Template talk:Certification Table Entry Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Certification Table Entry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Certifications made a the record label and not by a certifying authority

This is a query made following this discussion and I am inviting 88marcus and Apoxyomenus to contribute here. My opinion is that a record label granting an artist a "gold record" is not a certification, since a certification must be made by a certifying authority, which by definition must be an official 3rd party. As such, these awards do not belong in the certification table and can be used, at most, for verifying a text saying "the label awarded a gold record to the artist", but not as proof of sales or shipments. Having said that, I am less here to present an opinion and more to serve the community. As reluctant as I am, if the community wishes to present these awards in the certification table, at the very least we need to make a clear distinction between a certification and an award. We should not list the official certifying authority as the source of the award and we cannot list an automatic sales figure. This could be done through |labelaward=true or something of this sort. I am inviting opinions on whether this should be supported and how. Inviting frequent contributors Harout72 and Richard3120 and of course anyone else interested. --Muhandes (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. In the UK, Disc magazine used to award its own gold discs to million-selling singles, based on record company sales figures, but these were never audited and corroborated, leading to "Apache" and "Sugar, Sugar" being awarded gold discs when in fact they hadn't reached a million sales. "Apache" still hasn't reached a million sales in the UK, which shows you that these unofficial gold discs can't be trusted or accepted as fact of being a "gold record". I definitely would not agree to anything more than the statement that this was an award from the artist's record label, but making a clear distinction that it is not an official certification, and the word "certification" shouldn't be used. I don't think this should appear in the certification table as it is not a certification, so just mentioned in the prose would be my preferred option. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From my years of research in record sales, record companies should not and cannot be trusted when it comes to sales. They often claim huge number of sales for some albums/singles by artists on their catalogue, when in fact, based on the certified sales available for those specific albums/singles, such numbers claimed by record companies do not even fall anywhere in the neighborhood of what certified units suggest. If some editors feel that they should mention that some singles/albums have sold X number of units according to labels, then such statements should go in the content, but in my opinion, no claims of any kind about Gold/Platinum awards stated by record companies should ever find themselves in the certification tables.--Harout72 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's possible to add if the number doesn't seem far from reality and overly inflated. In the end all sales are provided by the labels, inflated and non-inflated. See the case of the List of Best Selling Artists, none of that sales have been audited by an specialized agency, the magazines and newspapers write what the record companies told them. Thanks to Harout72 the inflated and unrealistic sales are left aside and only those closest to reality (according to certifications) are included. I do not see any problem with it. In the case of Latin artists, many countries do not have an organization to analyze sales and the only source for sales are photos and reports of artists receiving awards. In the end, record labels are the only ones who really know about the sales of their artists.--88marcus (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Based in what is "official" and talking about record labels and music sales, none worldwide figures (or by territory) in a lot albums/singles should be included in Wikipedia (or tables) because aren't provided by an "authority entity" such as IFPI (the only entity closest to the worldwide music sales). And if so, we should also delete those sales provided by record labels via third party sources such as India in Thriller as one of countless examples we have like that or with a certification/sales amount like Thriller with Israel or this when isn't something "official". Also, not all third-party sources made an attribution in certifications terms to the record labels, so we should avoid make our own conclusion. I also agree what 88marcus said about labels, that's another reality. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with 88marcus. Most Latin countries don't have certification bodies like RIAA. Brazil and Mexico are the ones with the best ones to get information straight from their sites but just because other countries don't have websites that are frequentley updated that doesn't mean that an artist can't receive a certification in those countries. Other countries like Perú, Uruguay, Argentina, and Colombia have their official certification bodies but their websites have either stopped working, gone private, or are not very active but still artist keep receiving certifications in those countries. For example: Katy Perry certified platinum in Perú with her album "Prism" as you can see here. Other countries don't have a certification website but the artist can still certify in that country like Paulina Rubio did with her album "Deseo" in 2018 as you can see here. Also Muhandes you mentioned in this discussion that we have no way to know if the certification includes streams, ringtones, or even YouTube views." when the certification in question is from a album from 1995 which certified in 1997, way before the digital era so it definitely didn't include any of those. The album did indeed receive those certifications and the source does seem reliable even if it says that the president and CEO of EMI gave Thalía the certification, that is something that happens all the time like it did for her single "No Me Acuerdo" as you can see in this video where the guy from Sony Music gives her the certification without saying that it