Jump to content

Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Poland

Poland is changing thresholds for singles. From 10/20/100k to 25/50/250k for gold/platinum/diamond accordingly. Effective as of August 1, 2021 (according to their website http://bestsellery.zpav.pl/wyroznienia/regulamin.php Kleool (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Added to TDL. --Muhandes (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kleool: When implementing this I realized ZPAV certifications deserve a polish (pun intended). I went over all the sources, which seem quite complete, and I summarized the history at the ZPAV article. Other than some date changes, my main conclusion from all this is that accurate ZPAV certification needs both certification date and release date. Most changes are by certification date, except that the 2006 change introduced a dependency on release date, which was canceled in June 2015. I am pretty confident I got everything right but I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. --Muhandes (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: While going through the text, what seems strange to me - About division pre-and-post Feb/March 2017 - is there special reason why you think it's about release date, and not certification date? in the red text is "sales made until" and "sales made from". Is it not possible that it's just like inclusion of streams in 2014/2015?Kleool (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kleool: I read the source again and I agree this is not about release date at all, it is about the sales dates. Google translate of "dla sprzedaży cyfrowej dokonanej do 28.02.2017" is "for digital sales made until 28/02/2017". I corrected the article. By the way, this would not have affected the template anyway, since out custom was always to use unit-equivalents, even if there is also a monetary equivalent. Anyway, do you think the rest is correct? --Muhandes (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: everything else seemed good. at least i didn't notice anything which seems out of place or in conflict with summary you wrote here.Kleool (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kleool:  Done --Muhandes (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: the notes for Poland in {{Certification Table Entry}} say "certmonth" twice, in the "Sales require..." section... is one of these supposed to be "relmonth"? Richard3120 (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks, fixed. --Muhandes (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I could be wrong but it doesn't look like Poland's ZPAV applies their new singles levels (25,000/50,000) to singles released before August 1, 2021. A few examples:

  • Sicko Mode was certified 2x Platinum on February 6, 2020 for 40,000 units, 9 months later was certified 3x Platinum on November 4, 2020 for 60,000 units. Then 10 months later it received its 4x Platinum on August 11, 2021 for 200,000 units?. Is it possible for it to take 9 months to go from 40,000 (2x Platinum) in February 2020 to 60,000 units in November 2020, but only 10 months to jump from 60,000 units (3x Platinum) to 200,000 units (4x Platinum)?
  • Into You was certified 2x Platinum on January 25, 2017 for 40,000 units, 3.5 years later later received 3x Platinum on May 6, 2020 for 60,000 units. It then received its 4x Platinum 15 months later on August 11, 2021 for 200,000 units?
  • 7 Rings was certified 2x Platinum on September 18, 2019 for 40,000 units, then some 7 months later on May 6, 2020, it received its 3x Platinum for 60,000 units. Took another 7 months for the 4x Platinum to come in on December 16, 2020 for 80,000 units. But then it only took 9 months after that to jump from 80,000 units to 250,000 units on August 11, 2021? Which is the Diamond award now.

Normally, the time period between higher Platinum awards and especially highest Platinum and the Diamond awards becomes longer. I just wanted to bring it to your attention.--Harout72 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: I really don't know for sure, but the language "Niniejszy Regulamin obowiązuje od 01.08.2021" seems to imply these regulations apply to all certifications done on from that date, as compared to "albumy wydane po 01.07.2005" which applies to albums from some release date. This is pure speculation, but the reason behind the phenomena you noticed might be an increase in streaming revenue, maybe even COVID related. Perhaps someone would like to email them and ask. I'd be happy to change the implementation based on any new data or any new consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Streaming could have started all of a sudden to generate, in some cases, 10 times more sales in the first half of the 2021 compared to 2nd half of the 2020. Niniejszy Regulamin obowiązuje od 01.08.2021 translates to These Regulations are valid from 01/08/2021 . It doesn't really say anything about release dates or certification dates. Those are just new regulations effective August 1, 2021. I'll try to contact them. Something is off here.--Harout72 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72: I agree, something is off. They raised the bar and then they have a deluge of certifications, not what I would expect. Looking forward for their answer. While you are at it, after they answer you, perhaps you would ask them about the threshold change in 2001/2002? We are not certain when it occurred, we had an old source saying it was in June 2002, but that source is lost, and all I could find is 27 January 2001. Again, we assumed this is certification date. --Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes:I still have the e-mail that ZPAV once sent me years ago that indicates the changes that have occurred, here it is. But the very last change on the document they sent me doesn't correlate with what they on here. I will contact them today in any case. Not to speculate before I have answers from them, but if they're going to apply the new singles levels to older ones too, then it doesn't include this last batch certified on August 11, 2021. It's highly possible that the record labels were all informed about the changes, and they hurried to get their products certified for higher levels before August 1, 2021. While ZPAV posted them after August 1, 2021 the certification fees could have been submitted way before that date. Anyways, I'll keep you posted when I get an answer from them.--Harout72 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72: Too bad I did not have this a week ago, I was looking for it. Does it really contradict this? As I understand the table, in June 2006 the levels were changed, by certification date. What the source says is that the change was applied only for albums released released July 2005. In other words, it looks like an omission of fact, not really a contradiction. Anyway, I will now need to update the article and the implementation. --Muhandes (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Also, what you speculated about the August 11, 2021 certifications makes sense to me, lets hear what they say. --Muhandes (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Does ZPAV apply album levels based on certification dates? I wasn't aware of this. I think they have always applied their album levels based on release dates. Do we have ZPAV say anywhere that they apply album levels based on certification dates?--Harout72 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We are returning to the discussion above. My reading is that "Niniejszy Regulamin obowiązuje od" means that it is in effect from that day, i.e., certification date. I don't have anything to substantiate that, but it explains why the letter seems not to be in synch with the source. Hopefully ZPAV can clarify this. --Muhandes (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This really is turning into a case of "the plot thickens". Harout's theory that all the companies rushed to last-minute certify has merit. It would kinda be in line with July 14th post where they say that "applications submitted by 31st July will be eligible under the existing rules" (aka "old" as of August) (which makes me aggree to Muhandes's "criteria goes by certyear unless specified" like it was with the "albums released pre/post 2005"). The regulamin page (when you click "NOWE ZASADY" (aka "new rules", which aren't really new as that text has been there for years)) has a sentence "The awards will be awarded by ZPAV on the basis of the data held on a monthly basis, without the need to send applications for their award", which initially made me doubt the possibility of "last minute submissions". I guess both are possible, like there being automatic certification, but you could get a speed-up by special submission. Would be nice to get official confirmation by them though, if our theory that the August 11 certifications are actually done by the old criteria.Kleool (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Common sense suggests that all the certifications published on August 11 were actually purchased by the labels before the August 1 deadline for threshold change. On it.wiki we kept the old thresholds for all certifications posted on that date - otherwise it won't add up for any of them. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 15:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Japan

