Talk:List of best-selling girl groups/Archive 6

Inflated Sales for the Andrew Sisters
One Day the Andrew Sisters have sold 75 million and now it's all of the sudden 90 million? All in just one week? Don't find that believable. Meddymarl (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what's being suggested at all, that's a misinterpretation of the figures. The truth is that not a single country in the world was tracking sales figures before 1991, so artists who sold the bulk of their records before that date are entirely reliant on their record companies' estimates. It could be that their record label initially estimated 75 million sales, and now with more accurate figures from other countries they have increased that estimate. Nobody is suggesting that they have sold 15 million more records in the period between the two sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I hear you but I doubt they have even sold 75 million, let alone 90 million.Meddymarl (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with there's no way that group sold that amount of copies. They're from a moment that if an artist sold 1 million copies worldwide that means a big successful. Even Barbra Streisadn that is the most successful female artist of the 60s sold 140 million copies worldwide with more that 60 album released, and 99% of her albums from the 60s has at least a Gold certification by RIAA. I don't think the 90kk of the Andrew Sisters are reliable at all, they have only 12 albums and most are not released worldwide. Let's keep the 75kk.--88marcus (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your scepticism, but we can't decide which sources are reliable based on the number that "looks right". The source for 90 million sales is a more reliable and authoritative source than some of those used for other groups in the list. And basing it solely on albums won't work because the Andrews Sisters' heyday was before albums were being made. The whole problem with trying to make a "best-selling" list like this is that in all cases, the newspapers are simply reporting whatever figures the record company is feeding them, and of course they are prone to exaggeration – nobody was keeping track of sales before 1991 so we have no way at all of confirming whether record company estimates are real or not. Look at Bananarama for example – the BBC article quotes 40 million sales for them, but their certifications in their three biggest markets (UK, US and Canada) add up to less than 2 million. Did they really sell 30+ million in the rest of the world? We've already discussed before how estimates for the Supremes range from 20 million to 100 million, a ridiculously large range, and as most of their singles were never certified, we'll never know the true figure. Do the Andrews Sisters even count as a girl group, seeing as most people regard girl groups as being from the 1950s onwards? Do we have a fixed definition of a girl group? Trying to come up with a definitive list is impossible. Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, I sincerly doubt that the Andrews Sisters sold 90 million.100.14.191.201 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do too, but it's not up to us – if reliable sources state that, we have to go with it. I doubt most of these acts have sold the amounts claimed for them – for example, Bananarama's certified sales in their three biggest territories, the UK, US and Canada add up to less than 10 million, yet they've apparently sold three times that amount in the rest of the world? Richard3120 (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, these are two sites that reported nonsense claims about the Andrew Sisters' sales back in 2013-2014. If those were articles from 2018-2019, that would make a different story. I think the Spice Girls are the best selling and their sales claims are more accurate with certifications and such to back up their claims.Meddymarl (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that we can include in the table only girl grups with a percent of certified claims like in the page of List of best-selling music artists. So we can erase that group from the list. To say that a group - that lived and was successful at a time when an artist sold less than 500,000 worldwide was a monumental success - sold 90 million copies is completely nonsense. Probably not even 9 millions they sold. Wikipedia needs to be accurate so we can use the certificatios as a basis and explain why they're not in the list.--88marcus (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you are deliberately excluding older groups on the basis that they have fewer or no certifications, and introducing a bias into the list. I think all of the claimed sales for every group in the list are complete nonsense, but to exclude one based solely on a belief that their sales are inflated makes Wikipedia less accurate, not more accurate. Certifications are no guarantee of accuracy – Berry Gordy deliberately withheld certifications for his Motown groups, which is why the Supremes and other Motown acts have so few of them. Certifications won't solve anything – note how in the list of best-selling music artists, Drake would be top if it were based solely on certifications, whereas his claimed sales are only a quarter of those of the Beatles and Elvis Presley. The Andrews Sisters would still be number one on this list, even with a column adding certified units. Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with 88marcus here. The Andrews Sisters were out when albums and singles werent sold as much as they did decades later. The certified sales should be more accurate today. And while were at it, I think Fifth Harmony should be included somewhere on this list. I think their certified sales have them at 20 million worldwide.Meddymarl (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's still nothing more than personal belief on your part... that can never take precedence over a sourced fact. I am doubtful about that Andrews Sisters figure as well. But I'm even more doubtful about the Bananarama figure, and I would put money on the Dixie Chicks and the Bangles as having sold more than 30 million records as well. But I can't add any of this information just because I believe it to be true. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right, it shouldn't be just based on feelings and thoughts, it should be based on facts. The Andrews Sisters aren't even on the RIAA best sellers list, so the "90 million" claim shouldn't be used as reliable. One girl group I would put on the list (at the bottom) is 5th Harmony since I believe their sales figures (especially certifications) are in the 20 million range worldwide.Meddymarl (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Only Richard3120 believe that this group sold that amount of copies here, he's acting like a fan and still insist in including a nonsense claimed of sales that is based on the promotional website of that group, probably his bias. There's nothing reliable about that, those women were successful in a time when the sales were too low, as I said before Barbra Streisand begun in the 1960s and she needed to have 71 albums and 117 singles to sold 140 million copies (around 90 million with certifications). How those women sold that amount of copies with songs that (most) didn't performed that well, albums that didn't performed well too and worst: they had the peak in their career in a time when sales were too low for all artists. I think we should do something to stop this war of editions here, maybe an rfc will be the ideal.--88marcus (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certifications are a useless way of measuring sales before the internet era – they weren't done automatically, and record labels had to pay for an independent audit of sales in order to apply for a certification. Many labels didn't bother with the expense, and having a gold disc wasn't considered as important as it is now, so before the 1990s many records never applied for a certification, even though they had sold enough to do so. The Beatles' "She Loves You" was the UK's best-selling single for 14 years, and has officially sold nearly two million copies. But it doesn't have even a silver certification, because Parlophone/EMI have never bothered to apply for one. That's why the lists of sales by certifications by country usually only contain records from the 1990s onwards – it doesn't mean that these are the best-sellers in each country, but the lists are biased to exclude records from before the 1990s because most countries didn't certify songs or albums before then. In the case of the Andrews Sisters, they sold most of their records before certifications even existed in the US (RIAA started in 1958), so how are you going to use RIAA to estimate their sales from the 1940s and 1950s?
 * I'm not a fan, I have no interest in the Andrews Sisters' music at all. I am just following Wikipedia policy – the only bias is in accepting a sales figure for one group given in a newspaper, but not a sales figure for a different group in another newspaper. Either we accept all sales figures given in reliable sources, or none at all. I agree that the figures quoted in newspapers and websites (for ALL groups) are promotional figures given to them by the record labels, which makes the whole list doubtful. I don't understand how you can say that the Andrews Sisters' songs didn't perform that well: they sold most of their records before charts even existed, so how do you know they weren't popular, or that sales were low (they weren't)? I've already stated that I don't believe the 90 million sales figure either, but my belief and your belief are not good reasons to exclude the group from the list if there is a reliable source stating that figure. Richard3120 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 88marcus, An RFC would probably be ideal at this moment.Meddymarl (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if you'd like to start an RfC – I honestly don't want to get into an argument with you guys, and would happily accept a consensus on this. But I do think you will need a better argument than "I don't believe the sales figures". Richard3120 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC


 * Here's the issue though. With every other girl group, they have certifications to their name that help back up their sales figures, as well as discography articles. We don't have that with the Andrews Sisters. It's the same reason why the Supremes "selling 100 million" isn't reliable, otherwise, we would use that too.Meddymarl (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And what you are still completely failing to understand is that certifications are a completely useless way of measuring sales before the 1990s – many record companies didn't bother with obtaining certifications before the 1990s, only one country in the world had certifications before 1973, and there were no certifications at all when the Andrews Sisters were at their peak. Going by certifications, Drake has more certified units than Elvis Presley or the Beatles, but Presley's and the Beatles' claimed sales are more than 500 million while Drake's are only 150 million. So are you going to say that Drake should be rightly called the biggest-selling artist of all time and that the claimed sales of the other two are false? It's not just the Andrews Sisters – Bananarama's certified units are fewer than 10 million, the Pointer Sisters' are barely more than that, but we have claimed sales of 40 million. The Supremes have barely any certifications because a record company has to be a member of the RIAA or other certifying body, and Motown didn't join RIAA until 1978, years after the Supremes broke up. So there's no way you can ever use certifications to try and estimate the Supremes' sales. Richard3120 (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think certifications are a good estimate of album sales for artists. I think your argument is trying to compare the sales of this current artist to one legendary artist of the past. But I have to agree with 88marcus here. Records didn't sell as much in the '40s and 50's as they did years later. An RFC would be good right now.Meddymarl (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right now to do an Rfc, maybe you guys con do one.--88marcus (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certifications may be a reasonable estimate of album sales, but they are a terrible estimate of single sales, and single sales were way higher than albums in the 40s and 50s. And as I've said, you can't use certifications to estimate single sales in most countries before the 1970s, because certifications didn't exist. Looking at the British certifications for the Beatles and Elvis Presley, I doubt they come to even 10% of the artists' actual confirmed sales. The Rolling Stones have only one song certified platinum in the UK... and it's a song which was never a single. There are so many examples of certifications being so completely different to actual sales for singles, it's just not a useful metric at all. But please do go ahead with an RfC, it would be good to get a consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not believe there are actual numbers for the Andrew Sisters' album sales, SINGLE sales yes, but records, no. I believe went hey quote 80 million they're talking about singles sales only.
 * There aren't any actual numbers for the Andrews Sisters at all, no matter whether we are talking about singles or albums (as the album didn't become a major format until the 1950s, you are right, most of their sales would have been singles). But there aren't any actual sales numbers for any other artist before the 1990s either... not Elvis Presley, not the Beatles, not the Rolling Stones, not Abba, not AC/DC, nobody. All we have are estimates from the record companies, based on their shipments to record stores. Richard3120 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Twice sales in korea
I edited it cause twice albums hasnt sold 830,000, 796,000, 643,000(without even a source) as it said, they sold basically 475,000, 348,000 and 362,000 according to Gaon, their best selling album is More & More with 563,000 shipments, i added the ten real best selling albums of girlgroups Moonlight Entm (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Little mix hasnt sold 50M records, they sold 16M
Their career to date stands at 10.45 million equivalent album sales, nowhere near the likes Supremes, Spice Girls, Destiny’s Child, TLC, Dixie Chick, etc.