came from RIAA but it was later verified by RIAA on their official website. Now about the sales, I believe that when those certifications were added they probably used the sales from other wikipedia articles about albums that have certified in those countries but I do know that the album did indeed certify gold in Chile for sales of 15,000 copies and she received the certification in 1997 at the Viña Del Mar Festival as you can see in this video. The point is that even if a latin country doesn't have a certification body website, that doesn't mean that an artist can't receive a certification there. Even if it says that the award was given by the CEO of the record label they are doing it on behalf of the certification authority(IFPI, RIAA, AMPROFOM, UNIMPRO, etc) and if there's ever a certification that is not an official certification but a gift to the artist from the record label then those definitely shouldn't be included which is something that 88marcus has prevented from happening in the past as you can see here. Maybe what we should really be looking for is finding the proper amounts of copies for the certification like for the Chile certification for "En éxtasis" which I mentioned above. FanDePopLatino (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Countries like Peru, Uruguay, Colombia generate such small sales based on IFPI's data, that leaving them out should not damage the sales information the certifications provide. If those markets can't even launch a proper website for their certifying bodies due to being disorganized, the certifications posted by their labels similarly should not be trusted.--Harout72 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because a country certifies for small amounts that doesn't mean that it should be left out. Some of the countries included on here also give certifications for small sales but yet we still use them. Uruguay used to have its own website for the certification just like Argentina and you can still find archives of it online. In Perú we have UNIMPRO but the certifications and most of the charts they provide are private just like AMPROFON recently did with their charts. Still if we have information about certifications in those countries we could still use them even if the certification level is small. Sometimes an artist achieves a higher number of sales in those markets, which I know it doesn't always happen but it does. I also saw that a lot of certifications where removed from Shakira's album "Pies Descalzos" for which I want to say that just like I mentioned above, just because a source doesn't mention ASINCOL, IFPI, CUD, or any other certifying body, that doesn't mean that the certification is a fake certification from a record label. Like I mentioned above, when an artist receives a certification the President or CEO of the label usually gives them the award on behalf of the certifying body. I would also like to point out that for the Mexican certification, even though AMPROFON has a website now, lots of older certifications don't appear on the website but that doesn't mean they aren't real. Just look at Thalía and Paulina Rubio during the early 90s. They both received multiple certifications which are official but AMPROFON doesn't have them on their website because they are older certifications. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't include Mexican certifications just because their website is unorganized. Even RIAA itself is unorganized but yet we use it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen many doubting the reliability of the certification done by record labels and its accuracy, considering the chances of inflated sales for promotional purposes. I respect their doubt while maintaining my own doubts. How does having an official certification system and online database make the auditing accurate, to begin with? For instance, here is a Billboard article indicating the certification system of RIAA can be inaccurate. Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by the Eagles was certified 29 times platinum in 2006. Are we supposed to believe that an album released in 1976 sold 9 million more albums within 12 years in the digital age? This is not the first time there were such unrealistic spikes in their certifications. In 1993 it was certified 14 times platinum, but within the next two years, the album was certified 8 more times supposedly with “new” album sales in those 2 years, bringing the total certifications of the album to 24 times platinum. Nielsen SoundScan has been tracking record sales since 1991. If there was a huge spike in their album sales, why did their tracking not match the certifications? Why are their sales not reflecting the album charts? If you check the chart record for these two albums, we can see that Thriller spent 37 weeks at top of the Billboard 200 album chart, whereas "Greatest Hits" by Eagles spent only 5 weeks at top of the Billboard 200 chart. "Thriller" spent about 476 weeks on the Billboard 200 chart, while "Greatest Hits" by Eagles, released seven years before Thriller, has only spent 363 weeks on the Billboard 200. Considering this as a major example of doubt and inaccuracy from the biggest market in the world, if a country certifies for small amounts, or if their website is unorganized, that doesn't mean that it should be excluded in my opinion.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't see that article because it's behind a paywall, but certifications are not the same as sales for records released before the streaming era. You are making the mistake of saying that spikes in certification is due to new sales since the previous certification, when in fact it is usually due to audits correcting old sales figures. And Nielsen's sales tracking doesn't have to match RIAA's certifications - I remember another Billboard article saying that Nielsen's figures showed that the soundtrack for Grease had sold five million copies more than its certification showed, but the record company had never bothered to apply for the extra certification. This is why for older records, certification is not always a good proxy for sales and shouldn't be used to infer sales figures. Richard3120 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Their Greatest Hits was certified platinum for the first time in 1976, The album was certified 11 times