Seems that Japan's single certification thresholds (for non-digital) are not working properly? Threshold should go by certification date. Example, physical single which was released in March 2003 (release date during "old" criteria), but certified on July 2003 (new criteria), and certification on RIAJ database does not have word "old", thus it's the new (As of July 2003) thresholds. But template shows 2x Platinum is 200k, not 500k. Could it be fixed please? Thank you Kleool (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Japan's physical certifications for albums/singles go by release dates. While RIAJ lowered their levels in June 2003, only those albums/singles released on/after January 1, 2003 are affected by the levels (Gold=100,000, Platinum=250,000) RIAJ came up in June 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72: That sounds weird, because Queen's "I was born to love you", which in RIAJ certification database is listed as release date 1996, does have a "new" Gold (without word (old) )certification given in 2004 (can be seen https://www.riaj.or.jp/f/data/cert/gd_search.html when type "queen" in アーティスト field. Or just go to 2004 February if not using search page). But even if we assume that Billboard is correct, the single released in 2003 still should have the new threshold. Kleool (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, singles/albums released anytime in 2003, but certified starting July 2003, should have the newer levels. Most likely "I Was Born to Love You" you're looking at, is a re-issue, they've mistyped the release date. Because "I Was Born to Love You" was originally certified Gold for 50,000 units in May 1996, see this source. The searchable database doesn't seem to work properly, it doesn't bring up all of the certifications for Queen. There are 10 physical albums certified for Queen. As for the term (Old), I don't see it ever being used after the change occurs. I'm not sure if it's placed next to titles released before 2003 just to indicate that older levels are applied, not newer. Maybe contacting RIAJ could clarify whether they apply their current levels to titles released before 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I did a bit of research, and it looks like Billboard could be correct. See Hikaru Utada's single called "Colors" for example (type in "Colors" in the left upper field). It has been certified Platinum for 400,000 units in January 2003, then certified 2x Platinum for 800,000 units in February 2003, then in July 2003 it was certified 3x Platinum for 1,200,000 units (I don't think it's for 750,000 units). By July 2003, it would have easily been 4x Platinum for 1,000,000 units with newer levels. That example clarifies quite a bit as to whether RIAJ applies their newer levels to titles released before the change. But I'll do more research.--Harout72 (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72: i looked at the single in question. Yes it got "new" certification of 3x Plat in July 2003.. and then got Million on December 2003.. thus the logical conclusion is that it did get recertified and that 3x Platinum is 750k by the "new" criteria (same situation as Colors is album "LIFE is")
What if billboard article meant exactly this? That pre-2003 releases would keep their "old" certifications and would not get a "renewed one" with the change (there are plenty of old singles/albums which haven't had new certifications assigned, even if according to the numbers, they could get) and only 2003 releases would get a recertification (Colors is a 2003 release) Kleool (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And about Queen's single being possibly a re-release and there being a typo, another queen's album - greatest hits - release date 1999 and cert in Feb 2004 (without word (old)). (P.S. some of queen's certifications are under their japanese name クイーン)Kleool (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The one think I find confusing about Billboard, it states The new standards introduced in August apply retroactively to all new products released on/after January 1, 2003. But according to RIAJ, the change seems to have been introduced in July (at least they have their older criteria ending in June 2003, posted at the bottom of monthly certifications). You're right about titles released before 2003 not having been re-certified anymore after the change. But there are Gold certifications issued for titles released before January 1, 2003. I'm confused as to how this should be handled. I think contacting RIAJ would be our only option, that is if they reply (as most of these certifying bodies don't reply).--Harout72 (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
As for the Million units certifications posted in December 2003 for the single "Colors", all it means it has surpassed the 1 million units sales. There are other Japanese titles receiving their million units certification months after they received 4x Platinum, like Ayumi Hamasaki's A Ballads, it received its 4x Platinum (1,600,000 units) in March 2003, and received its 1 Million cert in July 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: A Ballads is different situation though. It got a recertification of 1 million on July 2003 (when the new rules came in force), because it was over 1m BEFORE that. Colors is different, because on July 2003 it got 3x Plat. If the 3x Plat, even in theory, were to be over 1m (as u said old 3x plat = 1.2m), then it would have gotten the Million certification then, in July, not half a year later in december. Thus, that 3x Platinum is by new rules, downvaluating the old 2x Plat (800k) to new 3x Plat 750k. I'll be honest, i'd take billboard with a grain of salt on this. Especially considering that Japan has a special marking system on their database, where they explicitly note which certifications are per which standard (at the bottom of each monthly certification page there is a table, which says "Gx" (like it shows on phone ver) is x shipments). Kleool (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Million certification in Japan is very much like the Diamond award in many other markets, which is awarded on some occasions when albums/singles surpass the level for Diamond and isn't on others, the same I've noticed happens in Japan with the Million awards, it's not always awarded. Having said that, the Million certification for A Ballads could have easily been awarded sometime between March and July 2003 as it had already reached 1,600,000 units shortly after its release. But again, I can't argue, this needs to be clarified with RIAJ.--Harout72 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have a weird idea about how RIAJ certification works? It's not like RIAA (as example), which, when assigning certification, automatically gives all the previous one's (e.g. 2x platinum cert means that Gold and Platinum were assigned by default). RIAJ assigns the highest one album/single qualifies for without the previous one's. If album reached 4x Plat (old) which is 1.6m on release, it's not gonna get the other smaller certifications (including the million) then or any later in time. Except, these cases in 2003 which happened only because thresholds were changed and some extra stuff was done.Kleool (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I never suggested anything what you're implying. You seem to be relying on pure speculation, this thing needs a clarification. And I also believe you're not very familiar with the fact that very few certifying bodies during those years were applying their newly adopted certification levels to older releases. Only the SNEP and RIAA were practicing that back in the day. Even now, not all of them apply their most recent certification levels to all titles regardless of release date. Anyways, I will personally try to contact the RIAJ about what we discussed, but I doubt they will reply.--Harout72 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Muhandes, I contacted RIAJ with regards to the discussion above, it looks like RIAJ does actually apply their levels introduced in 2003 to physical albums/singles/videos that have been released since 1989. In other words, they don't seem to go with release dates. Here is the scan of my question to RIAJ and their response. Please see if I'm reading their message correctly before making the change. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather not take sides unless I have to. How does Kleool read it? Do we have consensus? --Muhandes (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I aggree that as of July 2003 (incl.) certifications for physical products go by new thresholds (and are not reliant on release date), so we do have a consensus Kleool (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Japan sales now go by certification date. --Muhandes (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

