Talk:Motion picture content rating system

There’s a new age rating system in Kuwait recently that has the following ratings:
• G - Suitable for all ages
• PG - Advising parental presence
• PG12 - spectators under 12 must be accompanied by adults
• PG15 - Adult companion must be present with a 15-year-old spectator
• R15 - 15 and older
• R18 - 18 and older
Here's the links to new information:
1. https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=3214695&language=en#:~:text=Lafi%20Al%2DSubaiee%2C%20the%20assistant,18%20for%20those%20above%2018.
2. https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/kuwait-implements-movie-classification-for-clear-age-guidance/
Let me know if you need anything like more proof and links. Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction with the PG 15 rating. The first source calls it "P5 15" (typo?) and says a 15 year old spectator must be accompanied, whereas the second source calls it "P15" and says it is "for viewers aged 15 and over". Neither rating seems to make much sense to me. Are 14 year-olds from prohibited from seeing the P(G)15? Do 16 year-olds need to be accompanied too? Betty Logan (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Also I’m not sure if this link I post would be proof but let me know. https://www.instagram.com/kuwaitinside/p/DE5LNehtozy/ FireDragonValo (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the correct link for the Kuwait age rating system to avoid confusion just in case. Let me know. Thanks. Link: https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/kuwait-implements-movie-classification-for-clear-age-guidance/ FireDragonValo (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I will get on to it some time this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done

I was looking for film rating icons and it’s the same icons as the television icons. I’m not sure if it’s accepted and I have this PDF for proof, let me what you think. Also, keep in mind this document is in French. Thank you.

Link: https://www.cnc.fr/documents/36995/147204/Brochure+commission+de+classification.pdf/c7719c3f-0f61-751e-6e9a-b82c41930ea7?t=1628168015521 FireDragonValo (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The source looks okay to me. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

German Wikipedia lists the German age rating (by FSK standard) in most films' info box, which in my view is a significant piece of information, at least as relevant as the box office result or the ubiquitous Rotten Tomato score. So I'm surprised that in English Wikipedia, the rating is not a standard item in each film's info box, and only occasionally mentioned or discussed in the article. I therefore propose to include this in the movie article template (?) and start the process of updating existing film articles (not sure how such a large task is usually undertaken, call for volunteers?). Details need to be worked out, e.g. which rating system to show. For consistency and comparability, the most prevalent system should be chosen, which is probably the MPA (formerly MPAA) rating; if there is none, the info box row should show "n/a", and optionally show another rating, preferrably from the second most prevalent rating system, or from the country of origin. If several cut/uncut versions of a film with different ratings exist, then we could either list all ratings, or the lowest and the highest, or the one of the primary / theatrical release. Opinions? 2A00:6020:B24A:CF00:D9EE:36CC:E9F0:1AF2 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

In addition to, or outside of the regular FSK rating system, films can be "listed" if they are considered literally harmful to minors, which leads to prohibition of advertisement and open sale. Since this is in practice an additional level on the content rating scale, and the regular FSK rating levels between 0 and 18 don't apply, I believe this should be mentioned, and I suggest the following text:

Furthermore, the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection in the Media can identify motion pictures (or certain uncut versions of them) as harmful to young people (such films may not be advertised or sold openly, only on request) or even illegal (distribution is completely prohibited, confiscation is possible). Lists of these films exist but only some of them get published. In some cases, films are later removed from these lists after re-evaluation and may then be advertised, sold, exhibited and broadcast according to the film's (new) FSK rating (usually FSK18); examples include the uncut versions of RoboCop and From Dusk till Dawn. 2A00:6020:B24A:CF00:D9EE:36CC:E9F0:1AF2 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not really clear what you are suggesting. The purpose of this article is to summarize content rating systems. These lists already appear to be described at Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection in the Media, which seems the more appropriate place for the content. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

"Lists of these films exist but only some of them get published."

That's wrong, the complete lists of "adult only" physical media is released every three months in the BzKJAktuell magazine. Chris Retro (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• JSO Nahota.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The age rating icons in Brazil are revised, so maybe the new icons should be used. Thanks. https://www.gov.br/mj/pt-br/assuntos/seus-direitos/classificacao-1/simbolos-de-autoclassificacao Upset New Bird (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

After it was removed in 2019, section 13 of the Cinematographic Film Amendment Bill introduced a PG rating to the Fijian system. The bill was passed on March 14, 2025. Source: https://fijiglobalnews.com/fijis-film-industry-sparks-family-friendly-shift-with-new-pg-rating/

And here is the bill in question: https://www.parliament.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Bill-No.-2-The-Cinematographic-Films-Amendment-Bill-2025.pdf ~2026-22326 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is my draft with updated Fijian rating system. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Thanks for updating the Fijian rating system! Then would you be okay if I integrate a few additional clarifications into the article? I’ve already drafted these in my sandbox, so I can add them carefully if that works for you. Upset New Bird (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in that, provided the clarifications are sourceable. We can't really draw on our own personal knowledge. Also, bear in mind we don't need to over-explain the ratings—they are designed to be self-explanatory, for the most part. But if something is unclear, or would benefit from a little bit of background information then I have no problem with that. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Since there are no further objections, I will reflect my sandbox content in the main articles. Upset New Bird (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are the clarifications? I have looked up your sandbox at User:Upset New Bird/sandbox/Motion picture content rating system and it contains an entire article. It makes it difficult to see exactly what you intend to change. There are some subtle changes that I can spot such as dropping the purple colored PG and G rating for Canada and Quebec respectively. It's not clear to me why you are making that change, given that they are sourced categories in the summaries. You may have good reasons for that but, generally, when you edit an article, each alteration should be clearly explained by an edit summary, rather than just aligned with what is in your sandbox. Transferring stuff from your sandbox is fine, but each material change to the article still needs to be clearly explained so editors can understand why the changes have been made. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Oh, the goal I want is just "the content enhancement of several articles". Upset New Bird (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. For example, I dropped the purple colored PG and G rating for Canada and Quebec respectively, but I added a hover template instead in my sandbox. Upset New Bird (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. As long as it is address in some way, that's the main thing. Betty Logan (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Let me address what has changed on Draft 1, Draft 2, Draft 3, Draft 4 and Draft 5.