more in 1990. Within the next two years, the album was certified 2 more times bringing the total certifications of the album to 14 times platinum. In 1995, the album was further certified 8 more times, thus bringing the total certification of the album to 24 Platinum, and the article you can’t see because right the paywall does make clear that this 1995 spike was supposed to be new sales. In 2006, the album's total certification was 29 times platinum. In 2018, the album again was certified 9 times more bringing the total certification of the album to 38 times platinum. The article also makes clear that nothing since the album’s release supports this. I will accept your argument that the spike of certification can be due to audits correcting old sales figures, but only once and that was when it certified 11 times in 1990. How was the album certified 8 times more in 1995 and 9 times more in 2018? Did they not audit correctly in 1990? Why have each audit presented mistakes time and time again?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The auditing of RIAA certifications for albums back then in the '90s was based on shipped units, now it's based on shipped/digital/streaming. Record companies apply for certifications when they have shipped the number of the ordered units from record stores (back in the '90s) or online stores (in early and mid 2000s). Albums such as Eagles Greatest Hits that were in high demand were often ordered to be pressed by record companies by millions at a time. That's the reason why we see a huge jump in certified units for Eagles "Greatest Hits" between 1993 and 1995. Orders by physical stores in the '90s for album in high demand, were not always fulfilled/pressed immediately.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RIAA is also very unorganized about its sales. Even though the certification levels change, the website still uses the new certification levels for older certifications. For example: before 1989 a Standard Gold Certification was given for 1 million units and a Platinum for 2 million units. Artist like Aretha Franklin have certified before that yet even though her Gold certifications from 1967-1986 are from the time when gold was for 1 million units they are listed for 0.5 million. The same with latin certifications in RIAA where before December 2013 a gold was for 50k and a platinum for 100k still artist who certified before than like Chayanne, Ana Gabriel, Ricky Martin, Thalía, Shakira, etc have their levels with the wrong amounts on the website. If everyone wants to base it on the unorganized websites in order to exclude Latin American certifications then it would only be fair to also exclude RIAA as well based on what you guys are saying. Like TheWikiholic said, just because a country certifies for small amounts or has an unorganized website that doesn't mean it should be excluded. FanDePopLatino (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino, if you have a functional website for any of Latin American certifying bodies, then by all means use them. Nobody above including myself suggested to not use Latin American certifying bodies. This thread was opened up to discuss certifications claimed by labels, not by certifying bodies. If you have archived versions of certifying bodies, use them, again nobody suggested against it. However, if the said market has never provided its certifications on any platform belonging to certifying bodies, then its certifications by labels should not be used. That's what was being suggested above.--Harout72 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72 Read what you said above in this edit. Uruguay's certifying body is CUD and Colombia's is ASINCOL which even if there's no active website for them, archives still exist online and currently artist still certify in those countries. In Perú we have UNIMPRO which is still active but unfortunately most of the charts and certifications are private and not accessible to the public so we use third party reliable sources for the certifications. I know the reason for this thread is to discuss certifications claimed by labels and like I explained above when a Latin artist visit a country, the CEO or President of their record label gives them the certification on behalf of the certification authority (CUD, UNIMPRO, AMPROFON, etc). The reason I wanted to be part of this conversation is because I have seen that so many Latin artist articles had their Latin American certifications removed and only the European and U.S. certifications were left like if Latin America couldn't give a certification. I know some of those articles like the ones for RBD really needed the fake certifications removed because the sources used were fan blogs so the definitely weren't reliable but other articles had certifications removed because the sources didn't specifically say "IFPI" or "ASINCOL" but that doesn't mean they were fake. Other wikipedia users that also work on Latin music articles review sources throughly and we help each other to make sure that the sources are reliable before we use them in an article just like we did here. There's other times like here that a source has directly mentioned IFPI or AMPROFON but we could tell that the source was unreliable so we did not use it and didn't let any disruptive editors use it either like here. Even if a Latin country doesn't have an official website for their certifying body we could still add certifications in those countries by using proper reliable third party sources. FanDePopLatino (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As a music editor and watcher of multiple articles of albums/singles, I would also ask Muhandes to be clear and not cherry-pick albums, like this one for example, where Billboard only cited the certification and amount on behalf ZKP RTLJ (a record label). If we will continue as always, we should avoid attribute certifications via third-party sources to the record labels (pre/post album era or streaming) if they didn't mention a record label as well they didn't mention an official entity (just listing the name of the country, like this album with Colombia). BTW, as far I remember there is some articles from Billboard or Music & Media talking about thresholds of certifications in various contries before the existence of an official authority without involving record labels.

