Talk:List of best-selling albums in South Korea/Archive 1

New Section
Please don't delete this article: List of best-selling albums in South Korea

All of us even cannot find the list of best-selling albums in South Korea. We just saw albums from the groups like EXO and Super Junior. But there are more albums with higher sales than them. Then I researched it in the web and found it. Please don't delete it.

It is also part of South Korea's music history. So please don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dah Steen (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * It needs to cite references published by reliable third party sources, such as the Korea Music Content Industry Association or the Gaon Music Chart. Adabow (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of best-selling albums in South Korea. 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/20160111080741/http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=2015&hitYear=2015&termGbn=year to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=2015&hitYear=2015&termGbn=year

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

TWICE
TWICEcoaster is listed as only one record, when it is an EP and its reissue. Is that how it is supposed to be classified? I mean, according to Wikipedia standards, is it correct to add the sales of the standard and the reissue and count it as one? Thanks Cabocla (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Male / female split
I would argue that the section "Top albums by male artists" is unneeded, as it exactly matches the "Top albums" list (i.e. no album by a female artist has cracked the top 15 all time list). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018
Please change "Sales" number for "The War (Full & RG)" under categories "Best-selling albums after 2002" and "Best-selling albums of all time" from 1,614,720 to 1,596,959.

Reason: Based on gaon end of year chart (http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/total.gaon?serviceGbn=S1060), the sales are as following: THE WAR - The 4th Album (Korean Ver.) - 949,827 The Power Of Music - The 4th Album Repackage (Korean) - 455,269 THE WAR - The 4th Album (Chinese Ver.) - 135,267 The Power Of Music - The 4th Album Repackage (Chinese) - 56,596 Thus, bringing total to 1,596,959 not 1,614,720, as it is stated in wiki article 193.178.233.3 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅. -- Mαuri ’96 “  everything and nothing always haunts me…  ” 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect total for Over and Over?
Can someone look at the sources for Over and Over by Steve Yoo (#21 on the Best-selling albums before 2002 list) to double-check if the total is correct?

The second source (here) is the chart for the month the album was released (December 1999) and shows that it sold 455,363 copies. The first source (here) are aggregated sales for 2000 and shows the album sold 530,674 copies. It's my understanding that this means the album sold 530,674 copies total by the end of 2000, not in addition to the 455,363 copies sold in December 1999. If you go through the Jan 2000, Feb 2000, and March 2000 charts, I think this becomes clearer because it shows the total CD and cassette sales for each month. However, I wanted to check with others before making what would be a pretty major change to this album's ranking. --Lenoresm (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Combining "all time," "before 2002" and "after 2002" lists?
While I think it's helpful to note in the article that record sales decreased after 2001 (though the current sentence needs to be sourced), I don't think it's useful to split up the list of albums into "all time," "before 2002" and "after 2002." Every album on this page meets the threshold of having sold at least 400,000 copies, so it's not as though combining the lists would kick any albums off the page or misrepresent what the top-selling albums are (again, based on that 400,000 copies criteria). What do others think? Lenoresm (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does make sense to have one list rather than three BUT, if combining all into one list makes for too long a list (some might say), what about rearranging it similar to what was done for the "List of best-selling albums"? - Carlobunnie (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that article — I think using that model would be a great solution. Will wait to see if others have opinions or ideas before moving forward. Lenoresm (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm playing around with a new format for this list in my sandbox. Let me know what you all think. Lenoresm (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

