Jump to content

Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Archive 11

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

South Korea KMCA template

Unsure if this is the right place, but the Gaon website has been revamped and all cert urls have changed as follows:

Please update the relevant template(s) accordingly. Existing cert urls redirect to the homepage of the new website: https://circlechart.kr/ -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Thanks for pointing it out,  Done --Muhandes (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-1975 RIAA certifications

When you input an RIAA gold certification into Template:Certification Table Entry, it will state 500,000 in the Certified units/sales column. But that's incorrect for LPs certified before 1975: "From 1958 through 1974, the minimum requirement for a gold album was $1 million in sales at manufacturer wholesale prices, based on 33⅓ percent of the list price for each album. From January 1, 1975, an additional requirement was that an album sold a minimum of 500,000 copies." (Source: White, Adam. (1990). The Billboard Book of Gold and Platinum Records. Billboard Publications: New York City. ISBN 0-8230-7547-8. p. 3.)

I thought it would be fine to enter the salesamount= field as $1,000,000, which I did at Got Live If You Want It!, though Muhandes removed it and recommended discussing the matter here. The fix to the template would be to have it so if the certyear= field has any entry from 1958 to 1974 inclusive, the Certified units/sales column would instead indicate $1,000,000. Tkbrett (✉) 16:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For info, during the 1970s the BPI in the UK also certified albums by sales revenue rather than units, from the beginning of certifications in April 1973 until the end of 1978. So any agreed change to the template should probably affect the UK as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If there is consensus that it is appropriate for this chart to mix sales in units and in $, I have no problem implementing it. We already mix streams, units and equivalent units by the way. --Muhandes (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a change I'd support. It'd also help if we could get a reliable source indicating the exact period for how UK certs were done, per Richard3120's comment above. Tkbrett (✉) 13:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Tkbrett and Muhandes: I think this document has all the necessary information. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

European certifications by Music & Media

Is there a possibility to distinguish the plaques given to works by Music & Media in Europe? For example, the 7× Platinum in The Bodyguard (soundtrack) was given by them, not by IFPI. Of course, if there a legitimate award, otherwise could be similar perhaps as |nosales=true or something similar?. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: I'm not sure these should be considered certifications at all. As far as I can see, M&M says: "● recognition of pan-European sales of 500.000 units ▲ A recognition of sales of 1 million units", they never mention "certification", "gold" or "platinum". In my opinion this means that these are summary sale figures and not certifications. This means |nocert=true would be best. Technically, you could use |region=Europe ([[Music & Media]]) to override the certifying body, but I still think it would be best not to imply that this is a certification. Muhandes (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree - we should distinguish them from the official IFPI Platinum Europe awards that came later, like here: [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Done. Please see the results in this example. I would agree with that, they shouldn't be certifications, but "verified" sales by a highly reliable source. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Looks good to me. --Muhandes (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Hi. in Poland entry, we have the following expression: 

...
|{{#ifexpr:{{{year}}} = 2005
  |{{#if:{{{month|}}}
    |{{#ifexpr:{{{year}}} < 7
    ...

The last line of the code above should be changed to {{#ifexpr:{{{month}}} < 7 .... Thanks. Jeeputer Talk 02:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 12:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Belgian Certifications for older albums/singles

I noticed this problem way earlier, but it become even more apparent after BEA have just updated their certifications on albums on their database. So far there's new certifications on 8 albums on their database and 3 of 'em are older albums from the 60s, 70s & 80s in which they are:

They're currently listed with the current cert levels which is far from being the case, it's clearly obvious BEA certifies albums/singles based on release date rather than cert date. Brothers in Arms already received a Platinum certification in 1986 for certified sales of 75,000 units and now it's certified 4x Platinum with 80,000 units? It doesn't make any sense and it needs to be resolved quickly. Moh8213 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Pinging Harout72 who was involved last time we discussed Belgium certs. What we have in the code for Belgium is that for recordings certified after BEA moved to use streaming, we go by |certyear=. Before that, we go by |relyear=. --Muhandes (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The new cert issued for Brothers in Arms by BEA should translate to 200,000, not 80,000. BEA uses its own cert levels, the certifying body in 1986 was Sibesa, so those older levels would't be used by BEA. Does BEA say anywhere on their site that they apply their newer album levels after streaming, regardless of release date? I think our discussion involved singles, not albums.--Harout72 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, BEA don't certify records, they're only an organization that represents the interests of music, video and video game industries in Belgium, while the former is represented by IFPI Belgium, the local chapter of the International Federation of the Photographic industry (IFPI), so technically speaking it's IFPI Belgium who certifies records in Belgium, not BEA, btw BEA only formed in 2008 and IFPI Belgium have been certifying records in Belgium since the 1980s, so there's that. Additionally, according to the wiki Dutch article of IFPI Belgium, they are associated with Sibesa. So maybe those older cert levels are still used by IFPI Belgium. But I guess the only way to find out is by contacting them, I've sent them an E-mail regarding this issue but so far I haven't got any response. So idk how it's gonna turn out. Moh8213 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The certifying bodies are not always called IFPI Norway or IFPI Sweden for example. BEA just like Amprofon in Mexico, just like BVMI in Germany is a member of IFPI, operating under the general umbrella of the IFPI. The certification levels are decided by BEA in Belgium. In 1986, it was Sibesa in Belgium certifying music, also a memeber of IFPI. Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Moh8213: Why are we suddenly discussing the identity of the certifying body? I thought the subject was the certification levels for albums in Belgium. I suggest we stick to one subject at a time. I pinged Harout72 to hear their opinion on the certification levels since they were involved in the subject before. To reiterate, today certification thresholds for recordings certified after BEA moved to use streaming go by |certyear=. Before that, they go by |relyear=. --Muhandes (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, in short, I just tried to state that those older levels used by Sibesa could possibly still being used today by BEA, considering that Sibesa was also an IFPI member, but yeah you're right, that's anotha topic.