Also, not sure about the emphasis in Latin American countries, because this include various European and Asian countries with same situation. And not only because they are "small markets" they don't matter. Not all will be summarized to U.K. or U.S. No matter how experts we are or not about music sales, we are trying to bring data from available countries not size of figures in their respectively articles.

Harout with your last response to FanDePopLatino by extension should be actually anything related to record labels ("the problem"), as you pointed out "record companies should not and cannot be trusted when it comes to sales". I guess this include Billboard or any other third-party source citing sales by record labels and not only "awards" (certification). Again, I bring Thriller (as an "universal example" but this happens to many albums) countries such as India (sales amount cited), Japan (the claim of 2.5 million and if so, we should only leave the certification "Gold" which means 100,000) or Israel (certification/amount). However, I still maintaining what 88marcus said and its something related to WP:CONTEXMATTERS (tremendously) and in someway is the same application in the List of best-selling music artists with a lot of artists (some artists with RIAA updated certs. doesn't mean an immediately upgrade in WW sales, e.g).

Another counter-suggestion is keeping in the tables only the "official" certifications from their official websites and in the prose anything related to "estimated sales" (and/or certifications by record labels) whatever the country is. In this way we also avoid the cherry-picking stuff, and considering most countries don't have an official measure firm (no even Nielsen is "official" because aren't related to RIAA -the official entity- and are just de facto by 3rd party. We also know they excluded in the 1990s-mid 2000s many copies in numerous albums due music sales club, so weren't a "whole" report). And last, with the examples provided above with "Sugar, Sugar" BPI certified the single with Silver for example while OCC confirmed its a "million-seller". The other one ("Apache"), not sure after all, but if is the original release will be understandable because its released was made on 1960 and OCC started to track sales since 1969.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: I suppose I didn't notice where the source was. As always, if you think I made a mistake feel free to revert me. --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Australia ARIA certifications, redux

The main citation option for ARIA accreditations is pages from the older ARIA website, archived by the Wayback Machine. It now seems ARIA has finally decided to provide a full list of certifications, in this folder. This is already used as the citation option for 2020 and 2021. Should these replace the existing citation option for all other years, or added as a new option? --Muhandes (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's very odd, why would they provide them as Dropbox files instead of on their website? Nevertheless, I suspect editors will use this source whatever we decide, as the last time we discussed this ARIA only showed accreditations back to 1997, and otherwise there are only certifications for the year-end top 50, so this might be a popular option. Richard3120 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If the accreds from 1997 to 2019 match the wayback, they could be kept as is, I think? BUT even though Wayback Machine isn't capable of archiving these dropbox links, seems that archive.today can - tried it out on 1992 [1] . Option could be changing to dropbox links, but alternatively to also archive them just in case ARIA pull a vanishing act on them again Kleool (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Kleool, that's a good idea, I archived all I could on archive.today. Muhandes (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Belgian certs

The Belgian certs of 2002, 2004 and 2006 don't appear on Ultratop site. Is showed the following message:

"Response object error 'ASP 0251 : 80004005'

Response Buffer Limit Exceeded

/nl/certifications.asp, line 0

Execution of the ASP page caused the Response Buffer to exceed its configured limit."

There's some way to resolve this? LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@LuanCampSouza93: It's on their side. I'll implement a workaround that uses the archived version. This is only for 2002, 2004 and 2006 album certifications, correct? --Muhandes (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@LuanCampSouza93:

Done The automatic citation will now use the archived version. You can send them a message about it, they might fix it. We can recheck this in a few months and see if it works, I think a live version is preferred over an archived one. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about Denmark

