Talk:List of music recording certifications

Brazil certifications

I think Brazil used to have a different certification numbers in the 80's and 90's. Maybe there should be a note of that ? 84.48.45.63 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but do you have a source for that info? Drewcifer (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Serbian Charts

Where can I find the serbian Charts?--84.152.167.37 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia's Certification Award Levels are dubious

The article for Croatia states:

Albums: Gold: Domestic-15,000 Int.-5,000; Platinum Domestic-30,000 Int.-10,000

Singles: Gold Domestic-15,000 Int.-5,000; Platinum Domestic-30,000 Int.-10,000

Does this web site mention anything about Croatia's Certification Award Levels, I did not come across any numbers after I rummaged it enough. It seems dubious because Certification Award Levels are based on both the economy and the population of a country. Let's not go far and compare Croatia to another eastern European country like for example: Czech Republic. Both the populationand the economy of Croatia are much lower/weaker than the population and economy in Czech Republic. So how could the Certification Award Levels in Croatia be higher than that of in Czech Republic? And ifpi has no listings for Croatia. I wonder if those numbers are correct. --Harout72 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, not sure where that data came from. I searched around as well and haven't been able to find any info backing that up. So, I've removed it until someone is able to find a reliable source backing it. Thanks for the heads-up. Drewcifer (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Platinum in Iceland

Bjork (album) claimed that it had a fairly limited release but also went Platinum. Does Iceland have a low thresh-hold for this? Do the even do certifications? If so, that needs to be added to this list. Are other countries missing? Is this list comprehensive as a FL should be?Yobmod (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Repetitious figures

I don't think it's necessary to include international Certification Award-levels if they are the same as domestic Award-levels. We should only add international figures for those countries which have different Certification Award-levels for international and domestic artists. --Harout72 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.217.99 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because some countries do not certify international albums, so it is necessary to have the the parenthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.91.126 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Table for Video/DVD

Could someone who is actively involved within this page take a look at this please. The separate table that we have for Video/DVD includes 7 countries. If you look at the web sites of all 7, you will notice that Denmark happens to be the only country that actually has a separate Certification-Volumes set for Video/DVD other than the volume that they have for Music Videos in Denmark. Now look at the table provided by IFPI here. Note that IFPI doesn't have a separate table for Video/DVD, just for Music Videos which matches perfectly with our table of Music Videos. So all other six countries that we have within Video/DVD table are not supposed to be there because those mentioned certifications refer to the Music Videos not Entertainment Video/DVD as it is in the case of Denmark for example. I'd say, either we remove the table for Video/DVD and leave only the table of Music Videos or remove all six countries and leave only Denmark within (the latter won't make sense honestly).--Harout72 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since concert DVD are part of Music DVDs it is important to leave them. According to RIAA the current criteria for DVD/video certification is 50,000 units for gold, 100,000 for platinum in the United States. The table has 25,000 and 50,0000 respectively which appears to be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.0.140 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The entry includes a footnote that explains this. --Muhandes (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Silver

remove it from the table? if Britain is the only one that uses it, have a note about it instead 174.88.235.218 (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Israel has some form of Gold and Platinum albums. Please add. 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

AMPROFON

I don't know but according to the AMPROFON, since January 1st 2008 (the changes may include other sales) gold 40,000; platinum 80,000 and diamond 400,000. Am I wrong? Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the page was without updating. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales

Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales, but the column headers state "Sales thresholds per award". Which is MOST prevalent in the world? Cert for shipments or ACTUAL sales? Whichever one it is should be used in the column headers with the EXCEPTIONS properly noted.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any solution for that. Jayy008 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Where known and can be shown supported by verifiable ref this should be given.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The words "sales thresholds" here implies that, for eg if RIAA certified an album as Gold (500,000), they expected a minimum threshold sale of 500k based on its shipments. Hence threshold. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

With RIAA it would be a 'shipment' threshold. Shipments do NOT equal sales, they only equal POTENTIAL sales. Like most businesses with inventories, I'm sure that Record stores can Return unsold units. But these have been counted in the 'shipments' cert.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As an explanation of the potential problems of awarding gold records etc. by shipping, there was a case in the 1970s (can't remember the record or the record company) where an album by a big name artist allegedly "shipped platinum", meaning it qualified for the platinum record award before it went on sale. After the album turned out to be a bomb, almost all of the shipment was allegedly "returned to the company as defective", leading to an accusation that the records never existed. The theory is that paperwork was done to get the records marked as ordered, manufactured and shipped, but the shipping was done between the company's factory and its own warehouse, and the "orders" were the company essentially ordering from itself. Presumably the company knew it wouldn't be a big seller, and expected to have to "return" the records, so there was no point in actually manufacturing the whole run, if it could be faked with paperwork. (Can anyone remember this story, and which album it referred to? Is this story covered in a Wikipedia article?) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Make this page "Current" and make a page for "Previous" which would list all the certifying bodies before they was changed, and link to that page where appropriate. Jayy008 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Or show year indicators when there are changes such as

