I like having them in there myself. It offers people a bit of what to expect from a movie. Plus, sometimes the details are more useful than the rating (not everyone is going to agree with a rating system's verdict, but most people will agree that a movie contains such and such). If someone has kids they might not want to see certain things, and some parents are bothered by nudity while others are fine with it. Most parents shy away from their kids seeing gore. So I think the info can be useful. At the end of the day it doesn't hurt to have it.

Plus Something Weird Video often turns such "rating" details into an artform.

Quoting AndyEN:

Quote:
I like having them in there myself.

Yeah, but to me "I like having them there" is not a valid argument. Some people like having things in the Edition field, even though no edition is mentioned on the cover. We don't allow that. The Rating Details field has a specific function. It should be used for that.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
I think if a film's theatrical release was rated but the home video release is unrated it's OK to include the rating details of the theatrical rating.

That makes more sense to me than AndeEN's comment. But only if it's the same cut as the theatrical cut. And how do we know that? If it's an uncut release and we put in rating details for a cut theatrical release, then those details could be grossly misleading.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
If it's an uncut release and we put in rating details for a cut theatrical release, then those details could be grossly misleading.

Could be, but probably won't be.  If the theatrical cut is rated R for "whatever" it's not unlikely that there is at least as much of "whatever" in the unrated home video cut.

What about the reverse situation? For example if the rating details says ”mild violence” and the not rated cut has excessive violence. Everyone may not be looking for the worst.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

Yeah, but to me "I like having them there" is not a valid argument. Some people like having things in the Edition field, even though no edition is mentioned on the cover. We don't allow that. The Rating Details field has a specific function. It should be used for that.

Hey, it's not like I said that and didn't elaborate on my point. But I'll elaborate further. Right now as you say in your first post the rules seem to be okay with this. So if you want a ruling against it, let's look at why Ratings, and therefore Ratings details exist. It seems to be that there are four reasons to have these:

1. To inform an adult that there is some aspect that they or another adult might find objectionable. "Rating details" for unrated movies offer this, whereas unrated movies by themselves do not. Unrated movies aren't necessarily more extreme; they just haven't been rated. So Unrated/NR by itself doesn't convey much uiseful info beyond it hasn't gone through a ratings board.

2. To inform a parent or guardian that there may be material unsuitable for minors. Again, such "rating details" for unrated movies are helpful for the reasons outlined in point 1. I'm not a parent but if I was, I'd want a sense of whether there's material I might not want a minor of a particular age exposed to.

3. To limit/prevent sales of movie tickets or movie copies to minors. Not really an issue with already owned copies, and even if it were, the additional info beyond the rating wouldn't be a factor even for rated movies, just the rating itself.

4. To show the degree of "objectionable" material, beyond its mere presence. Rated movies maybe do that a bit better, but its debatable. As noted in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, whether a movie is independent vs big studio can impact the rating. And Quebec sometimes gives a G rating to movies that would get a PG-13/14A or higher rating to movies from the US/rest of Canada. There's no universal system here to allow for degree. But even if you allow that degree has some use, the that unrated details may be argued to be less useful doesn't mean they're useless. Indeed, they're often the only guideline available.

A final argument in favour: You can upload your collection online and make it viewable even to others who don't use DVD Profiler. A potential borrower might want to decide if a movie is suitable for borrowing. That back cover image in an online profile is pretty much unreadable other than the largest image (for online collections, there's no way of zooming), so the only way a potential borrower, maybe one with kids would know if a movie was suitable would be to read the rating description. They aren't going to be able to read the tiny print on the back cover that might offer "rating details" for unrated movies. They can however read the text fields quite nicely.

So right now the rules seem to allow it, it provides useful information to some, and those who don't find it useful can safely ignore it, so it seems to make sense to keep.

Fair enough, whereas I tend to evaluate features according to whether I feel they add value. If it doesn't do any harm being there and is useful for someone, I tend to favour keeping it, even if's of no interest to me personally. As I've gotten older, while I still have a lot of passion for movies and shows, I've also started to take to heart the theme to Mystery Science Theatre 3000: "... then repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax." DVD Profiler is a means to catalogue something fun. If quirks like rating details for unrated movies, which have some practical use, add to one's enjoyment (or steer people away from material that would lessen one's enjoyment) I'm all in favour of it.

Where I am willing to meet you part way though is, I wouldn't mind if that field got changed to "Advisories", with the default still being the rating details and other rating details only being used if that was unavailable. This is essentially what a lot of users are doing anyway, but changing the field name would address that logical concern.

I would agree with that. Don't use external sources but do use packaging. Limit things to the official ratings and the packaging. Beyond that the chances of error get much greater.