Is Denmark single certification assigned by relyear or certyear? Because sometimes (for older cert's) it feels like relyear is being used, and for newer cert's is certyear. e.g. You Know I'm No Good is assigned Gold in 2008, which by IFPI Danmark should be 7,500 but template shows 4,000. Maybe there is a cut-off period where some part is by relyear and part by certyear? Thanks Kleool (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Harout72 may know more. Richard3120 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Denmark uses release date if it was certified before June 2012 and certification date otherwise, except for streaming which always uses certification date. This is probably the most complex certification dating system we implemented. --Muhandes (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes and Richard3120: OK, that explains things. Thank you for answering so fast ^^ Kleool (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going to link this discussion, but Muhandes has already answered.--Harout72 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hi! Seems that ifpi Honk Kong has rebuilt their website which made me notice this - it seems that many of the added Certifications with "Gold Disc Award" are actually from here (called the "Hong Kong Top Sales Music Award presented [2001-2009]") and not actually the "Gold Disc Award presented [1977-2008]". I can't find information that the top sales award meant that certain threshold had been reached (to me it seems that work had to be only in top x of certain category) and that only works from this place are actually the only LEGIT certifications.
My opinion is that all the entries input from "Hong Kong Top Sales Music Award" are to be removed. @Richard3120, Muhandes, and Harout72: Thoughs/opinions (and anyone else ofc)? Kleool (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: You are 100% correct. Only the ones form the Gold awards up to 2008 are certifications, which is why they are the only ones automatically cited. The "top sales" lists are just that - top sales lists. I deleted the top sales lists from a few articles but I'm sure there are more. --Muhandes (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: it's a bit incorrect (about cert's stopping in 2008). According to the IFPI HK new website (gold award page), 2 local artist works were certified in 2019. I think i remember telling you about the news print on ifpi hk page (when we talked about the notations and that HK is still physicals only cert) that there are basically no cert's because physical cd sales more or less collapsed in HK.Kleool (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Correct, the main point was that the "Top Sales Music Award" is not a gold certificate and that the template automatically cites only up to 2008. --Muhandes (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand change

Muhandes would it be possible to change the |recent=false (the one for 2007-2011) link for Singles with this link? In Cert table documentation (and current link) there are cert's only until July 2011, while the one i wish to change to has even later certifications - up 'till August 2011 . Much appreciated! Kleool (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool::

Done : THE FIELD id (chart number) MUST BE PROVIDED for NEW ZEALAND CERTIFICATION. --Muhandes (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Poland jazz

Even though jazz album has different certification levels according to the regulation on ZPAV webpage, template does not accept such a type. Is it by design (on purpose) or just template needs changes? Kleool (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Just need to add it. The levels for Polish certification are based on release data. The current implementation is based on a source which used to be here but is no longer accessible. Reconstructing the levels for jazz, I found this 2001 source and the level used to be 10,000/20,000/100,000 back then. The next source is from 2003 which has 5,000/10,000/50,000 which are also the levels today. The lost source indicated that there was a change on June 2002 so I suppose this is what we should use as break date, is that acceptable? --Muhandes (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: looks good! And yes, June 2002 :) . Much appreciated! Kleool (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool:

Done, you can use |type=jazz for |region=Poland. --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: thank you very much! Kleool (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: by the way, I notice there is also a jazz video certification as well as some other oddities. Let me know if you see any need to implement any of them. --Muhandes (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Replacing "recent" with "source"

The parameter |recent= is actually used for several regions to distinguish between multiple sourcing options. I though of replacing it with |source=. The change will be backward compatible, followed by a bot replacing the older parameter with the new one, and then deprecating it. Let me know if you object (pinging recent contributors Kleool, Richard3120, Harout72, LuanCampSouza93, apologies if I forgot anyone). --Muhandes (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection... I always thought "recent" was a strange title to give the parameter, it wasn't really obvious what it did, just from the name. Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it seems more practical. LuanCampSouza93 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, that |source= would make more sense with more explaining name than |recent=false Kleool (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be unanimous agreement on this. I looked at the size of this task and it is not a small one. I am going to do it one bite at a time, starting with |region=France per recent requests to add archives as a source. --Muhandes (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I started the process by implementing |source=archive and |source=infodisc for |region=France. I created Category:Cite certification used with the recent parameter (0) to do the cleanup, although for now only France should be cleaned up. I will probably set a bot at it. --Muhandes (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Portugal

Muhandes, do we have a source for singles levels in Portugal? Our page for Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa says since 2016 the singles levels are 5,000/10,000, but there is no source provided there. I don't think we have one here either, on the main page. We seem to have singles like Blinding Lights with Portuguese Platinum level being 10,000 units. I'm trying to retrieve the Portuguese certifications for singles using this source, but the most recent levels we have in a reliable source is from IFPI 2013 data. Let me know please if we have a source for 2016 to present.--Harout72 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: Sadly the documentation over the years was not perfect, mostly by my own omission