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Sales thresholds per award
		Period	Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
France	National Syndicate of Phonographic Publishing (SNEP)	August 2006		50,000 (50,000)	100,000 (100,000)	500,000 (500,000)
		PRIOR		150,000 (150,000)	300,000 (300,000)	1,000,000 (1,000,000)

EXAMPLE of table only, levels may be different. Month chosen at random for example only.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I put that before you made that table, I like your idea better. Jayy008 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we won't be able to support most of the markets' previous certification-award-levels with sources, because at least half of the associations do not have tables posted on their sites for those changes. So, in the end, we'll have both unsourced as well as flawed data. --Harout72 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If previous levels were only shown where citable, that would be no worse than what we have now. The current article implies these levels have never changed. A disclaimer could be added such as, "Chart shows current levels; historical levels may differ and are shown where confirmed". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Most if not all associations do offer current award-levels on their sites, and we have them all sourced, don't we? We really should not have previous levels on this article for some markets (who offer that information) and not have it for some others (which don't offer the information). It's either we have the information for all (sourced) or we simply omit that; however, having a note of some kind stating that levels for the former certification-awards may differ from the current levels is a good idea.--Harout72 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Knight, I don't see any problem in showing past levels for which we have a source. I am sure that progressively we will see more and more history being added as people dig up sources. It's important to notice that the levels have been different in the past. e.g. back in the 1980's, the golden days of the music industry, it took much higher sales than today to earn yourself a gold record. I like extra column in the table, although I would suggest to replace "Month/Year" with "Period" and express the period in accordance with MOS:DATE. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Example updated per suggestions. Agreed, just because we may NOT have all information is no reason to not give the information that can be reliably sourced. Knight's disclaimer is sufficient to indicate that it is not claimed to show ALL historical levels for all markets.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone following the discussion above, will also want to see HERE.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The HERE mentioned above is no longer THERE. It has been archived to HERE — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Certifications formats

I've always been under the impression for a single, you list it's highest certification listed on the providers website has long as it says "single" but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion another opinion is it should only be listed for digital certifications. For example All I Want For Christmas Is You is listed as 2x Multi-Platinum on the RIAA website for "single" but it has "MT" (multi-tone) next to it. But also has a digital certification of Gold. Do we include the highest regardless or only digital? Jayy008 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give both since "they" gave the certs out. Of course, describe each correctly.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My inclination is to stick with highest unless some external source gives special attention to the lower certification. That said, I'd have to find out the precise definition of "mastertone" before coming to a conclusion.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Master Ringtone certification-award-level was set at Gold=500,000, Platinum=1,000,000 from the day it was launched in June 2006. The digital award, however, was initially launched at Gold=100,000, Platinum=200,000 in October 2004, but the award-level was later (in 2007) brought up to Gold=500,000, Platinum=1,000,000 due to the rising demand in digital downloads. So in the case of the single "All I want for Christmas is You", it has been downloaded 100,000 times in digital format (DI), and 2,000,000 times in Master Ringtone format (MT), 2.1 million in total.--Harout72 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that, I change my mind to listing both. I still have a hard time taking ringtone sales seriously (another sign of my age), and would hate to see them dominate our certification listings.—Kww(talk) 04:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like ringtones either, but I always thought it was the highest the website lists as long as it's still "single". So what about Physical singles etc? Does this mean we only include digital? Jayy008 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally i've only ever included the highest Single release certification which is either digital or physical. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On the RIAA website we can choose format "single" and types: "standard", "digital" and "mastertone". All of these 3 types are counted separately and certified separately. Till the 90s we had the phisical sales ("standard"), since the 00's we have the digital sales and since 2006 RIAA is awarding also the master tones. The physical and now the digital sales is the most important. Most countries don't have an award for a master tone. I don't see any problem with adding the information in the article about a master tone certification but it is important to say it's for a ringtone. That way it won't be misleading. Max24 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I agree, but is standard actually just physical or is it a combi? And if Ringtones aren't allowed shouldn't physical and digital differences be noted too. Jayy008 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Standard" is physical only. I think it can be noted when the single was certified in both formats. For example Michael Jackson's singles: "Thriller", "Bille Jean" and "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" were certified as gold digital singles in 2005. They were also certified gold and platinum back in the 80s as physical singles. Max24 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But in that case which one should be included in the actual certifications box? I would say the most prominant which would be the highest, in that case, standard. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Given that the list contains details for certifications which are based on sale and shipments, should the article be moved to something to better reflect that such as List of music recording certifications or List of music recording sales and shipments certifications? Frankly, I would prefer the first of the two options. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, one way or the other. My preference would also be the former, mostly because it's the shorter of the two. I could easily be persuaded to accept the latter, however. It's currently just misleading.

