 7-9PG, and the red 10-12PG underneath the A and the black versions of 7-9PG and 10-12PG respectively. FireDragonValo (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense! That would just make the table wrong. The ratings are already correctly rendered in the table according to the key. Betty Logan (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Icelandic rating discrimination.png (discussion)
 * Icelandic rating drugs.png (discussion)
 * Icelandic rating language.png (discussion)
 * Icelandic rating scary.png (discussion)
 * Icelandic rating sex.png (discussion)
 * Icelandic rating violence.png (discussion)

RfC: Should we install a color scheme with bold and italic in the comparison table?
Should the comparison table in content ratings articles such as Motion picture rating system use a color scheme with bold and italic that has improved accessibility than the previous one? Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll follow MOS:ACCESS. There are currently two options in contention:
 * Option A - (current scheme; no bold or italic)
 * White – All ages may watch/Aimed at young audiences designed age range/No rating/Exempt from classification.
 * Yellow – All ages may watch but parental supervision is recommended for young children.
 * Purple – People under the age may not see it without parental supervision but not restricted.
 * Red – People under the age may not see it without parental supervision.
 * Black – People under the age may not see it/Minors may not see it/Banned from viewing/Explicit sexual content/Restricted to a specific audience.
 * Option B - (proposed scheme; with bold and italic)
 * Yellow – Aimed at young audiences designed age range.
 * White – All ages may watch/No rating/Exempt from classification.
 * Blue – People under the age may not see it without parental supervision but not restricted.
 * Red – People under the age may not see it without parental supervision.
 * Black – People under the age may not see it/Minors may not see it/Banned from viewing/Explicit sexual content/Restricted to a specific audience.

Please indicate your preference below. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option B – While it is possible to make a color scheme have bold and italic font, 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. Also, it can decrease ambiguity. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A – The existing color scheme is entirely consistent with H:Colorblind. There is no MOS:ACCESS benefit to be gained from swapping around the colors. Neither is there any MOS:ACCESS benefit in adding bold type to the descriptions in the table. It would also create meaningless work at other ratings articles to maintain consistency. Bold type in a table is more of a distraction than anything. Descriptions like "Exempt" and "Banned" are self-explanatory, and putting them in bold does not enhance them in any meaningful way. Where ambiguity exists the descriptions are accompanied by an explanatory note. Betty Logan (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Propose re-blocking Zenkaino lovelive Just several hours after having his indefinite block lifted by, this proposal by Zenkaino lovelive seems to be nothing more than a resumption of his war of attrition at this article. He spent months of socking and and starting RFCs at this article in attempts to make pointless changes to the color schemes of the tables. It is an obsession for him as testified by his contribution history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zenkaino_lovelive&offset=&limit=1000&target=Zenkaino+lovelive. Just consider his proposal for a moment: even though I have no fundamental objection to it, replacing the purple with blue offers no meaningful improvement to the article. It also creates a lot of work at other ratings articles if we are to maintain consistency. Swapping over the yellow and the white serves no purpose either. He is just proposing disruption for the sake of purely being disruptive. I was prepared to give him a chance but it seems he can't help himself. He is just picking up where he left off. It is unfair to subject the editors who work on these articles to more of this disruption. His efforts aren't required at these articles, and he creates stress and work for other editors. He clearly hasn't reformed, this is exactly the same MO withing hours of getting off his block. I think we should consider reimposing his indefinite block. Betty Logan (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I concur. I'll go and reblock now. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the RfC tag given the above. Anyone who wishes to discuss this matter further is welcome to do so and/or reinstate the RfC tag. signed,Rosguill talk 16:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding Andorra to both the comparison table and the main page
Is it okay if I add Andorra to both the comparison table and the main page and if so, what do you think of this? Let me know.