. I am now doing better and every update gets the sources rechecked. I see two "recent" discussions regarding this, this being the first and followed by this one. As far as I can see there were two sources for the current thresholds. This source was provided by ManuelButera. This was later reinforced by personal correspondence with ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× (as far as I recall this corresponance was never shared. If they could please share it, like I did here and here it would be most helpful). We had doubts about the date these new threshold were introduced, and the consensus was that this was that it was in 2016 at the latest (to quote They were already 5k/10k back in 2016 when the portuguesecharts.com website first included them in their updates). Richard3120 was also involved in the discussion. I updated the template documentation with the one source, as well as Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa. Having some evidence of the personal correspondence will reinforce this. Everyone involved was pinged if they want to add to this discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, here is the screenshot with the e-mail from Audiogest proving the thresholds for singles are indeed 5k/10k. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

OK good, so we do have a source. Thank you. @Muhandes: I also noticed that Portugal's AFP applies their most recent certification levels to all albums regardless of their release dates. I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past. When I was retrieving the certifications using this weekly chart, U2's album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb had received Platinum (40,000 units) in the week 48 of 2004, and stayed with single Platinum until week 15 of 2005. But on week 16, the single Platinum immediately turns to 3x Platinum (60,000 units), without first going to 2x Platinum (80,000 units). At the end of April 2005 is likely when the change has occurred according to the date when this article was published. That's when AFP lowered its certification levels from 20,000/40,000 to 10,000/20,000. Also, note how the certification levels begin to change on most albums starting May 1, 2005 (Week 18, 19), including Julio Iglesias' Divorcio, going from just Gold (20,000 units previously) to 2x Platinum in week 19, 2005, which is likely 2x Platinum for 40,000 units. and not 80,000. Anyways, I thought I'd bring this to your attention.--Harout72 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: You present a strong argument. I don't see any previous discussion on the subject and I can't find any official source to guide us one way or another. If no one objects, I can certainly make the Portugal award threshold depend on |certyear= rather than |relyear=. --Muhandes (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hungary threshold

I have found additional information about there being another threshold change for international repertoire (for albums)- same time when domestic threshold changed. It can extrapolated by seeing the time when domestic was 15/30k (10/20k for intl), which we knew, here , but same link at later archive date shows that when domestic changed to 10/20k, intl changed to 5/10k as seen here . Meaning, that between Feb 23 2005 and Sept 12 2006 (which in documentation page (and template) is noted as "unknown") was actually 5k for Gold and 10k for Platinum.Kleool (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: good find. I already updated the template to use these numbers, I'll do the documentation next. There are many articles with |nosales=true which can now be fixed. --Muhandes (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: thank you! Kleool (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: i also have a reason to believe (which wouldn't be such a stretch), that also Singles thresholds aren't "pre-2007" and "from 2007" - when domestic albums were 15/30k then singles were 5/10k (as seen here, when albums got lowered to 10/20k, the singles were 2,5/5k (as seen here, and here is also another proof of intl 5/10k i wrote yesterday) and then when albums got lowered again to 7,5/15k then singles were 1,5/3k (as seen here . Wouldn't really be outlandish to think they have same threshold change dates as albums, in this period.Kleool (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: I tend to agree - Hungary seems to have a pattern of changing all their thresholds at one date. The reason they state for reducing the levels is reduced sales, which applies to singles just as much as it applies to albums, international or domestic. It therefore makes sense that changes to all thresholds occur at once. The "pre-2007" date was based on the IFPI report to begin with, so introducing the facts from another IFPI report also makes sense. I'm just worried we are getting deeper and deeper into WP:OR. This discussion is open to all, lets see if someone has any objections. --Muhandes (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I removed the "Unknown sales thresholds for international albums before 23 April 2002." We don't have evidence it ever changed, so I don't see why the earliest level would not apply. --Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: i don't think they used to be the same. This is not a reliable source, but as the post was made in 2004, it's highly likely that at the time the information was still available - the source Kleool (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: I see what you are saying. 15,000/30,000 are probably the correct levels for international albums prior to 2002, but we don't have a reliable source for that. the website was archived in 2000 but I can't find anything substantial there on the thresholds (the charts are archived). Maybe one of the magazines had something about it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: While we are at it, how about videos? The IFPI 2006 report lists 3,000/6,000 and so does the 2007 report. The one we have listed as October 2007 lowers it to 2,000/4,000 which is the level, same time singles went to 3,000/1,500, so 13 September 2006 I presume. These levels are effective ever since. This is all for pop videos. The only level we have for jazz/classical is 1,000/2,000. What do you think? --Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: sounds reasonable.. but yeah, the jazz/classical video's are weird that this category does not come up until fairly recently.. Maybe all video's used to be same thresholds and then Jazz got lowered, but that would be 100% speculation and no way reliable. I guess change the pop dvd as per ifpi, and jazz/classical stays as is Kleool (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: For now there is no way to list jazz videos with the template, so my comment about jazz videos was more in general. I will implement jazz videos once someone requests it. --Muhandes (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: jazz videos are not supported for any region. Jazz albums are implemented for some specific regions, and Hungary is not one of them. Both can be implemented by request. --Muhandes (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Belgium streaming

