Talk:18 (British Board of Film Classification)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: British This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Contains some material originally from other Wikipedia articles, including R18 certificate and British Board of Film Classification. Editing under way to create new content -- this article is not intended to be a mere duplicate of existing articles. -- Karada 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It was only recently that the censors passed films with explicit ('hardcore') sexual acts despite the 18 certificate existing for many years."

What does 'recently' mean? Does anyone know what the first film to allow such scenes was? I have a feeling it would have been about ten years ago by now, which hardly seems recent.194.80.66.43 (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article perhaps needs a NPOV tag, as well as a tag for not citing any references or sources. Would anyone else care to comment?194.80.66.43 (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"References or scenes of suicide, which can be easily imitated by youth" -- I have to agree with the above commentor about the NPOV tag. The quote included at the beginning of my comment seems like an opinion asserted as fact to me, almost to the point of being excerpted from a circular or written by a spear-carrier. 24.131.239.101 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today

1. This was unnecessary disambiguation. Disambiguation terms are only added to titles to disambiguate the article from other articles on Wikipedia that share a name. Currently there are no other articles about 18 ratings/certificates on Wikipedia.
2. The article also had a fair number of incoming links, as you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/18_certificate&limit=100, and I don't see the point of freeing up the page name and then leaving all the incoming links. If the current page were turned into a disambiguation page at some point in the future then that would break a lot of links.

That said I sympathize with the motive for the move and there is a legitimate argument that the current title is not

• 18 (BBFC classification) (a disambiguator would be acceptable in this case to disambiguate it from 18).
• 18 (United Kingdom film classification)
• 18 (British Board of Film Classification)
• British Board of Film Classification's 18 rating

You can read more about the rating at http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/18. If a rename goes ahead then all the incoming links will need to be corrected, because the point of the exercise is to free up the current page name. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent presentation. I agree. The
  WP:COMMONNAME of the article's topic is simply 18, but of course that is ambiguous, so we need to disambiguate. The current title is ostensibly natural disambiguation, but I don't think it really is. I like your first three suggestions. Hard to decide among them. The first is most concise, but I don't know how well known BBCF is; I've never heard it (but I'm a yank). If it's well-known and recognized 'cross the pond then there is your answer. I would just do it. If it's not widely recognized then you have to go with 2 or 3 - I think 3 is better because it's more informative than 2 and almost as concise. Either way, I think you can just change the title to either the first or third, depending on whether BBFC is widely recognized in the UK. If you're not sure then we have to do more research. --В²C ☎ 01:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think 18 (British Board of Film Classification) is the best option. It removes all ambiguity by including the full name of the organization. I will leave it a couple of days and if nobody objects I will carry out the move. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]