Template talk:Certification Table Entry

Template:Certification Table Entry is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This template is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles Songs This template is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the following pages redirect here: Template talk:Certification Table Top Template talk:Certification Table Separator Template talk:Certification Table Summary Template talk:Certification Table Bottom Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Authority Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Foot Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Foot/helper Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Region Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Sales Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod Template talk:Certification Table Entry/Sales/BelgianPeriod

Hello! On 26 April 2024, AGATA awarded songs as certified gold (for 2.5 million streams) and platinum (for 4 million streams), albeit the songs awarded are only those by Lithuanian artists. Would it be enough to warrant a separate template for them?

Link: https://www.agata.lt/lt/naujienos/agata-apdovanojimuose-pagerbti-klausomiausi-atlikejai/

Big thanks! CeolAnGhra (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeolAnGhra: Do they have a database of past certifications? Do you intend to use that database intensively? If the answer to both is positive, it is justifiable to add it, provided of course that someone is available to do it. Otherwise, you can always use the template manually with |certref= and |salesref=. Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the first time that they awarded these certifications, so the answer to the first question is a no. Also, it looks like AGATA only awards Lithuanian songs.

Thanks for the response! CeolAnGhra (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I updated or added the Austrian certification for example: <x>Certification Table Entry|region=Austria|title=Duality|artist=Slipknot|type=single|award=Platinum|access-date=May 8, 2024|relyear=2004|certyear=2024<x/>, it always ends up: Austria (IFPI Austria) Platinum 30,000* instead of 30,000‡. The template should be updated to reflect this. So could you please be kind to update when you got the chance? Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FireDragonValo: You hare probably correct as all certification authorities probably use streaming these days. However, we need a source to make sure and we need to know when this practice started. I will try to figure out what this document says with Google translate, but we may need a German speaker to make sure we understand correctly. Muhandes (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FireDragonValo: Update: The current implementation is based on this discussion. Namely, streaming only applies when for singles released as of January 1, 2015, and for albums released as of January 1, 2017. This is why for "Duality", released in 2004, the footnote is the sales footnote ^* and not the streaming footnote ^‡.

To verify the sources, the current guidelines document states in item 12 Für das Erreichen der Prämierungsgrenzen werden bei Singles für Veröffentlichungen ab dem 1.1.2015 auch Premium-Streams und ab dem 1.7.2023 zusätzlich auch „Free Streams“ mitgezählt. Bei Alben werden Premium-Streams für Veröffentlichungen ab dem 1.1.2017 berücksichtigt. Google translates it to to To reach the award limits, premium streams for singles for releases from 1/1/2015 and from 1/7/2023 also "free streams" are counted. For albums, premium streams for releases from 1/1/2017 are taken into account. This conforms with the current implementation.

Checking the archives, the same text exists in the July 2023 version of the document as well as the May 2017 version. Earlier than May 2017, I don't think streaming was used for certification. However, the consensus at the time was to ignore this short gap (2015 to May 2017) and go by the release date only. If someone is concerned, this could be fixed.

The bottom line is that I see no reason to change anything. --Muhandes (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template be adjusted so that number fields are right justified? (Hohum ^@) 14:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: I tested it in the sandbox, and to me, right justification looks worse than left justification due to the unnecessary whitespace. You can see for yourself at Template:Certification Table Entry/testcases until the sandbox edit is undone. You can also edit the sandbox version yourself if you think there is a better way to do it. Muhandes (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for testing. Surely the whitespace within the column is the same, just on the other side? There is more whitespace between entries in the "Certification" column and numbers in the final column though. Perhaps center justify the "Certification column" to ease this? Either way, numbers really ought to be right justified (imo), it makes it far easier to see their relative sizes, and is pretty standard practice for number presentation in tabular format. (Hohum ^@) 15:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: This seems to come down to personal preference. I’m not bothered by whitespace on the right, but whitespace in the middle is an issue for me, outweighing the benefits of right justification. This might even be a cultural preference. The table has been formatted this way for over 13 years, and this is the first request to change it, suggesting it may not be a significant concern. However, if other editors think it’s important, I’m open to making the change. Also, while searching the logs for similar requests, I found this request, which makes sense to me. Muhandes (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I appreciate that you considered it. I can't find any specific MOS advice on left/right justification of number in tables either. (Hohum ^@) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 January 2024, the Recording Industry of South Africa had their certification levels changed. I was planning to tabulate the change in streams and units but I figured this would be enough. (special ping: Muhandes) dxneo (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: The first thing to do would be to update the article. As for the template, I'm not sure what to do with this. Say an album/single was released on June 2023 and certified on March 2024. Most sales are still before January 2024 so they follow the old sales figure, but some follow the new figure. The only sure fact is that albums/singles released from 2024 are following the new figures. What do you think? Muhandes (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. It would've been easier if they updated all recordings do this new figure (maybe they did and we don't know). I was thinking South Africa2, then we will try to update recent use South Africa looking the certification date and since there's not that much South African music on this site it won't take that long. Then maybe put a notice on both templates to alarm editors to check the dates before proceeding ( proceed with caution). I don't know if I make any sense at all, but what's your suggestion? dxneo (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing that has been bothering me for years is why United States and most other identifiers like United Kingdom, their template URL lead directly to the specified certification but South Africa doesn't. I mean why isn't it like this ? dxneo (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: This was never done because no one suggested it. I will look into it. One thing I am not looking into is verifying the 182+ articles using this citation, see Category:Certification Table Entry usages for South Africa (183). Follow up on Template talk:Cite certification, where this suggestion belongs. Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: Actually, no follow-up needed—I just went ahead and quickly implemented it. Wadayanow, after 44 years of writing code, it worked on the first try, at least from the few checks I made. Let me know if you find any problems.  Done on this one. --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it's working just fine. Thank you. dxneo (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dxneo, I just realized that I already implemented this change in June. It seems like I didn't notice the discrepancy I mentioned above and I simply went by |certyear=. On retrospect, I suggest we correct the sales figure to follow |relyear=. For example, Come Closer (Wizkid song) was certified 4× Platinum in June 2024. However, as the album was released in 2017, most sales are probably before 2024. All we can say for sure is that at least 80,000 units were sold, so this is what we should list, instead of 160,000. Muhandes (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: What do you think? Muhandes (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]