Talk:Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia)

Started new pages for the 2 Classification Boards
This page referred to a body which strictly ceased to exist 3 years ago but was still being used a source for info about the successor organisations (the Classification and Review Boards) and the current ratings system. To clarify things I've created pages for both these and moved the info relating to them from here- hopefully someone can do the same for the info about the current classification system. Oscillon (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good start, but the information on the classification system does not belong in an article about a defunct organisation.
 * Also, there are many pages that link to this OFLC article which (for the most part) will need to be redirected when information about the classification system is moved; is there an easy way to do this en masse? It may be worth considering whether the classification system should have its own article, rather than being contained within an article about the governing body, so as to avoid the need to re-link these articles if and when this responsibility again changes hands.
 * The main article on motion picture rating systems also referred to the OFLC, so I will correct this reference, but keep this in mind.--Sroc (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the article Censorship in Australia needs a cleanup as it has many references to the OFLC as being current (some references should remain in historical context). That article doubles up on the classification system as well; perhaps this information should be extracts and combined with the info from the current OFLC article into a separate article on the classification system itself? --Sroc (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Film / Video Game Symbols
The OFLC website has some EPS files of these symbols, large PNGs. Could anyone convert the EPS files to SVG, as the PNG files wont. This will be better as they scale easier. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I converted the EPS file containing the symbols: Image:Oflc-au-classification-legend.svg. Which particular symbols did you want as separate images? --James 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded appropriate SVG logos, and put the old PNG and JPEG ones up for deletion. --James 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the svgs. I noticed that the individual large "E" Exempt logo is still a png "resource". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.230 (talk • contribs) . 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Refused Classification
There are links to "Refused Classification" in the article that make it redirect back to itself. 203.122.229.140 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Name/content
This is a strange article at present in that it portends to be about the Office, but is actually just a list of classifications with minimal detail about the institution that regulates them. Compare this with the much better article on its British equivalent, the British Board of Film Classification. mg e kelly 16:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"M" Rating
By the way, what age and over does the "M" rating mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to signify "Recommended for mature audiences 15 years and older". However, after the new colour-coded ratings logos were introduced last year, the age reference was removed, and it now simply says "Recommended for mature audiences." Furthermore, the M classification is advisory only—it doesn't legally stop anyone from seeing a film, unlike the MA, R & X ratings. --Lumina83 01:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification
"Attempts have been made to challenge some religious censorship (i.e. the banning of exhibiting R rated films on Good Friday)".

This statement is false & there is absolutely no record of such a law ever existing. It looks like someone simply made it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeZombie777 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 May 2007

Abbreviations for ratings
Abbreviations for ratings:

E: Exempt

G: General

PG: Parental Guidance

M: Mature

MA15+: Mature Audiences

R18+: Restricted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldaz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

X18+: Restricted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.175 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RC: Refused Classification (subset 1)

RC: Refused Classification (subset 2)

P, C and AV15+.
Can anyone please create these images Image:OFLC small P.svg, Image:OFLC large P.svg, Image:OFLC small C.svg, Image:OFLC large C.svg, Image:OFLC small AV15+.svg and Image:OFLC large AV15+.svg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Australiaaz (talk • contribs) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are already images for these ratings used on Censorship in Australia (in PNG rather than SVG). Note that they are not classification board ratings, so it would not make sense to have files with those names or reference them on this page. --James (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy between this page and Censorship in Australia
As this is a page for a government body that no longer exists, I think it would be a good idea to move the information about current classification ratings and the current Classification/Review Board members to the Censorship in Australia page Oscillon (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is a mess and seems to be a magnet for good natured but incorrect edits. I think it would be worth creating an Australian Classification Board article containing the current information, and limit this article to historic information (if there is anything interesting left).  There should definitely be enough information about the board to warrant an article.  The Review Board could probably be covered in the ACB article, given that they are closely related.
 * I don't think moving all the content to the censorship article makes sense. We had censorship issues before the ACB existed, and classification is more than just censorship. --James (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That all makes sense-I might have a go at starting a separate Classification Board article annd take it from there Oscillon (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)