German certification levels for singles until 1988

Muhandes, it looks like the German certification levels for singles in the 1970s until through 1987 were Gold=500,000 units, Platinum=1,000,000 units. I have found multiple sources supporting this, Billboard 1978, Billboard 1985, Billboard 1986, Music & Media 1986 (page 33), Music & Media 1987 (page 44). The reason why BVMI doesn't have these levels posted on their site is because the certifying body in Germany back then used to be Phono Press not Bundesverband Musik Industrie. However, BVMI has posted the certifications of 70s and 80s in their certification database. If you look at the number of the German certifications of the 1988 in their database, it immediately starts to grow 15 in 1988 compared to only 6 in 1987, or only 4 in 1986. So it's clear that the levels for singles have been dropped to current levels effective 1988.--Harout72 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: I'll add this to my TDL. I've been wondering for some time why we don't use those award lists in M&M as a source for the amounts certified. Do we have them for years other than 1986 and 1987? --Muhandes (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I was also hesitant to rely on Germany's levels for singles posted in Music & Media, I thought it was a mistake or a misprint, but Billboard speaks about those same levels also, so it must be true. I think we have only two issues of Music & Media for certifications, one in 1986 and one in 1987. But Billboard has published those levels in 1978, 1985, 1986, maybe in more issues, I've so far found only those.--Harout72 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure Harout is correct, more than one other country halved their awards levels towards the end of the 1980s, so this wouldn't be an unusual move by Germany, and the sources look good. Richard3120 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit: Muhandes, M&M only existed for the two years prior, 1984 and 1985, as Eurotipsheet, and in that incarnation it didn't carry certifications. The place that almost certainly will confirm both certified records and the change in certification levels will be old editions of Musikmarkt... but I have no idea where we could find back issues of those. Richard3120 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe there is consensus about the German certifications. My questions was aimed at other countries, where I thought we might learn the earlier levels. I have seen these numbers used quite often with |salesamount= and if we believe these numbers are correct, they should be added to the template as well. --Muhandes (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: Just to make sure I understand, Germany certifications go by release date. Are we saying all singles released until 1988 should have their sales levels as 500,000/1,000,000 ? --Muhandes (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes, I think to be on the safe side, we should program the German certifications posted until 1988 based on certification dates. While Bundesverband Musikindustrie certifies based on release dates, back then at least before 1988, it wasn't BVMI in charge of the Gold/Platinum program. Since we're not sure when BVMI took over the operations in Germany (it could be 1988), we don't want to apply 500,000/1,000,000 beyond end of 1987. So for example the single "Everlasting Love" certified Gold in 1988 is best to have BVMI's levels (250,000/500,000).
As for the levels of other countries, we seem to have two issues only by Music & Media that have published the levels for other countries. I'm not sure if that's enough data to proceed with. I guess the template for those countries including Poland, Belgium, Norway (posted in 1986 issue), and Greece, Portugal (posted in 1987) would have to be programmed based on certification dates. But note that Italy drops its albums levels in 1987. In 1986, their Gold/Platinum levels for albums were 250,000/500,000, but in 1987 they're 100,000/200,000. The template for Italy for those two years should be programmed based on release dates. Note Eros Ramazzotti's album Nuovi eroi is certified there 2x Platinum for 1,000,000 units in 1986, and in 1987 it's certified 3x Platinum for 1,500,000 units (it's obviously not 600,000 units).--Harout72 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72:  Done For Germany, to avoid a lot of work, I implemented it so that only if |relyear= is 1987 or earlier, then it will look for |certyear=. As for other countries, I'm confused and not sure what you ask to be implemented. Maybe start a new thread and see if we can figure it out. --Muhandes (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

