User talk:Muhandes

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

TUSC token e80b809c8cc344eed212d9db46506234

[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Chart question

[edit]

Hi Muhandes, I just read your health update. I'm praying you get better. I don't know what Wikipedia would do without you! I know you heavily edit certifications but I wanted to ask a quick chart related question. Mainly regarding component charts. So I'm familiar with WP:CHARTMATH but when you look at "Decision tree for adding song charts" on WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS - for example when a song does not chart on the Billboard Hot 100 but does chart on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 as well as the Digital Song Sales and the Radio Songs charts — would you add the digital and radio songs to the chart box? I always assumed you wouldn't due to the song charting on the Bubbling Under which measures both digital, radio and streaming. I've seen editors also do this, I've been doing this and today someone pointed it out that I've been doing it incorrectly. Like I always assumed if it didn't chart on the Hot 100 you add the next best thing - if it doesn't then you add in the separate digital and airplay charts - but never all together (Bubbling under, digital and then radio all under one). Pillowdelight (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pillowdelight,
Thank you for your prayers. It’s encouraging to know that people of many religions and ways of life are praying for me. As a religious person, I do believe it helps. I'm also quite sure that Wikipedia will survive without me, and I don’t let that worry me.
Regarding your question — you’re asking about consensus, and that’s something I can’t speak to with authority, as I haven’t been directly involved with Wikipedia:Record charts for several years. Have you tried raising this at WT:CHARTS?
All I can offer is my own logic (and we all know that logic and consensus are often two different things). To me, the purpose of WP:CHARTMATH is to avoid duplicating similar data. If I understand correctly, the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart uses similar methodology and inputs as the Hot 100. So in my view, including additional component charts like Digital Song Sales or Radio Songs alongside Bubbling Under is redundant — I’d only use them if the song didn’t appear on either the Hot 100 or Bubbling Under.
However, that’s not quite what WP:USCHARTS says. According to it, if a song didn’t chart on the Hot 100, you can include any of Bubbling Under, Digital Song Sales, Radio Songs, Streaming Songs, or Hot Singles Sales. So, as you can see, my logic doesn’t match current consensus.
Maybe it’s time to reconsider that consensus? WT:CHARTS would be the right place to start that discussion. Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, at least I'm not the only one who assumed the same thing. I definitely will be keeping you in my thoughts and prayers - you've helped out so much on here. I don't know what Wikipedia would be without you! Pillowdelight (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian album certifications

[edit]
Moved to Template talk:Certification Table Entry § Norwegian album certifications
 – Muhandes (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thalia albums certifications

[edit]

Hi there, the sales I added on the Thalia articles were purely based on the certifications that are already there. For example: On the en extasis album page I put the 3,000 figure for Uruguay because according to wikipedia itself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cámara_Uruguaya_de_Productores_de_Fonogramas_y_Videogramas that's the figure that was awarded for gold albums in the country before 2006. Jtstan (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtstan First, a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. That means you need to supply the source showing that 3,000 was awarded by CUD in that period. Second, if you want to use the certified amount by CUD, you would need a source showing that CUD awarded that certification. That's another thing you did not provide. It is very common in these areas for a label to award their own artists an unofficial award, where the number of sales is undisclosed and CUD is not involved in verifying it. Muhandes (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications issued by unofficial certifying bodies

[edit]

Hi there! I hope you're doing well and recovering. I just wanted to ask some questions. Is there a specific rule about including certifications or awards from sources other than official certifying bodies, like UMG-issued certifications? Also, can we include certification information from credible sources posted on social media, like Instagram or Twitter? Recently, I've noticed that news outlets often only report certifications from major organizations like RIAA, so I wanted to clarify the guidelines around this. Thank you so much. 143kittypurry (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@143kittypurry Sorry for the late response. Sadly I had to spend some time at the hospital.
Regarding certifications from labels, I rarely add them and generally don’t trust them. To me, the word “certification” implies an impartial, external certifying body, and I don’t see how a label can legitimately certify itself. On top of that, I don’t know what methods labels use, nor whether they follow the same thresholds as recognized certifiers.
The only circumstance where I would consider adding a label-issued certification is if it appears in a reliable music-related source (e.g., Billboard) and that source explicitly mentions the certifying body. Other editors may apply their own standards, and I respect that, provided a reliable source is given. However, if the cited source does not clearly indicate the certifying body’s involvement, I usually remove the sales figure by adding |nosales=true and also remove the certifying body by inserting &nobreak; at the end of the |region= field (for lack of other method to do it).
As for the reliability of social media posts, this isn’t specific to certifications. Posts by the certifying body are generally acceptable. Posts by the artist should follow WP:SELFSOURCE. In all cases, the general guidelines at WP:RS apply. Muhandes (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I hope you’re giving yourself the time you need to recover. Please don’t worry about your late response; I completely understand. Thank you for responding to my question; I truly appreciate and will consider your thoughts. Wishing you all the best, Muhandes. 143kittypurry (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]