Talk:History of British film certificates/Archive 1

Archive 1

12 Certificate

As far as I remember the 12 rating was introduced specifically in response to Tim Burton's Batman. The BBFC regarded it as unsuitable for young children, but not worthy of a full 15 rating. There may be similar reasons for some of the other changes. Deadlock 18:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 12A was "hurried in" because of Spiderman, but wasn't a total direct consequence as you suggest in case of Batman. We mention this at BBFC. To my mind the two articles are not too long to be merged together. Pcb21| Pete 18:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, 12A was not 'hurried in' because of Spider-Man. It had been under development and trial for many years and just happened to be introduced while Spider-Man was out. I recall that it was timed to coincide with the beginning of the school holidays. - Green Tentacle 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"E" for "Exempt"

Before anyone considers adding this, note that "E" in a square, triangle, circle, whatever, is not a rating certificate from the BBFC, but but a statement from the distributor certifying that they believe a video recording is exempt from classification under the Video Recordings Act 1984. 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

PG rating and Indiana Jones?

I seem to recall that, just as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ushered in the PG-13 rating in the US, the British PG rating was created in response to the first film, Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, I can't find specific sources to confirm it. Any ideas? Kelvingreen 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The film was released over a year before the PG certificate was introduced and was given an A, though the film has been reclassified as a PG since. - Green Tentacle 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Raiders was certified uncut as an A on 2 June 1981, while Temple of Temple was certified after cuts as a PG on 31 May 1984. The first PG films were certified on 15 October 1982 for the changes implemented on 1 November that year. It's hard to see any obvious connection between the change in certificate and the Indiana Jones films. Nick Cooper 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PG-12, 12A and Spider-Man

Green Tentacle, please read what the text actually says. There is no suggestion that Spider-Man was a PG-12 in Norwich for the simple reason that its certification post-dates the Norwich trial. However, this BBC News report shows that while some local councils down-graded it to a PG, Tameside did in fact give it a PG-12, presumably taking a lead from the Norwich trial.

Upon closer inspection, it seems that the BBFC database erroneously labels Spider-Man - and a number of other films - as a 12A from the outset, at a time when other films were still being classified as 12s. This is unusual, as "original" certificates still stand, as a check for the redundant H certificate shows. Similarly, the 1953 War of the Worlds still holds an X certificate, which defaults to an 18 if shown in cinemas today, despite it being a film which plays on TV on Sunday afternoons, and has a PG on home video.

As to your removal of the PG-12 certificate and image from the table, that was entirely inappropriate. The certificate existed, it was official, it had a certificate image (e.g. [1], [2], etc.), and it should be documented as it stands now. Nick Cooper 08:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that Spider-Man was a PG-12. It was your edit summary that implied that.

As my edit summary says, all 12 films that were on general release at the time that 12A was introduced were automatically reclassified 12A. The BBFC website chooses to show all of them as being classified 12A from their original release date. Slightly misleading perhaps (though, of course, the 12 and 12A certificates are identical in terms of allowed content), but there is a consistency to it.

As it happens, certificates can only be re-issued if the film is resubmitted by its distributor for cinema classification (remember that submitting a film for a cinema certificate is optional), hence the fact that War of the Worlds is still an X. However, video certificates are completely separate, hence the fact that it is a PG on video (which, of course, is compulsory). Interestingly, there is no way for a film to be reclassified once given a video certificate unless a new edition is produced (thus leaving no way to account for changing public attitudes).

Any councils that gave Spider-Man a PG, PG-12 or anything else were, of course, not using a BBFC certificate and using their own legal powers to do so. An usual decision, as councils normally choose to legally enforce the BBFC's decision, though one they are quite entitled to make.

The PG-12 certificate should not be in the table, as this article is a history of British film certificates. PG-12 was never a British film certificate; it was merely a trial whereby all 12 films on release in Norwich became PG-12s. No film was ever awarded a PG-12 certificate. The BBFC have, I am sure, used experiential certificates before (no doubt with official symbols), but the tables should not be clogged up with them. It is, however, appropriate to briefly mention the trial in the text, as it is now. - Green Tentacle 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary "implied" no such thing. Conversely, I can't see any edit or edit summary of yours that says that the Spider-Man was reclassified because it was still on general release at the time of the change, which strikes me as being a rather important detail that should be included

Yes, I already knew (and have done for about 20 years) about the issues around resubmissions/video certs.

