Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

New Zealand sales

Looking at an old archive of the RIANZ singles chart, it looks like certification thresholds were different in New Zealand during the early 2000s. According to this source, in 2003 singles were awarded gold and platinum for sales of 5,000 and 10,000 copies, respectively. But I don't know when this levels were changed, and we also should check if this applies for albums too. --Stee888 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also noticed that on the Radioscope archive [1] it says that "Music DVD Sales Certifications are based on wholesale figures (record company sales to retailers)," which I believe means that it's based on shipments, but on the template says it is "unspecified".Rock'N'More (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The levels for single releases were kept at Gold=5,000/Platinum-10,000 until the end of May, 2007 (levels are posted at the bottom the PDF document). From the beginning of June 2007, the levels for singles were brought up to Gold=7,500/Platinum=15,000.--Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Stee888, Harout72, I don't know if either of you are still active or following this thread, but I've been looking up some information, and in addition to the old singles certification levels mentioned above, they were different again between 1978 and 1992:

• July 1978 (when NZ certifications started) – 1991: gold = 10,000, platinum = 20,000
• 1992 – May 2007: gold = 5,000, platinum = 10,000
• June 2007 – present: gold = 7,500, platinum = 15,000

I have a reliable reference to prove the first two certification levels. Is there anybody available to make the necessary changes to the template to take account of these three different levels over the history of NZ singles certification? Richard3120 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120 Do you mind providing the reliable source that shows the singles' levels for the periods July 1978 - 1991, and 1992 - May 2007? I could definitely use that source to apply correct certification levels at other pages here on wikipedia.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harout72 – yes, it's Dean Scapolo's book New Zealand Music Charts 1966–1996: Singles, which you can see here... an updated version to the end of 2006 has since been released, but this is the edition in the British Library. It's the official reference book for the NZ singles chart, and Scapolo posts as "DeanNZ" on the forums of Hung Medien's New Zealand chart site.

On pages 5 & 6 of this edition of the book Scapolo traces the history of charts in NZ – there have been charts since the 1960s but the earliest ones were based on listener polls and therefore neither official nor sales-based. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia titled List of number-one singles in 19xx (New Zealand) but they are all unsourced and all dubious for the reasons just stated, so we might have to consider whether they have any place on Wikipedia.

The first official RIANZ (as it was called then) chart was dated 2 May 1975 (this is why you can only search back as far as that date on charts.org.nz), and after that he talks about when certifications started and the original sales levels required for certification. As this book only goes up to 1996 there is no detail about the changes in 2007 to the current certification levels, but you'd already found that from the PDFs above (which no longer exist, we might need to look to see if they've been archived). The book also notes which singles have been certified gold or platinum, which is useful, but not when the certification was awarded. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I'm interested in what you say about the pre-1975 NZ "number-one singles". I spent years wondering about them after first arriving here. Hung Medien used to include NZ chart placings from before '75 – at least I remember seeing them sourced at Paul McCartney discography two or three years back. Not that it's got anything to do with Cert Table Entry, but Billboard's Hits of the World used to include the NZ Listener top ten, so I'd hope the individual chart peaks could be retained in individual song articles, to reflect the most popular songs ("hits") in New Zealand during the pre-sales chart era. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

JG66, yes, those NZ Listener charts are the ones Scapolo mentions in his book as the first NZ charts in 1966, but he is also clear that at first they were based on listener polls and not sales, although they did change over to a sales chart in 1970. Playlist magazine used to run sales-based charts between 1960 and 1966, but these were split into NZ artists, UK artists, and US artists, so they didn't have an overall sales chart. Seeing as the NZ Listener charts are presumably the ones Scapolo uses in his book as well, since it's subtitled 1966–1996, I guess that makes them the "official" charts for the 1966–1975 period and should therefore be kept for Wikipedia articles. That means that this is probably where those number-one lists for each year are sourced, although they would need checking. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120: Ah okay, "they did change over to a sales chart in 1970" – that's in line with what I've read about Listener's chart being a "forerunner" to the official NZ national charts. Thanks, I'll look out for that book. JG66 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