Andorra

 * APT (Fit for all audiences)
 * +13 (Over 13 years old)
 * +16 (From over 16 years old)
 * +18 (Over 18 years old; porn images)


 * Yes, that's fine, but please make sure you also provide a source. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding Iraq and Lebanon to comparison table
Is it possible to add both Iraq and Lebanon to the comparison table since we got the resources? Let me know if possible. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Iran and Lebanon to the comparison table
Is it possible to add both Iran and Lebanon to the comparison table since we got the resources? Let me know if possible. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lebanon has been added but we will need a source a for Iran before it is added. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kijkwijzer Discrimination.png
 * Kijkwijzer Drugs and or alcohol abuse.png
 * Kijkwijzer Fear.png
 * Kijkwijzer Sex.png
 * Kijkwijzer Violence.png

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kijkwijzer Discrimination.png
 * Kijkwijzer Drugs and or alcohol abuse.png
 * Kijkwijzer Fear.png
 * Kijkwijzer Sex.png
 * Kijkwijzer Violence.png

New Zealand new rating system look.
What are your thoughts on the new look for the rating system for New Zealand. Let me know. Here’s the link: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/media/documents/Classification_labels.pdf FireDragonValo (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * They look identical to me. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s another link. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/classification-info/classification-labels/ FireDragonValo (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

South Korea film rating systems 2021
What do you think of the new look for the South Korean rating systems for films? Here are the links: https://www.kmrb.or.kr/eng/CMS/Contents/Contents.do?mCode=MN023 https://www.kmrb.or.kr/eng/CMS/Contents/Contents.do?mCode=MN024 FireDragonValo (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of what you are suggesting. Are you proposing that the current images are replaced with the new ones? I do not have a problem with that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Betty Logan yes FireDragonValo (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FI-AHDISTUS.svg
 * FI-PÄIHDE.svg
 * FI-SEKSI.svg
 * FI-VÄKIVALTA.svg

Swedish ratings
Let's discuss the confusing Swedish rating graph. As of now, the graph is shown as the following:

As far as I can tell:


 * 7 is red, and spans 7–10, because people aged 7-10 can watch without parent supervision.
 * 11 is red, and spans 11–14, because people aged 11-14 can watch without parent supervision.
 * 15 is red, and spans 15–21, because people aged 15-21 can watch without parent supervision.


 * 11 is black, and spans 7-10, because people aged 7-10 can watch with parent supervision.
 * 15 is black, and spans 11-14, because people aged 11-14 can watch with parent supervision.

But there are three things that I don't understand:


 * Why is there a red 11 spanning 15-21? There isn't a red 7 spanning 11-21, so why should the red 11?
 * people aged 0-6 can watch 7-rated films with parent supervision, so why isn't there a black 7?
 * Why is the black 15 placed above the red 11, but the black 11 placed below the red 7?

Having the table appear as the following would make perfect sense:


 * People aged 0-6 can watch Btl without parent supervision, but can watch 7 with parent supervision.
 * People aged 7-10 can watch 7 without parent supervision, but can watch 11 with parent supervision.
 * People aged 11-14 can watch 11 without parent supervision, but can watch 14 with parent supervision.
 * People aged 15-21 can watch 15 without parent supervision, and doesn't require parent supervision at all.

It's easier to read this way, in my opinion. It follows the red/black system as far as I can tell. I really don't understand why this would be wrong.