2× Gold in Mexico is not working. En éxtasis (article)

@FanDePopLatino: and I tried to change Thalía's 2× Gold certificate in the En éxtasis article but it doesn't work. He even tried to include real month in it but there's no way to the 2× Gold appear on the table. Could you help us?--88marcus (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@88marcus and FanDePopLatino:  Fixed The sales amount fix was there before, but not the award text. --Muhandes (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes:Thank you! :)--88marcus (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Poland (2)

This is rather nitpick-y, but could anyone edit the Poland certification format so that the spaced hyphen is replaced by the en-dash? This is to comply with MOS. I tried to go to the sandbox but I don't know how to edit... Thank you, Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ippantekina:  Done, I hope Coming from a language which only has one type of hyphen this is always a bit confusing for me, so I hope I got it right, please verify. --Muhandes (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Thank you very much :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Russia (Diamond cert)

The Diamond award shows automatic sales of 60,000 units, when is supossed to be 200,000. At least reports from 2003-2008. Take Crazy Hits as an example. Thanks. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: Can you please show where it says that Diamond is 200,000? We may be missing a source, but the sources we used back then (https://www.webcitation.org/666alX1Ce?url=http://lenta.ru/i/music/rmi2011.pdf and http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5634 ) which are currently unavailable, used to say Diamond is 60,000 for international albums. It is 200,000 for ringtone and in fact, was 300,000 for domestic albums. Again, I can't prove any of it, but as I wrote the code, I'm going to WP:AGF myself.... --Muhandes (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
All sources above says Gold means 10,000 ("НАЛИЧИЕ СТАТУСА «ЗОЛОТО» (10.000 экз.)) while a Platinum award was for 20,000 units sold/shipped (КОЛИЧЕСТВО СТАТУСОВ «ПЛАТИНА» (20.000 экз.)); we are talking about at least certifications of those reports from 2003 to 2008 (international). You can see for example, Reise, Reise was certified with 2× Platinum in Russia and our template generates 40,000 units, which is correct. But those with a Diamond-level should be 200,000 (20,000 x 10 = 200,000) and albums like Crazy Hits only shows 60,000 units. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Apoxyomenus: Is there a source which says that Diamond in Russia is 10× Platinum? I'm asking because that is very uncommon. In Argentina, Diamond is about 9× Platinum and the same in Australia. In Belgium Diamond is simply 2× Platinum. In Brazil it stands at 4-5× and in Canada 10×. In France it is less than 2× while in Germany it is 2.5×, in Greece 5× and in Hungary 2× (I stopped there, the alphabet has more letters). The bottom line is that every region uses different standards for Diamond, so should use reliable sources. The two sources when I coded this template 11 years ago are dead now, but I trust myself that they said 60,000 back then. If you find a contradicting source we can surely change the number. --Muhandes (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Apoxyomenus: Not sure if you're mixing the "requiriments" with those from url: 2m-online.ru (2003-2008) or with Lenta.ru (in charge for Russian certs around the 2010s). So my 2cents is remove automatic sales from those albums with Diamond, like Crazy Hits because seems to be wrong an amount of 60,000. We don't have anymore the link to prove that, unlike those that shows a Platinum = 20,000 and Gold = 10,000 (higher figures than a Diamond of 60,000). Also, I'm Not sure if Russia enters in the category of 10x Platinum = Diamond (Like United States among others); also at least albums like Loose attained 7x Platinum. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Apoxyomenus: I don't think there is a mixup. the 60,000 figure is based on a source from 2m and the code applies this figure only to certifications until 2010. I have still not seen any evidence that these numbers are wrong so I leaning towards keeping the curernt numbers, based on the assumption that 11-years-ago-me used reliable soruces. This is, of course, unless there is consensus to do otherwise. Other editors are welcome to voice their opinions. --Muhandes (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