BTS - LY:Answer
Hi - I guess I’ll be taking the first step! “LY:Answer” is a repackage and shouldn’t it therefore be combined with “LY:Tear” on the list?? BigHit Entertainment has tweeted links out to news article multiple times stating that the album is a repackage. I understand that it also works as a compilation Album just like Young Forever, combining songs from the two previous albums. But Bighit also called that a compilation Album, they never said it was a repackage. Whereas LY:Answer only has been addressed as a repackage album. This is the link Bighit Entertainment tweeted today: https://entertain.naver.com/read?oid=382&aid=0000672928 Sssss951004 (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a fine line between a repackaged album and a compilation album, but I think that the track lists of Answer and Tear differ enough for them to be considered separate albums. By contrast, if you look at Wings and You Never Walk Alone, the latter album is more obviously (to me, at least) a repackage since it's the original album with a few extra tracks. This brings up the larger question of whether we should be combining sales of repackaged albums on this list, because, unless the track lists are identical, there is room for interpretation by different editors. Not sure if I want to open that can of worms though ^_^ Lenoresm (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly this has gone back and forth so much on whether it's a repackaged or compilation album I think it should be left alone unless Big Hit put out a statement themselves on what it is. They've retweeted people who say it's a compilation before too, and before the album even came out Big Hit themselves said it wasn't. It's also formatted like a compilation album, with songs from the whole Love Yourself era. Based on that I think it leans more towards a compilation album. It's made just like their Young Forever album,Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism on EXO
I think some people have deleted cites with actual information for their albums, some have put random links that have no EXO data to try and beef up the sales, and then some people are going back and falsifying sales, so nothing is making sense when I go through sources. After clicking the links when I noticed someone messing with the sales I noticed all of this. I know EXO had some returned albums, but I don't think they got nearly 500k returned. Something is wrong with their info and it all needs to be redone.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked for vandalism so I can't speak to that, though I think it's worth double checking the numbers. But I think you've deleted the sales of the reissue of The War in your edits of that entry. Lenoresm (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted two of the sites from The War. One was from sept sales, which the yearly is shown each month so someone was suppose to delete it when they updated with august. The other was foreign sales that had no sales for that album so I don't know why people put it there. So basically, it was clutter and making the cites more complicated than they needed to be. Especially when one was useless for that album. It's why EXO's needs to be looked at. There might be other artist sales on here too that need to be looked at too. My attention was only pulled to EXO because I saw the vandalism.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think someone deleted a link, because I remember last year when all the vandalism with BTS and EXO was happening EXO's sales checked out and they had the highest amount of sales that year. Someone has to have deleted links that weren't meant to be deleted. Unless EXO really did have that many albums returned. Nearly 500k is really high though.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Ukiss2ne14lyfe. I've recalculated the totals for XOXO and The War and included more detail in the references so that it's easier for other editors to find all of the numbers. I'll check on other albums as I get a chance.  Lenoresm (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference has to reflect numbers EXACTLY. You can't just write "overall and foreign" and give reference citation to only one of the pages.
 * And also, where else have you seen that SALES NUMBERS are reflected on the reference text itself, e.g. ""September 2018 Album Chart (Overall & Foreign)". Gaon Album Chart (in Korean). Retrieved October 11, 2018.(KOR: 19,858 + CHN RG: 1,919)" Lenoresm ? Could you explain the reasoning, because at this point in time, the way you have written the references, they don't support the numbers stated.
 * I didn't put overall and foreign. When I do it I put exact numbers at the top where they're all from so I'm not sure what you're talking about.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This was directed at Lenoresm Kleool (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I recently went over all of EXO's sales for all albums on this and have been updating them. Where you Ukiss2ne14lyfe seem to get the info that they are falsified and are missing 500k? what are you comparing them to? How are gaon chart links " random links". Sometimes links double per year because one refers to "main album" and the other for "repack". Example being Power Of Music being on the chart in August, while The War was not. And then in September The War was on the gaon chart, but Power of Music wasn't. Kleool (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone went back and fixed it already. They're random links if they support nothing and are just there.Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gaon chart has 3 parts. Overall, domestic and Foreign. After first year EXO's chinese releases rarely have sold enough to actually chart "Overall". Thus, if album's KR and CH version chart on same month (and ch aren't enough to be on overall), you can't just slap overall OR foreign chart's reference and call it a day, BECAUSE THEY DIFFER. Each of the 3 charts HAS THEIR OWN LINK. EACH of KR and CH versions need a reference. The way the reference has been done for "The War" now is complete insanity. Kleool (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, when I redid the citations for XOXO and The War, I didn't realize that the Overall, Domestic, and Foreign tabs have unique urls — I apologize for making that mistake, and you should feel free to revert my edits. I also added the sales numbers to the reference text in an attempt to make it clearer where each number comes from because EXO's albums have so many versions — just because sales numbers aren't in other references doesn't mean we can't start doing that, but I'm not married to the idea. I made all of these edits in good faith, and I apologize that my mistake with the urls seems to have caused more confusion. Lenoresm (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * for big part of entries, especially with many references, there is a commented text with detailed amounts per year/month for each of albums (in exo case also per language) which can be seen in wiki text editor mode (it's hidden in visual one). I'll be reverting the page back to the version which was before my updates were deemed longterm vandalism.
 * I think a discussion about adding extra sales information to references for exo releases (as they are the only ones having 2 languages for albums right now) can be conducted seperately from this. Kleool (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing BTS albums
I have no idea how to edit anything, so just want to point out to someone who knows how. BTS albums 'Wings' and 'You'll Never Walk Alone' are not on the list. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.--Milano1901 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency
I am double checking the numbers and sources listed. There are a lot of inconsistency regarding the numbers prior to Riak (Miak.) Riak and Gaon numbers are based on amount of shipped albums. A lot of Korean news sources will use unofficial numbers, which are estimates based on illegal copies sold in "Gil Board Chart (길보드차트)" https://news.joins.com/article/20991066

