Help talk:Content rating links

Are VET ratings supposed to be made in this article or anywhere on this wiki? 81.17.198.126 11:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you elaborate on what "VET ratings" are? I couldn't find any relevant info in a Google search. Thanks. - Adan Aileron (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is finnish rating system for movies and games.


 * Thanks again. A brief look at the site seems to suggest (to me) that they mainly follow the PEGI system (and ratings). Perhaps it would be best to place VET ratings only on games where the two ratings disagree. - Adan Aileron (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There does not seem to be any games with both or are there? I did not see any. I think publishers use PEGI because it can be used in many countries and it is likely cheaper that way. I intended to use VET ratings for older games because it is older than PEGI. So should VET rating be put in this article or not? You did not seem to answer that question. Thanks for your help though. 81.17.198.126 05:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, VET ratings can be used for games that were released too early for PEGI ratings to be issued. Sorry, I hadn't considered that possibility.
 * As for this article, it might be better to list the ratings on this talk page so that a standard representation can be agreed on first. - Adan Aileron (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this? I just noticed they use different name in english. Should we use the english name for VET? Source:
 * 3 recommendation
 * 3 mandatory
 * 7 recommendation
 * 7 mandatory
 * 11 recommendation
 * 11 mandatory
 * 12 recommendation
 * 15 recommendation
 * 15 mandatory
 * 16 recommendation
 * 18 mandatory (not classified by VET)
 * 18 mandatory

Perhaps we could use, for example,  and. Thoughts? - Adan Aileron (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is ok. 81.17.198.126 03:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Should other rating systems be included in this article too? 81.17.198.126 09:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than what's already there?
 * Also, I added the VET ratings. Comments and suggestions are still welcome. - Adan Aileron (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, according to Wikipedia there is still OFLC NZ http://www.censorship.govt.nz, GRB http://grb.or.kr/ and DJCTQ http://www.mj.gov.br/data/Pages/MJA21B014BPTBRNN.htm.
 * VET is not retired according to this.
 * Also recommended ratings are for over 7 not for 7 and up according to but that just might be me understanding it differently...
 * And the last bit. Why did you make Not classified by VET? The recommended ratings are not classified by VET, so this puzzles. . 81.17.198.126 17:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know about the NZ ratings board but not the others. More work to do... :)
 * Noted, thanks. I changed my mind about something I wrote before: I now think that all games that were actually rated by the FBFC should have their VET ratings included.
 * That page also gives the 18 mandatory rating as "Only for persons over 18 years. The programme may be conveyed only to a person who has attained the age of 18." (from www.vet.fi, emphasis mine) which seems to interpret the phrase "over 18" to mean "at least 18". It would seem reasonable to interpret the others the same way, but that's just my guess.
 * Re: The last bit: I guess I was confused by the 18 mandatory (not classified by VET) in your list. Anyway, I've removed it. - Adan Aileron (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I took a look and you are correct. The Site contradicts itself saying different things in different pages and even on same page... Maybe someone should ask them to clean up the site...
 * Also you forgot to put in the article the other 18 rating in the system. 81.17.198.126 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found other rating system VCR . 81.17.198.126 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what point there would be in adding a VET rating for games "not classified by VET"; It makes me wonder if VET uses this rating or not? Perhaps it's retired?
 * Note, however, that this is just a style guideline, not the ultimate arbiter of what ratings are allowed to appear on Wiki Gaming. - Adan Aileron (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you already did add them as games in Finland are exempt from VETs classification (some games have been classified) but they must be rated with or without classification by VET. That is why I listed for example two different 3 ratings and 18. The two differences between them are the shape of rating mark which are: round classified by VET and square recommendation and that VETs ratings are not recommendations which means for example that 15 rating games cannot be legally given to anyone under the rating.
 * But of course this all could be wrong given how messy their site seems to be. 81.17.198.126 07:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

says that if it has a PEGI rating on the cover, it doesn't need any other marking.

And I also found this in, which says "The age rating determined by the Finnish Board of Film Classification is always mandatory, therefore not a recommendation. The age categories of classified games are the same as of films, i.e., 3, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 18."

I hope that covers things. Please let me know if I've still got it wrong. Thanks for your help. - Adan Aileron (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is worse because most games are recommendations. See the database. Although it is in finnish the ratings are easy to understand and you should do them by year (vuosi) because of PEGI. Nowdays most if not all use PEGI.
 * Do you mean by "The age rating determined by the Finnish Board of Film Classification is always mandatory, therefore not a recommendation. The age categories of classified games are the same as of films, i.e., 3, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 18." that they must be rated? If so take a look here. 81.17.198.126 08:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote before, the quote "The age rating determined by the Finnish Board of Film Classification is always mandatory, therefore not a recommendation. The age categories of classified games are the same as of films, i.e., 3, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 18." comes from this page.
 * My belief is that if a game's VET rating is a registered PEGI rating, its article needs only the PEGI rating, and that only if the game is classified and rated by VET, should a VET rating be included in the article. Otherwise, it would really just be putting the same rating in twice, would it not?
 * Also, would it be correct to say that registered PEGI ratings (other than 18) are advisory, but directly-assigned ratings are not? If that's not the case, then I guess their site really does need to be cleaned up. - Adan Aileron (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. Maybe someone will add them to its own article for those interested in details or go to their website.
 * It would seem so according to the database, PEGI info and games 81.17.198.126 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I almost forgot some of the recommended ratings do not have counterpart in mandatory ratings. Maybe they could be included? I copied and and edited my list above to make it more easy to see them.
 * 3 recommendation
 * 3 mandatory
 * 7 recommendation
 * 7 mandatory
 * 11 recommendation
 * 11 mandatory
 * 12 recommendation
 * 15 recommendation
 * 15 mandatory
 * 16 recommendation
 * 18 mandatory (not classified by VET)
 * 18 mandatory
 * Seems like you accidentally put in 13. There is no such rating. 81.17.198.126 05:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Valtion elokuvatarkastamo article can definitely hold this info.


 * The ratings you bolded match up quite well with the related PEGI ratings, though. Those are 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+.


 * However, I noticed that 11+ and 15+ weren't official PEGI ratings which led me to this page, where I found this "Before 1 January 2007, in [Finland] 12+ became 11+, and the 16+ classification was changed to 15+." Not sure if that means they should be added, though I'm leaning somewhat towards "no" for the reasons I gave before.


 * The "13" does indeed exist. Here's a list of films with that age rating. There don't seem to be any games with that rating (at least right now). Might be removable since we don't document very many films. - Adan Aileron (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)