These claims are often based on the “50 million records sold” tag attributed to the group.

They sold 3.67 million albums, 130,000 physical singles and 12 million downloads and ringtones which adds for less than 16 million in total.

Their streams though are up to nearly 5 million EAS, which, converted into equivalent singles sales, creates the illusion of a 50-million selling group.

While technically true, this 50 million figure weighted on par with singles doesn’t compete at all with near 50 million pure sales as totaled by several previously mentioned girl groups.

Also, these older groups do get streams too so if we add them using equivalent singles sales, they would be well past 50 million anyway.

Little Mix aren’t the biggest girl group of the 10s either. They are beaten by several South Korean sets like Girl’s Generation and TWICE. We do not consider Japanese franchise AKB48 for this purpose. Moonlight Entm (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that their pure sales are much lower, I had always personally estimated them between 15 and 20 million. The problem is, you don't have a reliable source for the 16 million sales. And also it is now impossible to determine what percentage of a group's sales are physical sales and what percentage are streams. So there is really no option but to include the 50 million figure. Without a source for the 16 million figure it is very likely that you will be reverted. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also Nielsen soundscand confirmed this but the page got turned down or just deleted, cause Nielsen right now is not active Moonlight Entm (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Best selling albums on korea
The best selling girlgroup album in korea is The Album by Blackpink with 1.2M, twice's best selling album has only sold 570k sales, neither of those albums have sold more than 400k, i*zone album sold 500k+ and kill this love by blackpink almost 500k Edit that false/inaccurate information Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Twice
I would like to suggest to add Twice to the list of best-selling girl groups worldwide. According to their discography page, they have over 30 million sales, which would make them eligible to be on the list. Tib0ytel (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Girls' Generation
Is there a way to update Girls' Generation sales because the 34.4 million sales was from 2012 and the new articles that mentions 57.1 million keep getting declined. Even if you count manually their discography page, which all filled with reliable source, adds up to around 39 million without counting the pre-2010 estimations. Botcheel (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with the sources that claimed 57.1 million sales for Girls' Generation, is that those sources were based ad verbatim on an old version of this Wikipedia list that was unsourced/very poorly sourced. There was a previous discussion here about this. If reliable sources have since published updated total claimed sales for this group, that aren't just repeating the unreliable "57.1 million" claim, then there shouldn't be an issue using them as a reference. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How should ties be sorted
So in the current “Best-selling girl groups worldwide” table, there are a few ties. These were all sorted alphabetically previously, but insists Little Mix should go first as that is the “right order”. If you don’t think ties should be sorted alphabetically, that’s fine, but please at least use a consistent system throughout the whole article rather than just insisting on putting your favourite group first. So let’s get consensus on how ties should be sorted: alphabetically, oldest first, newest first, etc. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I need to spend some time revising this page, because I haven't really looked at it since the beginning of 2021 – I think some figures have been added for Blackpink sales which I don't agree with, but there are probably other issues that need resolving, like this one. I'll try and answer this question in the next few days, once I've had a good look and understand what you mean by "ties". Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by "ties" I mean groups/singles/albums with the same sales figures. I don't think it's all that big a deal which group/single/album should come first in such cases, but it should be consistent throughout the article. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah okay – in which case I would say alphabetically, as it's impossible to prove that one group with 50 million reported sales is slightly ahead of another with the same reported figure. I don't see how it is possible to sort them in any other way. Richard3120 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Supremes sales
The section about girl group sales should be updated on this page and it should match what is being reported in "the Supremes Discography wiki article" and include the Supremes sales (the number of their sales and the source are cited available in "the Supremes Discography" wiki article). It also looks from just reading the discussion talks under Wiki Music articles, not just this article, that the editors who write these articles/pages write with a strong bias. This makes the information on Wiki unreliable. I hope that Wiki top editors look into this issue and remove those editors and ban them from writing articles. Regardless of whose your favorite musician, you have be objective when writing these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.30.195 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is – this articles states that the Supremes' sold between 20 and 100 million records, and the discography article also states that estimates of 50 million and 100 million records have been made, so that is consistent with this article. I don't know why someone decided to remove the Supremes from the table though and just have them as a note at the bottom, that makes no sense and they should be restored. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Harmony hasn't sold 21M copies, they've sold more.
