This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Hey, I noticed that as well recently, I went ahead and added Roblox's Age recommendations to the table alongside my latest edit, it is up to extended confirmed editors to add a table explaining age recommendations on the Roblox article. Aeyeu (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ELSPA is listed in the "defunct" area of the Ratings and Organisations of the summary box at the bottom of the page. Whilst their ratings system was replaced by PEGI, the organisation is still a highly influential factor in the European gaming industry, so why is it listed in Defunct? It gives the impression the organisation no longer exists, which simply isn't true.
Difference between recommendation and Certificate[edit]
In England at least. Having worked in several shops that sell games. If it is a BBFC certificate it must be followed for sales and rentals. If it is another rating it does not legally have to be followed for sales and rentals, how ever some shops choose to follow them as if they where. I worked in Asda and was trained to follow all age recommendations on video games bbfc or not. In Morrisons where I work now they only pay attention to the bbfc rating on games which they have to legally but ignore others. I am sure other shops are also divided. years ago I also remember Woolworths asking me for ID to buy a Mortal Kombat game on the Mega Drive that had a non BBFC recommendation.
I am sure bbfc has to be followed legally, but all others are just recommendations that do not HAVE to be followed legally. I'm sure this should be mentioned. I believe sources should be able to be found on this but I'm not looking right now.
Relationship of Australian classifications to ages?[edit]
The assignment of ages to the various Australian classifications seems pretty arbitrary. Only the MA15+ rating has a legal age restriction, with the others being recommendations. Further more, when the M rating had an age recommendation in its name, it was 15+ -- not 13+ as it is listed on this page.
israel isnt the only country which has the pegi system, and also not the only which isnt in the eu, russia and turkey are also not in the eu but their games get the symbol as well. Israel is also considered by some people as cultural part of europe like cyprus or armenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_–_European_Union_relations
there is no need for an israel flag for pegi.--Akin12255 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section has been copied and pasted from the article given as a source at the end of the section. Even if this isn't a copyright violation it needs re-writing because the style is not at all suitable for an encyclopedia. The first sentance reads as if it's jumped straight to the middle of a paragraph and phrases like "Romero-worthy bloodletting" don't fit. There's also a lot of potential weasel and peacock wording like "Possibly the most controversial fighting game ever released", fine for a magazine article but not Wikipedia. It also needs some dates added and more international coverage. I'm also skeptical about 'Night Trap' being the main cause of controversy on home consoles. It certainly wasn't the only controversial game on the market.
I don't have the time or knowledge to edit it properly myself (not now anyway) so if someone who does know more about the whole thing could fix it that would be great. Danikat (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The website [2] identifies the author as Andy Chalk. The user who added the text to the article is User:Ics139fv. It is possible that these are the same person. If so, maybe said user could step forward and claim authorship of the text. Otherwise I think we are obligated to delete it immediately. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
whats with the major uber liberal bias here. Violent and sexual video games offer no benefit. that study you site is about video games as a whole not violent video games
and those people who did that study don't even have college degrees.they made a mistake in their findings.i am deleting this until it is further confirmed by real scientists,not faux ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:128:74CA:EB:689E:7B2D (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text doesn't say anything about violent video games, so citing a study about video games as a whole is appropriate. "They made a mistake in their findings" is all well and good, but who are you to make that call? There's a study here cited in a peer-reviewed journal. Either find a study that says the opposite or leave it alone. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources like scholarly journals, not original research. --Jprg1966(talk)19:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Video game content rating system. 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.
The counterpart page for movies is "Motion picture rating system," not "Motion picture content rating system." Let's Move this Article to make the pattern consistent across Wikipedia for rating system Articles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refused classification should be noted under "other". Unrated USK games are treated like USK 18 and can be placed on the index by the BPjM, further restricting sale options, or even banned according to § 131 StGB. Right now the article implies that every game in Germany gets an USK rating. 213.162.150.228 (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Should this page be moved to "Video game content rating system"[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we move "Video game rating system" to "Video game content rating system"? Would editors please indicate their preferences below with SUPPORT, NEUTRALorOPPOSE. 121.218.165.74 (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to accomplish with this "survey"? Normally, RfC's are for requesting input from other editors, usually about the content or if there is an issue between some editors. If you think the title of the article should be changed, you can request that at WP:RM. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK11:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1. Russia's organization is an rip-off from Germany's.