Liggliluff (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess you could at least do it like this, so it's alternating, if that's what you want. I still don't get why the red 11 expands beyond 14, while the red 7 doesn't expand beyond 10.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Country !! 0/1 !! 2 !! 3 !! 4 !! 5 !! 6 !! 7 !! 8 !! 9 !! 10 !! 11 !! 12 !! 13 !! 14 !! 15 !! 16 !! 17 !! 18 !! 19 !! 20 !! 21 !! Other ! rowspan="2" style="text-align:left" | 🇸🇪 Sweden
 * colspan="6" style="background:black; color:white" | 7
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 7
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white" | 15
 * colspan="7" style="background:red; color:white" | 15
 * rowspan="2" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="6" style="background:white; color:black" | Btl
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;" | 11
 * colspan="11" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 11
 * }
 * Liggliluff (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Liggliluff (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not confusing. I did not create the visualisations, but it was immediately obvious to me how they should be interpreted. Your suggestions would make Sweden inconsistent with how equivalent ratings are presented for other countries. Let's take each rating in order:
 * The 7 rating is not a prohibitive rating, it only carries a parental restriction so why are you adding black shading to it? By adding the black highlighting you would effectively be saying that people who are not born are prohibited, which is unnecessary. This rating is equivalent to Australia's MA15+, Canada's 14A, the UK's "12A", or the US's "R" and many others that carry parental restrictions but have no prohibitive component. Therefore they are only highlighted red from the restricted age. If a rating does not carry a prohibitive component then it should not be highlighted in black.
 * The 11 rating is a single rating with two components: a prohibitive component from age 11 (represented by black highlighting), and a restrictive component that ends at the age of 15 (represented by the red highlighting). While the representation is slightly hampered by the software limitations. anyone who is confused can read the accompanying note. Its visual depiction is identical to other countries that also have ratings with two age components such as Switzerland directly below. Your suggestion breaks the continuity of the rating and makes it look there are two 11 ratings, rather than a single rating.
 * The 15 rating should be treated the same as the "11 rating" but just with different thresholds.
 * Also, what do you mean you don't understand "why the red 11 expands beyond 14, while the red 7 doesn't expand beyond 10"? It doesn't matter where the red highlighting ends, only where it starts. The highlighting simply continues up to the next rating or until the end of the graph. You could put each rating on a separate line but it would look messy and not be an economical use of space. This is the case for all the red ratings in all the entries. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your explanation here makes me more confused, since you're talking about unborn people, which I'm not. The only thing I'm confused about is the missing black 7. It is missing.
 * Lets take a look at the age ratings: age ratings, law 2010:1882.
 * 15, unrestricted by ages 15+ (red), with an adult by ages 11–14 (black).
 * 11, unrestricted by ages 11+ (red), with an adult by ages 7–10 (black).
 * 7, unrestricted by ages 7+ (red), with an adult by ages 0–6 (???).
 * Here, red means "you are the age to watch this content unrestricted" and black means "you are not allowed to watch this content unless accompanied by an adult". That is what the colours are used as for Sweden. If this is wrong, then the colours are used incorrectly. All I'm doing is applying the logic being used here.
 * So the full expanded table would look something like this, but obviously space inefficient, so a more compact design would be used:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Country !! 0/1 !! 2 !! 3 !! 4 !! 5 !! 6 !! 7 !! 8 !! 9 !! 10 !! 11 !! 12 !! 13 !! 14 !! 15 !! 16 !! 17 !! 18 !! 19 !! 20 !! 21 !! Other ! rowspan="4" style="text-align:left" | 🇸🇪 Sweden
 * colspan="21" style="background:white; color:black" | Btl
 * rowspan="4" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="6" style="background:black; color:white" | 7
 * colspan="15" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 7
 * colspan="6" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;" | 11
 * colspan="11" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 11
 * colspan="10" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white" | 15
 * colspan="7" style="background:red; color:white" | 15
 * }
 * But reading the legend more carefully, it does say red is to be used for younger audiences, and black is complete restriction. So the table should be completely redone. Since no rating is a complete restriction without any exception (black), but do allow younger audiences with parental accompaniment (red). Each rating should just be red, with a note clarifying the lower age. No black ratings should be used at all.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
 * }