Now, with that out of the way, let's focus on what we have here; Ultratop didn't state on their website that they certify records based on certyear nor relyear, but here's why I believe they certify records based on relyear rather than certyear.

Since BEA appears to be actively certifying records from the 00s, 90s, 80s, 70s and even 60s, it doesn't make any logical sense that those newer certs are also applied to those older records because (a) they were released at a time when cert levels in Belgium were high so those records wouldn't match with today's cert levels and (b) the current cert levels would make those older records look like they've sold less than they actually are, we already have an example with Brothers in Arms, the album received a Platinum certification for selling 75,000 units within just a year, do you really think it took the album 36 years to only sell 5,000 units? When we know for a fact that album sales in Belgium were robust for the longest time. There are other European countries who certifies records based on relyear even after the inclusion of streaming like Germany and Switzerland so it shouldn't be surprising that Belgium does it too. Moh8213 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've checked your previous discussion, apparently that discussion mainly revolved around the inclusion of streaming in albums and singles, and how after the addition of streaming the albums and singles started to achieve the previous Gold/Platinum threshold rapidly. But you guys didn't talk about whether the recent threshold affects the older records, records which were released prior the inclusion of streaming in the threshold. Harout already contacted Sam Jaspers, the director of Ultratop, via E-mail back in 2018, shortly after Ultratop changed their current certification threshold, Harout asked him about the new change in certification thresholds and then he asked him: Is it safe to say that all singles titles released on and after July 1, 2018 will be affected by newer levels?", in which Jaspers replied: "All songs released earlier are also affected if they hadn't reached gold status yet." Taking all that into consideration, it looks evident, that Ultratop still certifies records based on relyear rather than certyear. It seems that it was nothing but misunderstanding. Moh8213 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I'm sorry, I forgot about this. It seems like I also misread some of the discussion and upon re-reading it, I see that no objection was raised to BEA using release year threshold for albums. Since this is the consensus, I'll make the template reflect it. I added this to the TDL. Muhandes (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, just if you're wondering, I've noticed this problem after checking the article of the song Rolling in the Deep, based on its chart peak and run on the Ultratop chart, it seems it was one of the most popular songs in Belgium throughout the 2010s, the song immediately achieved the Gold and Platinum status in 2011 alone (when certification thresholds were 15,000 for Gold and 30,000 for Platinum) by 2012 it received 2x Platinum (60,000), in 2013 it was certified 3x Platinum (90,000) and the song's success continued even to 2016 when it received its recent 4x Platinum, which indicates to 120,000 units, but apparently by Jan. 2016, streaming started to be included in singles, and after the code got changed from relyear to certyear, its certified sales got shrinked to what is now 80,000 units, by this change, a lot of records that were released in Belgium will get shrinked once they get re-certified. And that's how I got concerned by it. Moh8213 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: To resolve that case we will need somewhat deeper solution as we will need to add a parameter for first certification date for singles. According to Jaspers, we would follow release year if the single was already certified, but certification date if it was not. Muhandes (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Even though Jaspers said that, I really doubt that tbh, cuz logically (agian) it wouldn't make sense that they suddenly decided to change their certification from release date to certification date, and neither the sources nor the Ultratop website itself mentioned that they certify records regardless of release date, so what made us go from relyear to certyear in the first place? Also another reason why I think it's doubtful is because there are lots of records that were released and performed extremely well in the Belgian charts, yet they haven't recieved any certification, so it would look pretty confusing if they'd get certified with the current code. I suggest to stick to relyear for the time being until we have sources or the Ultratop website says otherwise. Moh8213 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I can't find the previous discussion regarding albums, so I am going to revert that, but for singles this discussion still holds, until new consensus is achieved. In other words, you and Harout72 need to iron it out. Independently, I can add a parameter for stating the first certification date, which I suppose will resolve most cases to everyone's agreement. --Muhandes (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: just to note that Harout72 appears to have stepped away from Wikipedia following an ANI dispute, so consensus may be difficult to achieve if there is only one party involved. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I saw they were somewhat inactive, thought they were just taking it easy. I guess none else cares about Belgian certifications, so if no one else comments on this until I get to it, I may just revert to the 2018 code. Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Moh8213:  Partly done I reverted albums to use release year only and it works on Brothers in Arms. I am still hesitant about the singles as we have a clear source saying the opposite. I truly wish more people could have a look and share an opinion. Muhandes (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I understand your concern, thanks for adjusting it, this is without a doubt a good step so far, I don't think it's a problem of there isn't enough people who'd share their thoughts on this, it's simply the lack of sources that didn't give a "head's up" on this very simple matter, and the statement made by Sam Jaspers doesn't really help the situation either. It has been more than a month since I've contacted Ultratop and still I haven't got a response from them, and it's been a week since I've contacted Jaspers and I haven't got a response either. What's the point if they have an e-mail to contact them, but they won't interact with you when you reach them? Anyway, if you can add a parameter that would states the certification date, then I guess it'd be better to proceed it, otherwise more and more singles will get shrink once they get re-certified, just like the Rolling in the Deep case. Moh8213 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's a discovery that may sound interesting. While I was researching the Belgian cert levels at the Ultratop site, I found that the "Diamond" award was introduced (for the first time) sometime in March-April, 2022. Meaning that this award goes along with the current certification levels. Singles have to reach 400,000 units to receive the Diamond award, Albums have to reach 200,000 units for it to be certified Diamond. If you recall, Brothers in Arms was certified 4x Platinum for sales of 200,000 units. Another example is the recently certified 8x Platinum Nevermind for sales of 400,000 units. If albums were based on certyear rather than relyear, then these albums should've been certified Diamond and 2x Diamond, respectively. This further proves that albums are without a shadow of a doubt based on relyear rather than certyear. Right now we have cleared the albums, I guess we have to wait until Ultratop certifies more singles to find out whether singles are really based on relyear or certyear. Moh8213 (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Did any album or single actually achieve diamond? I don't see any on the charts. Muhandes (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So far there isn't, but it's important to note that unlike some charts (like the ARIA for example), Ultratop doesn't "immediately" show their certifications in the charts, they only show the certifications after the record appear on their yearly certification database (which for the most part gets updated monthly). And the diamond award was only introduced 5 months ago, so I guess we have to wait until more albums and singles get certified in order for us to reveal the truth. Moh8213 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Spanish cert