Example:

1. Kim Gun-mo: 3.3m (estimate confirmed by GWB, but some sites still call it unofficial.) Numerous Korean sources have the official shipped album amount as ~2.8m. (2.6m confirmed by Billboard)

2. Jo Kwan-woo: Unofficial: 3m     Shipped amount: 2.12m (I still need to fine a reliable source.)

3. Kim Jong-hwan: Unofficial: 3.2m Shipped amount: 2.1m

Sources on albums prior to the 1990s can't be located, but according to 1996 news clipping, Kim Gun Mo album is the first to reach 2 million officially.

7. Shin Seung Hun: Unofficial: ?? Shipped amount: 2.48 million (Numbers provided by Bugs)

As you can see, if we are ranking these by official shipped amount, BTS should be #2 and Shin Seung Hun should be #3.

Then there is a question of whether the IFPI estimates should be used in the case of BTS with 2.7m.

I suggest putting in an asterisk on numbers that are based on estimates/unofficial counts. Ersity8 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to address one issue you raised, the IFPI reports global sales. The scope of this article is sales in South Korea only. Lenoresm (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no way we can track that type of information. Gaon and Riak only provide numbers of shipped albums, it does not matter whether they are exported or domestic. Thousands of albums exported to China and US are still include in Gaon. Are we going to start subtracting those sales because they are not within S.Korea? I think we should limit this chart to physical albums only. This way, IFPA numbers could be excluded.Ersity8 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the Gaon Album Chart only tracks domestic sales of physical albums. The website says (above the album chart on the right side): "순위집계 : 오프라인 앨범(Tape, LP, CD, USB, Kit 등) 국내 출하량(-반품량)으로 집계," which I believe translates to "Total ranking: Total domestic shipments (minus returns) of offline albums (Tape, LP, CD, USB, Kit, etc)." I'm not fluent in Korean, so I welcome clarification from anyone who is, if I'm wrong :) Lenoresm (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to understand Gaon methodology from their own site, but KOCCA does confirm that the albums are exported outside of Korea.
 * "According to the year-end sales figures of the Gaon chart and the Hanteo chart, there is a big difference in the sales volume of the top recording album. Considering that most of the large offline music stores and the music retail stores which have a large amount of inventory have disappeared, It is more rational to see that it comes from the quantity sold overseas through domestic wholesalers." -KOCCA
 * I don't read Korean either, but this is a good source for anyone to translate. It's pretty much assumed by most that domestic albums are referred to as South Korean albums made in S. Korea. Their international tab is for foreign albums that are licensed to be produced and distributed by retailers in S. Korea.Ersity8 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just now finding this and you're 100% correct. Looking into this deeper the confirmed sales for Wrongful Encounter is 2.86 million per the Guinness Book of World Records, not 3.3. Do a quick Naver search for Wrongful Encounter and add the Korean word for sales and you'll see all Korean news media uses the 2.86 number. Hell, if you do this search now and sort by recent you'll see a lot of speculative articles wondering if BTS can beat the record and break 3 million. This list is super inconsistent with pre-Gaon albums as some use the estimates as the number and some do not. Estimates should not be used, this list is for confirmed sales. If it's really that important to mention them they can be put in a footnote. Do you have sources for Memory, For Love, and When Love Passes By? I found one for Wrongful Encounter already. Given that Wrongful Encounter is still the top-selling Korean album, all of these albums have wrong numbers. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the 2018 edition of Guinness World Records, Wrongful Encounter (which they refer to as Mis-Encounter) by Kim Gun-mo sold an estimated 3.3 million. It is an estimate, as you said, but I wanted to include the link to the book here so that others can refer to it. Lenoresm (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, . I still personally feel that the confirmed number should be the one on the list rather than the estimate, however. Curious to know what you think. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 01:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure what I think yet because I don't know if there's a reliable source for confirmed sales prior to RIAK and Gaon. Ersity8 suggested putting an asterisk next to sales that are actually estimates. That, in addition to explanatory notes, could be a good solution. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say too — if you know any editors who might want to weigh in or who have experience editing similar articles, please add them to this convo! Lenoresm (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look for some people. Maybe it'd be best to have a separate column for estimated sales vs. official ones, or separate out estimated sales and create a separate list on the page. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 21:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started gathering some sources a while back. Because of varying numbers, I try to find 2-3 sources with similar numbers. Here's the spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-0HWP_UHJ2YzCk0WQ30xtdyGeF7DL0lJt3jib2VwYTo/edit?usp=sharing. You can copy and add in as needed. I think an asterisk will be good. It seems that prior to Gaon, it is common practice to add in illegal sales because it is a better indicator of music consumption. The economy in '97-98 was not good, resorting in a lot of piracy.Ersity8 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are realiable sources which can name "official" number (and not just an estimate), i see no reason not to use those. Wiki article's purpose is to be as precise as possible using reliable cited sources, so.. i support such modifications. Got to admit, i'm not sure if i'd be able to help much in this process, as i've mainly been upkeeping the data based on gaon and keeping an eye on it so people don't sourcelessly modifying it. I'm also interested in other people opinions. Kleool (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Size/Restructuring of the table
Hello, I was wondering why every album with more than 400,000 sales is listed here. Im suggesting that this list should only include albums which sold more than one million copies (estimates). I wouldn't count Exo's Universe as one of the best-selling albums in Korea with 500k+ sales. There are nearly 50 albums with more than 1 million sales. Everything lower does not really justify as being one of the best-selling record in the country.-- Lirim  |  Talk  15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

On another Note, the table looks awful and should be, in my opinion be restructured with scopes. For e.x.:

1.)

2.) 3.)
 * Strong Support. Other countries' lists are not nearly as long, see List of best-selling albums in the United States, List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom (which is an FL), etc. This page is massive and doesn't need to be, given it's supposed to only mention top sellers. I'm incredibly thankful for for finding the estimated sales for pre-Gaon albums, but that needs to be done for every other section as well. Reducing it down to 1 million plus, which is still a good length, will make that whole project easier.