We talked about this as part of the Alternative Proposal discussion from March. People seemed to agree but there weren't enough of us excited about it for long enough to get it done. This is just one of several items I've had on my list since then. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess we should wait and see if anyone else joins in. If there are no objects, we could be bold and move the article as suggested after a week. If it gets reverted, we could come back and carry on with the discuss part of WP:BRD. --JD554 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Preferably the first option as it is concise enough; I find the second too long and convoluted and the lead section explains it all. – IbLeo^(talk) 11:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thresholds for international material in parentheses, even when identical

I'd like to propose (and make) a change. The legend at the top of the Albums section says,

Legend: Top numbers represent sales for domestic material, italicized numbers in parentheses represent sales for international material. Where only one number is provided, there is no award for international material.

after which we have a table with a lot of stuff like this (slightly abridged here)

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Thresholds per award
		Gold	Platinum	Diamond
Argentina	Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers (CAPIF)	20,000 (20,000)	40,000 (40,000)	250,000
Australia	Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)	35,000 (35,000)	70,000 (70,000)	—
Austria	International Federation of the Phonographic Industry – Austria	10,000 (10,000)	20,000 (20,000)	—

I dislike the repetition of identical thresholds for domestic and "international" product. I would prefer to add differentiated values only when domestic and international levels vary.

According to the IFPI's IFPI Certification Award Levels, most countries don't have the lack of matching award our legend suggests.

Only four countries (Turkey, Hong Kong, Japan, Argentina) have an award for domestic product and not for international works (and only for the diamond or equivalent award). All other countries (and gold/platinum for these four) have either identical (33) or just different (22) thresholds.

Proposal

I propose to remove any duplicated sets of thresholds in italicized parentheses, and to change the above portion of the legend to read,

Legend: Italicized numbers in parentheses represent thresholds for international (foreign) material, for those territories where it is evaluated differently from domestic repertoire. Where only one number is provided, there is no difference in thresholds for domestic and international material.

(Note that this change would also remove any mention of "sales" or "shipments".)

For the four countries (currently) missing an equivalent award, I propose to mark them thusly:

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Thresholds per award
		Gold	Platinum	Diamond
Argentina	Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers (CAPIF)	20,000	40,000	250,000 (no award)
Australia	Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)	35,000	70,000	—
Austria	International Federation of the Phonographic Industry – Austria	10,000	20,000	—
Hong Kong	International Federation of the Phonographic Industry – Hong Kong	15,000 (7,500)	30,000 (15,000)	30,000 (no award)
Japan	Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ)	100,000 (100,000)	250,000 (250,000)	1,000,000 (no award)
Turkey	Turkish Phonographic Industries Society (Mü-YAP)	100,000 (no award)	200,000 (no award)	300,000 (no award)

I might be making this change already were it not for the fact that this is a featured list, and I don't want to stir up trouble when the community prefers the current form. So, community, what do you think? If there's consensus in favor of my proposal, I'll gladly make the changes when it's clear. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been done. MrFawwaz (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Link links to domain, which needed a "registration"

hello,

the link to russian recording certification was changed.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Certification for digital albums

Can you add a note for music albums, about digital albums? Some countries, such as Finland, Sweden, and United Kingdom, certify physical and digital albums together. Please! MrFawwaz (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union certs?

hello,

are there any Soviet Union certifications? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, as there is none listed here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Can someone provide an actual source for the Irish certification levels? The source provided links to the Irish Recorded Music Association home page and I can't find the numbers there. --Muhandes (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, the site at http://www.irma.ie/ is quite useless as regards certifications. There is somewhat more usefulness at The Irish Charts, although I don't find any thresholds there. I once found a gigantic IFPI table, with all the countries/regions listed, but I don't remember where I found it or what all was on it. Let me go digging around some more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay ;-) Here's the document I was thinking of: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I even mentioned it myself up at a previous post. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I had this file (or an older version), but I thought there might be a better source. Specifically, we don't know the dates this applies to, other than that it is the current number. It's better than the useless irma website. --Muhandes (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany

Can someone who speaks German please go over this and say if the award is for sales or certifications. Specifically, I see a line "dabei darf bei Anwendung der GEMA-Retourenpauschale diese bei der Errechnung der Verkaufszahlen unberücksichtigt bleiben", does it mean that returned shipments are not to be counted, i.e. that actual sales are counted? --Muhandes (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the German certification deals with shipments. That is, the BVMI bases its awards on reports from the music companies (not retailers), with the idea that the record companies report what they've shipped minus what they've received as returns.

The bit you quoted is from section 1.6, Kontrolle, on p. 5, which explains that the recording company is to hire an accountant to check these shipments (for example, in connection with the annual[!] tax preparation) or get an independent tax consultant to do it. It's actually this accountant person who sends the BVMI a statement of how many net of each product shipped.

And here's the thing: the accountant is supposed to determine the shipments based on what the record company is telling the GEMA (German WP article here) it intends to pay GEMA in royalties. Now, I haven't found the details of the agreement between GEMA and the record companies (although I almost got close, but I take GEMA-Retourenpauschale to be some basic exclusion that has been agreed upon. That is, I believe some standard number of returns has been agreed for certain purposes of royalty calculations, but the accountant is supposed to disregard that, and just use the actual info available. Generally, Pauschale is an amount that is agreed to save everybody the trouble of calculating; you might get a € 20 per day pauschale allowance for food while traveling (so don't bother with receipts), or a tax exemption of € 1200 for the use of your car for a year (unless it cost you much more, in which case you may be allowed to figure it out, show your proof, and get a higher tax exemption).

I got all the above from the PDF you linked to, and from reading the German and English GEMA articles, and scouring the GEMA Website in German and English. I can search further if you need better clarification or have more questions, but if you just want to answer the question "sales or shipments?", I'm convinced we can say "shipments". Other bodies who certify on shipments also expect returns to be deducted, and even units in Germany unreturned to the record company warehouse aren't necessarily "sold". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research, that's basically all I needed to know. But just to make it perfectly clear, are we saying that in general shipments, deducing returned shipments, is still considered shipments rather than sales? If so I think we should make it clear in the article too. --Muhandes (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A quite old discussion, but nevertheless some clarification. The german rules for Gold / Platinum / Diamond say clearly "...number of media sold to the end retailer...". End retailer is my translation for "Fachhandel", the CD-Shop or whatever. It means, that if the record company sells (and thus ships) 200,000 albums to the retailers and 6 months later, 100,000 albums are sent back because they didn't sell, the album nevertheless qualifies for Platinum. The amount of re-sent media is not considered; the amount of ordered and shipped media is the number that counts. --188.107.145.251 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweden

I'm afraid for Sweden Shipments vs. Sales isn't clear either. Can some Swedish speaker shed light on this? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

While correcting the Ireland entries I noticed the ones for Egypt were using the current list as a source but Egypt does not appear on this list. I moved it to use an older source and had to change the numbers to suit this source but this is somewhat alarming. Should we completely remove the Egyptian entries? Note that the numbers might not be current? --Muhandes (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Austria, Belgium, Portugal

Can anyone shed any light on the history of certification in Austria or Belgium or Portugal ? The table has no qualifiers, but it is clear from this 2005 file that the certification levels were not always as they are now. --Muhandes (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Russia NFPF?