Your argument not to include the PG-12 image is nonsense, as a single certificate hardly "clogs up" one table out of so many, and it was properly explained what it was. You previously claimed it was "never an official certificate," which is clearly untrue, and since it was an official BBFC certificate used in Britain there is no reason not to include it. Your claim that because it was not used in the whole of Britain is poor reasoning, as there are plenty of things that are described as "British" while not being universally prevalent. Similarly, plenty of other "experimental" things are worthy of inclusion elsewhere, so why not the PG-12? I don't understand why you have such an aversion to properly acknowledging its existence. After all, the H was used on an handful of films at a time when the BBFC was far less established than it is now, and it's properly documented here. Nick Cooper 08:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked, my edit summary that says that Spider-Man was reclassified as it was still on general release when 12A was introduced is dated 21:26, 11 February 2007 and says 'Spider-Man (2002) was never classified PG-12, it was a 12, which, along with all on-release 12 films, was changed to a 12A when 12A was introduced months later'. I'm sorry you missed it.

I stand by my assertion that PG-12 was not an official BBFC certificate, as no film was ever awarded a PG-12 certificate. All that happened was a trial whereby all 12 films in Norwich allowed under 12s in if accompanied. It should therefore not be included in the table. H was an official certificate and therefore should be included. - Green Tentacle 17:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I missed that, although mainly because I was looking for "'general release" when I took a quick look at the History page. However, the fact remains that it seems a fairly important detail that should be in the page proper.

As to the status of the PG-12, you seem to be quibbling to try to avoid the blatently obvious. The PG-12 was used in a BBFC trial, so it can't be regarded as anything other than official. For 12 films in Norwich during the trial, PG-12 was the official certificate, because that was what the BBFC said they were calling the trial certificate before, during, and afterwards. In fact, going back even further, the concept of the certificate was repeatedly referred to as "PG-12" by the BBFC at various stages when the merits of such a certificate was being discussed. Nick Cooper 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional cases

Bearing in mind the ability of local councils to over-rule BBFC certificates (in either direction), might it not be appropriate to cite a few notable examples (i.e. not every single instance)? The BBFC gives a few themselves, but notably omits Monty Python's Life of Brian. Nick Cooper 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Moe, I think you'll find that the images fit Wikipedia's fair use criteria perfectly:

1. No free equivalent. Yes, the symbols are copyrighted, so no alternative exists.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Yes, as use in the article does not stop the BBFC making money.
3. (a) Minimal use. Yes, as each image is only used once and all images must be used to help a reader's understanding.
   (b) Resolution/fidelity. Yes, as all images are low-res.
4. Previous publication. Yes, all the images are frequently published in the UK media etc.
5. Content. Yes, the content is encyclopaedic.
6. Media-specific policy. Yes, meets all requirements.
7. One-article minimum. Yes, when restored, the images will all be in use.
8. Significance. Yes, the symbols are used even more commonly than the certificate names and are vital to a reader's understanding of the topic.
9. Restrictions on location. Yes, as they are only used in the article namespace.
10. Image description page. Yes. This was missing, but I have the required details to all images.

I notice from your user page that you are based in the USA and will therefore not be that familiar with the content of this article (your description of the images as 'decoration' certainly shows a fairly major misunderstanding of the topic). Please allow me to clarify that these symbols are used much more commonly than their MPAA equivalents. In fact, the symbols are used far more often than the actual names of the certificates. They are seen before every cinema screening, on every DVD/video box, on all film posters, on cinema billboards and in film reviews. The BBFC allow (and encourage) anyone to use the symbols 'in context'. Without the images, a reader's understanding of the topic will be severely compromised.

