Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 25

Supertramp
The Daily Star Lebanon (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Performance/2011/Jun-02/Music-can-be-a-great-friend.ashx#axzz29tlKXb40) claim them to have sold 60m records, this is reliable or not? thanks 182.13.62.50 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What other reliable sources are there for Superstramp?--Harout72 (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? is a middle east newspaper not appropriate to use as a reliable source?. I hope there is no discrimination in this list or in Wikipedia in general. But I believe, you have the best reason for asking another sources for that Band. Perhaps their certification sales doesn't meet the requirement.

To answer your question, i just find two sources from Sun-Times (http://westernsprings.suntimes.com/11012667-417/pop-legends-play-ravinia-for-first-time.html) and Yahoo!News (http://news.yahoo.com/roger-hodgson-supertramp-perform-modesto-october-27-110018941.html) which also stated the 60m records sales of Supertramp, but personally i prefer the source from The Daily Star Lebanon. thanks 114.121.65.80 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about discrimination, but it's about editorial control of the The Daily Star (Lebanon) which I'm not sure about. But it is better than the other two sources. Supertramp does seem to have enough certified sales. I'll add it to the list in the next couple days.--Harout72 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So, this is means that Supertramp will be include to the list? if so, please welcome. thanks 114.121.65.80 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias
I think the article is very outdated putting Julio Iglesias in the group of those who have only sold 100 million albums. The correct number is between 200 million and 300 million, aproaching to the last number. This are the reasons:

1. The references are so old, outdated.

2. If you go to the first reference (150) which redirects to allmusic.com you will see that there says he has sold over 300 million albums!!!

3. If you check his official site you will see again the figure of 300 million.

4. There are lots of publications that are referred to the 300 million Here some of them:

http://www.julioiglesias.com/pagina.php?cs_id_pagina=3&cs_id_idioma=1

http://www.allmusic.com/artist/julio-iglesias-mn0000102985

http://www.globalnews.ca/entertainment/julio+iglesias+releases+new+album+with+old+favourites+re-recorded/6442702508/story.html

http://www.paradigmagency.com/divisions/artist/index/1778

Please, take a look at this proof which, from my point of view, are more than enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.34.157 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per this list's requirements, artists that have begun charting in 1975 or before that, need their claimed figures supported by 20% certified sales. For 300 million, Iglesias would need over 60 million in certified units, which he doesn't have.--Harout72 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

== Discussion about above topic: "Artists that are removed due to not having enough certified units" ==