It seems there's an error regarding the Spanish certs, just wanted to ask is the singles certifications based on relyear or certyear? Moh8213 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: See this discussion. If |certyear= exists and is >=2022 it will use the newest levels. Otherwise, it reverts to using |relyear=. Muhandes (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems Eurohunter made it more confusing than it should've been, as that statement clearly translates to "(With effect from week 1/2022 (does not affect certificates issued previously)). To my understanding, that means that singles that were released prior 2022, and are already certified Gold won't be affected by the current cert levels, but if a single was released prior 2022 and haven't received any certification prior week 1 2022, will be affected by the recent cert levels, correct? Moh8213 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That also means that singles like Viva la Vida which was certified 3x Platinum (supposedly 120,000 units) in 2009, won't be affected by the current cert levels, correct? Cuz for some reason the single has been recently certified 5x Platinum few weeks ago and it's listed with the current cert levels. Moh8213 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I think it is you overcomplicating things. The certifying body now uses new numbers. All new certifications are using the new numbers. Older certifications are not affected. It's as simple as that. Therefore, the 3× certification was using the older numbers. The 5× certification is using the new numbers. --Muhandes (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I made it confusing, just wanted to make sure that I didn't get it wrong. Anyways, thanks for the help. Regards. Moh8213 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are wondering why I'm "overcomplicating things". Simply put, it's been over a month since Harout72 ceased activity here in Wikipedia, and after an ANI dispute, he abruptly stopped updating the list of best-selling music artists, he knows how the certification levels operate for all countries on that list, and I gotta say it's been difficult keeping up with the list since his vanish, but hopefully we'll get over it with time. Hope this answers your curiosity. Moh8213 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. Muhandes (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Made you look

Meghan Trainer needs a certificate for her new song Made you look maybe look into it because people want to stream meghans trainers new song. 1.145.211.137 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have ideas on how to improve Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song) you should post them at that article's talk page. Muhandes (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Typo

@Muhandes: at {{Certification Table Entry/Region}} (current version) there's a typo "South Aftica", supposed to be "South Africa". Tran Xuan Hoa (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tran Xuan Hoa:  Done thank you for reporting it. Muhandes (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