I have therefore restored the images. - Green Tentacle 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBFC A 1913-1970.png

Image:BBFC A 1913-1970.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBFC H 1932-1951.png

Image:BBFC H 1932-1951.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBFC U 1913-1970.png

Image:BBFC U 1913-1970.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BBFC X 1951-1970.png

Image:BBFC X 1951-1970.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has happened to this page?

A huge number of edits to the article by one previously-banned user have destroyed a lot of coherent information and introduced lots of inaccuracies. A casual reader of the page would now, for example, assume that there was a gap between the H and X certificates being used when there wasn't (though they would first have to get past the incorrect use of the word 'implemented' and the fact the certificates are listed as existing at the same time). There also appear to have been no certificates at all between 1994 and 2002! Though the edits were probably made in good faith, they have made this article much less useful and, at times, downright misleading. This edit pretty much sums things up! As a result, I am reverting the article to the last known good version (by LaraLove). - Green Tentacle (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My I please request that you do not refer to me as "one previous banned user," that phrase is completely unnecessary downgradement of people. I have not "dstroyed the article" by any means, I am merely revamping it and giving it references to make it of encyclopedic quality. Inaccuracies and the like will be fixed, but there are only 24 hours in a day, give me time. Qst (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While the previous article was lacking in references, it was 'of encyclopædic quality'. Look at the two revisions: yours and the last good version. Now find me the following information, which is vital for an encyclopædic article on the topic:

• What year was H in operation between? (Correct answer: 1932-1951 — even if the films were banned (and then it was only by some councils), the certificate still existed)
• What age did a person have to be to see an H film? (Answer: there was no age, but some councils ruled only those aged 16 and over could attend)
• When did the 12 certificate get extended to videos? (Answer: 1994)

All of the above answers are available in the good version, but not yours.

While your version does include some improvements (such as including references), the last good version, on balance, provides more accurate information. Please do update the article, but Wikipedia articles should never be left displaying inaccurate information. Either make sure each edit is accurate or save the whole thing to your hard drive, edit it there and come back with a complete article. Also, I'm personally a little wary of the British Pictures website, a personal homepage that contradicts some of the information on the BBFC's website — surely the BBFC would be a better source?

I'm sorry you got banned, but you were. Most editors would regard this as important information when establishing the validity of your edits. I deliberately didn't name you - you did that yourself. - Green Tentacle (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it is completely irrelevant whether an editor has been banned, is an admin/steward/checkuser whatever. Your remarks are not based in fact, they are more or less personal attacks. Please refactor. Maxim_(talk) 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can stating a fact be considered a personal attack? - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is completely unjustified - whether a user is banned or not does not, in any way whatsoever, affect the reliability or encyclopedic status of an article they have significantly contributed too. I was actually improving the article further when you reverted it back; so, I'm going to revert it back, work on it and then it will be fine. The main reason I am using prose rather than images is because they are all fair use images, and overusing them unnecessarily and relisting them all, just when there is one new addition the collection would be in utter violation of WP:NFC. Please, give me time to work on, rather than just blindly reverting at whim. Thank you, Qst (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As a said before, the banning thing was to avoid naming you. I'm sorry you're struggling to deal with it.

At present, the article on display is littered with new inaccuracies introduced by your edits. I'm not blaming you for this, but the inaccuracies are there. Wikipedia should not be left with inaccuracies on it. There is no need to have the inaccurate article up to edit it. If you insist on using that article as the basis for a new version (and, personally, I think you should go back to the last good version instead), then click here and edit in the box. Use the preview button to see how your article will look when finished, but do not save until is of publishable quality (if you need to take a break, paste the whole thing into Notepad and save it on your computer).

