Talk:List of best-selling girl groups/Archive 3

Whatever happened to the Best Selling Singles By Girlgroups in The US section
Can whoever changed it retract it? The "Best selling singles by girlgroups in the US" section looks like a complete mess, it doesn't have sales figures, missing sources and why is the US list the only one that goes back to before 1995? Makes no sense, these changes need to be retracted it was completely fine and more informative the way it was before. If it was "incorrect" before it would just be easier to put on a disclaimer on top of the article saying "There are no exact sales figures for records sold before 1995 so this article only contains information from after that year", because the way it is right now is just confusing and misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgejammer (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. Why is it more informative to leave information out? There is nothing in the page title which suggests it only goes back to 1995 or whatever. I suggest you propose a re-title otherwise pre-1990 information must be included where it is available. Btljs (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment has illustrated precisely why this article has so many problems. Firstly, the US section doesn't have any missing sources – in fact it's the only part which IS fully sourced. Secondly, in what way is it misleading? Thirdly, you are suggesting that records before 1995 should be discounted because there are no sales figures available: maybe you are unaware of this, but before the 1990s it was actually very uncommon for sales figures to be given for most records, so there is no way of being able to supply this information. So what you actually want is for this article to be renamed "List of best-selling girl groups since 1995" – I would suggest that such an article is pretty pointless having on Wikipedia. Yes, trying to make this article "correct" DOES just make it confusing, which is why I don't think it should exist. Richard3120 (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, if we can't inform records sold before 1995 then we should at least put on a warning about that. But that's what i'm saying, if we can't inform the exact sales for the singles sold before 1995 we shouldn't put it because it's really spoiling the layout of the whole thing, i agree with you that instead of listing those with missing information we should just inform that on the top of the article at least. Also, how it is right now it's also incorrect because the singles are not listed in the best-selling order, for example: we're not sure if "Stoned Love" by The Supremes sold more than "Don't Cha" by The Pussycat Dolls, right? (please correct me if i'm wrong). Anyways, i think the best sollution is to inform that we don't have sales figures from before 1995 on the first lines of the article and just not list those songs
 * You've hit the nail on the head... we don't know which has sold more copies, "Stoned Love" or "Don't Cha". Therefore we can't put the records into any kind of sales order: it would be misleading to put "Don't Cha" at the top just because we have sales figures for it. I believe it would also be misleading to title an article "List of best-selling girl groups", and then only see the words "...since 1995" at the top of the page once you actually open the article. So to be truthful the whole article should be retitled. But that would have to be proposed and commented on, and my guess would be that the majority of commenters would say that effectively renders the whole article meaningless. Even if we do just include the songs from 1995 onwards, they still might be in the wrong sales order, because we don't have figures for, say, "Damaged" by Danity Kane, so by your method that would go at the bottom of the list, when maybe it has sold 1.8 million, and therefore should correctly be in fifth place.
 * It isn't just that... for example, I can look at the RIAA certifications on their website and work out that the Bangles have sold more than 10 million records in the US alone. So looking at the first table, the physical sales list, the number 18 entry is for Girls Aloud selling 8.3 million, so we know the Bangles must be above them... but in what position? How many copies have they sold in total worldwide... 15 million? 20 million? 30 million? Absolutely no idea, so is putting them in 17th place with a figure of "10 million plus" really accurate, when maybe they should be in 12th, for example?
