Template talk:Certification Table Entry

Portugal singles threshold

Hey guys, could you add the "Diamond" threshold to Portugual singles certifications? The AFP added a "Diamond" certification status to singles (as of 2024, as you can see on the Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa page) that's not supported by the template yet.

Thanks, Music01 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Music01:  Done. I am unable to watch this page, so if anything else is needed, please try to {{ping}} me. Muhandes (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I take that back. This was, Partially implemented. I reviewed the source and there are more changes that need to be made. I am repinging Music01 and also pinging ManuelButera who made a similar request. I added two more elements.

• First, albums certifications from 2024 are based on streaming as well as physical sales.
• Second, the new certification levels for both singles and albums apply to all certifications from 2024, independently of their release date.

I hope this may now be considered  Done now. Let me know if I still missed anything and hopefully I am able to add it. --Muhandes (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Lithuanian certifications

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)

@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)

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)

Austrian certification thresholds

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)

@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)

@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)

Right-justify for numbers

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)