Needless to say, if the majority thinks that I'm in the wrong, then I will withdraw my contributions.

Quoting Nexus the Sixth:

Quote:
I see no problem entering it as it is. No need to consult other sources when its plainly written on the cover.

Yes, it is plainly written, but does that make it Rating Details? If it is not in this format, do we take other descriptions that is plainly written on the back cover as Rating Details? Where do we draw the line?

Does this "reflect BBFC rating info given at the time of release"? How do we know? This is obviously something that is written by a third party, probably someone at the media company. Is this really what Ken intended by Rating Details? Shouldn't Rating Details be defined by someone who has intimate knowledge of BBFC:s decision making, i.e. someone at BBFC?

Personally I strongly prefer using the data from the BBFC in such cases, as this is not a format that readily fits our field. But I, too, have found that not everyone agrees, so I've usually ended up nog submitting this particular bit of data, and keeping it local instead. Luckily, this format hasn't been used in many, many years - I only have a handful of these left in my collection.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:


Does this "reflect BBFC rating info given at the time of release"? How do we know? This is obviously something that is written by a third party, probably someone at the media company.

Whilst it's a moot point.

I know because I've followed the BBFC for a long time. Legally the companies are not allowed to supply their own wording to put on the case. It has to follow what the BBFC make available for the public if they choose to provide detail. The same way the logo has to be displayed and has to follow the BBFC's current size and design at the time of printing.

If you'd searched the BBFC's website at the time that's the advice you would have seen and is not something somebody at the company has made up, you'll find the same wording across multiple releases from multiple compmanies.

The BBFC are forever tinkering with how they rate and how they word it based on the whims of the current viewing public by doing regular surveys. You can imagine if you had wanted to update from the website we'd be continually changing the rating info every few years.

I will say I've changed my mind on adding the the totally generic wording e.g. only suitable for adults because this is included as part of the rating in Profiler anyway.