JG66: my apologies, I didn't read my notes properly and I should have made that clear, it wasn't my intention to mislead you. Yes, the charts from the NZ Listener were sales-based from 1970 to 1975: they stopped their charts three weeks after the publication of the first RIANZ chart. So we should keep them as "official" New Zealand charts for the pre-May 1975 period. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120: No, it's all good. I don't feel you misled me at all. (Must've missed that!) JG66 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard, would it be possible for you to scan the cover page of the Dean Scapolo's book as well as all of the pages that show the certification levels for singles and the dates when the levels were amended. I compile Gold/Platinum certifications for hundreds of artists mainly to list them at the List of best-selling music artists, and it would be great if I could use that book as a reference to apply correct levels to all singles released between 1978-1992.--Harout72 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Harout72: no, I don't think I can unfortunately, because it's in the British Library and I don't think they allow any kind of photographic copying in there. I will be there again at the end of this month and I will see what they say, but don't get your hopes up. It's a pity because a comprehensive list such as the one you maintain would indeed be hugely useful. Most of the Wikipedia articles relating to each country's national charts and certifications are extremely vague about the history of the charts in that country and sometimes include errors – they really need overhauling but unless you can get hold of information from the pre-internet era like this New Zealand book it's often difficult to obtain. The same goes for these certification changes over the years – the editor Eurohunter pointed out a couple of months ago that the Belgian certifications appear to have changed last year as well. And I've said it before, but RIAA's official site hasn't taken account the changes made to certification levels in 1989, so their sales levels from before this date are all incorrect. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand, no worries. I know, it's difficult to get a hold of the changes in certification-levels for some markets. I've received the levels via e-mail directly from some markets' certifying bodies including Holland, Sweden, Austria, Poland. But some of them including New Zealand, simply won't reply. They all should have the previous levels on their sites, it would make things easier for all of us.--Harout72 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 and Harout72: I've coded this at Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/sandbox using a new subpage Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod. The output of the sandbox template can be checked by looking at Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/testcases. Have I understood the requirements correctly? If so, please fix up the documentation by copying in the right sources, and either copy the sandbox into the main template or post here so that I can do it. Notice that this change could break some articles that fail to pass in the year or month - the old template would return 7,500/15,000 and the new one will return zero. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we not have waited for the scans? Because if I understood this correctly, not all editions of Dean Scapolo's book contain the certification-levels, the updated 2006 version seems to have this information.--Harout72 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120 and Harout72: I am happy to wait until you two are agreed on what is needed. My coding is only in the template sandbox as yet, so it does not affect the main template or any articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree we should wait until we see what I can do in the next week or two, but as John says, the changes are only in the sandbox for now and can happily wait there. But Harout, I think the best I can do is probably snatch a sneaky mobile phone picture of the page of the book in question – would that be enough? Because I don't see why we need visual confirmation if a citation to a reliable source will do. And the problem is that it's only the 1996 version of the book, so it only contains confirmation of the first two sets of certification levels up until publication date. In fact, the 2006 edition won't help either, because it only goes up to the end of 2006, and according to the (now dead) links you posted above in January 2013, the change to the current levels occurred in May/June 2007. So we have a problem that we have confirmation of the old award levels, but not when the current levels came into place, and scans or otherwise of the book won't help in that respect. Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second dead link, the 4 June 2007 chart, is available at Archive.org. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(More) Working back from there, I've found an archive of the 7 May 2007 chart, which shows Gold=5,000, Platinum=10,000. There is nothing at archive.org for the later weeks in May 2007. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, fantastic work John - I looked for an archive of the first link, like you I found nothing, and then I got called away and distracted before looking for the second one, but assumed it would also be unavailable so I never went back to it. I would have thought there's enough there to be able to say that the certification levels changed at the end of May 2007 - at worst we have a maximum of three weeks without info. I will try and get that sneaky photo of the book and then that should be enough to prove the date ranges for the three certification levels over NZ music history. Richard3120 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, just for information, it's interesting to see that before the May 2007 change the chart comprised 50% sales, 50% radio airplay [2]... after the change it was 75% physical AND digital singles sales, and the airplay component decreased to 25% [3]. I note the template documentation on this very article page states that Radioscope started providing information on their website on 20 May 2007... I wonder if this was the date that the certification levels changed. Sadly Radioscope's website seems to be nothing more than a holding page now, so no clues there. Richard3120 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That might have led to what eventually affected the change in levels. But the change wasn't posted on RIANZ charts until the beginning of June 2007. The archived version of Radioscope is available here, not sure if the info you're after is still on there though.