Talk:Content rating
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Content rating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Deletion message
editI'm going to remove the deletion message, now that the page has been edited to be unbiased. Thanks reddit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.201.131 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
For further reference, here is what the "Thanks reddit!" comment is referring to: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1ndhjg/what_is_the_most_biased_wikipedia_article_you/cchl3ay 198.48.202.131 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Does it even need sources?
editI don't believe that this article really even needs a source. In the "see also" section, there are links to articles about different individual content rating systems, and those articles feature sources. This article is about something way too broad and simple to even require a source. Disagreements? --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- It would be stronger if the info in the lead had something referenced to back it up. Maybe some source from the see also articles could be used for support. The tag on on the article about no sources is factually correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. I just can't find any sources... --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Geraldo Perez 119.30.46.97 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)