Jump to content

Talk:British Board of Film Classification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betty Logan (talk | contribs) at 09:25, 18 May 2024 (→Previous company names: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

film / video

The introduction is, I believe, wrong.

The BBFC is not legally responsible for film classification. Cinema licensing is a matter for local authorities (who 99.9999% of the time require cinemas to follow the BBFC rating).

On the other hand, the BBFC is responsible for video classification, having been nominated to perform that role under the Video Recordings Act 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.89.57 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Video Recordings Act 2010 [2], which re-enacted the provisions of the flawed 1984 Act which was discovered to be technically deficient in 2009 (through its terms not having being communicated to the EU) and not enforceable. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1

Why does someone keep adding Happy Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 as an example of a 12A? Sure, the Odeon website says it is but the film hasn't officially been rated yet. I've changed it to 500 Days Of Summer, which is a recent(ish) 12A I'm sure most people have heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.171.67 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a citicism of you, but I've reverted this back to the earlier example oif Avatar, simply because more readers will be familiar with it, and therefore will have a better impression of what sort of content gets a 12A. The BBFC haven't rated Deathy Hallows yet, and while it may very well get a 12A (as previous ones in the series were), we can't jump the gun. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly changing examples

We seem to have an issue here that editors - many anon IPs - are constantly changing the example films listed with each different certificate, often it seems due solely to favouritism. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Mistake

The Description/Notes column for the PG rating currently has the following:
"May contain moderate violance if justified..." - should be violence

If you have an account and you see this and have a minute, might be worth fixing.
92.10.49.235 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rating examples

I removed the list of examples from the BBFC table since I do not believe they have any encylopedic value. They have been restored with the edit summary "examples are there so we know". Know what exactly? Going back a year there were just a couple of examples for each certificate, but that has now ballooned to an indulgent dozen. It is certainly not necessary to have a dozen examples for each certificate, and it is debatable whether we should have any examples at all.

All of these examples have been arbitrarily selected by editors (the BBFC gets by without providing any examples in its summaries of the classifications) and it is possible we are mis-stating the BBFC's position here: some older films have had their classifications revised several times down the years due to the BBFC revising their criteria, so it is entirely possible that older classifications are no longer representative of how the BBFC classify films. While I actually think that including commentary on the classification process (i.e. why a film is rated 12 rather than 15, say) would benefit the article such examples whould be accompanied by sources and explicitly tackle the reasons for the classification. The examples column as it stands does not really offer any real insight into the classification process and seems to be just another form of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental or non-governmental

The first paragraph says the BBFC is a non-governmental organization, but further down under Responsibilities and Powers the article says it is a governmental organization. This needs to be clarified but I don't know enough to fix it. Caffeinated42 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-governmental organization: [3]. I will correct the article. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a renewed discussion going on concerning the question of whether the BBFC is a QUANGO or some other sort of NGO. Some interesting comments have appeared within a "dubious" template attached to the statement that "the Board is a QUANGO" in the Responsibilities and Powers section of the article, as well as in some recent edit summaries. I'll repeat them here to make further discussion easier:

It's an NGO

  • quangos are not independent, they're funded by the government; this isn't a quango
  • it's not a public body, and is not funded by the government, and is NOT a quango, see quango page
  • NGO, not quango. All quangos are NGOs but not all NGOs are quangos
  • it's not on any official list of quangos I can find, and the references to it being so are rather dubious
  • quangos are publicly funded and politically appointed; it's definitely an NGO though
  • not publicly funded, nor politically elected, it's independent, and is not on any list of Quangos