FIMI's new levels for singles

@Muhandes: Looks like Italy's FIMI's going to raise their cert levels for singles again effective January 1, 2022. New levels will be Gold=50,000, Platinum=100,000.--Harout72 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: Noted, thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Harout72:  Done, we are ready for 2022. I also took the opportunity to fix some coding bugs and to collect all the sources used and add them to the documentation. --Muhandes (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Spanish certification levels for Singles

@Muhandes: I just noticed that Spain's Promusicae has raised their certification levels for Singles effective January 1, 2022. The new levels are 30,000/60,000. It looks like they will be applying the new levels to all singles regardless of their release dates, as long as they've never received certifications of any kind previously (Con efectos desde la semana 1/2022 (no afecta a los certificados emitidos con anterioridad)). That statement appears at the bottom of singles charts. So those singles that have already been certified Gold or Platinum will not be affected by the new levels. This is very much like the way Belgium operates.--Harout72 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: Noted, I will look into updating it soon™. --Muhandes (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: How it could affect old singles? What if previous levels would be 60,000/120,000 and single sold already 45,000? It would got automatically gold for selling 30,000 or they would wait for 60,000 platinum skiping gold? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: I don't understand what you mean with 60,000/120,000. So for example, if a single was released before January 1, 2022 and has already sold 19,000 but has not yet reached its Gold status, will receive its Gold certification only when it reaches 30,000 units. However, if a single released before January 1, 2022 and has already received its Gold certification for 20,000 (as it was before 2022), the Platinum will be awarded to that single when it reaches 40,000 units.--Harout72 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: How do you know that they count Platium for old 40,000 not new 60,000? I think there is always problem with "border cases". Eurohunter (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Promusicae says (Con efectos desde la semana 1/2022 (no afecta a los certificados emitidos con anterioridad).--Harout72 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: I think that either you are reading it wrong, or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't speak Spanish, but I consulted a speaker and he says that "no afecta a los certificados emitidos con anterioridad" simply mean the numbers do not apply previously issues certifications (certificados emitidos con anterioridad). It does not mean the new numbers do not apply to singles previously certified. So if a single released before January 1, 2022 was certified Gold for 20,000, it will need to wait for 60,000 to be certified Platinum. In essence it simply means that certification will (from now on) be by certification year, not by release year as it was before.
@Harout72: The way I implemented such things for other countries is that if |certyear= is present and is >= 2022, or if |certyear= is present and is >= 2022, we go with the new levels. This is backwards compatible and does not require us to now go over all certifications and make sure |certyear= is specified. --Muhandes (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I implemented the change based on my understanding above, in the sandbox, you can test how it work by using {{Certification Table Entry/sandbox}}. I'm waiting to hear from you before I go live. --Muhandes (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Well, I don't speak Spanish either but why would Promusicae mention anything at all about the new levels not affecting previously issued certifications? Wouldn't they simply say the levels starting January 1, 2022 are 30,000/60,000 and apply to all singles or all singles regardless of release date or something similar. I personally believe Promusicae says new levels excludes previously certified singles. I don't think the statement "no afecta a los certificados emitidos con anterioridad" is put up there to avoid confusion that all previously certified singles will receive automatic amendments to their certification levels. Maybe others could look at the statement and give their input.--Harout72 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
But if it's only possible to program the template to go either by certification date or release date, I understand it. But Promusicae would be like Canada, albums levels by release date, singles levels by certification date.--Harout72 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Harout72, this will not be the first region where singles go by relyear and singles by certyear, this is also the case in Greece and some others. I personally believe that many of the places where the template uses release year are misunderstandings and it should go by certification year, but I follow consensus. If you think my proposal above is reasonable, I suggest we go with it until we have concrete evidence otherwise. Muhandes (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I believe we should use the model we have for Belgium:
  • (Example 1) A single released before January 1, 2022 certified Platinum (40,000 units) in 2021, will be re-certified 2x Platinum (80,000 units) after January 1, 2022.
  • (Example 2) A single released before January 1, 2022 certified Gold (20,000 units) during the same period, will be re-certified Platinum (40,000 units) after January 1, 2022.
  • (Example 3) A single released before January 1, 2022 not certified Gold before January 1, 2022, will be certified Gold (30,000 units) after January 1, 2022.

--Harout72 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: The implementation I used is similar to what we have for Belgium. If the value at |certyear= is not updated when a new certification is available, it will keep using that threshold. Keep in mind that there is no way to force editors not to update the |certyear= parameter, and most editors do update it when a new certification is available. If that is what you were looking for then let me know and I will sync the sandbox to live. --Muhandes (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Yes, you're right, it's impossible to keep track of all of the updates editors are doing. I think for the time being we should move forward with the model above I suggested. I have also contacted Promusicae to see if they could clarify all this for us with a few words. I'm suspecting that their statement about previous certifications not being affected might simply be their way of saying that the new levels are not for earlier releases. I hope they reply, I'll keep you posted when I get word from them. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72:  Done, or at least I hope so. Let me know if something doesn't work as expected. --Muhandes (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

support type=EP

Hi everyone. I added support for |type=EP, for now just for |region=United States where it was needed for correct citation. If another region needs it for correct citation, sales amount or anything else, please let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Diamond certification in Russia - redux