 * Another problem we will have if we just use 1995 as an arbitary cut-off date: what happens to groups in the first table of physical sales if they have been going since before 1995, like En Vogue or TLC? Do you include them or not? Richard3120 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's missing sales figures and it makes the article look bad and confusing? How is it any better to leave the article look like that than the way it was before with ALL of the sales figures and correctly ordered? Plus i'm pretty sure everyone is aware that there is no way of knowing how much records were sold before that age especially since the US section is the only one that goes back to that time. If I was to read this article occasionally I'd be completely confused and wouldn't know what i wanted to which is: what is the best selling single by a girlgroup in the US? How can i know which one out of ALL those singles is the best selling one? I'd just consider the first one that has sales figures. But then again that's just me, so i understand if you feel different about it, I just don't see why it's worth going through all this trouble to put songs without sales figures and mess with the order, sorry if I missinterpretated your comment
 * Yes, exactly... you want to know, like anybody else: what is the best-selling single by a girl group in the US? And the answer is, we don't know, and probably never will. Just because we have figures of 3 million for "Don't Cha" does not necessarily mean it IS the best-selling single ever by a girl group in the US – that would definitely be a misleading statement, all we can say is that it's the best-selling single that we have sales figures for, which is an entirely different thing. And yes you are quite right, looking at this article it's confusing and doesn't tell you any definite information. So should we really be keeping it? Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to say that actually your comments have been very helpful – they've allowed us to point out the inconsistencies with the article that the previous discussion three years ago never did. So genuinely and sincerely, thank you very much. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you why I dislike neat tables in order of sales like the UK entry: they use one-off comments in 3rd party sources to make ranking judgements which are statistically flawed. Yes, I know that everybody wants to come to a page like this and see at a glance the top 10 whatevers in order, but if you look at any of the many forums on popular music you'll see that it is the subject of endless debate and disagreement, particularly when different eras are involved. It's an issue with a lot of tables in WP - and not just in music - that a source which says "sold more than 3 million" (Dontcha) is ranked above one which says "sold 2.91 million" (Wannabe). We don't know the margin of error on either statement, but you would be tempted to believe the 2.91 million figure to be more accurate (not necessarily correctly). The 3 million figure could mean 2.9M-3.1M or 2.5M to 3.5M or 3M to 4M, it's impossible to say. So it could be about the same as 2.91M or way more.
 * Incidentally, the source for Dontcha says "In addition to being certified platinum as a physical single, it sold over 3 million legal, digital downloads." so isn't that 4 million?
 * Anyway, that is just one example and from songs which fall within the modern era when you might expect fairly robust measurements of sales to be available. I think the songs should only be ranked if there is a source which confirms the ranking (eg. a chart or a statement that such-and-such outsold so-and-so) rather than relying on shaky maths.
 * I do feel people's pain when a page becomes less neat and well-defined because of unavailable or incomplete information. Unfortunately, such pages better reflect the real world than top-10s and, in my opinion, the loss of shape or clarity is more than made up for by the extra information available: 'All those Supremes million sellers!' or 'Silver Convention: who?' Interesting omissions too: did Independent Women really spend 11 weeks at number one in the US but not sell a million copies? Btljs (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. I did notice that the figure for "Don't Cha" should be four million rather than three million, but I didn't want to confuse the matter further! Anyway, that's according to Yahoo! Music – I'd rather hear the figure from an official source like Nielsen Soundscan or Billboard than what some journalist on a non-music specialist website says.
 * Unlike the UK charts, the US charts take account of airplay as well, which can severely distort the link between a high chart placing and actual sales figures. "Don't Cha" never reached number 1 but has apparently sold 4 million. The Jones Girls' single didn't make the top 30. The original version of "Do They Know It's Christmas?" sold 2.5 million without cracking the top ten. Two of Fifth Harmony's singles only made it into the 40s and still went platinum. I've even seen an article back in 1986 when the Chicago Bears released a single to celebrate reaching the Superbowl final... it allegedly sold over a million (quite easy to believe given Chicago's population and the number of Bears fans) but only reached around number 88 on the Billboard Hot 100, I think. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I feel very strongly that we shouldn't be sidelining 'old' groups - is there any way we can push the UK list further back like the US one? I don't think awards are going to help us. It seems inconceivable to me that Supremes 'only' sold 20M worldwide when they had 14 million selling singles in the US alone. Btljs (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did have a good think about the UK and have drawn up a "shortlist" of possible contenders... 600,000 is a good cut-off point for UK sales as it's the platinum level for singles sales, and much easier to source than 500,000 sales, for example. The UK never really had the history of girl groups that the US had in the 1950s and 60s so actually I don't believe there will be many records missing from that era – "Baby Love" is the most obvious big seller but it didn't make the "Top 60 of the 60s" list from a few years ago so I doubt it has made the grade. The three singles I'd most like to see sales figures for are "When Will I See You Again" (1974), "Frankie" (1985) and "Eternal Flame" (1989), as all these singles ended up in their respective year-end top fives... I think it's likely they have all sold in excess of 500,000 copies. Other possibilities include La Belle Epoque's version of "Black Is Black", "Substitute" and "Respectable", among others. Another interesting possibility is "Leader of the Pack", which has made the UK top 11 on three separate occasions – it would be interesting to see the combined sales of the three chart entries. Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Alan Jason 96 manipulating the List Of Best Selling Girl Groups
Hello, as a frequent viewer of the "List Of Best Selling Girl Groups" page, i have noticed very often that the user Alan Jason 96 repeatedly changes information and manipulates girl group sales such as Pussycat Dolls, 2NE1, Brown Eyed Girls and several others to edit and then place Girls' Generation at a higher rank whilst providing false information for Girls' Generation too. I regretfully yet honestly suggest to block this user so they can no longer edit this page and provide false information for his pleasures as a Girls' Generation fanatic. PLEASE TAKE ACTION. MANY FANS ARE BEGINNING TO BECOME AGITATED WITH THIS USER.