--Harout72 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72:@JG66: an update... I did manage to get a sneaky picture of the relevant page of the NZ book, and although you need to zoom in, it's perfectly readable. It states quite clearly that certifications began in July 1978, and were halved in 1992 – the actual sales numbers for certification are not given, but the 1992–2007 levels of 5,000/10,000 are available on archived versions of the RIANZ website (for example http://web.archive.org/web/20020806213312/http://www.rianz.org.nz/top50.cfm, bottom left corner), and therefore we can double these levels to get the 1978–1991 levels (does this count as WP:OR?). So the question now is, how do I get this photo to you guys? Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You can upload it on mediafire.com. But have you come across the initial levels anywhere in the book? I'd have to read how the wording exactly is, don't mean to question you. Did you also get a chance to photograph the cover of the book.--Harout72 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't found the initial levels: they may be in there, but I can't say for certain, and now I am out of the UK and won't be able to check for a long while. I did get a photo of the front cover, though. Richard3120 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Harout72: does this work? ---> [4] Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard, unfortunately this doesn't look like something we should rely on as there is no indication as to what the original levels were that were halved. Honestly, we don't know if it was halved from 30,000 or 20,000 units, it could be anything. Perhaps, NZ levels were changed multiple times, not just in 1992 and later in 2007, but that is a speculation. For that reason, we need to have the exact levels so we won't be questioned later by editors/readers. I'm afraid, I'm personally going to wait for other sources before I could change the already applied NZ levels at the List of best-selling music artists. And we should not change the template based on this either, I believe.--Harout72 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, I understand. All we can say for certain is that singles before 1992 are definitely understated with regards to sales at present. What we really need is a copy of the newer edition of the book that goes up to 2006: because I can go back to 2001 NZ charts and certification levels on webarchive and they still show the 5000/10000 levels, if the newer edition does not state that there have been any changes from 1992 to 2007, we can then say that before 1992 they were 10000/20000. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose if there no mention about any changes, like you're saying, then the levels were halved from 20,000/10,000 to 10,000/5,000. But it's always best to have the levels indicated somewhere, or to have a document directly sent from certifying body, something like this I received from Austrian IFPI for example. That said, have you contacted NZ certifying body for info on levels? I tried but they never replied. You might get lucky.--Harout72 (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120 I have a scan for the updated version of the book you scanned months ago, The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006, on the last page of the scans, it states in the description of the Column 4 "Gold (10,000 copies to 1988, 5,000 from 1989), Platinum (20,000 copies to 1988, from 10,000 from 1989)". I'm a bit confused because in the older version of this book which you provided the scans for, it said the certification levels were halved in 1992. I'm still not sure if this book is at all something we can rely on as far as the levels go, especially that we now have two very different dates for the changes.--Harout72 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72: thanks for finding that, although I'm not sure if the link is the one you meant to attach to the post. Anyway, you are right about it being puzzling, although it does sort of seem to confirm what I said in the first place – that certification levels used to be twice what they were, only now we don't know if that applies before 1992 or before 1989... I need to look into this. Regarding the reliability of the book, I understand that Scapolo's book IS the official guide for New Zealand charts, so if the book can't be considered reliable, nothing can. Richard3120 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: just found a reply from Scapolo on this thread on the australiancharts.com forum – it says that certification levels for singles were halved in 1989, and for albums they were lowered in 1992, which may or may not explain the puzzle over the two different dates (I know this forum thread doesn't count as a reliable source, but I just mention it as a guide). But we still don't have actual dates in 1989 or 1992 as to when the change was made. I think I may have to trawl through copies of Billboard for those years – they normally have short articles whenever certification levels of major music markets are changed. Richard3120 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard3120 Sorry, this is the file I meant to provide for The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006. The statement I was quoting seems to be for the singles, it does say immediately after that "for album figures see above", which might be a page that wasn't scanned I'm afraid. This scan was provided by a fellow wikipedian for Cher's earlier certifications. As for the forum, it's unclear. It says "1989-1992: Singles were halved". And then it says "1992-2004 Singles: 5,000, albums: 7,500 and Double for platinum." Well, no changes occurred in 2004, so why the 2004. The levels for singles were not raised until the second half of the 2007. I'll see if I could get the same guy that gave me the scans, could also scan the page that has the album figures. I never thought the album levels have ever been higher than the current levels.--Harout72 (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder if "2004" on the forum thread is a typo and Scapolo meant to say 2007... if they had changed in 2004 he would surely have noted it in his book, which came out in 2007, but before the June 2007 certification level changes. Richard3120 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Split "Certified units/sales"?