New Polish website

This template should be updated for Poland. The old website where certificates were presented is not updated anymore (but it still has full archive until January 2023). Now the whole history of Polish certificates can be seen here: https://www.olis.pl/charts/oficjalna-lista-wyroznien. Every album or single can be searched by clicking "Tytuł", while every performer by clicking "Wykonawca" (this could be added as a note in template after link). Thank you King10 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@King10: Switching to the new archive is going to be a huge undertaking since all the existing certifications uses |type=, |certyear= and |award=, and this will no longer work. Good thing they keep the old website too. I think the best solution is that if we don't have |certyear= (more relevant for {{cite certification}}), or certyear>2022 we will use |title= or in its absence, |artist= to prompt a manual search on the new website. Otherwise, we will revert to the older archive. Let me know what you think. Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@King10:  Done. I checked on Hold Me Closer (Elton John and Britney Spears song). Thanks for reporting this (unlike other editors who continued using the template although it used incorrect citations). I removed the redundant |certref= that you added on some certifications, you may want to remove it from the rest. Muhandes (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating ARIA certification

I’m trying to update the ARIA certification on the Certification table on either the album and single, but every time I tried to do that, it always keep saying, {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url=. Need help. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also when I tried to add access date and url, it always keep saying it also: {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url=. FireDragonValo (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@FireDragonValo: Thanks for reporting the problem. I've been away for some business and I am back now. I will attend to it soon™. Muhandes (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@FireDragonValo:  Done Feel free to contact me directly if I miss an update, I may be quite busy and not notice it. --Muhandes (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia and Germany URLs

As noted above, some ARIA certifications from 2023 are not correctly cited because changing the certyear currently does not provide URLs for the new references unless it is manually sourced. The Germany certifications also do not work now because BVMI has changed the URL from this to this. Both templates need to be updated. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice: Thanks for reporting the problems and thanks for finding the new URLs, I couldn't locate the new BVMI one. I've been away for some business and I am back now. I will attend to it soon™. Muhandes (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice:  Done --Muhandes (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sales certificated for Happy Xmas (War Is Over)

I am moving the following discussion from Talk:Happy Xmas (War Is Over)#New Zealand sales : Gold singles ≥ 15,000 units (and not ≥ 10,000 units):

Hello, in the section "Certifications" sales in New Zealand are above 10,000 units but according to the source, https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/singles?chart=5254, see at the very bottom of the Web page, Gold singles indicate sales of 15,000 units and above (Platinum ≥ 30,000), at least since 2022. Perhaps the sales thresholds for singles have changed. Any info ? How is it possible to change 10,000 into 15,000 ? Thanks Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlo Colussi: The consensus reached by the community over the years is that the New Zealand certifications thresholds go by release date and not by certification date. Since Happy Xmas (War Is Over) was released in 1971, the template uses the thresholds used in that period, which are 10,000 units for Gold. Whether this is correct or not is something that should be discussed here. If you are interested, you should start by searching the archive of discussions and finding out the sources used for that decision. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I have mentioned this on this page before, but I will quote again from the introduction to Dean Scapolo's book New Zealand Music Charts 1966 to 1996 – Singles, page 6, describing certifications listed in the book (with symbols that I can't reproduce here):

Following that is Silver / Gold / Platinum. These represent their respective awards for sales of: Gold: 10,000; Platinum: 20,000 (from 1978 to 1992). Silver was credited in 1987 as 5,000 units. The Gold and Platinum quantity requirements were halved in 1992 due to declining sales.

