Talk:R18 (British Board of Film Classification)

Untitled

To whom it may concern, The article R18 certificate was written by myself for my website [1] therefore there is no copyright infringement. I thought it may of been a useful source of information of current legislation and changes to the R18 film industry within the UK. The Love lizards guide does not sell or distribute R18 Dvds or videos, the article was not submitted for commercial reasons. Regards Mark

info@lovelizard.co.uk

---

Thanks for letting us know! Your posting has already been replaced by a rewrite, but feel free to edit that article to improve it. -- The Anome 10:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Some things that should be mentioned:

- there has now been a film with an R18 certificate release at the cinema - I think the first time was in March 2004 - virtually no cinemas have the right licencing (you basically have to be a private club) - reference http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=11285

- New Zealand also has an R18 certificate but it doesn't mean (just) porn

---

Re the recent addition

As of 2005, the BBFC still appears to regard the depiction of urination on oneself or others, "urination accompanied by sexual activity", or "immediately before/after", sexual activity, or with licking of urine, as prohibited by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Nevertheless, the BBFC appears to have R18-rated a number of videos based on the theme of urination (presumably without any of the acts referred to above)

This is a bit weak - see the mention of "appears to" twice. Can't we name whatever these videos are, even we don't know for sure about their content? Pcb21| Pete 18:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other categories?

Should the other BBFC ratings get a separate article? There's a history behind U, PG, 12, 12A and 15, too! CNash 13:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be listed under Current Classifications in the BBFC article?

Fair use rationale for Image:R18.gif

Image:R18.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues with "female ejaculation" section

I moved this section from the intro, where it was clearly inappropriate. I think that there are still multiple issues:

citations

there are none.

POV

The section reads as if written from a single point of view, that of wishing to permit the depiction of acts described by the contibutor as "female ejaculation".

Importance

the section fails to show that the alleged controversy is of sufficient importance to be described as such, or even merit a mention.

Weasel words

These are used significantly;

• "There has been some controversy…" – between and according to whom?
• "…the BBFC [still] appears to…" (2 instances) – who perceives this?

--Rogerb67 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Section since removed by another author --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on R18 certificate. 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/20120106073719/http://www.bbfc.co.uk:80/classification/statistics/ to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/statistics/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 05:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)