 * But reading the legend more carefully, it does say red is to be used for younger audiences, and black is complete restriction. So the table should be completely redone. Since no rating is a complete restriction without any exception (black), but do allow younger audiences with parental accompaniment (red). Each rating should just be red, with a note clarifying the lower age. No black ratings should be used at all.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Country !! 0/1 !! 2 !! 3 !! 4 !! 5 !! 6 !! 7 !! 8 !! 9 !! 10 !! 11 !! 12 !! 13 !! 14 !! 15 !! 16 !! 17 !! 18 !! 19 !! 20 !! 21 !! Other ! style="text-align:left" | 🇸🇪 Sweden
 * colspan="6" style="background:white; color:black" | Btl
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 7
 * colspan="4" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 11
 * colspan="7" style="background:red; color:white" | 15
 * }
 * Liggliluff (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the 7 rating does not have a prohibitive component, so should not have any black highlighting. Go and compare it to the UK's 12A-rating or the US's R-rating. BY adding black highlighting from age 0 you are saying the rating prohibits children under the age of 0. Both the the 11 and 15 ratings have a PROHIBITVE component and a PARENTAL RESTRICTION. Therefore they are highlighted black from the threshold for the prohibited age and red for from the threshold for the parental restriction. The representation is entirely consistent with other hybrid ratings such as Brazil 18, Canada 18A, Finland, Germany 12, Jamaica T-16, Kazakhstan, Lithuania N-13, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland and Taiwan 6. If you remove the black highlighting then the rating would not indicate that children under the age of 7 are prohibited from 11-rated films, or children under the age of 11 from 15-rated films. If the table was fully expanded it would like like this:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Country !! 0/1 !! 2 !! 3 !! 4 !! 5 !! 6 !! 7 !! 8 !! 9 !! 10 !! 11 !! 12 !! 13 !! 14 !! 15 !! 16 !! 17 !! 18 !! 19 !! 20 !! 21 !! Other ! rowspan="4" style="text-align:left" | 🇸🇪 Sweden
 * colspan="21" style="background:white; color:black" | Btl
 * rowspan="4" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="6" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="15" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 7
 * colspan="6" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white;" | 11
 * colspan="11" style="background:red; color:white; height:2em;" | 11
 * colspan="10" style="background:white; color:black;"| N/A
 * colspan="4" style="background:black; color:white" | 15
 * colspan="7" style="background:red; color:white" | 15
 * }
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone is confused by the table, it can obviously be confusing :-) You are very experienced in reading these tables, Betty Logan, and it can be difficult to see what's hard to understand for other peopole... I have to agree that it is not super easy to interpret this.  I think (but am not sure) that the red "7" in the age span 7-11 means "Kids below this age (that is, 7) have to be accompanied by an adult".  That is the only way it can match what the law says, but I find it quite unintuitive; the way I would normally interpret this kind of table would be to look at a particular age, for instance "10", and see what the colours in that cell show. If that were the case here, it would mean that a 10-year-old would not be allowed to watch a 11+ rated film at all, and would only be allowed to watch a 7+ rated movie together with an adult. Is that how you read it, as well?  The guide above the table says about the red colour "Parental accompaniment required for younger audiences", and about the black colour "Exclusively for older audience", which would suggest that my reading is right.  --bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at the table for the United States, for example, it is very intuitive. Most age ratings work from the concept of an age threshold i.e. the age which the restriction kicks in. If you are American then the American entry should be very obvious, same for Brits and the British entry, and then you've got a baseline for the all the other countries. The visual depiction is very straightforward: as each new restriction kicks in the highlighting changes colour. This makes it very compact and straightforward to compare different countries at a glance. If the coding was reversed i.e. the highlighting was applied to under the age threshold then you would need a line for each rating. For a very basic system like the United States you would need 5 lines to cover each rating (see the example below). That might be ok if you are just dealing with a handful of systems, but not when there are 200 countries in the world and therefore potentially 200 systems.
 * The visual depiction existed before my involvement in the article (although with different colours) and I did not find it particularly confusing. I was already familiar with the Irish and British systems, and that made it straightforward to read the rest of the graph. The problem is more with Sweden itself, than the table on this page: it has over-complicated something that should be very basic, and something which Americans and Brits have kept simple. But if you know roughly what the movie ratings are in your own country then it should be relatively straightforward to decode the visual depiction which then gives you a basis for comparison with other ratings.