Is it worth thinking about splitting this final column of the template into two? I know it doesn't happen very often, but occasionally it is possible to provide both the number of certified units (i.e. combined sales + streaming) and sales-only figures. For example, in the UK "Black Magic" has been certified platinum by the BPI for 600,000 certified units, but the Official Charts Company have stated that its sales amount stands at 477,824 as of October 2016. This has led to arguments as to what figure should be included in the "Certified units/sales" column – we have a "salesamount" parameter but if editors prefer the certified units figure because it's higher, this makes the "salesamount" parameter redundant. What do other editors think... have the column as "certified units" as standard, and then if a sales amount figure becomes available, add a sales column as optional additional information? But I don't know if adding an optional column is possible with this template. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What I would personally prefer is that wherever sales are available and added in the parameter, it can have a note in the bottom template that sales sourced from certifying body. Currently when we add the sales in the salesamount parameter, the ^ goes away completely. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio:: even when we add the "salesamount" parameter with a proper source it often gets reverted back to the certified amount... this is what has happened with the Little Mix singles, with editors arguing that sales includes streaming... it almost seems a waste of time even trying to add the "salesamount" sometimes. Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate references

This template seems to be a leading cause of duplicate reference definition errors. Is anything being done to prevent erroneous usage, or to help diagnose the problems this template causes? -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: If you can name some articles where this template is causing errors, I will try to work out what is going wrong. This edit and this one were edits to {{Certification Table Entry}} that fixed citation errors. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: You can find a complete list at Category:Pages with duplicate reference names. It's not always easy to pick out the ones caused by this specific template, but I see them often enough. Here's the first one I've found today: Blown Away (song). -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: the references were duplicated in the article and it was correct to throw that error. I have corrected it now to merge them with this edit. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the error is correct. However, the way this template works makes such errors difficult to understand and fix. My question is: what can be done to help prevent erroneous usage, or to help diagnose problems when they occurr? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Use the refname parameter to generate the same citation as an error message"? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone include the Diamond certification numbers for RIAA Latin certified albums?

The RIAA certification allows Diamond for regular certifications, but not for Latin-certified albums by the RIAA. The threshold is 1,000,000 if it was certified before December 2013 and 600,000 after December 2013. Here's a source to show that it exists. Erick (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm having another problem. When I put certyear for "Darte un Beso", it only lists the shipments. However, the only Latin digital singles was established on December 2013 (source) and should be displaying the digital sales/streaming marker. Can someone fix this? Erick (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Magiciandude, is this related to the discussion we had above regarding the fact that since 2013 RIAA now gives out separate certifications for "standard" sales AND for "digital" sales? We still haven't come up with a consensus for displaying both types of certification, because as noted above, there are some singles that are multi-platinum certified for both types of award. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: In the case of Latin certifications, the RIAA did not give out certifications for Latin singles for standard sales. Only one single has received a Latin certification for shipments (La Bomba (Azul Azul song). The Latin digital singles award began on December 2013 with the same process as the digital awards. Erick (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, that's much easier to deal with than the issue I was talking about then! Sorry for butting in. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, I just need someone who's an expert at coding. Erick (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: It's been a few months and there are several recording that have been Diamante. The template does not input the Diamond value for Latin certification. The Latin certifications for singles also need to be addressed because it lists shipments for some singles when the RIAA has only certified Latin digital singles. Erick (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Could you provide a simple example to show exactly what needs to change? Perhaps code a 1-entry certification table at User:John of Reading/X3. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Sure thing. On Darte un Beso, the table is using the shipment figure mark as opposed to the streaming/downloads symbol. The RIAA never had a Latin certifications for singles until December 2013 which uses streaming/downloads since its inception. Chantaje by Shakira was certified Latin Diamond, but putting Diamond in the Latin field does not make the value appear. Currently it has to be manually added as it is right now on the article. Those are the only changes that need to be done. EDIT: Nearly forgot to mention that the current Latin Diamond awards for albums and singles are 600,000 and 1,000,000 for Latin albums certified before December 2013. Erick (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Please check User:John of Reading/X3 (permanent link) to see that I've understood the requirement 100%. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's about right. I just want to add that the RIAA Latin digital singles launch and the lowering of the threshold of Latin albums happened on December 20 as opposed to December 1. But other than that, yes that's correct. EDIT: Just to make sure, only Latin albums need the before and after December 20. The Latin digital singles has always been its current threshold. I hope I didn't cause any confusion. I thank you very much John of Reading for helping out. :) Erick (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen your edit to the above post. I've coded one of the changes, and Darte un Beso now displays the double dagger symbol. I've just finished coding the wrong logic for Latin singles, a varying 600000/1000000 threshold for Diamond, but that will be easy to put right. I haven't tackled the albums yet; there's extra code there to do with multidisc albums. This will have to wait until tomorrow, now, as we have the vicar coming to dinner shortly! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I've coded the change to the albums now. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you John. I really appreciate your help. :) Erick (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Brazil