As for the free-use thing, we went through this a few months ago. See Talk:British_Board_of_Film_Classification#Fair_use_criteria, which shows how it was resolved, with an administrator (Arwel) fully supporting the view that the symbols are vital to an understanding of the topic and that they are fine for use on Wikipedia, even multiple times.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to revert the article back. I've shown you how to make the changes without having an unfinished/inaccurate article left live, so I suggest you revert it back yourself and only make further changes if the article left online is accurate. I'll be interested to see what you choose. - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the banning issue, "I'm sorry you're struggling to deal with it." Quite to the contrary, actually, I'm quite fine with it, but it need not be brought up by you and in unnecessary circumstances, so leave it where it should be, in the past, please. The article is far from littered with inaccuracies as you say, it is now more reliable than ever. Infact, if you can list me five inaccuracies in the new version of the article which I have modified, I will personally correct all of them. Qst (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, go on then:

1) 'Although applying ratings to films, actions of the BBFC, including film bans can be overturned, if necessary, by local county councils, who have statutory powers of the board.'

County councils are not on the board of BBFC. And what about city councils and other local authorities?

2) 'As a result of the Parliament act, the board changed its name from British Board of Film Censors to its current.'

The Parliament Act had nothing to do with the name change.

 Not done. It did, see the source. They changed their name because all certifications had to be handed over to an organisation, so all responsibility fell on them. Read the source. Qst (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Parliament Act had nothing to do with the BBFC. Follow the link. The Parliament Acts (there were two) are about the House of Commons overruling the House of Lords. An act of parliament may have led to the name change, but it certainly wasn't the Parliament Act. - Green Tentacle (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

3) 'A - Only suitable for child accompanied by an adult.'

Only some councils made this ruling.

4) 'This [the H certificate] was implemented in between 1930 and 1942.'

No, it wasn't; it lasted until 1951 (even if some councils banned Hs after 1942); also implemented really means 'introduced' - your wording therefore implies that the certificate was phased in from 1930 to 1942.

5) 'After this, in 1983, the United Kingdom saw the addition of multiple new classification symbols and the removal of some older ones.'

The new ratings were introduced on November 1st 1982.

There you go, then: five inaccuracies all introduced by you. I've avoided any grammatical mistakes, as they may be seen as 'cheap shots'. Frankly, the most concerning thing about the article right now is that the most major overall of certificates ever, in 1982, has been almost completely removed from the article! - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, give me time. Things in life don't always happen now, sometimes they take time, so allow that time. Qst (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, you've just backtracked on your promise. Okay... - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop looking for an argument, Wikipedia is not the place for you if you are like that. I'm not going to stand here arguing with you, I'll sort out my 'promises' when I've finished with the main prose. Qst (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an argument! You said that if I could find five inaccuracies introduced by you, you would correct them. No time limit was set, but you immediately got all defensive and said you couldn't do it quick enough.

The fact is simple: at 4pm yesterday there this article was accurate, though not perfect - it is now full of inaccuracies. Personally, I'm not comfortable with having inaccurate information live on a website, but apparently you are because you'll eventually get round to making it accurate. Well, good for you! (Not so good for people looking up the information, but remember: Wikipedia isn't a worldwide reference resource, it's your own personal plaything!)

You might also like to know that the 'freely licensed alternatives' to the BBFC symbols are, in fact, copyright infringement (you'd have known that if you'd bothered reading the discussion I directed you to earlier). So, not only is the article now inaccurate, it is also illegal!

I'm sure you're intentions are honourable, but you're going about this all wrong. Show yesterday's version of the article and the current one to someone knowledgeable on the subject and see which one they prefer.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but the truth is that this article is currently a right mess. And those, Sir, are my last words on the matter. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent.) How is that article illegal? Making freely licensed alternatives is not illegal. What would be illegal is if you used the original, fair use image and made some changed and claimed it to be free. I strongly suggest you read WP:COPYRIGHTS before making accusations. If they were illegal, they would have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Qst (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I said I'd said my final words on the matter, but I know the answer to this one. Re-drawing a copyrighted image does not make it non-copyrightable. You can't just re-draw the Coca-Cola image and then use it where you like. The same applies to the BBFC symbols. I have idea why they have no been deleted from Commons, but they certainly should have been.

By the way, you may find this page at the BBFC website a useful source for the history. Unlike that British Pictures site, all the dates are correct (much like the old version of this article). Good luck. - Green Tentacle (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

See the above section. - Green Tentacle (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the article

One user, Qst, keeps on changing the article from established version to his own, which he insists is superior.