 * The only ratings that are not immediately intuitive are the hybrid ratings that have two components. We are limited in what the software allows us to do with those i.e. we cannot have two colours in one entry so the rating needs to be depicted as two entries if you want to depict two types of restriction. In these cases a hover note is attached that literally explains how to read the rating. It's not perfect, but it is fairly self-explanatory if you read the country summary as well. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at the table for the United States, for example, it is very intuitive. Most age ratings work from the concept of an age threshold i.e. the age which the restriction kicks in. If you are American then the American entry should be very obvious, same for Brits and the British entry, and then you've got a baseline for the all the other countries. The visual depiction is very straightforward: as each new restriction kicks in the highlighting changes colour. This makes it very compact and straightforward to compare different countries at a glance. If the coding was reversed i.e. the highlighting was applied to under the age threshold then you would need a line for each rating. For a very basic system like the United States you would need 5 lines to cover each rating (see the example below). That might be ok if you are just dealing with a handful of systems, but not when there are 200 countries in the world and therefore potentially 200 systems.
 * The visual depiction existed before my involvement in the article (although with different colours) and I did not find it particularly confusing. I was already familiar with the Irish and British systems, and that made it straightforward to read the rest of the graph. The problem is more with Sweden itself, than the table on this page: it has over-complicated something that should be very basic, and something which Americans and Brits have kept simple. But if you know roughly what the movie ratings are in your own country then it should be relatively straightforward to decode the visual depiction which then gives you a basis for comparison with other ratings.
 * The only ratings that are not immediately intuitive are the hybrid ratings that have two components. We are limited in what the software allows us to do with those i.e. we cannot have two colours in one entry so the rating needs to be depicted as two entries if you want to depict two types of restriction. In these cases a hover note is attached that literally explains how to read the rating. It's not perfect, but it is fairly self-explanatory if you read the country summary as well. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! Country !! 0/1 !! 2 !! 3 !! 4 !! 5 !! 6 !! 7 !! 8 !! 9 !! 10 !! 11 !! 12 !! 13 !! 14 !! 15 !! 16 !! 17 !! 18 !! 19 !! 20 !! 21 !! Other ! rowspan="5" style="text-align:left" | 🇺🇸 United States ! rowspan="5" style="background:white; color:black;"| Not rated
 * colspan="12" style="background:white; color:black " | G
 * colspan="9" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * colspan="12" style="background:yellow; color:black; " | PG
 * colspan="9" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * colspan="12" style="background:purple; color:white;" | PG-13
 * colspan="9" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * colspan="16" style="background:red; color:white;"| R
 * colspan="5" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * colspan="17" style="background:black; color:white;" | NC-17
 * colspan="4" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * }
 * The table seems very confusing to me. Okay, so I think I'm starting to get what it means. So the black 11 from 7 means "people below 7 can't watch", and red 11 from 11 means "people below 11 can watch with supervision". So the colour determines what applies to all ages before when it starts, I'd argue this is an inefficient way of doing the table. Even though I know how it works now, it still doesn't look right, and not as straightforward to everyone as it is to you. It's probably understood by a lot of people, but not everyone. As you did mention in the other reply, because of how different it works in Sweden compared to USA and UK, the table doesn't make it as obvious to me. Perhaps some line explaining it at the top would help. Liggliluff (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a crib note might be a good idea. I will think on it and implement it at the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * colspan="4" style="background:white; color:black " | N/A
 * }
 * The table seems very confusing to me. Okay, so I think I'm starting to get what it means. So the black 11 from 7 means "people below 7 can't watch", and red 11 from 11 means "people below 11 can watch with supervision". So the colour determines what applies to all ages before when it starts, I'd argue this is an inefficient way of doing the table. Even though I know how it works now, it still doesn't look right, and not as straightforward to everyone as it is to you. It's probably understood by a lot of people, but not everyone. As you did mention in the other reply, because of how different it works in Sweden compared to USA and UK, the table doesn't make it as obvious to me. Perhaps some line explaining it at the top would help. Liggliluff (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a crib note might be a good idea. I will think on it and implement it at the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Changes to highlighting at content ratings articles