Harout72 didn't want to use these levels, on account of the fact that we have no firm start or end date for them, which is a fair point. It appears from the note regarding Platinum certifications that these levels were in use from 1978 to 1992, at which point Gold and Platinum were halved and Silver abolished completely. But do we know if certifications were given before 1978? Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I don't think the certification levels are the issue. The levels we are currently using for older releases are from Scapolo, Dean (2007). The Complete New Zealand Music Charts: 1966 – 2006. Wellington: Maurienne House. p. 7. ISBN 978-1877443-00-8., which is available here. Focusing on Gold, it says : Gold ● (10,000 copies to 1988, 5,000 from 1989). The point here is not the thresholds, it is the way we calculate them, which is following the release year rather than the certification year. I don't recall why we do that, but it has been the consensus forever. Muhandes (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the answer,
however I find it very strange that the thresholds are counted according to the release year and not the certification year. I can't see any accuracy in that method.
In the case of Happy Xmas yes it was released in 1971 but I don't think that this recent NZ certification takes into account sales since 1971 but only sales of a recent past.
When you click "Happy Xmas" in the NZ link, https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/singles?chart=5254, you may note that the record was on the charts for only 4 weeks. I greatly doubt that Happy Xmas stayed on the charts only 4 weeks in NZ since 1971, more precisely since 1975 because NZ had no charts previously according to the Wiki article Recorded Music NZ.
(In the link https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/singles?chart=5254 you can find that certifications have begun in 1975).
In other countries, certifications have also started late :
- in the UK in 1973 which could explain that the "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" has never been certified in the UK because it was released in 1970. Only the 2021 re-edition of "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" has been certified (that same year). If you look at https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/ and search "John Lennon" apparently the "Imagine" album that has been certified was released on ... 2010.10.04 (https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/3259-2886-2) whereas the original album has been released in 1971.
- in the USA, even the RIAA began certifications as late as 1958.
I know that these different music associations have retropolated counts for some very big artists but I think only for them and not for the others.
The RIAA have counted number of records sold before 1958 for Elvis Presley (but I'm not sure they have done it for Sinatra, Bing Crosby, etc ...; Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" is possibly the biggest-selling single ever however it has no RIAA certification if I am not mistaken, which is pretty nonsense).
The BPI have likely done it for the Beatles before 1973 but I don't think they have done it for Lennon. In particular his album "Imagine" is only Gold in the UK so I wonder if that UK certification concerns only "Imagine" albums sold since 2010.10.04 and if sales between 1971 and 2010.10.03 have been omitted. If you have a look at the Lennon BPI certifications, they began in 1973 so it is likely that no Lennon records sold between 1968 and 1972 have been counted in any certification.
When you look at Lennon record charts in the UK, https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/27904/john-lennon/, you can see that there are 3 editions of "Happy Xmas" (1972, 2003 and 2007). Besides the UK certification of "Happy Xmas" concerns a record sold on 2005.11.07 (https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/14048-4298-1)
so I am not sure at all that the BPI certification takes into account the "Happy Xmas" records sold between 1972 (in the UK, the single was released one year after the US release) and the 2000's (2003 ?, 2005 ? Not clear).
In conclusion, it seems that many certifications are incomplete since many records sold are probably not counted. I wonder if the NZ certication concerns only the last (4 ? 5 ? other ?) years.
If it's right then it would be very inaccurate to calculate the thresholds according to the release year instead of the certification year.
If Recorded Music NZ certified on 3 January 2022 "Happy Xmas" as a Gold record with more than 15,000 units sold then indicating in Wikipedia that "only" 10,000 units have been sold is clearly an inaccuracy in my opinion. Carlo Colussi (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Muhandes: right, but I brought it up because in the earlier version of Scapolo's book it appears that the certification levels quoted are only valid from 1978. So did the country have certifications from before this date? New Zealand only had an official singles chart from May 1975, so did the country give out certifications before it even had a chart? If it didn't, then the certifications can't be from the year of release. We also now have another problem, because Scapolo gives different dates for the certifications in each of his two books. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for changing New Zealand certification thresholds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Unanimous agreement that RMNZ certification thresholds should go by certification date. Muhandes (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard3120 and Carlo Colussi: Let me try to summarize what I hear. The question at hand is a simple yes/no question: should the thresholds for RMNZ (and its predecessors) certifications go by certification date or release date? You both point out that going exclusively by release date is problematic. The numbers' accuracy seems unclear and would raise questions regarding certifications for releases made before certifications (or charting) started. I'd add that I don't see how this would work practically and that I don't think RMNZ is even fully aware of the certification level used over the years, considering even Scapolo gives different dates in different books.

Bottom line, there seems to be loose agreement (due to not much participation) that after 12 years that the template went by the release date, it should now be changed to go by the certification date. Please try to make this simple and either support or oppose the proposed change. If there are other issues with the template, we can resolve them separately.

Pinging Richard3120, Kleool, Merynancy, Harout72 (I know some are inactive). --Muhandes (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation

I implemented this change but kept it backwards compatible: If you don't specify |certyear=, the certification thresholds will revert to using |relyear=. That way we should not have too many pages which are suddenly missing sales amount. I think that this is a practical and reasonable compromise, but please voice your opinion if you think otherwise. I'll keep watching it, but as far as I can say this is  Done. --Muhandes (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

