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

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

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.