2. ""Objectionable"" doesn't mean banned, in real live, it means something different for me.
3. E+10 supposed to be yellow, not purple. and
4. Both GSRR and GRB are like rip-offs/friends/rip-ends, why did you neighbour them?
--207.204.175.249 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia Infoboxes have no section for age ratings. German ones have them for exemple. I have not noticed any ratings in videogame articles, or? --84.152.2.6 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous has removed the black highlighting from USK 12 twice now. The reason the rating has two highlights—black highlighting 10–12 and and then red highlighting from 12 onwards—is because the rating expliciclty has two age restrictions. AS is made clear in the notes column, the rating prohibits 10-year-olds from purchasing the game (hence the black highlighting) and parental supervision reommendation for those under 12 (hence the red highlighting). It is not unusual for ratings to have two age restrictions, and when this is the case both restrictions for the rating are labelled accordingly. This is the standard practice at other ratings articles, such as Motion picture content rating system.
Since the editor is not providing an edit summary it is difficult to interpret their reasons for removing the highlighting. Is this a genuine mistake due to their misunderstanding of the rating or are they actively challenging the second age restriction on a factual basis? While it is unsourced, the main article at Unterhaltungssoftware_Selbstkontrolle#Original_ratings backs up the claim about 10-year-olds not being allowed to purchase USK-12 games, so this table is at least consistent with the main article. If would be helpful if the editor provided their reasons here without constantly reverting so we can get to the bottom of the issue. Please rememeber that WP:Communication is required. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, five colors is the most you can have to be discernible to color-blind users. Secondly you don't even need another color because the table doesn't need to be that nuanced: if retailers enforce a rating then it is a restrictive rating. The MPAA film ratings are "de facto" enforced too, since there is no law that requires you to enforce them. If there is restriction—legal or self-regulatory—then it is ultimately a restrictive rating and highlighted as such. Readers will have read the summaries to fully understand how the rating is enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you see Video game rating, you can see many colors. ESRB M is red, but de facto restrictive. CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 are also red. but are CERO D, South Korea Game Rating 12 & 15 de facto restrictive, or legally restrictive?(I know AU Game Rating MA15 is legally restrictive.) 'Cause I wanna add correct information only!61.109.111.155 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always clear. It depends whether the regulatory framework is backed up by legislation. It makes little difference to the consumer though, if they are denied access to the media due to a legal restriction or a regulatory one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BBFC isn't a government oganization, but its ratings are backed up by government legislation and council by-laws so their ratings are still legally restrictive. A non-legally restrictive rating can be restrictive in two ways: the organization and its members/partners can use self-regulation to impose the restriction it (such as the MPAA "R" rating), or it can be an advisory rating implemented in a "de facto" restrictive way (such as the ESRB "M" rating"). It is impossible to implement all this through color schemes but a hoverbox can be used to clarify the nature of the restriction if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear if Brazil's ratings are restrictive or not. The ratings are enforced for films but it is not clear if they are enforced for games. Until we know for sure it is probably better to shade them purple. ESRB T & M are advisory, but some retailers enforce M (see Entertainment Software Rating Board); in this case you can probably make a case for red or purple—officially it is advisory but in practice is is restrictive. USK 12 has two age restrictions, and if you hover over the box it brings up an explanation. According to Computer Entertainment Rating Organization CERO D carries a conditional age restriction which is why it is highlighted red. Betty Logan (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike PEGI, USK rating system is legally restricted by German Youth Protection Law. If you sell USK 6 games to any children under 6, you will be prosecuted since this is criminal offense. Is that incorrect?211.203.35.206 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if it's correct or not. As far as I know the legal age restrictions kick in with USK-12 at age 10. I do not know if USK-6 is legally restricted or advisory. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