 * I like your new formatting a lot. And, instead of having colors that designate album types for no reason, I think it'd be better to have previous record holders highlighted. The UK list is honestly a really good sample, though given it's a different country we'd obviously have to adjust. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 22:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some other designs I thought of and I started working on a proper lead.-- Lirim  |  Talk  00:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the one with the key but I do think it's important to have the "as of" section as well. Maybe through a color or a note we can indicate which includes sales combining the initial album and reissues? And that lead is fantastic, thank you so much for the write-up of it. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 01:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if there were to be the key used, as the example (only 3 types), how would the "main + repack" albums be shown, or not show them at all? And i aggree, that the list has grown a bit too large. Kleool (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How do you feel about this, and ?

4.) DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 20:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

5.) 6.) 7.)
 * I thought about some different ways to mention reissues: and
 * -- Lirim  |  Talk  21:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally like #6, as it would disrupt the table the least, at least i think so. If you,, could input thoughts on discussion (both list shortening and table format), it would be really great Kleool (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I really like #5 since it makes it rather clear that it's two separate releases that are considered one album. We'd just need a new color/symbol for a regular studio album. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 14:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Repackages don't have their own wiki pages though? They're incorporated into the main album page. So what would be the possible "fix" - link both, but to same page, or link only the main and leave the repackage unlinked? Kleool (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some do, like The Perfect Red Velvet, and some ought to, like You Never Walk Alone and Love Shot (and probably Love Me Right too, but that page could use expanding) given how poor the formatting is on those pages to account for the two albums. (Worth noting reissues getting their own pages is pretty common as well.) But yeah, I think in cases where both can fit on one page, just link the top one and not the bottom one. With the color/double dagger and the key it's pretty clear the latter listed is a reissue, and if a reader is confused and follow's the link they'll figure it out in the first sentence of the lead anyways. Obviously open to others' opinions, etc. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We simply can link both. That shouldn't be the problem. It's still about the design.-- Lirim  |  Talk  16:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case, i think 5 is also pretty good option of design. Kleool (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried and the colors are too aggressive, see here. I thought about removing this small column and just adding a † for EPs, a for compilations, a  for Soundtracks and using light colors. Most people won't care about the album type. 8.)
 * -- Lirim  |  Talk  20:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Both work but I think the small column is easier to ignore for those who do not care about album type. At the very least albums + reissues should be noted by a color, in my opinion. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 02:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that most people won't care about the album type, and I'd support not including the type at all (neither the List of best-selling albums in the United States nor the List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom do, for example), but I don't feel strongly about it. I do think it's important to indicate in the chart itself (rather than in a note at the bottom of the page) when a reissue is included, as well as the name of the reissue (if it's different from the original release). #5 does that, though I'm not sure I like having two rows for one album because it's not as clean looking as the other designs (though I'm having a hard time thinking of a good design workaround). Anyway, thank you for all of the work you've done on this! And just want to add my support for limiting the page to albums with verified or estimated sales of one million or higher. Lenoresm (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind not having album type at all though I do think it's important to indicate that two albums together are the album + it's reissue, and I also agree that simply adding a footnote isn't sufficient (the context of it being two releases of the same album is too important for that, in my opinion). I don't mind it looking less clean than other solutions since information should be prioritized, and I also can't think of a good workaround. The other linked lists don't have a reissue problem on the same scale this list does due to reissues being much more common practice in Korea vs. other countries. And yes, big thank you to for taking your time to make much-needed improvements to a very important WikiProject Korea page!  DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 03:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding support for eliminating albums under 1 million. It's difficult to find reliable information for albums under 1 million before Riak/Miak, so narrowing the field will eliminate a lot of missing/inaccurate information. I am also in favor of the new table format. The existing one is a bit of a mess. I like #5 structure for repackage or albums with different names, however album types do not need to be displayed. I don't like the "as of," it's too much information that people might not care about or can figure out by looking at the source/references. It would look cleaner without it. Ersity8 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed all albums which sold less than a million copies. We just need design.-- Lirim  |  Talk  01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you . I'm drafting a table based on the #5 chart, and encountered some problems with the numbering. Every time I find a new album to add, I have to re-number everything. Considering how often the table is changing recently, it might be a pain for editors to change. I introduced the automatic row numbers column, but I couldn't divide the 1 million vs. the 2 million. I'm left with one huge table. For now, I'm only using my sandbox until I find all the references. It's also difficult to work with the two rows, so I prefer one row.