Finally regarding the hallyu citations surrounding 2NE1's sales figures. I can confirm that they are reliable as on that blog, the user leads you to a detailed french blog with all the references and citations of where they got the figures for that detailed french blog from whilst the sales figures Alan Jason 96 places for Girls Generation are incorrect and are only correct once i continuously research and restore the sales figures. Thank you and please consider taking action on that user to prevent them from manipulating hard work. Sorry for the inconvenience it may have caused you all.
 * First of all, I am not a Wikipedia administrator, so I am not able to take any action against other editors. Secondly, the problem here is that neither you nor Alan are using verifiable sources – we cannot check that the information on the onehallyu blog is correct, or on the French blog. Blogs are not an acceptable source of facts for Wikipedia: what you need to do is provide the link to the Gaon Charts where they show the official sales figures. Until that happens, there is not very much I can do, because we do not know which figures are correct. You MUST give us official sales figures from Gaon or another reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Thank you for the heads up. I'll take note for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.220.1 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can see that Alan Jason is not saying where his figures are coming from, so if he changes them again, I will revert them and ask him where he is getting his sales figures.
 * Our big problem is that most of us can't read Korean or Japanese, so it is difficult for us to check the sales figures. I can see that a lot of the links to the Gaon charts are broken – for example, reference number 28 for 2NE1 has links to the Gaon year-end charts for 2010, 2011 and 2012, but none of these links work any more, so we can not check to see if the numbers are correct. Similarly, for Girls Generation, the reference number 31, none of the links work, so there is no way of seeing how many records they have sold. If you could find a link to these sales on Gaon charts, it would be very helpful. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How are Little Mix on the highest Physical sales table?
Surely a huge portion of their sales are digital,right? Should they be removed or is it correct. As far as I know they've sold 7.5M records worldwide. 14Jack140201 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Biggest selling groups both physically and digitally.