USK 12's legal age is 10, but it is for adolescents 12 and over. Can any children aged 10 or 11 legally access USK-12 products without parental supervision?211.203.35.206 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably if they can buy them from a retailer at that age then they can access them. It's a strange rule but in Germany it seems a 10 year-old is allowed to purchase content that the USK deems unsuitable for them. Again, it may be a historical anomaly where the USK have changed the ratings and the law hasn't caught up. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Indonesia age rating, SU is for all ages(equivalent to ESRB eC) and 3+ is for ages 3 and up(equivalent to ESRB E). Unlike ESRB, Why is Indonesia 3+ purple while the other(PEGI etc.) 3+ is white?211.203.35.206 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PEGI 3 is a misnomer. PEGI states that films rated "3" are for "all age groups". It's probably a historical anomaly or something i.e. it used to be age based but has been redefined since then. The bottom line though is that PEGI 3 is for "all ages" and the Indonesian 3 is for people aged 3 and over. I appreciate it is misleading but that is how it is defined. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that the disruptive editing that resulted in Motion picture content rating system and Television content rating system has now transferred to this article. The highlighting in the table reflects the rating categories as described in the sourced summaries below and at the sub-articles about the various ratings bodies. Let's consider the changes one-by-one:
ESRB-AO: The IP has made the purple highlighting "black" for the non-Canadian entry, indicating it is a mandatory category, despite Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Enforcement stating that imposing legal restrictions on minors would be "unconstituional". In other words it is not mandatory. These ratings are mandatory in Canada, but not in the United States. It is not clear what Mexico's position is
Portugal: I see no evidence either in this article or at the PEGI article that the ratings are legally binding. The ratings in Portugal were aligned with their film ratings system, which is only an advisory system for home video content as clearly explained to the IP at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#C13_C16_C18.
Saudi Arabia: The source describing this sytem explicitly states that the "3" rating denotes "3 years and above", so why are you altering the layout so that it contradicts the source? We already had this exact same discussion above in regards to Indonesia at #Indonesia 3+ is not for all ages?, so why are we having it again?
The correction to Germany's USK-6 appears to be a valid change so I have reinstated it, but are we going to have to go through each ratings article protecting each and every one? If there are further changes altering the highlighting making the table incompatible with the summaries and sources then I will request that this article is protected too because too many inconsistencies are sneaking in. I suggest any more changes are proposed and discussed here first. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know that yellow is parental supervision recommendation. Although that, some people misuse yellow. Like this:[4] Moreover, both yellow and red refers to parental supervision instruction. Yellow is unnessesary and can be replaced by using black+red combo (if restrictive), or purple (if advisory).211.203.35.206 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purple is for age recommendations. Clearly it would not work for "PG" in the Australia and New Zealand entries because they do not carry age recommendations. If you made them purple that would be like saying the game is unsuitable for people who haven't been born yet. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :) My meaning is not simple. Here is my meaning. Not simple color-altering. Australian Classification Board clearly states that PG is age recommendation for 15+. (or parental supervision recommendation for under 15)
Neither table is correct because your first table implies PG is the same as M (which it is not) and in the second table it implies it is the same as MA15+ (which it is not). What use is that when the point is to show the distinctions between the ratings? Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll change explanation. It will reduce yellow-color confusion.
White – Aimed at young audiences / Suitable for all ages / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
Yellow – Suitable for all ages but parental supervision is recommended.
Purple – Not restricted but not recommended for a younger audience.
Red – Advised that people under the age are not supposed to see it without parental guidance.
Black – Advised that people under the age are not supposed to see it, or restricted to a specific audience (content is usually locked by a password).
Some of your changes are not good changes. For example, in your re-write there is no semantic difference between the black category and the purple category. The black highlighting is meant to designate a restriction. In many cases you will not be able to purchase the game which is fundamnetally different to age advice. Also, it does not automactially follow that a PG-rated game is "suitable for all ages". That might be true in this particular article but parental guidance can in fact apply to any age range, as is the case at Motion picture content rating system. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow can be altered by using black-red combo if there is the specific age settings, right? Black-white combo is also meanig parental supervision instructed for designed age range. I apply that red and black are restrictive. My proposal:
It will reduce yellow-color confusion.
White – Aimed at young audiences / Suitable for all ages / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
Yellow – Suitable for all ages but parental supervision is recommended.
Purple – Not restricted but not recommended for a younger audience.
Red – Instructs that people under the age are not supposed to see it without parental guidance.
Black – Instructs that people under the age are not supposed to see it, or restricted to a specific audience (content is usually locked by a password).