Found an article (written in 2018) which suggests (at least that's how i understood it) that streaming for certification (singles and albums) was actually implemented same time as "ultratop chart" did. And that the threshold change for singles in July 2018 was reactionary to the streaming driving up the certification count (since streaming inclusion), and to stop the gold/platinum award (certification) "losing value" (albums probably didn't suddenly surge because Belgium implements a formula for chart calculation - e.g. use only 12 most streamed tracks + 2 most streamed are reduced to next 10 avg etc). Also ultrato has a dedicated page for current thresholds (and they say that both singles and albums contain streaming). I'm not sure if emails/conversation which Harout72 had with ultratop(?) confirm different. Overall, to me, it sounds like a similar situation to UK, where "certification units" are based on "chart units". Kleool (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: I'm not sure I see where the article refers to certification of albums including streaming, I only see it discussed for "best-selling albums", i.e., charts. However, the ultratop page is very clear that albums now include streaming and July 2018 is the most logical date for this happening. I'd be interested to hear what Harout72 thinks on this. --Muhandes (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: third paragraph under bolded "ONEHITWONDER". When i toss it through translator, it gives approx "The calculation method that determines who can hang a gold or platinum record on their wall was adjusted. Until recently, you had to sell 10,000 copies in Belgium for such a gold record. A platinum record was worth 20,000. "But when we started counting streaming figures there too, we saw the number of singles that achieved gold or platinum suddenly increase," [..] piled up gold and platinum at a rapid pace". Meaning that singles already had streaming before July 2018. Thus making sense if they added streams same time as ultratop chart did. Kleool (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: I see. So you are saying the streaming footnote should be applied from ~~2006~~ 2016 to singles and from ~~2007~~ 2017 to albums? Those are the dates I found here, you might have more exact dates. --Muhandes (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: that's the conclusion that i've come to. But i'm not infalliable, i could be wrong. But it sounds too logical and similar to UK system for me to not draw some conclusions. About possible dates - there is 2017 press release, which has first sentence "From Friday July 7, the streamings will also be added to the official Ultratop albums ranking." Under the picture/graph is sentence "The official Ultratop singles rankings have also evolved over time and since the beginning of 2016 combine the sales figures of downloads compared to the official streaming numbers[..]". So, January 1, 2016 for singles and July 1, 2017 for albums (if streaming is included on certain friday chart, means that streaming would have been counted from previous Saturday, in this case July 1?) ?Kleool (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on this page here, they've begun including Streaming in Singles since 2016, for albums since 2017. The year 2006 refers to the inclusion of Downloads. This article basically explains that they've raised the levels for Gold and Platinum from 10,000/20,000 to 20,000/40,000 due to Streaming playing a major role in increase in sales. But they've made the change after seeing how fast singles reached the previous Gold/Platinum levels.--Harout72 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course Harout72, I mistyped. Kleool above summed it up nicely, January 1, 2016 for singles and July 1, 2017 for albums. I'll implement it that way. --Muhandes (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Done --Muhandes (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Belgium 2006/2007 threshold