IFPI DENMARK

Muhandes I have discovered old discussion that you were having with another editor related to certification of IFPI DENMARK and related to the same with  Dhoffryn later. I have doubts regarding this change. For example, according to this source the album HIStory was certified 5×platium in 2009, equal to 250k units, and in 2019, the album certified 10×platinum. If we go by the implemented way, the 10×platinum will be only equal to 200,000 units. It was again certified 11×platium in 2021 equal 220k units. My question is how on earth do the sales of an album go in reverse gears when it recertified for higher levels equal 250k in 2009 to 220k units in 2021? I dont see the point of recertification in this case.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: I can think of several ways in which the math would work, but this is besides the point. The evidence brought in that discussion seems decisive, and the fact that the math doesn't work for one album doesn't change it. I think the correct approach would be to use whichever number you prefer and leave a note with the rest of the details so readers can judge for themselves. Muhandes (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you please give me one example of an album that was released and already certified before 2011? I'm almost certain that it will never be going to work for an album released before the 2000s and already certified before 2011. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheWikiholic: If you are certain the current implementation isn't correct you will need to do more than bring one contrary example. Muhandes (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
According to this, The Marshall Mathers LP was certified 2×plat in 2001 equal to 100k units, and the album was certified 5×plat in 2020 after 19 years of its last certifications. But the certification units are still the same, 100k units. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Muhandes, I already gave you another example, just let me know if you need more examples. You should either provide more examples to justify that your implementation was correct, or you need to fix the template per release date for the titles released prior to 2011. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheWikiholic: You misunderstood my previous comment. I was not asking for random examples - I was asking for evidence. In case you missed it, we don't to original research here - we follow sources. Dhoffryn provided a source showing that at least since July 2012, certifications go by certification date. If I understand correctly, you suggest certifications go by release date, which means the source is wrong. You should provide a better source or explain why we are misreading this source.
As for the examples you provided, I would suggest that the certifications on the chart website are anachronistic. That is a far better explanation than believing an album certified for 5.5 million sales in Denmark (population: 5.9 million).
Finally, please remember I don't "need to fix the template". I don't work for you so you don't get to tell me what I need to do. --Muhandes (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I have never seen Dhoffryn providing any sources. In fact, he has raised similar concerns as mine. I have already provided a source contradicting the new threshold implementation, and it also meets WP:COMMONSENSE. I have asked you to fix the template because it was you who made that change. "That is a far better explanation than believing an album certified for 5.5 million sales in Denmark (population: 5.9 million)." Can you please tell me where I mentioned that an album certified equals o 5.5M sales in Danmark? TheWikiholic (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheWikiholic: I believe Dhoffryn provides a source in the second sentence of Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Archive 3#Denmark IFPI.
As for the number, you said you need to fix the template per release date for the titles released prior to 2011 which I interpreted as "please fix the template to use release date for titles released prior to 2011". That would mean 11× Platinum for HIStory is 5.5 million. Perhaps you should explain in more detail how you think the template should be corrected, how this relates to the two examples you brought and what sources you are using to justify this logic. Muhandes (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No, you are mistaken, it was Harout72 who
provided the source. "I interpreted it as "please fix the template to use release date for titles released prior to 2011". That would mean that 11× Platinum for HIStory is 5.5 million. " See if 11× Platinum equals 5.5 million, 1× Platinum would be 500,000 units. Danmark never had that many units as Platinum, and I have no idea where you got that from. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you are correct on both accounts. Still, a source was provided, no matter by whom. If you want to change the consensus you will need to provide a stronger source. Muhandes (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Italy certifications without ID

Hello. I noticed that Category:Cite certification used for United Kingdom without ID is being cleared out. I was wondering if the same should be done with Italy certifications, after a category is made. For example, the Italian certification at Ride (Twenty One Pilots song) links to this search. The specific certification at FIMI is here. It can be found by clicking the Richiedi targhetta button in the above FIMI search. The URLs seem to be the same for albums & singles certs. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Italy was most certainly going to be one of my next projects. The problem is that I am so busy with real life I doubt I will ever clean up BPI on my own, and I get very little help (hint hint). Anyway, if you want to take Italy as a project, I will gladly assist by creating a maintenance category, if one does not exist. --Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
A maintenance category would be fine. It could be dealt with later after UK is finished. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: Category:Cite certification used for Italy without ID (1,516) is slowly populating. Muhandes (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes: I came across You to Me Are Everything which has the correct BPI id from 2022. I tried null editing but it's still in the Cite certification used for United Kingdom without ID category. Any idea why this is the case? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333 I think it is because there is another citation for the certification in the commercial performance section of the article that does not have an ID. It should be reusing the citation from the certification table. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't notice that one. Thank you! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian single certifications since 2018

There are some new Hungarian single certifications in 2023, but the template for single releases since 2018 do not appear to show the sales amount like album certifications. According to MAHASZ's gold and platinum awards calculator, the thresholds are 2,000 units for gold singles and 4,000 units for platinum singles, the same as albums. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice: Thanks for the pointer, I added that task to my TDL. Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice: I rechecked, and the template code seems to produce the correct numbers, and has been doing so since this edit in October 2019. In fact, we have a very extensive test case for Hungary which also seems to work correctly. Can you point me to a case where it doesn't work so I can check what went wrong? Note that the certification goes by earliest release date, as the calculator you supplied clearly shows. --Muhandes (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes: Under the singles section for the test cases, when the year equals 2018, the output ends up as 0 when it should be 2,000. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice: Apologies, I totally misread your original request. I re-read some of the sources, especially this one, and they seem to claim that singles released from 2018 will be counted for album sales and not as singles. However, there is no doubt that singles are being certified (I see 8× Platinum for "Friday"), and the calculator is also very clear about it, so I added code to cover for singles.  Done Muhandes (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1975 RIAA certifications (second try)

In a now archived thread posted here a year ago, I pointed out that for LPs certified between 1958 and 1974, inclusive, "the minimum requirement for a gold album was $1 million in sales at manufacturer wholesale prices, based on 33⅓ percent of the list price for each album." It was beginning on January 1, 1975, that an added requirement was for an album to have "sold a minimum of 500,000 copies." (Source: White, Adam. (1990). The Billboard Book of Gold and Platinum Records. Billboard Publications: New York City. ISBN 0-8230-7547-8. p. 3.)