• Draft 1

1. Added tooltip templates for dropped the purple colored PG and G rating for Canada and Quebec respectively
2. Changed white "N/A" to dash (—) in "Other" column
3. Enhanced context

• Draft 2

1. Dropped a watershed column, but added tooltip templates for time restrictions instead, in order to make it look convenient for mobile users
2. Changed white "N/A" to dash (—) in "Other" column
3. Enhanced context

• Draft 3

1. Dropped a notes column, in order to make it look convenient for mobile users
2. Explained all countries using PEGI in comparison table
3. Added summary of video game ratings (ClassInd, USK, IARC, CERO, ESRB, RARS, GAMR, IMDA, GRAC, GSRR, MRO)
4. Changed white "N/A" to dash (—) in "Other" column
5. Enhanced context

• Draft 4

1. Shared in table form with the International Age Rating Coalition article (Draft 5)
2. Changed white "N/A" to dash (—) in "Other" column
3. Enhanced context

• Draft 5

1. Dropped a notes column, in order to make it look convenient for mobile users
2. Explained all countries using PEGI in comparison table
3. Changed white "N/A" to dash (—) in "Other" column
4. Enhanced context

Upset New Bird (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have partially reverted one of your changes. The "M" rating—while unrestricted—is notionally for 16 years and other: see and . Betty Logan (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have also reverted the key to the previous version. The whole concept of the ratings system is the notion of unrestricted, restricted and prohibitive categories, and the highlighting in the chart is tied to that distinction. To take the United States as an example, a PG-13 is advisory: it is not recommended for children below that age but it is not restricted, either. The "R" rating applies a mandatory parental restriction whereas NC-17 is prohibitive. These latter two ratings are not advisory. If they were, then they would be shaded purple. Betty Logan (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You said, "This is not clarification: rating systems are built around the concept of different levels of restrictions.This needs to be clear." Maybe what you want to say seems that the three sentences "All ages may watch/play" (for white), "People under the age must not see/use it without parental guidance" (for red) and "People under the age must not see/use it" (for black) are not clear. Then, what are the reasons? Upset New Bird (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the real question here, does removing explicit language actually make it clearer? Not everyone evaluates language in the same way: for example, if English is a second-language or if you are autistic. Being clear about whether a rating is unrestricted, restricted or prohibitive removes any ambiguity that could be read into the interpretation. The worst case scenario by explicitly stating if a classification category is restrictive or not is that it does not make it any clearer; the worst case scenario in not explicitly stating it is that it may become ambiguous for some people. It's not clear to me why you think removing explicit labels improves the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: So I changed the sentences to be more explicit: "Suitable for viewers/players of all ages" (for white), "People under the specified age must not view/use this content without parental guidance" (for red) and "People under the specified age must not view/use this content under any circumstances" (for black). See here. Upset New Bird (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not the same as explicitly saying whether a classification is advisory/restricted/prohibitive etc. Saying somebody "must not" do something can still be interpreted as strong advice, as opposed to a mandatory requirement. Different cultures have different language formalisms. Autistic people also process language differently. It is only when you make it clear that a rating is restricted/prohibitive that all ambiguity is removed. Some classification bodies also make this distinction, such as the Australian Classification Board. I have no problem with you adding further text to add further clarification to the key, but removing descriptors that clarify whether a rating is advisory/restrictive/prohibitive does not add clarity, it creates potential ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Then what do you think about this? I remained descriptors, such as "No restrictions", "Advisory", "Strong advisory", "Restrictive" and "Prohibitive". Upset New Bird (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, the use of the word "advise" for the red and black categories is not appropriate. It creates ambiguity. The black category does not advise anything, that is what the purple category. The black category is saying that people below a certain age cannot watch. The red category is saying that people below a certain age cannot watch unless they are accompanied by a responsible person. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Then I removed the use of "Advised that" for the red and black categories in my draft. If there is anything that needs to be corrected, please let me know here. Upset New Bird (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

People under the age must not see it without parental guidance ==> People under the age must not see it without parental accompaniment. "Guidance" makes it sound discretionary, like a PG. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: So I changed "guidance" to "accompaniment" for the red category, and I changed "must not" to "may not" for the red and black categories, in order to express "lack of permission" explicitly. This has been applied to my draft. What do you think about it? Upset New Bird (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

"May" is discretionary/advisory. It should be "must not". Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• BBFC 12 2019.svg
• BBFC 12A 2019.svg
• BBFC 15 2019.svg
• BBFC 18 2019.svg
• BBFC PG 2019.svg
• BBFC R18 2019.svg
• BBFC U 2019.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)