It's a QUANGO

  • yes it's QUANGO; it aquired statutory powers in 1984 when the government legally required all videos to be classified by it.
  • the British government does not maintain a list of quangos, only a list of publicly funded non-departmental bodies which does not include the BBFC. Since 1984 the BBFC undertakes statutory legal duties for the government courtesy of the Video Recordings Act (1984 & 2011) which sets it apart from other non-governmental orgainizations and its previous incarnation prior to the Act.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Petley, Julian (2011). Film and Video Censorship in Contemporary Britain. Edinburgh University Press Series. Edinburgh University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780748625383. In its statutory role the BBFC will become a large quango accountable to no one but the Secretary of State.
  2. ^ "The Listener". 11. British Broadcasting Corporation. 1984: 5. The BBFC (in its role of video censor) will become a quango, accountable to no one but the Secretary of State, undemocratic and secretive. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am the editor that restored the description. I restored it because I believe that the editor that removed the term is confusing a QUANGO with a Non-departmental public body (NDPB). There is no hard definition of a Quango, as explained at the Parliament website. The British government maintains a list of NDPBs and the media often uses "quango" as shorthand to refer to an NDPB but they are not tautological terms: while all NDPBs may be quangos, they do not describe the full extent of quangos in existence. It is true that the BBFC is not a NDPB and it is true it it is a non-governmental organization, but it is not completely autonomous. It hasn't been since 1984 when it assumed the statutory duty to classify videos. It is answerable to the government in this regard and it also consults the government when setting its fees, so it is not fully autonomous. Prior to 1984 it would have been correct to refer to it as a non-governmental organization, but since 1984 it is more accurate to describe it as a quango. I didn't realize this had been discussed on previous occasions, but the points I make above are more or less the same points made at Talk:British_Board_of_Film_Classification/Archive_1#Quango. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, all it can do is rate videos, games and films. Local authorities don't have to abide by its ratings, and they often decide to show films that have been failed by BBFC. It's not got any legal power at all. Quango stands for quasi-non governmental organisation, but it's actually non governmental, it has no legal authority at all, it's a bit like "Which" or even more like the "ASA"; it has influence, but no authority. Nor does it take a penny of public money; normal Quangos take public money. The primary issue of quangos, why they get a bad name, is that they both waste public money, and have little or no accountability. it doesn't apply in this case.GliderMaven (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is demonstrably incorrect. Physcial film media (i.e. video/DVD/BR) cannot be sold unless it is classified by the BBFC. You cannot sell an unrated video in the UK, and retailers must abide by the ratings. Councils do not need to abide by the rating for cinemas but they have no jurisdiction over video classification. It would have helped if you had read the article before commenting since this is all clearly explained. The Video Recordings Act 1984 established the legal authority of the BBFC under statute law. It would be helpful if you could explain how an organization that it is empowered by a government Act to classify physical film media and consults them on setting their fees is fully "autonomous". It clearly is not. It consults the government and is ultimately answerable to them for its actions under statute law. What you are taking as the definition of a "quango" is actually the definition of Non-departmental public body, which is a quango, but a quango is not necessarily a Non-departmental public body. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Local authorities can chose not to honour BBFC certificates for theatrical screenings, but on pre-recorded media they are legally binding. I think the BBFC may hold a fairly unique position, in that they are an industry body which - relatively recently - acquired statutory responsibilities, but clearly they do have them. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, ATVOD (the recently-defunct video-on-demand regulator) apparently also started as an industry body. It subsequently gained the power to charge compulsory registration fees and refer offenders to Ofcom for fines. ATVOD's wikipedia page calls it a quango, though I don't know if it's correct to do so. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately we need to defer to sources on this issue: there is no precise definition of a quango (per the parliament website) but there are two observations we can probably all agree on: i) a non-governmental organization that is funded by the government is a quango; ii) an organization which is not funded by the government, is not empowered by the government and is not answerable to the government is not a quango. What we have in the case of the BBFC is a non-governmental organization that is not funded by the government but is not fully independent of them either. In such cases it is entirely valid to refer to such organizations as quangos if there are independent secondary sources that also describe them as quangos. In the case of the BBFC there are so Wikipedia's verifiability criteria has been met. However, I do agree that in such cases it is important to highlight any important distinctions, such as the BBFC's self-funded nature, and we do cover this is the same paragraph that describes it as a quango. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we now seem to have consensus, does anyone object to the removal of the [dubious – discuss] note from the article? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't object, but it's not really my place to say whether the tag should be removed or not since it is my version which is being challenged. Since you are the impartial editor here it is your call. Perhaps we could alter it slightly to state it is a "self-funded QUANGO", to differentiate it from the more common government-funded QUANGO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me (both the "self-funded" edit and removing the tag). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Polly Tunnel (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other "rating"

What is with the separate message that sometimes appears on U rated home video releases. The logo is a family sat at a sofa and the annotation reads "it is recommended you watch with younger children on their first viewing", as can be seen here [1]. Sure this is not a distinct certificate, and it accompanies U films that I guess aren't quite unsuitable enough for young children as PGs are, except presumably on that first viewing. I just wandered if it was the BBFC or someone else that brought this in.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Board of Film Classification. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on British Board of Film Classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TBC / 18

File:BBFC 18 TBC.gif missing in the list of certifications. Possible meaning: To be confirmed? Also it may be added on TBC (disambiguation) --Manorainjan 14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for low resolution, could not get any better source than that: [4] --Manorainjan 14:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