This is unacceptable, as Qst's article contains a catalogue of errors, some of which are listed below:

1. It says that county councils sit on the board of the BBFC (they don't)
2. It says that the Parliament Act made the BBFC change its name (neither of the Parliament Acts have anything to do with this)
3. It says that the BBFC overhauled its certificates in 1983 (it was actually 1982)
4. The biggest overhaul of certificates ever is barely mentioned in the article
5. It says that the original A certificate required children to be accompanied by an adult (only some councils made this ruling)
6. It says that the H certificate was introduced in 1930 (it was really 1932)
7. It says that the H certificate was discontinued in 1942 (it was really 1951)
8. It says that the X certificate was introduced in 1957 (it was really 1951)
9. It fails to mention that anyone over five was admitted to A certificate films from 1970
10. It says that the A certificate was discontinued in 1989 (it was really 1982)
11. It says that the AA certificate was discontinued in 1989 (it was really 1982)
12. It says that the X certificate was discontinued in 1989 (it was really 1982)
13. It says that the PG certificate was introduced in 1989 (it was really 1982)
14. It says that the 15 certificate was introduced in 1989 (it was really 1982)
15. It says that the 18 certificate was introduced in 1989 (it was really 1982)
16. It says that the R18 certificate was introduced in 1989 (it was really 1982)
17. It says the Uc certificate is used for cinema releases (it is video only)
18. No date is given for the introduction of the 12A certificate
19. It says that the 12A certificate replaced 12 entirely (it only replaced it in the cinema)
20. Some of the images used are illegal recreations of copyrighted images
21. It links to inaccurate sources, often preferring a personal homepage to the BBFC's official site
22. Many grammatical errors

Please not that none of the above errors are present in the established version of this article and that all of the above errors have been introduced by Qst. Qst has frequently claimed that he will fix the errors, but has never actually done so.

I am reverting back to the established version of the article, as any good editor would. - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1 -  Done. Qst (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2 -  Done. Qst (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3 - Evidently not, this source clearly shows the new classifications applied from 1983 onwards. Qst (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say this, exactly? Qst (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source is plainly wrong. 15 & 18 certificates were being applied in the Autumn of 1982. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

4 - But, it is mentioned, so it is not omitted from the article, hence, there is no problem here. Qst (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help in correcting some of these errors, too; rather than leaving the work for others. Qst (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Qst, please do not add responses within the body of another editor's comments - you totally messed up the formatting of Green Tentacle's post (particularly the numbering of points), and opened the potential for the discussion to get very muddled. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Qst, again, don't add comments within the body of another editor's message. This is not an e-mail! Nick Cooper (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Qst, please read the following carefully:

As Nick Cooper has already pointed out, it is bad form to edit another user's comments. Please keep your replies separate, as per the guidelines Nick pointed you to. If necessary, please quote the relevant parts. I have threaded the replies properly. Please do not revert it back like you did to Nick.

As I and Nick have already pointed out, your British Pictures source is wrong: the certificates were introduced in 1982. This source from the BBFC proves it. The source was already linked to in the established version of the article.

Finally, I find it rather insulting that you demand that I help to fix the errors. I keep trying to! Reverting to the established version of the article fixes all of the errors, as all of the errors have been introduced by your edits.

I reinterate my earlier point: your edits have turned an accurate article into a inaccurate mess. That might sound harsh, but it is true.

I've had enough of messing around. I have reverted the article back to the established version, as it is accurate and your version is not. I have also called in an administrator for help. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Qst, please stop editing my comments. The talk page guidelines are very clear on interruptions:

• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

You did not follow these rules. Therefore, I have put back proper threading.