The article lists the National Federation of Phonograph Producers (NFPP) as the certifying authority in Russia, their database being here with the certification thresholds here. However, I see some articles saying albums were certified by the Национальная Федерация Производителей Фонограмм National Federation of the Phonographic Industry (NFPF), with the certifications here and unknown thresholds. Are these valid? What's the relation? Are they the same? --Muhandes (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's listed as NFPP on the list, from what I can understand the latter (NFPF) is the official site for the certifying body in Russia. The former is also reliable but it only posts certifications. The 2m is a music-industry related magazine in Russia. The relation between the two can be viewed as the relation between Billboard magazine and RIAA in USA, for example.--Harout72 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I will try to correct this wherever I can. I don't speak the language so finding it is difficult for me, does the NFPF official website state the thresholds? Specifically, before September 2006 we don't have a source for the thresholds. --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in Russian but it's enough for me to navigate about, and I don't see the certification-levels posted anywhere. They seem to have certified records released in 2003 and onwards. But IFPI's 2005 report doesn't have Russia listed. My guess is they began certifying since 2006, but whatever previously released album reached their certification-levels after they instituted the thresholds in 2006, got certified as well and the 2M has posted them separately as 2003, 2004, 2005.--Harout72 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this source correctly, the thresholds go by release date. Are you saying for albums released before 2006 they used the thresholds established in 2006? --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right, literally Для релизов с 01.09.2006 по 31.12.2009 translates into for releases from 01.09.2006 to 31.12.2009. But since some of their earlier albums kept selling after they instituted their levels in 2006, they automatically seem to have applied the levels of that period. Because, they would have posted earlier levels also had they had any.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, and I'll make the template will reflect this. --Muhandes (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's one more question, I think the certification for Russian albums is 100000 copies (gold), and 200000 copies (platinum), for albums released before September 1, 2006. I think that Russian certifications are based on release date, like Germany. MrFawwaz (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Their own page says they go by release date, so this is not a question. But can you supply a source for certification thresholds before September 2006? --Muhandes (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional note, it seems like IFPI did not update the international levels. From the discussion above 2M is official, so their levels should be used in the table. --Muhandes (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

The MIAK/RIAK does not exist any more. And I don't think that the Korea Music Content Industry Association (KMCIA), who make the Gaon Chart, certify albums... --Christian140 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Irish certifications pre-2005

Anyone know where I can find them? Till 06:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Central America certifications

It has come to my attention that a certifying authority exists for the region of Central America. I don't know who the certifying authority is or what the certifications are based, but I do know they exist. To prove it exist, here are some articles that references an artist receiving a certification in Central America: [1], [2], [3]. Apparently, they also have digital download certifications as referenced in this article. This article mentions an artist receiving a Gold record for 10000 copies (don't know if it's sales or shipments though). I was wondering if anyone could help me. Thanks. EDIT: 5,000 copies for gold as of 2012 as noted in this article Erick EDIT 2: As of 2010, the Platinum award is for 100,000 copies Source. (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Since IFPI never includes separate levels for Central America on their annual list for Certification-Award-Levels (2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2007), we should not add levels for Central America either.--Harout72 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Other notes and exceptions are provided in footnotes below each table.

Not true. A lot of notes are within the table. jnestorius^(talk) 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Update definitions and wording

I've recently been making changes to the Template:Certification Table Entry to allow new certifications of singles/songs to be defined as 'sales/streaming' instead of the outmoded 'shipments' etc. I put this in for UK (and Italy after someone posted a request). In order to do it for all the countries which include streaming in their certifications it would be really helpful if this list could be updated with the year it took effect in each country. For the UK (and I imagine a lot of other regions) over 99% of 'sales units' are digital (either downloads or streaming units) and the era of 'shipments' is effectively dead, so the terminology in the certification tables should reflect this. Btljs (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a WP:RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales_figures: combined vs traditional which is relevant to this subject.Btljs (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of music recording certifications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?CodOp=ESOP&CO=5
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259165.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpihk.org/www_1/go1e.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259165.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/international-award-levels.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Albums section

@Kidsankyran: (who added the {{confusing}} tag to the #Albums section): what is particularly confusing about it? I find it quite clear. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of music recording certifications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701062753/http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223013007/http://www.abpd.org.br/niveis_de_certificacao.asp to http://www.abpd.org.br/niveis_de_certificacao.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018120609/http://www.musikindustrie.de/560/ to http://www.musikindustrie.de/560/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mako.co.il/music-news/local/Article-5be08f8cc687931006.htm%26sCh%3D3d385dd2dd5d4110%26pId%3D1080044444
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206120021/http://www.promusicae.es/espanol.html to http://www.promusicae.es/espanol.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124102159/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certification-levels.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certification-levels.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000000/http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/certification-award-levels.pdf to http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/certification-award-levels.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of music recording certifications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115124252/http://www.musiccanada.com/certificationdefinitions.aspx to http://www.musiccanada.com/certificationdefinitions.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of music recording certifications. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133219/http://www.belgianentertainment.be/index.php/fr/muziek_dossiers/ to http://www.belgianentertainment.be/index.php/fr/muziek_dossiers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605191645/http://www.cria.ca/news/08-04-25_n.php to http://www.cria.ca/news/08-04-25_n.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725153438/http://www.lamusica.emol.com/detalle/index.asp?idnoticia=423549 to http://www.lamusica.emol.com/detalle/index.asp?idnoticia=423549
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501161812/http://www.indianmi.org/awards.htm to http://www.indianmi.org/awards.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924033219/http://www.ifpi.se/wp-content/uploads/Guld-och-Platina-guide-ver2-20115.pdf to http://www.ifpi.se/wp-content/uploads/Guld-och-Platina-guide-ver2-20115.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of (L) in Albums table

Apologies if I was to start at the bottom vs in this Albums section.