 * I like the List of best-selling albums in the United States layout and the color legend we have now instead of adding a column for the symbols.


 * 9.)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"

!scope=col class="sortable"|Year !scope=col class="sortable"|Album !scope=col class="sortable"|Artist !scope=col class="sortable"|Sales !scope=col class="sortable"|Estimates !scope=col class="sortable"|Ref.
 * 2018
 * Love Yourself: Tear
 * BTS
 * 1,949,336
 * N/A
 * 2016-2017
 * style="background-color:#E6F2FF;"| Wings + You Never Walk Alone
 * BTS
 * 1,946,552
 * N/A
 * }
 * I really don't have a strong opinion about the table formatting, but I dislike re-numbering the rows. It discourage other editors from editing.Ersity8 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * N/A
 * }
 * I really don't have a strong opinion about the table formatting, but I dislike re-numbering the rows. It discourage other editors from editing.Ersity8 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a strong opinion about the table formatting, but I dislike re-numbering the rows. It discourage other editors from editing.Ersity8 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this design is the best: Simple; as of makes the table looks overloaded; The album/artist column should be the first, since their are what this list is about. I like the coloring idea and I think we should keep the scopes, as they make the table easier to read in my opinion.-- Lirim  |  Talk  00:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need the "as of x" date just for clarity's sake on how old the numbers are. And the only think I really think needs to be highlighted is album + reissue. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 13:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would add that we need the numbering at the far left to remove section headings, which break up the list for no reason. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 01:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm almost done finding all the references. There are still a lot of unknown estimates, so I will leave them blank for others to find. I'm starting to add the "as of" information, but then it mess up the table sorting option. Any solution? So far, I can only remove the "!scope=col class="sortable" and use "!data-sort-type=number" to make it sort numerically. Here's the abbreviated table based on everyone input:


 * I can probably start the new format next Wednesday if no one has any objections. Current sandbox.Ersity8 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thank you for finding all the numbers, . The only changes I would like to note are minor formatting stuff that was agreed upon above, like separating reissues to a separate line and only highlighting reissues, among other things. The only thing I will stress is that if an article has a listed author they must be added to the citation. Translated titles helps a lot too for non-Korean speaking editors but isn't a requirement. If you give me permission to edit your sandbox or move the table to a draft then I wouldn't mind helping out with the formatting changes. (I don't consider myself qualified enough to aid with finding numbers unless they're through Gaon, sadly.) Also, I saw you said you were opposed to "renumbering the rows", I'm not sure what you mean by this. DanielleTH  (Say hi!) 23:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, please feel free to edit the sandbox. As for the renumbering, I am opposed to manually inputting the ranking order of the numbers in !scope=row style="text-align:center;"|#. I prefer the !scope="row"|_row_count.Ersity8 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

New Additions to the list
Alright, a lot of albums have crossed the 1M sales threshold this month. I'm just making this section to keep track of all the new additions. NCT - RESONANCE Pt. 1: 1,193,394 copies, BTS - Skool Luv Affair (Full & RG): 1,128,687 copies, BLACKPINK - THE ALBUM: 1,073,671 copies, SEVENTEEN - Semicolon: 1,061,887 copies.

This totals BTS at 7 albums with over 1M sales, while Seventeen and NCT have 2 each as well. Jackbmh (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)