There is no evidence of "yellow confusion". And "instructing that people shouldn't see it" is not appropriate language for games. Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal: In game, "play" word is supposed to be used. Specifice age recommended yellow can be altered by using black-red combo :)
White – Aimed at young audiences / Suitable for all ages / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
Yellow – Suitable for all ages but parental supervision is recommended.
Purple – Not restricted but not recommended for a younger audience.
Red – People under the age are not supposed to play it without parental guidance.
Black – People under the age are not supposed to play it, or restricted to a specific audience (content is usually locked by a password).
Once again, it is not necessary to say that "PG is suitable for all ages", because this isn't necessarily true (see the Ireland entry at Motion picture content rating system). However, it is necessary to make it clear that the parental guidance applies to the designated age range because this is the function of the rating. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In table, advisory(=unrestricted) category is two: white, purple. Only one is required. And black+red combo seems messy. So I'll propose these keys:
Purple: Aimed at young audiences / All ages may play / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating / Not recommended for a younger audience but not restricted.
White: Parental guidance is suggested for designated age range but not restricted.
Red: Exclusively for older audience unless accompanied by an adult.
Yellow: Exclusively for older audience but designed age range must be accompanied by an adult.(former Black+Red combo)
It looks to me you are just suggesting color changes for the sake of it. There is absolutely nothing to gain from making the white rating purple, and the yellow rating white, so why would we start swapping colors around just for the sake of it? You are just suggesting aesthetic alterations that offer no discernible improvement to the article and will make the article inconsistent with the other rating articles. The distinction between a general "all ages" rating (currently white) and the age recommendation (currently purple) is important because the purple rating advises that audiences under a certain age shouldn't play the game, which the white rating does not do. By merging the two you lose an important visual distinction between the two types of rating. And how could something like USK 12 be rendered using just one color? It has two restrictions i.e. an age prohibition set at 10, and a parental restriction set at 12 (hence why it is rendered using two colors). The range from 10–16 will have to have two colors and there is no way to avoid that i.e. even if you had yellow 10–11 using your scheme, what color would you have in the 12–15 gap currently occupied by the red? I don't think your proposal is very well thought out. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lol :) If purple scheme starts at 0, it is for all ages. However, if purple scheme starts at certain age, it is age recommendation. Start spot is important. You can set "blank (N/A)" in 12-15 gap. "N/A" is already used in Motion picture content rating system and Television content rating system. And these schemes are not for this article. It is for all rating article. This is an example for usk:
First of all the purple indicates that content is unsuitable for players below a certian age, so it is not interchangeable with the white shading. For example, the App Store 4+ category is not unsuitable for players below the age of 4. The 4+ (6–8) and 4+ (9–11) are suitable for all ages but aimed at a particular age range (as specified by the key), while 9+ is unsuitable for players below the age of 9. The whole point of the purple highlighting is to indicate that it is not recommended for audiences below that age. All you are doing is simply proposing that we eliminate the purple highlighting, which serves an important function. As for USK 12, you still have a 2-color scheme, manifested as highlighting and a gap, so it is still a 2-color scheme like the existing current version, except messier. You are just suggesting change for the sake of it, and none of this makes the table clearer. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know that red/black are not recommendation. But currently, red says "Parental supervision recommended for younger audiences." So I'll suggest this proposal:
White – Suitable for all ages / Aimed at young audiences / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
Yellow – People under the age may not see/play it without parental guidance and parental supervision may be recommended for designated age range but not restricted.
Purple – People under the age may not see/play it without parental guidance but not restricted.
Red – People under the age may not see/play it without parental guidance.
Black + Red – People under the age may not see/play it. People black-designed age range may not see/play it without parental guidance.
Black – People under the age may not see/play it, or restricted to a specific audience (content is usually locked by a password).
I have changed "recommended" to "required" because I agree it is confusing. However I have not initiated your other changes because they are unnecessarily verbose and alter the fundamental meaning of the categories. For example, every person in the free western world has the right to "may not see" content so the changes as proposed would essentially be meaningless to anybody whose native language is English. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is written in an ackowledged version of national English. That is why we have British English, American English, Australian English and Canadian English etc, and the articles on the English Wikipedia are always written in one of these varieties of English depending on the subject matter. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "may not play" should not be used. And "not recommended" may contain "prohibitive rating". Also I'll add black+red combo. So I'll suggest this proposal:
White – Suitable for all ages / Aimed at young audiences / Exempt / Not rated / No applicable rating.
