Talk:TV Parental Guidelines

I disagree; most content rating symbols I see have black text on white background. Sometimes I see transparent text on white background or semi-transparent text with semi-transparent border, other times I see white on black but it's not that common. SuperWatsonater (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section was repeated twice in a row for some reason, duplicates removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandroboy123 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iCarly is npo longer TV-Y7 now it's TV-G in syndication Matthew Cantrell (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ABC sometimes uses Tahoma, and sometimes a sans-serif font that looks similar to Helvetica. Does anyone know what it is? tablo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is a such thing called it TV-B?--Jasonfitz (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMT uses a black rating icon with the lettering in Times New Roman and it's white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.143.72 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having examples of all the appearances of ratings is extraneous and intricate. Perhaps getting rid of or slimming it down moderately could help? Omoder (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead claims the system "was first proposed on December 19, 1996 by the United States Congress, the television industry and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and went into effect by January 1, 1997", which seems insanely fast. The Development sections says "In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the United States Congress..." and the article for that act says "The Act was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton."

A few paragraphs down, the lead's date is used for an entirely different event: "On December 19, 1996, the industry announced the creation of the TV Parental Guidelines..."

Can someone familiar with this topic correct the discrepancy? Msgohan (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Development of the guidelines section plus the History section of the V-chip article could use a good revision. Here are some links that provide some background:

• Nets Adopt Violence Code
• Schumer Wants Violence Rating for TV Shows
• Washington Watch

And those are just for starters. The issue really is that the networks and the MPAA were afraid of a congressional mandate dealing with violence on TV, so they eventually came up with a counter proposal. Congressman Ed Markey's V-chip proposal was already in Congress by 1994. I wish I knew of an easily cited source that would say all this but I don't. --L. Robert Taylor (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please DO NOT add any more examples of shows. We do not need a comprehensive or all-inclusive list of every show that broadcasts within the United States. This is not a place to promote your favorite TV show. Any edit doing so is non-constructive | and will be reverted. Thank you.

What the heck is this? Wikipedia is supposed to be The Free Encyclopedia, not Unfree. That ruins the magic of Wikipedia. Shkarter1985 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was TV-PG-L who put this crap? Matthew Cantrell (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did this restricted/unrestricted thing come up? No mention of it on the official site... tablo (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex may be seen and completely visible or on HD" Aside from the fact that the syntax of this phrase is incomprehensible, where does it say that high def content is subject to a different rating than standard def? Bustter (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV rating color: Black = Kid-friendly? TV rating color: White = Material that may be unsuitable for children, adult programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyBixby419 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Either can be used, it's just a matter of which provides better contrast, or network preference. No systematic differences. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the last paragraph of the section titled "Development of the guidelines", "Industry Video Programming Rating System" is capitalized, indicating that it is a proper name. However, the name "Video Programming Rating System" does not appear anywhere within the referenced FCC document. HankW512 (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found vandalism on this page which has not been reverted.

Here's what I did to remove it: I reverted to the very old revision (see here). 99.121.209.170 (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"previously this had a compulsory design but currently goes with a network's branding scheme. The icon was much smaller until June 2005 and only appeared on-screen for 7.5 seconds. For every rated program running an hour or longer, a rating appears in the upper-left hand corner of the television screen at the beginning of each half-hour. Starting in June 2005, many networks now display the ratings after every commercial break, in addition to the beginning of the program. Ratings icons formerly appeared in the 4:3 safe area, even with a 16:9 HD-designed presentation, but have moved into the top-left corner of the 16:9 picture as time has went on."

Most of the "facts" in this section are "sort of true". They either need to be attributed to a primary source or be rewritten. As far as I know, the only primary document is the industry letter to the FCC - Jack Valenti; et al, which specifies only three things: 1. "The guideline icon will be displayed for 15 seconds at the beginning of each program in the upper left-hand corner of the screen." 2. "It will be displayed again at the beginning of the second hour of longer programs." and 3. "The icons will occupy 40 scan lines on the television screen." It is true that at the beginning the broadcast networks used the "industry" designed icons, but it was never compulsory. Basically my point is that other than the three industry "promises", everything else is at the discretion of the individual network and it is incorrect to generalize. Your comments/discussion are most welcome. L. Robert Taylor (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]