A link to the Motion Picture Association film rating system has been repeatedly added by Halbared, on the basis of being "culturally relevant". I am not entirely sure what "culturally relevant" means in this context, but either way the only criteria that matters for a "see also" section is if the link is subject relevant. MOS:SEEALSO states "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I disagree that you would expect to find a link to the American ratings system in a comprehensive article about the British ratings system. The current links in the "see also" section all relate to censorship and content classification in the UK, which are all intrinsically related subjects. The rating systems in other countries are only tangentially related and adding them to "see also" sections of other country based systems just clutters up the section and turns it into a link farm. If readers were interested in researching film rating systems in general then they would be better served reading Motion picture content rating system which summarises the whole topic, and is already provided as a link in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link I proved shows how its relevant to British cinema goers as US culture has such influence. Link farm is not required but some ratings/cinema cultures are closer than others, it's not accurate to state they're all the same equivalence.Halbared (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.co.uk also list MPAA Ratings for media for sale in the UK. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201957160 Halbared (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon does not appear to display MPAA ratings on their UK product pages: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Knight-Two-Disc-Special/dp/B001CEE1W6. They also do not display MPAA ratings on films in British cinemas or on DVS/Blu-ray packaging, and the typical Brit would not know what an R-rating or PG-13 is. The fact remains it is unlikely a Featured article would include a link to the US ratings system, which is the criteria for inclusion in the "See also" section. What you are in fact doing is not establishing relevance as determined by the objective criteria as laid out by the Manual of style but simply inventing your own discretionary and subjective criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're speaking for others when you say 'any typical brit', especially with the rise of youtube as a medium to learn about films. The BBFC recognises the American film domination of the UK industry. It was my interest (which one I cannot recall) in checking one certificate which then made need to check the other, and I didn't know the name of the board so it wasn't the case of an easy link. It might be my own criteria, if you feel the need to revert I won't revert it back, but I think it's a disservice to make things marginally more difficult to navigate than otherwise since the two systems are recognised to have stronger links beyond your own arbitrary example of Australia. Halbared (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am speaking for Wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion is explicit and you have not addressed it in your response: The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. In what capacity would a comprehensive article about the BBFC discuss the MPAA? So far you have not justified the inclusion of the link beyond your own personal opinion. You have not justified it in terms of the MOS guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous company names

An editor has taken it on himself to delete the previous corporate names of the BBFC from the infobox. I consider this an erroneous course of action. Several film trade unions created a limited company (Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers) to administer film classifications. The company established a board known as The British Board of Film Censors to perform this function. The company and board names were aligned in the mid-1980s as The British Board of Film Classification and again in 2003 as British Board of Film Classification. Zacwill is persisting with removing the previous corporate names under the rationale that the article is "about the BBFC, not the company that operates the BBFC". I think this is flawed for two reasons:

  1. The company was created to "house" the board. That was its sole function. The company provides the corporate structure for the board to operate. They are essentially the same thing, except for the historic quirk of the company and the board having different names. If the names had always been aligned and had changed down the years in tandem I doubt he would be undertaking this action.
  2. Secondly, Zacwill's actions do not make much sense even if we accept his proposition. If we accept that the infobox should only document the board (and not the company) then the details relating to the company (such as its legal status and chief executive) should be removed, and the board's previous names should be added i.e. The British Board of Film Censors (1912–1984) and The British Board of Film Classification (1984–2003).

By removing some of the corporate information and leaving other bits in leaves the infobox failing in both summarising the company's history and also the board's history. I acknowledge the corporate naming history is confusing and the article did not explain this well so I understand why someone would be confused, but persisting with the edits after the issue has been addressed is tendentious. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can the article say; "The BBFC was established in 1912 as the British Board of Film Censors, under the aegis of the Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers" while the infobox says it was called "the Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers" up until 1985? Either an entity called "the British Board of Film Censors" (the subject of this article) was created and named in 1912, or it wasn't. Which is it?
The limited company that managed the board seems to be an entirely different matter, and was never the name of the subject of this article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation and the classification board share a common name after being aligned in 1985 and the company was created to administer ratings, and the board was effectively the company department that just assigned the ratings. However, the BBFC does a lot more than just a assign ratings, because it is effectively run as a business with a corporate structure. For example, the board isn't a limited company, the organisation is a limited company. The board doesn't have a chief executive, the company does. It is the company that does the hiring and firing, and it is the company that a film distributor submits a film to. How many articles does Wikipedia have about an organisation's department, rather than the organisation itself? The article as written is about the organisation as a whole, not just one department in that organization, albeit it focuses on the activities of the board. However, I don't see why we would exclude the BBFC's corporate activities from the article, and they are inseparable when discussing the history of the BBFC. The organisation and the board are synonymous in most respects, except for the name up until 1985. Even if you disagree with this, Zacwill's edits were still incorrect because all he did was remove the previous company names from the infobox, whilst leaving all of the other company details in; it's not as though he replaced the company details with the board's details. Even then his edit was incorrectly premised because the board itself was called The British Board of Film Censors up to 1984, and then The British Board of Film Classification up to 2003 (before dropping the "The"), which he also removed from the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a unique problem (I've encountered a similar dilemma on an article about a football club, and the company that owned the football club). It may be that the company has almost no notability outside of the board, so there is no value to it having a separate article. So the article must cover both, but a clear distinction needs to be made in the article.
My main question is about the appearance of "Incorporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers" in the infobox. It would seem that the board was never called this by anyone, and it was never the name of the board. So it should not be there. It should, very much, be discussed in the article, but its appearance on the infobox is confusing and essentially untrue.
The appearance of other fields, such as a current chief executive, is a different issue, but I'd suggest that anything that is not directly related to board, but is an attribute of the company, shouldn't be there either. But it's a tricky judgement call. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is technically for organisations, so it might be better to remove it entirely if the focus of the article is to be the board itself. But if not, there are several parameters that are unique to the BBFC as an organisation/company, such as the "type" of organisation and its "legal status" and the CEO. Also, the former names for the board should replace those of the company. Maybe there is a more suitable infobox template for this sort of thing? Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Board_of_Film_Classification&oldid=1224422164"