Yellow – Parental guidance required for younger audiences and parental supervision recommended for designated age range but not restricted.
Purple – Parental guidance required for younger audiences but not restricted.
Red – Parental guidance required for younger audiences.
Black + Red – Exclusively for older audience. Parental guidance required for black-designed age range.
Black – Exclusively for older audience / Restricted to a specific audience (content is usually locked by a password).
The suggested alteration to the PG category is redundnant. If the highlighting applies to a specific range we do not need to clarify it applies to "young audiences". Also, the red and black categories are already explained individually and the combination is self-evident. Just in case it is not, a reader can hover over the category and get a precise explanation. Readers are best served if the key is kept short, precise, and simple. Your proposals are solutions looking for a problem. If anybody voices concerns about not understanding the key then we can look at any problems then, rather trying to anticipate problems that may not exist and quite possibly will never exist. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Motion picture ratings are regulated in a completely different way: theater owners can control who is admitted but games and TV are generally consumed in the home so are primarily self-regulated. The descriptions are different because they are regulated in different ways. Betty Logan (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For home video (movie for home), motion picture ratings are self-regulated. Since home videos (movie for home) are generally consumed in the home, home videos (movie for home) are primarily self-regulated. We both know that Motion picture content rating system article contains not only FILMS but also HOME VIDEOS (movie for home).211.203.35.206 (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zenkaino lovelive: Please do not keep altering the overall structure of the table here without discussing the changes here first. In your first edit you split out the children's ratings to a second table. In your second edit you separated out the children's ratings from the others. There is no reason to do this. These tables have always grouped together the children's ratings with the other ratings. The whole point of a rating system is that they are tiered: one rating provides a natural step to the next. All your edit to the App Store entry did here was add a big blank space to the second row, making the table less integrated. This article forms a family of articles along with Motion picture content rating system, Television content rating system, International Age Rating Coalition and Mobile software content rating system and the tables in each article all use the same basic format. Your edits are making the articles inconsisten in their formatting. If you want to alter the overall format of these tables then please discuss the changes here first. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that strange at all, they simply assign the closest rating. For games the closest NZ rating to a 12A is M; if they assigned an R13 then that would prohibit anyone from under 13 playing it, which 12A does not do. Likewise, if a game is rated "M" in Australia (recommended for 15 and over) then the game will automatically be awarded a New Zealand M. Because New Zealand does not use the RP ratings for games then the only rating they have that recommends an older age but allows younger children to play is M. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: But this is applied for not only games but also films. For films the closest NZ rating to a UK 12A is RP13, but 12A-rated films in UK already will automatically be awarded a New Zealand M, even NZ use the RP ratings for films, unlike games. Therefore NZ M recommended age should be 13 or under if RP13 and R13 recommended age is 13.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what it says it doesn't re-rate any of the lower ratings (up to 12 for UK and up to M for Aus) as RP. 12, 12A and Australia's M rating all have different age recommendations and restrictions and yet all are re-rated as "M". All they are doing is re-rating using a classification that is roughly equivalent. At the end of the day the rating actually stipulates an age so that is what the article goes with. I'm not going to spend all day debating this though, so if you want a third opinion then start an RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites this image [8] as a source for the NZ M rating. I think this is both inadvisable and unnecessary. It is inadvisable because the citation lacks context (the reader isn't told where the image is displayed), and unnecessary because the image is already displayed on the same webpage as the remainder of the rating information. [9] The problem seems to be that it isn't particularly readable on some browsers, but a better solution it seems to me would be to cite the main image page again, with a note stating that it may be necessary to enlarge the browser view to read it.