Better to wait with removed some artists, new "percentages" is new proposition, this new proposition is not yet consensus: too little time for the speech of others users (only 3 days) and also has only two supports + today's strong oppose. It does not matter. Most likely, article will be altered or removed entirely because article used with manipulated sources and name of article is wrong and breaks a few rules of Wikipedia (including WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS). In the near future will pan-encyclopedic discussion with a larger group of people about this article. Do not do himself the additional work :) Subtropical-man (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your strong oppose is not giving any valid reason for the new proposition. You are merely against the way this list is operated. That has nothing to do with the new proposition of raising the bar by 5%. It in no way breaks any of the rules your suggesting above. Identifying reliable sources clearly states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. That's the reason why the certified units are begin used.--Harout72 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The present article is not about "List of best-selling music artists", it describes only certified. You try to create some mechanisms to sources but you create manipulations and incorrect data. Second: I read this Identifying reliable sources: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. But, I repeat: you try to create some mechanisms to sources (for example your percentages) but you create manipulations and incorrect data. If these percentages were documented by independent sources - ok, but this percentages come from the Moon, these percentages are pure OR, these percentages are pure SYNC, these percentages cause removal of the artists. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been given very detailed explanation about this in the past. I strongly suggest that you quit disrupting this list and its talk page as you've done in the past. If you feel you need take actions again the way this list is operated, I suggest you to take your case to WP:AN/I. Because I'm not going to explain everything in details again as I tried back in June, 2012.--Harout72 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your link: it was created in the wrong place, therefore, the poor result. You've written: "Because I'm not going to explain everything in details again as I tried back in June, 2012" - You never have explained everything in details. This does not change the fact, that these percentages manipulating data and sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you feel we are manipulating this list, for that we have WP: AN/I. My explanation both now and in the past could not have been any more thorough and clearer. Period.--Harout72 (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what happened in here, but it seems there's a lot of tension in this section and this is interesting because occur between (it seems) the two of the most outstanding editors in wikipedia history. Personally, i'm confuse which argue is the most RELIABLE but as a reader who has been contributed in this list, I supported whatever the decision from the editor (whoever) in this list. thanks 114.121.65.80 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Subtropical-man, you are very incorrect in your assumptions. As Harout pointed out, you have given no valid reason for your strong oppose. You simply don't like the way the page is being run (we've probably left out one of your preferred artists). You also claim we manipulate information and provide incorrect data. This is completely false. Nothing posted on this article is incorrect. As a matter of fact, running the page in the form you are suggesting would lead to extremely incorrect data (such as even doubling actual sales because a newspaper is blindly mirroring false and inflated reports by record companies). And your argument to rename the article? Completed bull-shit. Apparently your missing the whole point of the article; its purpose is to provide the best-selling artists, by using certifications as a reliable guide. And this isn't OR, this is the most reliable way to go by. I'd put my money on certifying agencies (the most reliable estimation) than just accepting any ridiculous number a newspaper throws at us.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   04:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Petergriffin9901, the validity of this article based on your percentages. This is a typical OR. Also, your percentages are numbers come from Moon, previously: 15-35%, now: 20-40%, tomorrow: 25-45%. PS. I added an explanation of my opposition about the new proposal. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your explanation above is based on what you think, it's not based on facts or research. Anyone who knows that record companies inflate sales figure for their benefit (read article Former music executive), would agree that some sort of well researched guideline needs to be applied. In our case, it's Gold/Platinum certifications. Our percentage amounts are based on long time research and observation, and finally consensus. One final point, there is no OR inserted in the list, the percentage amounts are outside of the list, simply used to determine which sources are the best, which is allowed per WP:RS.--Harout72 (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, "Our percentage amounts are based on long time research and observation" but Wikipedia says: no any own research. Summary: an artist can not be listed on the list of the article of Wikipedia because you doing own research. Maybe you have good intentions but the result is wrong. Second: Consensus or not consensus - irrelevant, other users can always change it and also consensus is canceled when break the rules of Wikipedia. Third: Doubtful are also the same numbers (percentages) with your "consensus" and your last change (+5%). Last edits change the result of the sale of many artists, some artists are removed from the list. Your own research change the number of sales of artists. You wrote: "guideline needs to be applied" but your method go beyond "guideline", your own research interfere in the data in the article of Wikipedia, this is not allowed. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no ability to hear what others say. Four different editors have already tried to tell you that this is not OR including myself, all of whom you ignore pushing your own opinion. IF, in your OPINION we are manipulating this list, and practicing something that breaks wiki policies, then go to AN/I. We have nothing further to discuss with someone who refuses to accept something that is clearly explained by multiple editors. PERIOD.--Harout72 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Four different editors have already tried to tell you that this is not OR including myself? Four? No, just you and one user. But later I gave sufficient arguments that it is OR. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep forgetting THIS. And your argument is not nearly as sufficient as you think.--Harout72 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, formerly also user User Achowat. Ufff. However, I now (on this discussion page) explained exactly what was going on, in the formerly case - not. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually what indicator to decided how many percentage of those artist certification sales to compare with their claim sales from the reliable source? any Independent organization? thanks 39.210.185.172 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * what indicator to decided how many percentage? This percentages is a personal research by user Harout72, namely violates the principle of No original research. Subtropical-man (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The percentages are actually based on a consensus here--  Krystaleen  15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and also here. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The hot debate and discussion above isn't done, how the conclusion? 182.9.2.27 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Boney M
How about the sources from Sidmouth Herald (http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/rugby_and_boney_m_are_coming_to_branscombe_1_898305) which stated the 50m records sales of them? is it working?. thanks 182.8.238.49 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. On the list with 50 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Bolton
He is still listed with 50m claim sales, if another sources like The Mercury (http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/04/29/323281_entertainment.html) said him to have sold 53m, why not? even just only 3m but better than the previous. thanks 182.9.2.27 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Alabama
How many certifications of this Band, The Guardian (Charlottetown)/http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Arts/Festivals-%26amp-events/2012-03-02/article-2913974/Cavendish-Beach-Music-Festival-announces-more-acts/1 stated them to have sold 73m records. is this reliable? thanks 39.215.242.167 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hall and Oates
Over 65 Million. Please include — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.41.147 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Iron Maiden
If the Band didn't work with 70m claim, how about this source from The Daily Telegraph? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1406521/This-is-your-pilot-and-rock-star-speaking-.-.-..html) that source stated the 50m records of their claim sales. thanks 39.210.185.172 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is from 2002, but the sales figure within is logical. Is there a new article with the same 50 million claim?--Harout72 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Believe me, even it seems lucky i have found that source which is nearly match with their claim estimation based on the new rules of this list.