Would it be better to make a section with the digital and physical sales combined? Or is that just too much hassle to find out who has sold what due to all the pre-90's sales? This could be a pointless question but I'm curious to see if anyone has anything to say. 14Jack140201 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and in fact this is what I am in the process of trying to do, as I feel it makes no sense to try and split the two into separate tables when sources normally only give you total overall sales. I was just trying to get some feedback from the major contributors to the article first, and I have been working on a combined table in my sandbox. Your comment below about Little Mix is also quite right - I think all their singles have only been digital releases. However, the fans who keep adding them to the table don't seem to realise the distinction between physical and digital sales... this is another problem of having separate tables. I think the cut off point should be 10 million sales so they wouldn't appear anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that would definitely work better, the split it too confusing and then people come and mess it up by adding other bands in. I also think 10 million would be a good cut off point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14Jack140201 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Extremely difficult to see how accurate lists of best-selling girl groups and their singles and albums worldwide and by country can ever be produced. A previous discussion (archived at the top of the talk page) suggested overall that the article could be improved by checking the referencing and by using sales and certification sources from each country, but there are major flaws to these arguments: most of the Korean and Japanese references are in those languages, so the article would have to be policed by somebody who speaks them, and there are few definitive sales figures from before the 1990s (and outside the US and UK, few certifications as well). This has led to the article being heavily biased in favour of acts and records from the last twenty years with no obvious solution as to how to address this, or to how a definitive sales ranking can be produced when there are no sales figures available. In addition, there has been no definition of what constitutes a "girl group" (does it include female duos? rap acts such as Salt-n-Pepa?), and there has been a decision to have separate tables for physical and digital sales, leading to the question as to how it is possible to separate the two in most cases, as usually just a single overall sales figure is produced. A similar "List of best-selling boy bands" has already been deleted due to failure to address such concerns. Richard3120 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support deleting this page because I don't think it adds anything of value to List of best-selling music artists (which has its own problems of sourcing but at least has a fairly robust system of dealing with them). The definition of 'girl group' is suspect, the definition of 'all-time' (implicit) is suspect and the definition of 'sales' is becoming suspect now that charts and certification companies are including streamed media. Artists can only really be meaningfully compared within quite narrow windows of time (e.g. decades). Btljs (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Best selling" is a term which is open to a lot of interpretation. There are many things that a musical group can sell - albums, EPs, singles, downloads, film soundtracks, (okay, T-shirts, bumper stickers, concert tickets, etc.), and this makes them hard to compare, and this would fall afoul of WP:Original research. At the very least the article should be about a specific target items and amounts - for example, "List of girl groups who have sold more than XXX albums" or "List of girl groups with a XXX-selling single".  Also, there is an article Girl group, so it shouldn't be necessary to reinvent a definition here.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comment. If I have understood you correctly – and please correct me if I have misinterpreted you – I think you are in agreement with and myself that we should be trying to list every record that has sold above a certain level, as it is impossible to find exact sales figures for every record in order to be able to rank them and say "this is definitely the best-selling single by a girl group in xxxx country". This is what I have tried to do with the United States table, but as you can see from the comments by Katty368 and Sledgejammer on the talk page (and from various attempts to delete my table and restore it to the previous version), there is a lot of resistance to this and they feel we should only be listing singles that we have sales figures for, which to me makes the article worthless. Personally I would use platinum level by country as the cut-off point (1 million for the US, 600,000 for the UK, 70,000 for Australia, etc.) as this would be a relatively easy level to source. But it still leaves us with some unanswered (and possibly unanswerable) questions... how do we source platinum-selling singles from before certifications began in various countries, like Australia? How do we source worldwide sales for girl groups that are clearly missing from the first table, like the Pointer Sisters? Why do we persist in having separate tables for physical and digital sales when there is no way of telling what the split between the two is for artists like Destiny's Child and the Pussycat Dolls? Richard3120 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard3120, I am in favour of small, targeted lists instead of giant all-inclusive lists. If information and situations vary between countries or decades, maybe all of the information shouldn't be on one list, but on separate lists.  Also, a list of singles that have sold more than x copies needn't give exact sales figures, only references that show that the sales were more than x.  Comparisons between sales of various groups need not be made - group names or song names can be alphabetical rather than ranked. Items or groups where editors suspect that the sales were enough, but haven't any corroboration, can be kept on a talk page or commented out on the article page until reliable figures are available.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I agree with you on all those points. Trying to get some of the other editors to see this point of view is proving very difficult though... Richard3120 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I always think that lumping albums and singles together as if they are an equivalent sale is dubious, but it does seem to be common practice in a lot of sources. I think is right about different lists and I think  is right about it being impossible to split physical and digital (the Pussycat Dolls entry in the digital list uses a source which splits albums and singles 15M:40M but never mentions what was downloaded or what was physical) The point is, unless a source makes the distinction it shouldn't be made here. I propose one table like in List of best-selling music artists with a column for certified sales and a column for claimed sales (I'm not sure about their 20% or 75% cut-offs though - seems a bit OR to me). There should be no separate table for digital and physical because, as time goes on, more and more references are going to include some digital element because back catalogues keep selling. Note that streaming will be included as 'sales' and there's no way to really avoid this any more since lots of sources don't differentiate and most certifications include it too. Oldies like me may not like it but that's the way it is!