Hi everyone. The following is a discussion from my talk page, which I copy here verbatim with permission of Moh8213:

Hi Muhandes, hope you're doing well, I'm just here to let you know that I've found something odd regarding the Russian certification thresholds. To my knowledge, the threshold for the international albums released in Russia throughout the 2000s were (10,000/20,000/200,000) for (Gold/Platinum/Diamond), yet for some reason, albums such as Crazy Hits or FutureSex/LoveSounds despite being certified Diamond, are only listed with 60,000 units. What do you think about it? Moh8213 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Do you have any source for that? I know the person who wrote that code, it's 12-years younger me. A handsome young fellow, but still one that sticks to sources. If I wrote 60,000, I had a source that said 60,000 units, at least for the early 2000s. I see now that the link to that source is dead, but I trust old me. Nevertheless, if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, do let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've found 2 sources that can support my claim, this one shows the best selling albums in Russia and it also shows you the certification levels that launched in Russia since 2003, when you scroll down you will see the list of the best selling international albums. There's also this source that shows the best selling records and artists in the USSR and Russia, scroll down till you see the list of the top selling foreign albums 2003-2012, there you will see the 200,000 unit figure for the Diamond cert. Moh8213 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I'm afraid both of these website are considered WP:SPS and unreliable. charmasters.org is actually listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. bestsellingalbums.org is a rather new website, I believe from 2020, so there was no discussion about it yet, but it does not divulge its sources nor the identity of the organization behind it. It also seems to mirror some Wikipedia lists. Do you have any objection for me moving this discussion to somewhere more public like Template talk:Certification Table Entry? --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you wanna move this discussion anywhere else. But my overall opinion is that the 200,000 units for the Diamond certification is much more logical, cuz it doesn't make any sense that the highest certification (Diamond) would be the same as a 3× Platinum (60,000). Moh8213 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I'm not sure why you don't find 3× Platinum logical. This is Exactly what they do for domestic. It makes much less sense to have 3× Platinum for domestic and 10× Platinum for imported. Also, from 2010 it was 3×, so it makes much more sense it was 3× before as well. Besides, 3× is a reasonable number. In Belgium Diamond is 2× Platinum, in France it is less than 2×, in Germany it is 2.5×, in in Hungary 2×. I can go on... --Muhandes (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I said 3× Platinum (60,000) because the Russian Diamond certification is also equals to (60,000), take a look at this "archived database". of international albums that were released in 2006, look carefully at the top 2 certs, you can see that FutureSex/LoveSounds is certified Diamond (60,000) and Loose is certified 6× Platinum (120,000), see what I mean? Even though that FS/LSs listed at the top of the list yet sold less compared to the album below it, same thing goes with "Crazy Hits"., either way, based on the archived database we have, both of these albums are the only ones to receive the Diamond certification. In fact, that's how I noticed that something is odd regarding the Diamond figure, especially given the fact that the certifications are listed in ascending order. And btw believe me you can have a 3× Platinum (domestic) and 10× Platinum (imported).

Moh8213 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point I got convinced. The logic from the order of certifications is compelling and shows that Diamond was, for the 2M period (September 2006 to the end of 2009), more than 6×. Indeed 10× makes the most sense. Combined with the non-reliable sources, I think we have enough evidence. See also a similar request by Apoxyomenus. As Moh8213 points out, this is relevant to only two albums, so perhaps we are wasting too much time on such a minute issue. Anyway, if there are no objections, I will implement this. Pinging the regulars Harout72, Richard3120, and Kleool. --Muhandes (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: It has been more than two weeks and no one objected so I am going to implement this. --Muhandes (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: No objection from me – Moh8213's argument seems to make sense. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Seems like you've mistakenly added 100,000 instead of the 200,000 for the Diamond cert, or is there something else I don't know? Moh8213 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Moh8213:  Fixed (sorry for the brain fart) --Muhandes (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Australia 2021

@Muhandes:. Hi Muhandes. ARIA released a new certification document here (Dropbox). for 2021 up to November (god knows why they left December out), which means the link for May 2021 in the template needs to be replaced. The "May 2021" link links to a error 404 page now.YGO24895 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@YGO24895:  Done, thanks for letting us know. I notice this includes only singles. I hope they fix it, but if not, I do have a copy of the May 2021 file which we can use. --Muhandes (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@YGO24895: I see you have already started using it, I presume you will be updating both articles and discographies? I don't want to step on your toes, so I can start from the end of the list. --Muhandes (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Yes. Sounds good to me. YGO24895 (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes:. Hi Muhandes. It seems they released yet another list for 2021. Now including December and album certs.YGO24895 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@YGO24895: I want to believe I have a small part in that. I wrote them an email yesterday, this was the response: "Hi Music Fan, Thank you very much for your email. The accreditation list will be updated sometime today. Take care, Tara". --Muhandes (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 Done new file now used. --Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I think your mail did wonders. They just released the list for January 2022. YGO24895 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@YGO24895: That's nice. I actually reported some errors to them, lets see if they address them. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and |certyear=2022 now works. --Muhandes (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems ARIA is now updating their files every month and changing the file name each time. We are up to date for February 2022. --Muhandes (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Issue with UK certification