As a general principle, I think it is poor practice to cite links to parts of webpages (graphics, photos etc). Context is frequently necessary to establish exactly what is intended to be shown, and from a technical point of view it isn't rare for webpage image storage structures etc to be refactored, and thus to find links to such data broken, even when the webpage itself appears unchanged. And without context, it isn't even possible to ascertain whether an image has even been formally 'published' at all - there is no guarantee that it is error free, and/or that it is still valid. As with any other document, a webpage should be cited as a whole, where it can properly be assessed per WP:RS, where context for specific content is immediately apparent, and where one can be reasonably certain that material is actually intended for publication. 81.154.7.26 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section for Mexico's rating system that will go into effect on May 27th. Should this get it's own page like the some of the other entries? Because there is a lot more information that could be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamerack (talk • contribs)
PEGI is advisory so I am not sure why they are all black for Finland. These ratings were addedbySPEEDYBEAVER. Perhaps this was a mistake, or perhaps he is correct and we can an add an explanation to the summaries. Betty Logan (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed them to purple for now. I don't know if the ratings are mandatory or not, but unless we can confirm there is some mandatory element or enforcement we should probably treat them as advisory. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is somebody able to clarify what the Slovakian game ratings are? IP editor 185.133.60.138(talk·contribs·WHOIS) keeps altering the summaries. There is no source which makes it difficult to corroborate their edits.
This was the first edit: [10]. Here they claim that both "U" and the "Teddy Bear's Head" are "general audience", and that "7+" carries a parental guidance component for under 7s. If this is correct that the the 7+ entry should be highlighted yellow over 0–6 because this is the range that the condition applies to, not 7–11.
The IP then edited again: [11]. This time they added a caveat to the "U" rating, stating this also carried a "parental guidance component for audiences under 7. Again, if the parental guidance applies to the 0–6 range then 0–6 should be highlighted, not 7–11.
The editor returned again today, and once more revised the summary: [12]. This time they stated the "Teddy Bear's Head" was aimed at under 7s, and that 7+ was aimed at older than 7 years. They also tweaked 7+ to state that parental guidance is still recommended, but removed the condition that it applied to under 7s. So now it is unclear if the parental guidance applies to under 7s (highlighted 0–6) or if the parental guidance applies to over 7s (highlighted 7–11).
Each time the editor alters the edit summary I have to fix the entry in the table to make it consistent with what the summary says, and then the editor returns and changes the summary once again. The editor doesn't seem to know the ratings (he has edited them three times so far and each version has carried different meanings and conditions) and doesn't seem to understand how the highlighting relates to the conditions. The fact that the editor doesn't provide a source exacerbates the problem. If the editor could provide a source then we could independently check it and at least get the wording right. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finland doesn't use modified version of PEGI[edit]
I don't know where that information is coming from. I have never seen in my life any other age rating system than PEGI used here in Finland. As I mentioned in my edit of the page that even the official national audiovisual institute website https://kavi.fi/ikarajat/haku/, redirects you here https://pegi.info/fi if you want to have information about age rating system in video games. Traveller185 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive alterations to highlighting for the ESRB entry[edit]
Unfortunately an anonymous editor is persisting with altering the highlighting in the ESRB entry in the table. Specially they are adding yellow highlighting to the "E10" category (signifying "parental guidance") and red highlighting to the "M" category (signifying it is "restricted"). Nether of these are accurate; ESRB is a purely age advisory system as fully explained at Entertainment Software Rating Board#Ratings, although the sale of "Adult Only" games to minors is legally restricted in most jurisdictions. E10 does not have a parental guidance component, and M is not legally restricted outside of Canada. Altering the highlighting of these entries conveys incorrect information and makes the entry inconsistent with the key, which incidentally is used across a whole range of articles. If this disruption continues I will unfortunately be left with no choice but to request semi-protection for the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor is repeatedly making uncorroborated changes to the categorisation levels in the table. For example:
The editor is changing the "M and "RP" ratings to red in the ESRB entry. According to the key this would signify they are subject to parental supervision, but the ESRB indicate that ratings up to "M" are advisory. There is no mention of any parental restriction.
The editor is changing the "3+" rating in the IARC entry so that its starts at age 0. This contradicts what the IARC itself says.
I don't know what exactly the deal is here because the editor is not providing either sources to back up what they are saying, or providing a rationale in the edit summary, so it is not possible to ascertain whether they are misinterpreting the representation or getting conflicting information from elsewhere. There is a reason why WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia. If you are going to keep changing the ratings in the table please have the courtesy to explain your edits, because as things currently stand they contradict our respective articles on those organizations and also the official websites. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Australia
Germany
![[8]](https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/assets/Images/general/labels/labels-M-373.gif){kind=link}