On the lists of singles: I would support the idea of turning them all into chronological lists like the US one, but I'm expecting a lot of resistance to that. Btljs (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ,: have we come to any firm conclusion as to what to do about this article then? I've just noticed that the same source is being used for the Pussycat Dolls' sales figures in both physical and digital form, and despite the source only quoting total sales it has somehow been used to come up with different amounts for each list! Just another example of how full of errors this article is. Look at the references used for the top-selling digital act 2NE1: the figure of 65.8 million is sourced from a blog, with no indication in the blog post as to where those figures came from. Another reference to an article in Forbes magazine (admittedly from 2012) states 27 million – that's a big discrepancy in figures! The other two sources refer back to the same blog as the first source, and the Oricon charts in Japanese which I can't read. So what is the correct figure? I have no idea how to check the Korean and Japanese sales figures, most of the sources used are in those languages... is there an online translator for web pages that we can use? Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose we shouldn't be put off by what we can't do, as the page can only be improved by any effort. I think the first job is to get rid of the physical/digital split and check all the references we can actually read. Even that's quite a big job - if one of us put it in our sandbox we could work our way through it, making comments as to what we'd done? I don't think I'd want to just take it all on in one go. Is this a good way forward or do you have any other suggestions? Btljs (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the ordered table for combined physical and digital sales is now in my sandbox – I haven't checked any of the references yet though, so this order may end up changing. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Page name
After the RfC the dubious lists of total group sales have been removed which greatly improves this page; however, I can't help thinking that the title is now a bit misleading. Is this now Lists of best-selling singles and albums by girl groups? I know it's not as snappy but it is more accurate: it's not one list and it's not the girl groups' total sales which are listed. If anyone has a better title, that would be helpful. Btljs (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be right: a more accurate title would be "Lists of incomplete and largely unsubstantiated sales figures for singles and albums by groups which are all-female but which have an undefined musical style and minimum number of members", but I guess that's even less snappy. Richard3120 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd go for that although I think it should be "sales figures (and arbitrarily calculated sales points based on streaming from arbitrarily limited sources)" just to be clear. Btljs (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kind of takes the magic out of it. Richard3120 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all black magic.Btljs (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the best selling girl groups list?

 * Just asking, it was here before and now it's gone?71.162.232.47 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See the result of the 'RfC' in the section above. Richard3120 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's just weird since the article is "List of best selling girl groups", and there was no list. At least now there is the soundscan list. Also, if you're going to erase the list for "top selling girl groups", how come you don't do the same for "top selling boy bands"?71.162.232.47 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * List of best-selling boy bands WAS deleted four years ago, for exactly the same reasons that this article has so many problems: it's impossible to get verified worldwide sales figures for any artist – people still can't agree on definitive worldwide sales figures for even artists as famous as the Beatles and ABBA. I don't believe this article should exist either, but for the moment it has been decided to keep it, but focusing on country-by-country sales, as those are more dependable figures from the local record industry organisations (and even then, most countries only have sales figures from the last twenty years or so, so the article is heavily biased and ignores girl groups from before the 1990s). To be honest, all "List of best-selling..." worldwide should be deleted from Wikipedia, as there is no way you can make a definitive list like that and be sure that it is correct. Richard3120 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Icona Pop
Are Icona Pop considered a girl group? In my opinion, well yes— but they haven't been listed at all to my knowledge in any of the tables, is this because they are more like DJ's than singers, it clearly has nothing to do with duos as a few have been listed.