The song "Let's Go Home Together" was certified platinum in the UK, per BPI. I thought Platinum in the UK was 300,000 yet the template recalls 600,000 on the song's page? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Brazil's Videos-certification-levels for International artists

@Muhandes: Do we have the correct international levels programmed for Brazil's videos? The levels for International videos released before January 1, 2006 were Gold=50,000, Platinum=125,000, Diamond=500,000, but when I'm checking U2's Video certifications, the template brings up incorrect levels including U2 Go Home: Live from Slane Castle, Ireland, Vertigo 2005: Live from Chicago, PopMart: Live from Mexico City, Elevation 2001: Live from Boston. Is there something additional we need to add in the template to bring up the correct levels perhaps? I just realized that the template is most likely programmed based on this version, I believe the latter mistakenly lists the national levels for videos released before January 1, 2006 --Harout72 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: You diagnosed the issue accurately. We are using the 2009 source which contradicts the 2017 source. I would assume the former, being older, is more reliable, but maybe there is a reason to prefer the latter. --Muhandes (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: The reason why I believe the 2009 version has an error for international video levels is because when the certifying bodies adjust the levels, all awards (Gold, Platinum, Diamond) go in one direction, either up or down. Notice how in the 2009 version, the Gold and Platinum are adjusted down, while the Diamond is adjusted up. They clearly listed the national levels instead of international levels for video releases before January 1, 2006. As for the significant drop in levels that we see on 2017 version (which I assume is the reason why people tend to believe that 2009 version is more likely) is because ABPD (back then) adjusted the video levels only once unlike the levels for albums. If the album levels were not adjusted in 2001, the adjustment/drop in album levels would also seem outrageous, which were also adjusted again on January 1, 2006.--Harout72 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: & @Muhandes: I guess I've to put my 2 cents here. The main reason why I doubt the 2017 version is just simply because the international levels for DVD releases before Jan. 1, 2006 are too inflated for a DVD, especially when considering the fact that those cert levels are as close as an album cert level; therefore, making it highly unlikely that those were the true cert levels for DVDs. As for you doubting the 2009 version, it's clearly obvious that they adjusted the Diamond cert up because of the inclusion of the Double Platinum (60,000) and Triple Platinum (90,000) as it wouldn't make any sense for them to downgrade the Diamond cert. Now I rest my case, y'all can decide which of 'em are correct or incorrect. Moh8213 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Central America certifications

The Certificación Fonográfica Centroamericana (CFC) is a certification organization that represents the music industry in Central America. So far, only single tracks have been certified, with award levels being determined by the number of streams. Would this be appliable to add to the certification table? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice: I'd love to have an official certifying body for every region of the world, but we need to question if this is the one. It seems to be a very new organization, with the first certifications in July 2021. They don't say much about their origin or official standing which is worrying. They claim relations with the big labels Sony, UMG etc and with the regional IFPI members FONOTICA (pinging FanDePopLatino), AGINPRO, ASAP EGC and PRODUCE, but does any of these organizations mentions them back? I think they have a certification procedure not different than other organizations, perhaps someone can translate that and verify. I think a major question is, is this a notable organization? Are other notable forms of media quoting these certifications? --Muhandes (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Muhandes I looked it up and after reading their page and some third party sources it does appear to be a legit organization. It is exclusively mentioned for certifying by third party sources like here and here with the later also mentioning that AGINPRO is part of the organization. Now as far as the certification process this appears to be a new organization which strictly certifies for streaming instead of sales (the same way that Chile has PROFOVI for streaming and IFPI Chile for sales). It says a certification first has to be reviewed by Organización Administradora del Programa de Certificaciones Centroamerica (OAPCC) which supposedly post a yearly list of certifications so I'm going to look into that one. In the end CFC does seem reliable but only for streaming certifications and not sales so we need to make sure we make that clear when we add them like I did for Saturno for the Chilean streaming certification. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This does look legitimate to me as well. Given the small populations of Central American countries (Guatemala is the only one with a population of more than 10 million) and the limited availability of streaming websites like Spotify, it's understandable that they'd want to take a combined measurement across the whole region for certification levels. Now, I wish I could find out how and where Colombian certifications are published... and I live in Bogota... Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
You all seem to be agreement. I started Certificación Fonográfica Centroamericana, but this just emphasizes how little we know of this organization. Where are they located? Who are they headed by? A more technical question is how do they certify albums? I notice they now have quite a number of those. I'll add the certifications to the template soon, unless there are any objections. --Muhandes (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I can answer one question – they're based in Costa Rica: I can tell that from the country phone code and the webpage designer's address on their contact page. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity is how things often work in Latin America – as I stated above, I've been looking for years for any details about Colombia's ASINCOL, and despite the fact I've lived for more than a decade in the same city where ASINCOL are based, I still can't find out anything about them: no phone number, no address, no web page, nothing. Richard3120 (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Muhandes Their certification process says that when a record label wants to submit material to be certified there are 15 requirements they have to send for review. If any of them are not met, the streams haven't reached the sales volume, or the label doesn't submit one of the requirements in their request for a certification the it is rejected. All certifications are for streaming from the time that the material was released and they go as follow:

Gold = 3.5 million streams

Platinum = 7 million streams

Diamond = 35 million streams

They certify both singles and albums but they don't take into account streams that last less than 30 seconds since those don't reflect the consumption of a full track and an album has to have at least 5 songs and last a minimum of 30 minutes. Hope this helps. FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: Does this means that albums are also certified using the same thresholds? That would seem strange since it means every single will also certify the album. Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: No because if you look on page 3 of their certification process explanation it says on aspects 4 and 5 that promotional streams like singles played on the radio, television, on the press for promotion that cost $0 don't count towards the certification and are not taken into account. Pre-release streams also don't count therefore if a single was released prior to the album and during its promotional time it gathered 3.5 million streams before the album was released, those streams don't count towards the album and won't certify the album gold as soon as it's released. Sorry these explanations are brief but it's a lot to translate but hopefully this helps more. FanDePopLatino (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Richard3120 now for your question, unfortunately ASINCOL closed many years ago. They were the official certification body for Colombia but now it's been replaced by ACINPRO. There are actually 2 organizations in Colombia that are affiliated with IFPI and you can find their websites here. PROMUSICA Colombia post official charts for Colombia but unfortunately neither website publishes certifications for the public but maybe you can get in touch with them to see if you can find something out. Hope this information helps. FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino, ThedancingMOONpolice, and Richard3120: No objections were raised so I added |region=Central America.  Done --Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Post-commentary. Seems there was another Central American music organization working with certifications called "Cámara Centroamericana de Productores Fonográficos" (CAPROFONO) per Nacion.com. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Spain accumulated certifications

The template for Spain could be updated so that certifications can be cited from the annual lists on Promusicae's website, as it works for weekly charts. For instance, "Bad Guy" was certified two times platinum in 2019 and two times platinum in 2020, accumulating into a quadruple-platinum certification. El portal de Música shows the song's certification from its last week of charting with the id entry (triple platinum), while their annual lists show its certification acquired from one year (double platinum in 2020). ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice: The main problem with Promusicae's citations is that they don't use standard URL names. We can therefore either add a list of URLs to the template (as we do, for example, for ARIA certs) or we can use the same strategy we use for weekly files, namely give instructions on how to find the certification source. What did you have in mind? --Muhandes (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I was thinking about the latter option to have consistency with the weekly chart method, and it probably wouldn't be as much of a hassle compared to having to add new URLs once a year. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice: In that case that's not a big deal to implement. Are you planning to use this extensively? I don't want to complicate the code just for something that would be used once or twice --Muhandes (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: You have a point that there probably are not that many situations where it would be necessary to use the annual charts over the weekly charts or El portal de Música as they usually suffice. And I just noticed that earlier charts have a Singles category instead of a Songs category which can lead to some confusion. Given its situational nature, it might be preferable to cite them manually using the certref parameter. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice: Well then, it's settled. If you find yourself using them more often, contact me and I will add this option. --Muhandes (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

FIMI's Template

@Muhandes: Italy's template brings up incorrect levels for albums certified in 2009. It brings up 50,000 for Gold and 100,000 for Platinum for albums certified in 2009. FIMI dropped its levels from 50,000/100,000 to 40,000/80,000 effective January 2005. Also, starting from January 2008, the levels were dropped to 35,000/70,000. Those levels remained unchanged until the end of 2009.--Harout72 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: The code for FIMI seems to follow what you are saying. It uses |relyear= if |certyear= is 2009 or earlier, or if it is not present. Can you give some examples of articles where it doesn't work the way you expect it to work? --Muhandes (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: One example would be HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. The template brings up 50,000 units for Gold, it should be 35,000 since FIMI goes by certification dates. It seems to work correctly for all later years but not for albums certified in 2009 --Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: The template uses |relyear= if |certyear= is less than 2010, following this discussion, which you also took part in. The code was not changed since then as far as I can tell. Can you trace where you think we all went wrong back then? --Muhandes (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes:Yup I remember the discussion, I think back then we still didn't know until what point FIMI certified using the 35,000/70,000, perhaps that's the reason why we left the template for 2009 unfinished. So all albums certified Gold/Platinum in 2009 should read 35,000/70,000. I don't know to program the template to bring up the necessary levels, otherwise I'd help.--Harout72 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Harout72: I think I know what happened. The main source for the template coding is this page (and similar like it) which states that the collaboration between FIMI and GfK started in 2010. We therefore went by |relyear= until 2009 and by |certyear= from 2010. Looking at the certification archive, there are 45 certifications (conveniently, with IDs 1 to 45) which were made in 2009 (HIStory is numero quattro by the way). The obvious explanation is that although the collaboration stated in 2010, GfK were collecting numbers for 2009 and these certifications were made based on the 2009 numbers, using the 2009 thresholds. Any comments on this? Also pinging Stee888. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: That could be it, can we fix it?--Harout72 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: Since no one seems to object,  Done. This should effect at most the 45 albums certified in 2009. I see HIStory is correct, let me know if anything doesn't work as it should. --Muhandes (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Https for Germany

@Muhandes: Hi. Could you please add https to the Germany entry? Not sure if it's just me, but without the https I'm getting a 403 Forbidden error message. snapsnap (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@SnapSnap:  Done --Muhandes (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry/Archive_10&oldid=1104470847"