But when you input an RIAA gold certification into Template:Certification Table Entry, it will state 500,000 in the Certified units/sales column. Muhandes adjusted my workaround here at The Best of The Lovin' Spoonful. I suggested last year that we could add a year parameter to the template, and if its value is 1958 to 1974, then it would display "$1,000,000" instead of "500,000". Muhandes indicated there would be no problem adding this if there was consensus for the change, but unfortunately besides Richard3120 chiming in, the discussion petered out and I forgot to follow up. I will try to stay more on top of this one. Tkbrett (✉) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I still do not object to this initiative, but I would appreciate some participation. Mixing dollar sales and unit sales may be confusing, and having it appear automatically overnight might be offensive to some (who knows what may offend people). On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be overwhelming participation in any recent discussions. So, if we don't receive any objections for some time, I suppose we can interpret silence as agreement.
By the way, would this number be based on shipments or sales? Muhandes (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns. To draw more attention to this discussion, I made a thread at the Albums WikiProject.
The number is based off of sales. In The Billboard Book of Gold and Platinum Records, Adam White writes:

From 1958 through 1974, the minimum requirement for a gold album was $1 million in sales at manufacturer wholesale prices, based on 33⅓ percent of the list price for each album. From January 1, 1975, an additional requirement was that an album sold a minimum of 500,00 copies. These standards – in unit sales and manufacturer dollar volume – continue to apply today [in 1990]. (p. 3, my emphasis).

Tkbrett (✉) 13:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Italicise album names

Hey! Could someone edit the template so that album titles are italicised as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE? Many thanks in advance :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: This template creates certification through {{cite certification}}, I suppose this is what you referenced. It should not be too difficult to edit {{Certification Cite/Title}} and correct most of the regions. A minority of the regions (Germany for instance) use specific code which would need to be handled individually. I've added the task to my TDL but I am not expecting to be free for the next two weeks. Muhandes (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Alignment of notes in the bottom

{{Certification Table Bottom}} collects the footnote-refs for the table entries in a table-cell that is the full width of the table. It centers each of the lines within the cell. That makes it hard to track visually, since the primary way to read it is to find the line that starts with a certain symbol. This is also out-of-sync with ref-lists in other contexts, that are all left-aligned. It's a long-term problem that WP doesn't have a site-wide template or other standard formatting style for table footnotes. Given it's hard-coded here, can we change the formatting here to improve usability and get in sync with others? DMacks (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: It should be quite easy to edit {{Certification Table Bottom}} to this effect. I've added the task to my TDL but I am not expecting to be free for the next two weeks. Muhandes (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 26 October 2023

"Bronze" should be removed from the Category:Pages using Certification Table Entry with unsupported award listing, as it's nowhere used in the code of any sub-templates and in the articles as well. Solidest (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ARIA template

Hi, for Australian single certifications (ARIA), could someone update the 2023 template to this link Oct 2023 Single Accreds? The current one is still for June 2023 which is outdated. Thanks in advance, Ippantekina (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina:  Done I updated the links. Feel free to contact me directly when an update is necessary. Muhandes (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

RIAA template

I found out the RIAA template...to parse the variable to search the RIAA music doesn't work. It could be RIAA changed to new search platform so the search parsing are now fundamentally different, hence always came up "Unfortunately that search produced no certifications. Please try another search." error message. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. Please ignore it.
I saw Take a Bow (Madonna song) search parsing to RIAA work well, but the Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now search parsing to RIAA doesn't work becuase of an apostrophe. Seem peculiar to a few song (probably guessing) with such titles. Anyway I already made a separate ref tag in Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now to search RIAA correctly. (Though under <<Certifications>> Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now#Certifications anyone who click RIAA link within the template to search RIAA won't work) Please ignore it. Thanks. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Cat12zu3: This has nothing to do with our implementation; note that even if you search the website manually for Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now, it fails to find it. In fact, I couldn't find a way to force the website to cite this song directly. In such cases, in order to keep the citation correct, you can omit the title. Muhandes (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes even without apostrophe I could not find it manually in the RIAA search and search by <Starship> keyword instead. Sorry to bother you. Please ignore it. Thanks. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hungary MAHASZ certifications

I tried to figure out about the MAHASZ Hungary certifications for table entry. I went to their website and it doesn’t say gold, platinum, 2x platinum, 3x platinum, and diamond for both singles and albums. How would I know if it’s certified when it’s not there? Let me know and here’s the website links: https://slagerlistak.hu/arany-es-platinalemezek/kereso; https://slagerlistak.hu/arany-es-platinalemezek/adatbazis FireDragonValo (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@FireDragonValo: Circle is Gold, triangle is Platinum, and the number in superscript is the number of certifications. I don't think they have Diamond. Muhandes (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Streams or units?