 * I wouldn't have any objection to including them – I think it's just that they got overlooked, not deliberately excluded. But that's exactly why this page is a problem: it's very difficult to be sure you've included every single act that qualifies, particularly if (a) you haven't defined what constitutes a girl group, and (b) you have no sales figures or certifications from before the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 77 one external links on List of best-selling girl groups. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=61
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=02&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=03&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=04&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=05&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=09&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=10&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=11&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=49&current_year=2011&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_year=2012&chart_Time=year
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=44&current_year=2011&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=45&current_year=2011&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=46&current_year=2011&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_month=12&current_year=2011&chart_Time=month
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=02&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=03&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=04&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=05&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=09&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=10&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_month=02&current_year=2012&chart_Time=month
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=11&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_year=2012&chart_Time=year
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=02&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=03&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=04&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=05&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=09&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=10&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=11&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=02&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=03&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=04&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=05&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=09&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=10&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=11&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_year=2010&chart_Time=year
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=03&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=24&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=25&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_month=01&chart_Time=month&current_year=2013
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=07&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=08&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=09&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=10&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=24&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=25&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=26&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=27&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=28&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=29&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_week=31&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=32&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=34&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_year=2010&chart_Time=year
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=04&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=05&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=06&current_year=2012&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_year=2010&chart_Time=year
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=K&current_week=32&current_year=2013&chart_Time=week
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&current_year=2010&chart_Time=year

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Please stop your Edit Warring on this article. If you have suggestions for reliably sourced content that you wish to add, please raise the issue here. I don't know why nobody has attempted to talk to you on this Talk page but I'm doing it now - seriously, stop being disruptive. The next stage is to report you to the Edit Warring noticeboard which can lead to you being banned from editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Improvement
Is there some reason that the table for best selling girl groups world-wide uses so many different sources, and why isn't it just a standard top ten? This, I suspect, is the source of the disputes over content that keep occurring here. Why not create a table that uses one reliable source? As the article currently stands, it's a list of 11 (why??) best selling girl groups that uses 6 separate sources (with 3 entries that have no source at all). Let's try to be consistent folks - this is an encyclopaedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * looks like there was a stable version of the article that included such a list a month ago (using a single source). It was replaced by a single use account on 11/15 with this edit. reverted the change with a similar line of thought: single source. It was later re-added by an IP on 11/15 and has been a hot mess ever since.
 * In addition to your concerns, the "sales" criteria is either ambiguous or not adhered to: many of those sources include singles or digital sales. All of them seem to be press release claims, that is, the group supplied the numbers. The whole table should be replaced with something single source or simply removed as WP:OR. Kuru   (talk)  14:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Best-selling girl groups worldwide
Can we come to a consensus as to the top number of girl-groups will be listed in that category? Just a few days ago, it was 16. As of right now, it is 10. I think it would be smart to reach a vote to prevent edit-warring back-and-forth. I am say that the top 20 best-selling girl groups worldwide should be fair. Horizonlove (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * How about we do the top 15, that way it won't look so messy. If you want you can send me the girl groups you want and I'll add them and then I can put references with it. Some users keep on changing the spice girls records sales and little mix record sales, they should be left alone. My email is tinatajali1@gmail.com, send me the bands and I'll add them to the list in proper order. —Tina Tajali 08:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)'''Tina Tajali (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I will agree with 15. Horizonlove (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As a old frequent editor of this article, 15 sounds good -- Mαuri ’96 “  everything and nothing always haunts me…  ” 01:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Destiny's Child sales
The DC album worldwide sales sources were ridiculous, so I changed them and the sales figures.

Previously, Writing's on the Wall was given to have 17million sales. But the original source cited was an article about SHANIA TWAIN selling 17 million. Similarly, the Survivor album sales was given as 11million, but the source cited was about the combined sales of DC's FOUR albums. Finally, the Destiny's Fulfilled sales was given as 8 million, but the cited reference was about TLC's album, with no mention of DC at all.

Seems whoever put those citations didn't even bother to read the cited sources they used. Probably just googled "WoTW + 17million" and used the first link that turned up even though it was about another artist. I'm sure this is a problem with other groups in this article too. I shall try and check the given sales against the cited sources for other groups, if anyone could help that'll be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennv3771 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017
Fifth Harmony didn't sell 33 million records, Little Mix did. 2A02:8109:1600:D34:111F:D7F:5802:2004 (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)