Just by the time in 2016, E! Online confirmed that FH have sold 33M copies just imagine now, this is of course innacurate, cause those 21M are just their certifications in USA so they are not in this list until their real sales get confirmed, the source is not even reliable. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Plus the article clearly states "21 million in the united states" only. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2022
Add pink lady, they are a female pop duo like bananarama, they sold over 40 million singles and 25 million albums according to billboard which makes a total of 65 million and billboard stated that they sold 72 million in total too

https://books.google.com.do/books?id=HCQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 148.255.38.150 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a great submission since the source is from a billboard' s newpaper, it still counts. Moonlight Entm (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ however this page is no longer protected so may be edited directly. Please be sure to follow editing guidelines. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 June 2022
Update the table in section List of best-selling girl group albums, subsection South Korea according to the following template with more recently updated sales: User:Flabshoe1/sandbox/List of best-selling girl group albums in South Korea Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ however this page is no longer protected so may be edited directly. Please be sure to follow editing guidelines. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Twice
I found a source for twice's sales, otakukart said they sold 20 million records but their official japanese website used to say that they sold 30 million records? Moonlight Entm (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Record labels or artists own pages regarding sales should not be included, as it can considered to be primary sources. Third-party sources are preferred. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So it's completely unreliable then, record labels are the only ones who have correct information about sales, cause they provided the artists releases, third-party sourcedñs do not have record sales figures, from where? Exactly, they're mostly likely to be innacurate, But the otakukart claim was not sourced by their label, they sort of like came up with that, their label has never confirmed that they sold 20 million. Moonlight Entm (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources* Moonlight Entm (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly, there is not a worldwide entity than IFPI in regards sales records. But in most cases, third-party sources are ok when IFPI is not available. It could be some exceptions, but record labels figures enters in conflict as they're primary sources and we should compared its numbers with bold claims (something to avoid according the guideline). Perhaps, some sales are contaminated by them through third-party sources, but it's preferred to have the 3rd sources rather than have the specific source of the label or artist.--Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
Little Mix sales have been updated to over 72 milion, so that they became the third best selling group. 5.174.117.9 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That was a twitter fan account who made that lol and everyone knows that those sales are inflated, in reality they don't even pass 40 million but their label claimed they sold 65 million just to praise their artists, it's of course an unreleastic figure for them. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
Moonlight Entm your involved in edit-warring edits. You've been reverted by several users, because of changing sales without consensus. With the Spice Girls, your addition have reliable sources, which is Billboard, considered a high reliable sources. However, the last ones are closer to its certified units and available sales, and aren't "outdated". Please, reach a consensus, as this could be considered disruptive. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's call updating, just like the page removed a lot of old/same sources, this is simply one of them, the spice album sales have been updated and wikipedia is about improving articles. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Surely, there are updates to make in many Wikipedia's articles. But some record sales aren't than obvious and sometimes, is better to find consensus. You have been reverted by many users. And back again with Spice album, and using your own comparison, Billboard article is from 2021, while Official Charts Company is also from 2021. Both claimed 31 and 23 million for the album respectively, and both are sources of music-related industry. By de facto, the preferred number should be 23 million, based on certs and sales available. Or I see, anything with that range or 25M is more preferred with the 31M figure. So, I'll change back to the old number. If you still disagree, please open a consesus/RfC. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You came here trying to talk about edit war but then reverted the edits too, you're not using consesus neither, you guys use the official charts company and many other sources who used the 23 million claim of 1997 cause that was the only one confirmed and what appears everywhere but don't believe an article managed by the spice girls and their label, the ones who have the real information about the figures? You're really the one not using consesus sorry. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The sales of 23 million copies are the closest to the certifications the Spice Girls received. Also, in the album article there are the sales of the biggest and most important music markets, with updated certificates. With the exception of the countries mentioned in the article, there are very small markets in which the artist earns a gold or platinum record for sales of more than 10 or 15 thousand copies. To increase from 23 million to 31 million would give about 10 million more for what is catalogued, and would therefore be inflated.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would NEVER believe an article managed by an artist and their label... their whole point is to inflate the figures to make the artist look better. These sources are usually among the least reliable that exist, not the most reliable. Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