I'm confused about the numbers at Calm Down (Rema_song). It looks like it shows stream numbers for Greece, but units for Nigeria. Sinuhe20 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20: This has nothing to do with the template since the Template does not support Nigeria. An IP editor used their own formatting to add the Nigerian certification manually. I corrected their work to use a little more standard format which the template enables for unsupported regions. Is there any interest in adding native support for Nigeria? It should be pretty straightforward. By "interest" I mean someone who will enter all the existing certifications, not someone who would use it for three certifications and leave. Muhandes (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Would be good if every country uses equivalent units instead of streams. I think the problem here is the Greece template.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sinuhe20: As far as I know, Greece does not use equivalent units, they use streams. Muhandes (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the German article, 100 "stream points" used to equal one sale, I don't know if that's still valid. There is the problem that other countries don't count in stream numbers (e.g. Nigeria), so it could be confusing if you summarize it in a table. Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sinuhe20: Using a Wikipedia article as a source is circular logic. If you can provide a reliable source for this information, we will correct the English article and use it to produce equivalent units. The confusion you are referring to was created by IFPI Greece. We are not at liberty to use unsourced numbers to resolve it. Muhandes (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

BVMI certifications

Hi @Muhandes. Not sure if this was brought to your attention yet but according to the most recent guideline report by Bundesverband Musikindustrie, the thresholds for albums and singles released until 29 June 2023 have changed. Any song released on or after 30 June 2023 needs to move 300,000/600,000 units to reach gold/platinum status, respectively. For albums, the threshold was lowered to 75,000/150,000 units for a gold/platinum certification. Would appreciate it if you could adjust the templates. Lk95 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lk95: Thanks, I'll add this to my TDL. Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Lk95:  Done. I implemented the changes, as well as a change in the diamond level for singles. There should be many invalid certifications now, since |relyear=2023 now requires |relmonth= and in addition, |relmonth=6 requires |relday=. The faulty certifications should be populating the appropriate maintenance category soon: Category:Pages using Certification Table Entry-Sales with missing information (0) Let me know if there are any further issues. --Muhandes (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Muhandes thanks a lot for your help. Lk95 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

South Africa certifications

RiSA has a new page for certifications which includes a searchable database here. The current link that the template uses only includes certifications up to November 24, 2022. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice:  Done I un-archived your request since it was not answered. Thanks for noticing the new link. I replaced the URL with the one you provided. The new URL opens the option to focus the citation link for example we can use Busta 929 or Aurora. I think I may give it a go when I have a little more time. --Muhandes (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for implementing the change. My only question now is what should be done to certifications that are labeled "Multi-Platinum". RiSA indicates that a multi-platinum award is a different level than a double-platinum award, but they don't seem to specify what the multiplier is. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@ThedancingMOONpolice: I don't have an answer. I suggest the use of other corroborating sources to determine the exact certification. Muhandes (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RIAA Cerification Sales Amount

Regarding RIAA Certification Sales Amount, especially in Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do), I saw RIAA sales amount for Gold is 0.5 Million in Special:Diff/1192026000(Gold & Platinum - RIAA), however on the Wiki page the table shows 1 million, hence I made the <<salesamount=500,000>>. (I actually made a manual link via <<certref>> since the current search with only <<Artist>> as <<Christopher Cross>> and <<song>> as <<The Best You Can Do>> without the apostrophe ("Arthur's Theme"), still shows empty result. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As of now current version, the RIAA search link shows empty result [2] --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I found not just familiar songs that got Gold the threshold is 0.5 million, but also Taylor Swift (that I think of as Times Magazine Person of the year even though I didn't heard her songs), Swift's 2023, 2020 gold that amount is also 0.5 million. [3] --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
In the code it is set that singles with certyear<1989 have Gold=1 million according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification#Singles , and certyear>1989 have 500 thousands. Although all over the site even 1960s singles appear to have 0.5mln sales on gold singles. So I don't know if the site always showed it like this or if it's something new. And regarding search - it seem to be bugged with Christopher Cross' single. Try searching from the scratch this single on the site via advanced search (the one that allows you to fill in detailed parameters). It even finds nothing if you enter only artist's name and nothing more. Solidest (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
My bad...didn't know 1 million before 1989.
I see....discrepancy by RIAA showing all as 0.5 million.
I will try to resolve it and will get back here later soon. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Searching <<artist:Christopher Cross>> didn't show result but doesn't show (Arthur's Theme / Best That You Can Do),
yes if there's no <<artist>> it would search none at all.
I found it now, same as earlier Special:Diff/1192026000, that only general search <<se>> will show this album, while searching with <<artist>> <<ar>> doesn't show it (like the above-mentioned), so I would kind-of put a workaround to manually set the RIAA search URL via <<certref>> again. Apologies to my oversight about RIAA Gold threshold before/after 1989.
I would wait and see how it goes --- there would be some who would ask why there's discrepancy in RIAA website (made by RIAA themselves as in sic) incorrectly showing all as Gold 0.5 million. Thanks all the help especially (the no <<artist>> none result at all). --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I guess the sales amount issue was  Resolved. You started a separate discussion about the RIAA search problem, I will comment on that subject there. Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Certification_Table_Entry/Archive_11&oldid=1206866351"