In reply to the point you made on Arwel's talk page, your version of the article is not expanded: it contains only 9,000 characters, compared to over 15,000 in the established version. Your version removes lots of history of the certificates. I am also a fairly experienced editor and consider myself to be knowledgable on this subject. British Pictures is not a professional site, it is a personal homepage, as this page on the site makes very clear. My source for the dates, however, is a site run by the BBFC. Are you saying that the BBFC are lying about the dates they introduced their own certificates? - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing the situation, though it's a bit late to get heavily involved tonight, and I'm tied up tomorrow! A quick look at www.britishpictures.com leaves me rather concerned about its provenance. It does not look like a particularly authoritative site - starting a news item on the sites' main page with "My mate Nigel has a book out..." doesn't inspire confidence. Where this site disagrees with that of the BBFC itself, it would make sense to consider the BBFC site to be definitive. -- Arwel (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, what a mess. I'm sorry, Qst, but I have to say that I think that your edits have very severely degraded both the accuracy and quantity of the information presented in the article, and I strongly recommend that the article be reverted to the version of 15:57 on 29 January 2008. Green Tentacle has already listed the major errors (additionally, it is NOT the county councils which have the final say in what films are shown, but in two-tier authority areas the district/borough council level authorities), but I think the removal of the text commentary on what happened each time the categories changed hampers understanding of the subject. Also, replacement of the official BBFC certificate logos by inferior copies does not avoid copyright problems, indeed makes it worse, particularly as the BBFC encourages the use of the official logos in appropriate places and we have already successfully argued for them to be used on Wikipedia. Having taken a look at it, I'm afraid I cannot consider www.britishpictures.com to be a reliable source - it looks to be a personal site, and no more accurate than any other personal site. -- Arwel (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Arwel (and to Nick Cooper for his too). Obviously, I agree with you entirely, but would recommend that the article is actually reverted back to the 20:43 revision on February the 7th. It is basically the version you recommend, but with additional references added and minor editing of the text for accuracy (an attempt to address the fact the established version did not have references, Qst's only genuine quibble with the article), the removal of the BBFC logo, which isn't really needed, and a missing space added in. As you are the administrator here, could you unprotect the article and perform the reversion? Thanks. - Green Tentacle (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with your suggestion for restoring the second of the 20:43 revisions on 7th Feb, and have done so and unprotected the article. Glad that consensus was eventually achieved. -- Arwel (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Arwel. - Green Tentacle (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected

Resolved

 – Page unprotected. Qst (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page from editing until current disputes have been resolved, in accordance with the protection policy. Use the 1 week protection to cool down and see if you can come up with a solution that will work out for both parties – no more edit warring. Cheers, Spebi 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Spebi - you handled the RFP request very quickly. I will begin sorting this out in the morning, as its getting late in England. Qst (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to sort out. Qst's version is inaccurate, the other version is not. How Qst can claim anything else is beyond comprehension. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can protest too strongly how completely destructive, counterproductive and plain inaccurate Qst's edits to this page have been, and it is a mockery of the workings of Wikipedia that the article has been locked in this form. A cursory comparison between the version as it was before Qst started messing about, and how it stands now, shows that just how much has been lost. The most glaring example is that now the page gives the impression that the AA and X certificates lasted until 1989. Qst's text stating that, " in 1983, the United Kingdom saw the addition of multiple new classification symbols and the removal of some older ones" is pitifully inadequate in explaining what actually happened. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. If my version appears to be incorrect to neutral, third party editors, then I shall change it back. The only thing I must insist upon is that the free images currently used in the article permanently replace the excess usage of fair use ones, as the former version violates Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Qst (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally backing down. With regard to the fair use/'free' images, please see Arwel's comment above: 'replacement of the official BBFC certificate logos by inferior copies does not avoid copyright problems, indeed makes it worse, particularly as the BBFC encourages the use of the official logos in appropriate places and we have already successfully argued for them to be used on Wikipedia'. Therefore, the fair use images are the only choice and have been okayed by an admin.