aespa
aespa new album just sold 1.4 million in first week, please add it and continue to update it under the best selling korean girl groups tab! info can be found via gaon/circle chart’ album chart 131.217.255.206 (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022
Little Mix have actually sold 72 million records worldwide. Not 50 million. There is proof on (@mixermanagement) on instagram but I had trouble uploading the file as proof. The post is from 7/23/22. Michael1444 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide an independent source that is not related to the group. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we make this change
I know that wikipedia does not accept ChartMasters.org as a reliable source however they have been the most accurate go to source ever when it comes to artists real sales that does not contain inflamations, their LittleMix analysis resulted up to 15 million copies which is a realistic number for them, they also did one for BP and resulted in 21 million so can they be added as such?, we know this article is full of inflamations despite having reliable sources but not reliable or realistic figures and that's the truth while ChartMasters is considered a very unreliable source for wikipedia is futhermore the only one who can get realistic and non-inflated figures for artists, they seem very accurate or at least believable. Moonlight Entm (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are accurate? You are basing that entirely on your "feeling" rather than any facts. Billboard and other reliable sources state 50 million... but you prefer to change it for a source, where we have no idea who the person is, and no idea where he gets his figures from. All that would happen is that other editors would be constantly re-adding the 50+ million figure with sources, and you would be constantly fighting against this figure with an unreliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I clearly know that, however no matter how much reliable sources, inflamation should never be an option, there are several editors on chartmasters, is an organization of experts in charts, if you look at their analysis you"ll see that they are well through out and carefully done, whatever they say is simply much more beliavable for me cause sources like Billboard would simply say what the label would tell them to say, Little Mix's label recently gave them a plaque of 72 million global sales? My question is would you believe that? or do you believe that? Its mindblowing and pretty much delusional however i do agree that every artist right now can superpass that or more than that with streaming units. Moonlight Entm (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To ask what is more believable is completely missing the point... no editor should be allowed to make the decision about what is the believable amount to be included in a Wikipedia article, we should just report what the majority of reliable sources say and that's it, nothing more. What happens if one day Little Mix are announced as the biggest-selling girl group of all time, it's reported on Billboard, the OCC, every major newspaper... and Wikipedia still lists them in sixth place because of what Chartmasters says? You'll have to start a conversation on the talk page of WP:RS to try and get this changed. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you mean however no huge statement or source is valid for wikipedia when we know is fake and inflated, wikipedia doesn't have to care about following huge companies statements but improving as a reliable source, improving as an organization, they don't have put what others say cause there is simply not a defined truth yet, i understand Chartmasters would never accepted in wikipedia that doesn't take away that they outsmarted even the IFBI. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand your frustration – I've seen other things on Wikipedia that I know are not correct, but I can't find the sources to be able to fix them. Ultimately though, we don't know if 72 million sales or 15 sales is right for Little Mix because we don't have access to actual figures. If you change it to 15 million, you're going to have to spend every day dealing with other editors who constantly change it back to 50 million or whatever, justifiably claiming that there are many sources that state this figure. That's why these "best-selling" lists all say "claimed sales"... unless an artist's career is entirely from the streaming era, we're never going to know the real figures, sadly. Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This might be long but I'd love a response to this. It's impossible to determine how many claimed sales lm have which doesn't include streaming units. However reliable sources from vanity and the times does includes their 60/ 65 million sales claim from articles written maybe a year or two years ago. I know that these figures can be posted by the label but like someone mentioned they was awarded a plaque for 70+ million sales not so long ago. Whether you believe those sales is your choice but realistically acts can achieve these type of sales now because of the influence of the streaming era. I don't agree with vandalism that others are doing but I understand why some might have frustration with the girls sales being lowered, especially when their being told they need to provide a reliable source and when they do their work is being changed because other editors doubt the girls sales claim. I know wiki wants to be seen as a more reliable site but that's going to be impossible as lot of artists for example who debut during the streaming era are going to have sales which are not accurate and influenced by streaming. If wiki is going to start becoming more stricter then their going to have to have that approach towards other acts including for other gg on this site and not just LM, but that seems very impossible. Like Richards3120 stated no editor should be allowed to determine what is believable, however as editors you cant pick and choose who sales you think is believable just because you think it's delusional that a certain act has reached a certain figure, because that's just a matter of opinion and you cant have your own opinion influence when it comes to editing. I think going from 50 to 15 million is a extreme considering a few weeks ago a similar discussion happened and it was decided to stick with 50 million because that's the closest number to their certified sales on here. It just seems better to stick with 50 million like other editors agreed to in a previous decision. Escmix (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

