Thread:Valkerone/@comment-24097388-20180515040202/@comment-14660436-20180515072629

I'll give you my thoughts considering I've been in a discussion over this topic before (back when discussions were actually the forums and back when Grobda was being Grobda). You can link this message to the discussion if you want to, but I'll keep my post here to save people from having to read through an essay rant unless they choose to.

To make my opinion clear right off the bat, yeah, I'm generally against the whole "if ain't R-rated, it ain't mature" stance since the content of the articles that need the template matter way more than solely relying on age ratings. Hell, the damn category itself even states "keep in mind that coming from a work with that rating is not an instant qualifier for the Mature template; the subject matter surrounding them has to be explicit", yet for some reason, people don't seem to take that point for granted. The FNAF pages in particular are all mature due to the morbid themes in the series (child murder, getting mangled inside an animatronic suit, Springtrap literally being a reanimated corpse in an animatronic suit etc.), even though it isn't relied on age-rating systems, so I don't know why other articles can't follow the same standard (though you could argue it doesn't have an age-rating, since I don't even know if there is one for FNAF).

I mean, you can use age-ratings support your point, but simply saying "TV-14, not mature" to negate the mature template being placed and nothing else just isn't good enough in my opinion. If the template completely relied on film/TV/game age-ratings or whatever, then Angel Eyes and Tuco from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly should've had the mature template put on their pages a long time ago (a film which still has the R-rating, but for today's standards, is relatively tame).

To give even more examples, in the UK, The Godfather trilogy was re-rated as a BBFC 15, when it was originally a 18 (which for some reason, people have confused it as the UK's "PG-13 equivalent" when that isn't even the case at all, since the 12 rating exists). Does that negate any pages related to The Godfather needing a mature template? No. Seasons 3 and 7 of Game of Thrones are rated BBFC 15. Should that negate the mature template? No. Some age-rating systems conflict with each other, so if you had to properly rely on them to dictate which articles are mature and which aren't, which one would you rely on? Because not everyone on the Wiki is American and strictly follows the MPAA or American TV ratings. Same thing would apply to the BBFC, ESRB or PEGI etc.

In addition, I think users seem to look at the template from too much of a subjective standpoint and need to look at it more objectively. To give an example: Jerome. Yeah, you can say his skinned face isn't as graphic as most other flayings in different media (in fact, I've seen worse), but that's a matter of opinion. A skinned face is still a skinned face. Even Jerome's grotesque "New 52 Joker" look doesn't exactly help either.

Another thing is, back in the previous discussion, Love Robin brought up a very valid point which doesn't seem to have been brought up in this new discussion, and needs to be re-emphasized. Here's what she said:

"Late to the discussion, BUT what NEEDS to be considered when applying the Mature Template is consideration of what Children—more specifically, their PARENTS—see when looking at the page.

''This wikia also caters to franchises which are targeted to children. It is TO THEM that the Mature Template is catered to.''"

Sure, this is the internet. Naturally, not everything on it would be suitable for kids, but it is a good point nonetheless. Some children are bound to browse the wiki if they're curious enough. The Wiki includes villains all across the board from kid friendly media, right up to graphic exploitation films, and that's the whole point of the template in the first place. One minute, you could be reading through the Gargamel page, the next minute, you could be reading through the Alan Yates page. Then you've got Jeff the Killer and, again, Jerome, who both have some of the most viewed articles on the Wiki ever. If a kid hovers over the "Most Visited" drop down list and clicks on either of those articles, the very first thing they'll see is staple-faced Jerome and Jeff's startling appearance. Point is, we need to be mindful of the fact that the template is needed as a warning for children browsing pages of such nature or if they have very mature themes rather than, of course, the usual "not R-rated, not mature" and judging it subjectively.

Lastly, I will admit that when it at least comes to violence and sex (moreso violence in this case, since articles with strong violence seem to be the most common pages to have the mature template applied to), I, for the most part, have a strong stomach. You could show me Captain Rhodes' death from Day of the Dead and it wouldn't phase me. I sound like I'm contradicting my entire post by saying that, but it is a known fact that some people are a lot more squeamish than others, and users need to be fully aware of that and treat the template as such in regards to others. And going back to the point about children potentially stumbling upon mature pages, I remember not particularly liking the scene with the Rabbit of Caerbannog when I watched The Holy Grail with my family back when I was a kid years and years ago, as stupid as that admittedly sounds. Yeah, I was a wuss back then lol. It doesn't phase me anymore though since the scene is played for laughs and really isn't as graphic as I remember it being, but I think it is something to be mindful of.

But yeah, people need to preferably rely on describing and explaining how the template would or wouldn't qualify for different articles rather than solely focusing on age-ratings.