Hello, found an official mentioning of exactly when Belgium changed it's thresholds in the 2006/2007 period. Even though Belgian Entertainment Association article mentions March 2007 (Because of billboard article), IFPI document here (under the Albums table) write "Belgium - levels reduced in May 2007 from 15,000 and 30,000 (domestic) and 20,000 and 40,000 (international)". Personally, i'd trust IFPI more than Billboard in this case. (Even though it does raise the question of when did Intl become 20/40k, seems like a mishap about the intl threshold to me) Kleool (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That raises yet another question. Based on that, Switzerland has reduced its levels in July 2006. According to what they have here, the levels seem to have been lowered since January 1, 2006. I'm confused as to which one to go with, probably the IFPI document, because I compared the dates for changes of France, The Netherlands, Sweden, and they match to the info we already have.--Harout72 (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72: I think it is possible, that for purpose of "keeping it simple" Switzerland rounded to full years. Hard to say. But i'm also inclined to believe IFPI on this. Also because this archive made in May 2006 does not mention threshold change. It shows up only in archive made in 2007 Kleool (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Kleool I also tend to trust IFPI on the date and we can assume 20,000/40,000 for international is a misprint since all previous sources point to 25,000/50,000 for international. If no one objects, we can close the gap for Belgium albums. While we are at it, what about singles? I see they maintained the 15,000/30,000;25,000/50,000 levels even later than May 2007. The first time I see the new levels (10,000/20,000;15,000/30,000) is the 2009 report. The template uses the date April 2008 for the change, but looking at the source it uses I don't see where it states this is for singles. Thoughts? --Muhandes (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: doesn't seem correct, no. The report you linked (2009) has previous archiving in April 2009 and it still has "old" thresold.. doesn't seem likely that they'd fail to change them for a whole year. Especially if you consider that for albums it took maximum 4 months (archive is September, change was as of that May). And the text on that April 2008 article mentions "album". Not sure where we could get precise date though Kleool (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Either I'm missing something, or the 2009 report lists the new thresholds for singles, it's the table on the right side of the second page.

Anyway, I've added changing the album thresholds to my TDL. Do you think I should change single thresholds? If so, to what? --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: As you mentioned, for Singles threshold changed from 25/50 to 15/30k somewhere between 2008 and Mid-2009. Currently is set that changed April 2008 based on that one post, which actually says albums. Meaning we don't actualy know WHEN the thresholds changed. One of archives made in April 2009 still had old thresholds, BUT the ifpi file does have delays on reporting (in case of Belgium albums, it was 2 to 4 months and they noted it by back-dating). The Mid-2009 shows new thresholds, but not when they were implemented. Thus, unknown when did the old switch to new. I think the switch might have been early 2009, but that is my OR and not official source... I'm not sure what to do in this case. Kleool (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Done I summarized the consensus at Belgian Entertainment Association and implemented it. Going over all 1800+ articles in Category:Certification Table Entry usages for Belgium (2,372) is probably excessive. All articles that need attention will fall between Category:Pages using Certification Table Entry-Sales with missing information (0) and Category:Pages using certification Table Entry without sales (563). The latter is going to be sorted by region in a couple of days to make it even easier. I can also use AWB if you don't intend to do it yourself. --Muhandes (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: maybe i'm mixing up something, but weren't Belgium sales thresholds calculated by relyear? Asking just to clarify Kleool (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: My understanding (and they way the template works) is that they are calculated by relyear until the streaming change, where they start going by certyear.--Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: weird. because currently, work released in 2005, with certyear in 2007 (none of which are with stream change), with relmonth/relday input, but still shows 0 until I input certmonth ( i tried all certmonth=1-12, and threshold didn't change (showed same number 25k)), so why is it needed at all in this caseKleool (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Yes, that's an odd side-effect of the code. I didn't think it would have such a wide effect. If it's too much of a nuisance I can solve it tomorrow. --Muhandes (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: it's ok. just didn't expect it. Kleool (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sweden certification

I noticed that some songs released pre-2018 did not receive a certification from Sweden when they were charting or placed on the year-end charts, but received one later on, as indicated through the search results. Justin Bieber's "Boyfriend" as an example had no certification on its final week of charting and on the year-end page, but is currently listed as having a gold certification. My question is, since the search results don't reveal when the song received the certification, how can we be sure of its certified units/sales since Sweden moved from sales+streaming to streaming only? The gold and platinum guide that is provided on IFPI Sweden's website states: "For song / recording, the following applies: As of January 1, 2018, only streaming is included in the calculation for gold and platinum. These rules apply regardless of the release date of the song / recording." Should songs released before 2018 that have a certification but have no date for when it received one have something like N/A for the certified units/sales column? ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@ThedancingMOONpolice: You can use |nosales=true to hide the sales figure. --Muhandes (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I had a look at the code and currently if you don't specify the certification year, sales and footnotes will go by release year. This behavior might be incorrect. --Muhandes (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Japan ringtone

If |type=ringtone (for "Chaku-uta full") is used for Japanese certification, then it currently links to the physical's certification page and shows that cert units are shipments. That is incorrect. By default |type=ringtone should act as if |digital=true is being used. Thank you. Kleool (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: Yes, this is also true for the US and for Spain. I'll need to find the time to handle them all. Let me know if I missed any. --Muhandes (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)