What does the (L) signify for the United States Album thresholds?

Ctrl-F only yields the 3 entries but nothing to be found in the key/legend at the end of the Album section, nor the end of the entire article. Thanks much.

Country/ Territory	Certifying body	Sales thresholds per award
		Period	Silver	Gold	Platinum	Diamond
United States[I]	Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)	August 2006	-	500,000 30,000 (L)	1,000,000 60,000 (L)	10,000,000 600,000 (L)

--EdwoodCA (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EdwoodCA. I have taken the liberty of moving your post down into a new thread.

The (L) refers to thresholds for "Latin" works, successful albums and singles that are more than 50% Spanish language, as currently described here (although don't count on the RIAA to never rearrange their website).

The way you might have figured this out for yourself is if you had seen the teeny weeny dotted underline below the (L) after 30,000, but I realize that it's really hard to see, and it's under only one letter, in only one cell. If you hover over such a marker in Wikipedia, you should see a tooltip appear with some hint. If you are using a touch screen, however, as with a smart phone, I don't think you have a chance at all. :-( — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JohnFromPinckney, Thanks so much for your help with sorting out my query's location on this page, and for the answer! No dotted underline visible in up-to-date Firefox on updated Win 10. But, my various extensions may prevent the tooltip from appearing. I do however, see it on the MS Edge browser. Also, saw the explanation thru the RIAA link you referenced. Thanks again for your help. I really appreciate it. EdwoodCA (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just add that I'm not seeing the tooltip either (in Chrome). I see (L) underlined, and ? on hover, but there's no tooltip or explanation shown. Maybe the meaning should be added with the other footnotes for simplicity & consistency. 2620:110:5004:1:0:0:0:1011 (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

References

American Certifications

Hey everyone since I had recently seen some problems with other users not being sure about certifications in Latin America, I want to share with you this website which shows which organizations are affiliated with IFPI and exactly for which country in America the organization is for. Hope this helps! :) FanDePopLatino (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

US uses streaming

The US uses streaming in awards

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/2/1/10888364/gold-platinum-albums-count-streaming-riaa-change Coachtripfan (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coachtripfan: The list is at least five years out of date, and this is true for almost every other region. Feel free to update it. --Muhandes (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

US Certification Update

https://www.riaa.com/riaa-debuts-album-award-streams/

Streams are used Coachtripfan (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coachtripfan: Same answer as above, this is correct for at least 20 other countries. Instead of writing about the problem, fix it. Also, please don't start multiple conversations about the same subject.--Muhandes (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

2019 Global Thresholds

I found IFPI's full 2019 report, I hope it helps!
https://archive.org/details/ifpi-global-music-report-2020-full-report
GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Hello, is this page legit? It speaks about gold, platinum, diamond awards, levels. Although I am not seeing any database, just the requirements. I don't see that much activity other than that. Dhoffryn (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Categorizing "Streaming-only singles" and "physical only or any format" for Sweden

The list seems inconsistent on what counts between the "streaming-only" category and "physical only." In Sweden, there is no longer any certification other than streaming (https://www.ifpi.se/musikbolag/guld-och-platina/). Sweden would seem to fit being moved into the "Streaming-only singles" for that reason (it seems more obvious considering the order of magnitude for singles in Sweden matches Japan and South Korea's streaming-only certifications, and looks completely out of place on the primary list). Opinions are appreciated. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

UK singles 1959-1973

Disc Magazine audited, and awarded, silver discs for singles shipping 250 000 units to stores in the UK, and gold discs for singles shipping 1 000 000 units to stores in the UK. These were held in high regards. In 1973 the BPI created thrir own certifications of 250 000 silver, 500 000 gold, 1 000 000 platinum. By the end of 1974 Disc had ceased their own certifications. Today Disc silver record awards are called "unofficial", or completely ignored. But, they should be mentioned here, as well as any article about a single from 1959-1973 should list Disc silver record awards in the "Sales and Certifications" sections. The Disc silver records are/were every bit as real as the BPI ones.(Possibly more so after streaming songs can get silver, gold, platinum, multi-platinum BPI awards...) 197.87.143.80 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)