May I also suggest making a separate list for best selling girl groups before & after when streaming was first introduced?girl groups like fh & lm, who are listed in the best selling girl groups section came from a time where they debut before or during the streaming era. The streaming era as everyone knows plays a big role in sales. Picking an estimated sales for them would be more difficult compared for groups like spice girls and destiny child etc because most of their sales come from before streaming was introduced and their sales aren't heavily influenced by it either. If not I think it should be added somewhere so people can learn the difference between claimed sales before and after when streaming was introduced. It's also always going to be more difficult to pick a right sales figure for girl groups who debuted after the 2010s because a lot of their sales will be influenced by streaming. BP for example gains billions of streams which equal loads of sales and will pay a huge role if a huge sales claim for them ever got released. Would having a separate list for best selling girl groups after and before streaming be a good idea? Escmix (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's going to be extremely difficult to do, as the figures for most groups - especially Litrle Mix - straddle the eras between sales-only and sales+streaming. Even for a group like the Spice Girls, almost certainly several million of those claimed sales are from streaming.  Richard3120 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Because that doesn't seem like an ideal approach wouldn't it just be best then to have an editor try to base these new accurate sales for any of the group's through confirmed certifications that already exists on wiki through albums and singles? For example LM 50M sales claim is backed by sources from years ago. i know that one editor counted all of their certified sales for albums and singles recently & the closest number they got came close to the 50 million rather than the 60 - 65 claim. Will that now be the new approach that editors will take? Escmix (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of best selling girl groups
Hi, just wanna make sure that the sales by Little Mix by the source https://variety.com/2020/music/global/jesy-nelson-leaves-little-mix-1234853032/ could be include. Variety is a very strong source. One of the users keep changing to 50 million from a very strong source as well, their sales changed and was confirmed by their own label with plaques from 65 to 72 million sales, but of course there's a not source to say it, except one until now: https://chapterzmagazine.com/2022/05/goodbye-to-little-mix-the-unsung-pop-icons/ Kyleselina (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Little Mix Record Sells
They have a confirmed 70 million records sold. Fix this. 24.239.236.149 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually there's no source that can prove as much I like them, there's just on Twitter: https://twitter.com/weedforjade/status/1551150628725981184?t=FQ7FagVlnx3gLt6GDs_Kqg&s=19 Kyleselina (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Little mix being ranked lower than they are
Little mix’s pr manager has just been awarded a plaque to commemorate little mix selling 72 million global sales yet it says 50 million here. How is that? 2A02:8084:2000:5880:6C98:DC4:E72:F1B3 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to read the very long "Regarding Little Mix's claimed sales" thread above. Richard3120 (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the closest we can get it it's just 60 million from Variety. I'm trying to talk to someone who actually has a little bit pro here. Here's the link: https://variety.com/2020/music/global/jesy-nelson-leaves-little-mix-1234853032/ Kyleselina (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)