has made several alterations to the table highlighting at media content articles, such as this one. I have reverted the changes because none of the alterations are consistent with the color coding key, as laid out at the beginning of the section. To take just one example, Greenpickles987 assigned "yellow" to PG13 and "red" to PG 16 for Lebanon [here despite the fact they are both prohibitive categories. As explained by the key at the top, a prohibitive classification is highlighted black. No explanation was provided for the changes in the edit summary. The whole purpose of the highlighting is to ensure that the highlighting for the different types of restriction are consistent across all countries, making it easier to compare them. Randomly assigning colors that do not correspond to the key makes it impossible to visually compare the systems, and can result in misleading conclusions for the reader. If a classification has been incorrectly assigned a color it is better to raise it here first on the talk page. If the information is outdated and the system has been updated then please provide a source for any changes to the system and the corresponding entry in the table. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, I was trying to fix the ratings Greenpickles987 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, You are colorblind Greenpickles987 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * And you are illiterate, because I have not accused you of vandalism. All of the entries you altered were consistent with their summaries and the color key, and resulted in making them incorrect i.e. you did not "fix" the entries, you made them inconsistent with the rest of the table. You provided no explanations for your alterations, so it is not possible for me to know why you change the highlighting. As an example, you changed PG16 to a red background for Lebanon, signifying that children under the age of 16 may be permitted if accompanied by an adult. Why did you do that, when the description for PG16 states "Persons under 16 years of age will not be admitted"? Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Because Lebanons rating systems are confusing for pg13 and pg16 rating, which they don’t admit children under these ages. Greenpickles987 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of them are confusing, and complicated, and possibly in some cases the meaning gets lost in translation from a foreign language, but this is why care must be taken when changing the highlighting. If you think a rating is wrong or needs updating then please list it here first so it can be reviewed. In the case of many of the foreign ratings they have been added (and are maintained) by editors from those countries, who will probably have a better understanding of how their ratings work. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why have you change the descriptions for Lebanon in this edit, so that they contradict the accompanying source? If the source is incorrect or out-of-date it needs to be replaced before the information is changed. You shouldn't alter content so that it no longer matches the source. All information on Wikipedia must be sourced per WP:Verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Altered wording in the summaries
Once again I have had to revert your edits on this article because they contradict what the sources state:


 * In the case of Ireland, you made the following change: Suitable for children of school going age, or all ages (note: children can be enrolled in school from the age of 4). The source clearly states that "A film classified as ‘General’ should be suitable for children of a school going age." Being suitable for "all ages" is very different to being suitable for school-age children.


 * In the case of Lebanon you made the following change: Children under 13 years of age  will can not be admitted. Again, the source clearly says that children under the stated age will not be admitted, mainly for the reason that this is the grammatically correct form for the sentence.

Why have you altered the wording in these summaries? Your alteration to the summary for Ireland is not reflected by the source, while your alteration to the wording for Lebanon apart from being poor grammar is actually fairly pointless. These edits are becoming disruptive and need to stop. If you are consulting alternative sources then you need to provide them per WP:Verifiability. If you think something is wrong and needs to be fixed I strongly urge you to raise the issue here on the talk page first. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Idk, my grammar is weight Greenpickles987 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And don’t start an edit war with me. You know you are going to get me in trouble. Greenpickles987 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are going to get yourself into trouble if you persist in making alterations that contradict the sources. If you co-operate then we'll get along just fine. If you think there are elements of the article that are wrong or need updating then please raise them on this talk page first so the issue can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)