Could someone update the Brazil sales for digital albums and singles? Per Pro-Música Brasil website, Gold stands for 50,000 copies, Platinum stands for 100,000 and Diamond stands for 500,000 copies. These sales are for albums and singles released or certificated (in cases as "Vogue", "SOS" and "Express Yourself") after 2008. Music01 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The ABPD's digital levels for international artists are Gold=30,000 and Platinum=60,000.--Harout72 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Canadian video sales

Can some one please correct the Canadian video sales listing in {{Certification Table Entry/Sales}}? Currently its listed along with the singles and hence when added as Platinum, it takes the sales as 100,000 whereas according to Music Canada platinum in the country for videos is 10,000. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Italy albums

When I tried to update the certification for Italy for Greatest Hits (Neil Young album), the number of sales given is wrong. Adding the release year in the template 2004 gives me 50,000 sales. However, Greatest Hits went Gold in 2017, which means the number of sales is 25,000. If I change the release year to 2014, the correct sales is provided. Is there a way to prevent this? Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The certification is given based on the release year, not certyear. Hence Greatest Hits (Neil Young album) has the correct shipment amount in place for Italy, being released in 2004 when sales thresholds were higher. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dutch certification entry – removal or not?

The link to Dutch certifications at NVPI has been dead now for the best part of two years, and it doesn't look as though it's going to be reactivated any time soon. There is an archived version of the search page available, but as you can't then search for anything from that archived page, it's of no use.

My concern is that at present, if you click on the citation for the Dutch certification in an article, it doesn't even take you to an error page on the NVPI website, but now takes you through a series of pop-up ad pages instead – surely not something that Wikipedia should be linking to. So the question is, should we remove all Dutch certifications from the certification table, wherever they occur in song/album articles? It appears that there are around 400 articles that include the Dutch certification template, so it's not a huge number that would take many months to remove. Or should we just leave them there to avoid disruption, but somehow disable the citation link or change it to "citation needed" instead? Richard3120 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove – From both the certification template as well as from the articles. NVPI had enough time to get their shit together. Do they even have a Facebook/Instagram page where they announce the certification? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove – Unless other reliable sources are provided. For example, some old Dutch Top 40 charts also included certifications, and some official NVPI annual reports also listed certifications. Other certifications are not verifiable, therefore should be removed. Stee888 (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Stee888: is there any pattern to which old charts contains the certifications? If we can have a catalogue of it then maybe we can salvage little bit of the certifications. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem if editors can manually add citations from reliable sources for Dutch certifications and add them to the table – this has already happened at In the Lonely Hour or Faded (Alan Walker song), for example. My concern is the use of the standard template parameter for automatically generating the citation link to NVPI's website. Richard3120 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

PDFs including Dutch certifications for singles are available at the link http://www.top40.nl/pdf/year/top40-chartdate.pdf with the chart date in the format YYYYMMDD. Charts included certifications from week 14 of 1991, until week 51 of 2002. It is therefore possible to auto-generate links to these PDFs. Stee888 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stee888: as a matter of fact, the certifications from the top40.nl website are available earlier than that, from week 3 of 1988. You can see on the PDF version of week 8 of 1988, "(I've Had) The Time of My Life" had been certified platinum. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Muhandes could simply write a line which would disable the use of this Netherlands template for both singles and albums so that it doesn't show up in any related articles, which would be quicker than deleting it article by article, and also allow for it to be re-enabled in future, should NVPI ever decide to show certifications again. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if possible, that's not a good idea since certifications might be discussed in the article and references may be reused. Personally, I don't think a source which is no longer accessible is a reason for removing a fact previously established with a reliable source, but I'm not going to !vote on this one. --Muhandes (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, the point about mention of the certifications within the text is a good one. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sweden SFI dead links