All the best. - Green Tentacle (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I apologise if I came over as somewhat rude throughout this, I guess I just couldn't see the wood for the trees. I'm not going to revert Nick Cooper, as, well, it really was a lame edit war. :) Qst (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over that discussion, and it does seem like consensus is in favour of the fair use images as opposed to freely-licensed ones. So, are we all in agreement, as if we are, we can safely request unprotection and get back to normal. Qst (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already unprotected. -- Arwel (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BBFC 12 2002 onwards.png

The image Image:BBFC 12 2002 onwards.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:BBFC Uc 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC U 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC R18 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC PG 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC 18 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC 15 2002 onwards.png
• Image:BBFC 12A 2002 onwards.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was keep. -- Mighty Antar (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I think this article should be merged with the BBFC article because all the information in this article could be covered in that one. Anyone elso agree?The Editor 155 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It's a fundamentally good idea, but both are long articles already and would be far too long if conjoined. Stripping the history of certificates out to its own page seems logical. - Green Tentacle (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah too. While your argument might hold water if this was a stub, it's not and what is here is hardly OR or waffle. As noone else has ventured support for merging either before or since the deletion proposal discussion and the merge tags been on since July 2009, I'm removing the tag. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

BBFC Logo's 1980's.

I have uploaded the images twice because the Images on wikimedia commons have incorrect licensing and need to be deleted by an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofahcuts (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why somebody changed the BBFC rating logo's for the 1980s back to the 90's versions. The 80's versions were plain without anything in the background of the logo. Any one who comes accross a tape from this era can see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofahcuts (talk • contribs) 11:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that the older certificate logos were in use at one time, there's a copy of Death To The Daleks somewhere in my house with the plain design and I've been to a public event where a person was selling loads of old Doctor Who serials with the 1982 certificates, but the post-12 logos have a copyright date of 1985, as seen here (though this is on a video from the early 2000s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.146.22 (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I have found this video which shows the post-12 designs for Sean Connery's Edinburgh, on a film released in 1983 which has never been released on video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.146.22 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone able to shed any light on the '80s logos? I'm too young to remember and only have my memory of the text-background logos saying (C) 1985 (since updated to (C) 1999) to go on. At the moment, the article makes it look like the BBFC began using the text-background logos in 1982, the plain-background ones in 1985 and then went back to the text-background ones in 1989. This seems very unlikely. Does anyone know for sure? Is it possible that the plain-background symbols were alternatives to the text-backgrounded ones, perhaps used when only low resolution printing was available? - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any logo from the BBFC from 1982-1985, As far as I know they were not required to display the rating on anything until 1985. Plain-background logos were in use from 85-89, I have many video's showing all logo's. It's unlikely that the BBFC would of used two different types of logos as this would of created confusion. It looks as if plain text logos were used on everything until 89. Its possible black backed logos were used from 82 - 85, as the logo's were only shown at the start of films in the cinema, and not needed for anything else?. As such, I will assume this is the case. I will get working on them. the 85-89 were quick creations so look ok for half hours work. Will try a bit harder on these. It was only when they were displayed on VHS/Betamax releases that the colour coding and plain text backgrounds were introduced. I was not around at this time, so if anyone went to the cinema between 82-85 and can remember what logo was in use it would be some help. Also, can anyone confirm the R-18 logo is correct? Never seen it in use :) so don't have a clue what it looks like. ofahcuts (talk) 16:24, 16 september 2012 (GMT)

Updated the 82-85 logos to better represent what was around at the time. Without seeing the originals its a bit of guess work. Most agree logos were this style at that time. ofahcuts (talk) 22:12, 18 september 2012 (GMT)

I am also too young to remember the 80s but I was at a 25th anniversary screening of the 1985 film Back to the Future which had the pre 2002 PG logo with the text background in the certificate at the beginning although it could have been from an earlier re release. I remember seeing a VHS tape of the Wind in the Willows (possibly the 1983 film) with a colour coded plain background U logo in my school library so the BBFC could have used separate logos for the cinema and home video like IFCO still use in Ireland. Tk420 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

