Yes it is a generic wording and not the full advice, so you could argue it doesn't serve any real purpose, but for a long time it was the only wording they provided. They didn't feel the need to give a detailed breakdown of ratings. So for all intents and purposes it is the rating advice regardless of how generic it is.

I would be comfortable leaving it as is, unless the detailed breakdown is given on the BBFC website (not all films are listed and not all films have detailed breakdowns), in which case I would vote no or replace it.

Entering it seems harmless, whether it's useful or not, and it doesn't seem to be explicitly disallowed.  Removing it from one's local database and locking the field is trivial.
---------------

The rules say "enter rating details". These are not rating details. They are rating definitions. So, as I see it, they are not allowed by the rules.

As far as I know, the details are the reasons for the certificate. "Mild Violence" or "Mild Peril" are details, not "this is what PG means".

Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:
Quoting Lithurge:

Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:
But shouldn't people already know what the generic advice is then for the rating?

What does that matter? Ultimately the rules say we should enter the details that are on the cover in the absence of other sources, so if this is what's there it is within the rules to include it. Removing it or voting no on it is not.

It matters because we don't, and have never, include(d) the rating definition in the rating details. The rating details are the descriptors for why a specific film received the rating it did and is unique to that film. The definition is just a boiler plate/generic explanation for the rating which is independent to the film.

For the US' PG-13 rating we don't add "Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13" to the rating details field.

I don't see why this would be any different for other countries.

I come back to the point that I said I was comfortable with overwriting the generic wording with the actual wording from the BBFC site where it's available. But I still don't see a particular problem where it is the only 'detail' available. Do you filter on ratings detail?

What I certainly don't agree with is overwriting it in cases where the detail is correctly provided on the sleeve of the case and in the profile from that sleeve. The BBFC have a history of changing the advice, so what's currently on the website does not necessarily reflect the advice that was given at the time a title was released.

For example:

5-039036-012348  - 28 Days Later.

What's in the current profile is correct as the advice in the boxes on the back cover reflect the way they broke it down at the time, so it should not be replaced with what is currently on the BBFC website if it differs.