I've noticed that while filling out the Sweden sales for Stronger (Britney Spears song) that the link for gold/platinum CDs and singles in 2000 doesn't work. However, I've found an archived copy on the IA [5]. I was wondering if other Sweden charts require an archived link. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I agree we should add the archive links for all the Sweden years, like how it is done for the IFPI Europe certifications. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to note for other editors who require Swedish certifications, working archive links for all certifications from 1987 to 2010 can be found at the archived page http://web.archive.org/web/20110517224028/http://www.ifpi.se/?page_id=67. Richard3120 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Are the archive links for sweden certifications part of the template? Or do they have to be added manually? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: sorry, I should have been clearer... I meant that anyone looking for links to find certifications for those years can find all of them in the same place above, which saves time instead of searching for the documents separately on Google, etc. However, they are not part of the template and have to be added manually. Richard3120 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Richard3120:, will it be possible for you to add the archive links for each respective year? And from 2012 onwards it can direct to the current website with Search parameters. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @IndianBio: what exactly do you mean? If you mean "add the archive link for each year until 2012 to the entry for Sweden on {{Certification Table Entry#Supported regions}}", no problem... if you mean "code the template so that putting the year in the "certyear" parameter automatically links to the correct archive link for certifications for that year", then I think that's going to be beyond my capabilities, because I am not a coder – we'll have to get someone else to do that for us. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Richard3120: thanks for explaining. Do you have anyone in mind who can do it? @SnapSnap: tried it but it wasn't working so she reverted it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to add the archived links, but my coding skills are rather limited and I ended up disrupting the template altogether. I was actually going to look for someone who could add the links. If I'm not mistaken, Muhandes was the one who created the template, though he doesn't seem to be involved with music-related articles anymore. Maybe Stee888 could help, since he often edits the template as well. snapsnap ^(talk) 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly John of Reading as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look. --Muhandes (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I'm a bit rusty but it was a rather simple edit so it should work. Let me know if there are any problems. --Muhandes (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Muhandes! Though I've just figured out that, for some reason, the relyear parameter must match certyear so that the archived links are shown. Any idea what could be causing this? snapsnap ^(talk) 20:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks @Muhandes:, just one query, for certifications greater than year 2011 as per this edit, it should link to the default IFPI Sweden website with the parameters giving a user how to search for certifications. But its not happening. Do you know why? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@SnapSnap: no, it doesn't. Here is an example with relyear=1999 and certyear=2010:

{{Certification Table Top}}
{{Certification Table Entry|award=Gold|region=Sweden|type=single|certyear=2010|relyear=1999}}
{{Certification Table Bottom|nosales=yes}}

Region	Certification	Certified units/sales
Sweden (GLF)	Gold	15,000‡
^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

References

--Muhandes (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Strangely enough, the archived links weren't showing for me in articles where "relyear" differed from "certyear" (such as Not That Kind and Day & Age), but after editing the page, the archived links showed up just fine. Anyway, thanks. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: should work now

{{Certification Table Top}}
{{Certification Table Entry|award=Gold|region=Sweden|type=single|certyear=2015|relyear=1999|artist=Muhandes|title=Yes!}}
{{Certification Table Bottom|nosales=yes}}

Region	Certification	Certified units/sales
Sweden (GLF)	Gold	15,000‡
^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

References

--Muhandes (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Why you're at it, would you mind adding this archived link to the Norwegian entry? It's for certifications between 1993 and 2011. snapsnap ^(talk) 05:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure it's an ideal solution since some 2011 certifications were done on the new website and some on the old, so I made 2011 the cut year (>2010 goes to new website). If you want the old website for a 2011 certification, lie and use 2010... Usage examples:

{{Cite certification|region=Norway|artist=Coldplay|certyear=2001}}

{{Cite certification|region=Norway|artist=Coldplay|certyear=2015}}

"IFPI Norsk platebransje Trofeer 1993–2011" (in Norwegian). IFPI Norway.

"Norwegian certifications – Coldplay" (in Norwegian). IFPI Norway.

--Muhandes (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Turns out I was indeed a bit rusty and I didn't test the case where certyear isn't listed. Anyway, it works now. --Muhandes (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Denmark IFPI

@Muhandes: Based on my research, Denmark IFPI has been applying their most recent certification levels to albums and singles to both newer and older releases since July 2012. This rule seems to have been on their site since July 2012, see where it says Certificeringer sker altid efter de gældende kriterier, uanset hvornår udgivelsen er udgivet. Note that June 2012 doesn't have that statement yet. So, currently recently certified albums like Madonna's Confessions on the Dance Floor shows up with double the actual sales amount.

Also, the singles' levels since November 17, 2014 were Gold=30,000, Platinum=60,000. Since April 1, 2017 are Gold=45,000, Platinum=90,000. These levels have not been implemented into the template. We need to enter the correct levels manually otherwise, it reads 0. Hopefully, you'll have the time to make these changes.--Harout72 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Harout72: lets see I understand correctly, are you saying that until June 2012 the certification were done based by release date, but all certifications made from July 2012 onward are based on certification date? I can certainly implement this, but we will need to assume that if certyear isn't listed, it was made before July 2012. --Muhandes (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Partially implemented Until I get an answer to the above, I implemented the new levels for singles. I tested it quite thoroughly but let me know if I erred. Some examples of usage: Sexual (song) Illuminate (Shawn Mendes album), Jumpman (song) --Muhandes (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to have started applying their most recent available certification awards effective July 2012. Before that they certified the records there based on release dates. The certification date is normally listed on their site, unless we're listing the certifications based on what we see on their official charts. Also, I tested the template for some singles, they seem to work fine. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I started implementing this and it turned out to be too much code so I'm refactoring the whole thing. It might take a few more days. --Muhandes (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented I checked on some random pages and I think it works as designed. You may check Confessions on the Dance Floor and "Company" now show the correct numbers. Some pages are going to show zero now, specifically those certified in 2016 where there is no certmonth and such. As 2016 certifications didn't work at all until last week I don't think this is much of a problem, but do let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I randomly checked a few too, it seems to work fine. If I come across something that needs attention, I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks again.--Harout72 (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Polish singles