According to User:Betty Logan the plain text logos from the late 80s were not official. I searched for VHS releases from this period on Google and could not find the Wind in the Willows, which I mentioned in my previous comment, but I found Sooty & Superdog from 1986 which has the plain background logo but the letter U there is white instead of black so there could have been different video logos in use. Tk420 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tk420: I am confused by your comment. I have never participated in this discussion so will you please explain what you mean by "According to User:Betty Logan the plain text logos from the late 80s were not official". To my knowledge I have never expressed this opinion. That said I do concur with it to an extent: my copy of Back to the Future rated PG and purchased in 1988 (I received it as a xmas present that year) has a yellow triangle with a white PG written in it, not a black one. Whether the BFFC had other designs during this period I couldn't really say, but as far I can see with your latest edits you have not provided any corroboration that these symbols were in fact in use at this time. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: My mistake. I was referring to the edit summary for the edit of 10:25, 11 July 2016 by User:Catherine C Anderson in the revision history of the article which appears below your three edits which followed. Please accept my apology. Tk420 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think these were unofficial, I have watched a documentary about film certification within the UK and the BBFC held a launch event with the logos on display, they were all solid background. I have a screenshot also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.15.159 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If possible can you post a link to this documentary or at least point me in the right direction? It could improve my own and others' understanding of the history of British film certificates. Tk420 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Timing for introduction of post 2002 certificate logos

I am not convinced that the new logos with the BBFC logo in the background were introduced in September 2002. I seem to recall Monsters Inc, which was released on home video in the UK in September 2002, having the older U certificate logo with the plain text background and I found an image of the VHS tape on ebay. I first noticed the new logo background logos in April 2003 when I saw it on the VHS release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets so I think January 2003 is more likely though the logos might have been designed in the previous year so they were ready for their release date which would explain why they bear 2002 as their copyright date. Tk420 (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

12A logo in the older design

Looking at the the page on the BBFC website detailing the classification of The Bourne Identity, there is a logo for the 12A certificate in the style of the certificates used prior to 2002.

I have seen the 12A logo with a plain text background like in the pre 2002 logos in a BBC news article from 2002 and I think I saw it on a poster in the cinema about then. I first noticed the post 2002 certificate logos with the current BBFC logo in 2003 on the spine of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets when it came out on video and DVD. Tk420 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

12A/12 rated films are PG-13

All 12A/12 rated films were rated PG-13 in the US. Is that false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:BD84:C958:8970:6E75 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is false. Something like A Good Day to Die Hard was R rated in the US but got a 12A rating in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly no aurtomatic equivalence. Some films get a higher rating in the UK than in the US, and vice versa. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the PG-rated films are rated 12A/12

None of the PG-rated films were rated 12A/12 in the UK? Is that false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:858E:E6CF:F658:81E7 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No PG-13 films were rated U

No PG-13 films were rated U at all? Is that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:FD25:E7F6:E4E4:BFE0 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

None of PG-13 and R rated films were rated U

Wait, there is no PG-13 and R rated films classified U. Is that true?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of British film certificates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222123329/http://www.sbbfc.co.uk:80/case_study_spiderman.asp to http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/case_study_spiderman.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Timing of update to U and PG consumer advice

I am at a loss to explain exactly when the consumer advice for the U and PG certificates was changed to advise parents to check the BBFCinsight in case of younger children. Before the change the advice for U read 'Suitable for all' and 'General viewing but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children' for PG. I did not notice the Uc certificate was retired in 2009 until sometime after it happened. The consumer advice update could have happened around then especially after internet access and broadband became widely adopted. After the update parents are now advised to check BBFCinsight in case of children under the age of 4 given that it is hard to predict what would generally upset a child at such a young age and parents often know their child best. As for PG I first noticed the new advice in January 2002 after The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was released. The radio adverts and the showtimes poster in the cinema advised viewers that the film was rated PG and 'may be unsuitable for under 8s'. I have no recollection of seeing the updated advice again until around the late 2000s or early 2010s when I noticed that the BBFC now advises parents of children under 8 to check the BBFCinsight for PG films generally. Tk420 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BBFC 15.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the new logos with the BBFC logo in the background were introduced in September 2002. I seem to recall Monsters Inc, which was released on home video in the UK in September 2002, having the older U certificate logo with the plain text background and I found an image of a VHS tape on ebay. I first noticed the new logo background logos in April 2003 when I saw it on the VHS release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Tk420 (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)