Since March 2017 there are new regulation for singles certification in Poland (Gold = 20,000, Platinum = 40,000, Diamond = 200,000). Could someone please update this? zpav.pl -- Xxvid (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I will handle this tomorrow, unless someone else beats me to it. --Muhandes (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank, but I've now seen that it's not necessary, because the new regulation is for the sales in Złoty and not the sales amount , sorry :P -- Xxvid (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like on 1 March 2017 they changed from reporting by number to reporting by Złoty. Incorporating such cases into the template would be a huge mess. I can take this endeavor but I'm not sure it's worth the fuss for this single case. If more pop out we can give it a thought. --Muhandes (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would just leave as it is, because now there are just two options to get singles certification, the new one is just an additional option to the old one.-- Xxvid (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? New certyfications are based only on income and It complicated Alan Walker's "Faded" fx because firts diamond is based on 100,000 sold units and new one is based on 100,000 or 200,000 income in PLN. Eurohunter (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Streaming in Italy

Since 7 July 2017, streaming is inlcuded in Italian albums charts and certifications, as stated here. We should therefore change the footnote for albums, but it's quite intricate since it depends on the month (awards are given every Friday, and 7 July was the first Friday of July, therefore we can avoid to consider the certday as a parameter), or on the certification week. Moreover, all entires for Italian album certifications until now do not include a certmonth parameter (or anything similar). How can we accomplish this? Stee888 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Certmonth I believe is easily achievable. If certyear is present then the template should throw an error to give certmonth as 07, and so for entries with certyear >= 2017 and certmonth >= 07 the template would give the certification value (Gold,plat) with the streaming symbol added along it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stee888: @IndianBio: Yes, I see no problem implementing it this way. You'd still need to add it to the bottom manually, but that's always the case. If there is consensus on this and you need assistance implementing it, Let me know and I'd be happy to do it. --Muhandes (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Certification in Canada

Certification definitions in Canada changed around the middle of the last year. Eurohunter (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the note at the bottom the change was on September 12, 2016, canceling the digital downloads award and making the single award include digital downloads, with the new levels. So how do you think this change should be addressed? The correct way would be to look at the certification date (certyear/certmonth/certday) and change accordingly. If certification was before September 12, 2016 use the former values, unless digital is specified. If it is after that date, use the current values. When the certification date is not specified I think we would use the old values. Does this sound right? --Muhandes (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be included in template? It looks its outdated. Eurohunter (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I am waiting for your response, is the manner in which I suggested to address it satisfactory? --Muhandes (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it isn't original research a bit. Eurohunter (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Lets make it simple. You asked for the template to be updated. What change to the template do you want to be implemented? --Muhandes (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Certification definitions in Canada. Eurohunter (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I really don't understand what you are saying. Yes, we are talking about the Certification definitions in Canada. You pointed out they were updated. I proposed a way to implement the change, but you objected saying it is original research. So do you want the template to be changed or not? And if so, in what way, since you objected to the way I proposed. --Muhandes (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: Since no response was given for almost a month, I'm going to assume this update request was withdrawn. If someone else still thinks this should be implemented, in the manner specified above or in any other manner, please comment. I have no opinion, I'm just trying to help. --Muhandes (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

How do I use this template with the {{Failed verification}} template? I try to do so here and it doesn't seem to work. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do, can you please explain in more detail? Which source in that article fails verification? --Muhandes (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: The one marked with the "fv" template, of course! The claim is that the ringtone of the song was certified platinum by the RIAA. That certification isn't supported by the reference, so I want to mark it as failing so that maybe, someday, someone can provide a supporting reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Sorry, must have been in my blind spot. I looked at the ref and it has a Platinum certification, so I'm not sure what's the problem, but to answer your question, the template lets you override the reference through the certref field, so using {{Certification Cite Ref}} directly you can do:

{{Certification Table Entry|region=United States|relyear=2006|certyear=2006|title=Buttons|artist=Pussycat Dolls|autocat=yes|type=single|award=Platinum|accessdate=August 12, 2013|certref={{Certification Cite Ref|region=United States|title=Buttons|artist=Pussycat Dolls|type=single}}{{fv}}}}<pre>

Which creates:

Region	Certification	Certified units/sales
United States (RIAA)	Platinum	1,000,000^
* Sales figures based on certification alone. ^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

I hope this is what you needed. --Muhandes (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks! Seems very cumbsersome, but it works. The problem with the reference is that it supports the certification of the single. The claim in the article is that the ringone has reached a sales goal. Sales for a single release (and an album release, and an EP release, and a download, and ...) are different than a ringtone and certified separately. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Certification in Portugal

Hi. The website that posts the weekly charts for Portugal, will now post certifications (started with the most recent week and will update the archive also). So I think the template should be updated, and use this website as reference (since the one that used to be there was removed from the web). The certifications also need to be updated. Singles: 5000 copies for Gold and 10000 for Platinum; Albums - 7500 for Gold and 15000 for Platinum. Thanks! ManuelButera (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ManuelButera: Can you please give an example of how this website can be used to find a certification for a specific album or single? As for the change in certification amount, can you provide a source and a date when it occured? --Muhandes (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Muhandes, Manuel is talking about the Top 100 singles chart, which has only just started this week (before now the portuguesecharts.com website only posted the albums chart). You can see from this week's chart that the penultimate column shows G for gold and PL for platinum certifications. However, it doesn't state the award levels - these must come from a different site. Richard3120 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MuhandesRichard3120 The website I posted, started posting the certifications for singles and albums this week, see here (despite posting the single charts since 2016 and the albums chart since 2003), so the only way to see the certifications is in the last week's page. However, I emailed the website and they said that they will update the archive with the data received from AFP. The certification amount can be found in List of music recording certifications which links here. (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

ManuelButera the portuguesecharts.com website still is not posting any certifications for albums, and for singles it is currently only showing them for this week. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard3120 the website only posted last week's certifications (album chart). I thought they would've updated, at least the 2018 charts, by now. (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@ManuelButera: I'd be happy to assist, but as the certifications only appear on the current week table, I don't see how you would use it. Once they archive them in some useful way I'd be happy to implement it. As for the certification levels, the template goes by dates, so do we have a reliable source to tell us when certification levels changed? Also, do they apply retroactively or just for new releases? --Muhandes (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Greek certification not working

Can someone help me? I've been trying to fix the Greek certification on American Life, but it's not working. Basically, the reference link (#121) gets redirected to this page page instead of this page. I've included the id tag but it's still not working. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks in advance. --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@WWETrishMickiefan: I will need your assistance to correct this problem. The current logic is that if type=album we link to chart01.htm and if type=single we link to chart03.htm. Are there cases where the link should be to chart04.htm? --Muhandes (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: chart04.htm is the overall Greek charts, that takes into account both foreign and domestic (Greek) albums, while chart01.htm is the chart for foreign albums only. Nonetheless, chart04.htm has archived pages that are missing on chart01.htm. For example, the American Life certification is archived only under chart04.htm, but I can't find it under chart01.htm. --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@WWETrishMickiefan: How about we use the domestic variable such that if domestic=true we go to chart04.htm and if domestic=false (or not listed) we go, like now, to chart01.htm? --Muhandes (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: That sounds good. --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@WWETrishMickiefan: I finished implementing and then realized there is a problem with this idea. The problem is that the domestic variable is already used, to indicate a domestic release. This influences the sales amount, as you can see from my sandbox implementation:

{{Certification Table Top}}
{{User:Muhandes/Certification Table Entry|region=Greece|type=album|id=20070114174502|award=Gold|relyear=2006|artist=Someone}}
{{User:Muhandes/Certification Table Entry|region=Greece|type=album|id=20070114174502|domestic=true|award=Gold|relyear=2006|artist=Someone Else}}
{{Certification Table Bottom}}

Region	Certification	Certified units/sales
Greece (IFPI Greece)	Gold	7,500^
Greece (IFPI Greece)	Gold	15,000^
* Sales figures based on certification alone. ^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

References

So as you can see, the references are correct, but this also set the certified units wrongly. I can add another variable, but it seems a bit excessive for something that may not be used very often. However, if it will be very helpful to you, I will add a variable. Let me know, and also, if you see another solution. --Muhandes (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Muhandes: It does sound excessive. Honestly, since it won't be used as frequently, as you suggested, there's no need for it. It can just be added manually if someone does come across it, as in American Life article. Thank you for your time and responses.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Marking this as  Done. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)