The Daily Telegraph is very reliable and the Band claim sales inside is fit enough with new rules in this list, I suggest you to put their name in 50m claim, and again IF i'm not mistaken. Rod Stewart claim sales source is from 2002 also, and you used that source for this list. thanks 39.210.185.172 (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing Stewart's source to my attention, I replaced it with a newer source that claims the same figure. We should keep our sources as updated as possible.--Harout72 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I Haven't seen Iron Maiden on the list, so this is mean that the source from The Telegraph is not reliable because came from 2002? whatever your decision, i supported. thanks 182.11.72.165 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you can not move Iron Maiden to the 50 million section, too many reliable sources put their sales at over 70 million. Such as the New York Times, their official website, and the recent documentary by the BBC, called "behind the beast". I know that alot of their sales cannot be certified, but perhaps the rules of this page should be amended. Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Then ask harout about that?, i've been discussed regarding this matter in the past two days. 39.212.215.174 (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Green-Halcyon, you ever question why Iron Maiden's certified sales are that low if they've really sold some 70-80 million records? Simple, because they have only sold maximum of some 30-35 million records worldwide. Had they really sold 70-80 million, their certified units would've been 35-40 million at the least. Look, I would make an exception and list them with 70 million if Iron Maiden were short by only one million in certified units from meeting the required percentage amount. But Iron Maiden need their claims supported by 26.6% certified sales. That's 18.6 million certified units required for a 70 million claim. Their available 15.7 million in certified units can support claims of up to 59 million. So, if there's a claimed figure of 60 million out there, perhaps we can work around that, although their certified units are low for that also.--Harout72 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Mars
How many certification he has? is it fit enough to claim the 50m records sales? Yahoo!Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bruno-mars-host-perform-saturday-180042180.html) stated that he has sold 5m albums and 45m singles, that's 50m records if we combined. I understand, that you will asking the source from a newspaper or any related music industry. But note in your mind, Yahoo!Finance is the most outstanding news source for finance in United States since 2008, we can hold this title as a reliable source.

And another, you haven't answered my question regarding with the 50m records sales of Iron Maiden from the telegraph?. thanks 182.9.2.27 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't accept sources like Yahoo for this list. As for the Iron Maiden's 10 year-old source, I thought my answer was pretty clear about the source being too old.--Harout72 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont know exactly your indication to make this list reliable, but it seems you are very dominate to decided who/when/where/what kind of source in this list, and it seems you feel that you are more reliable than the editors of BBC News, The New York Times, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, and others.

What is your competent exactly? and is this list is fully your own? and there is no editor in Wikipedia involve inside?.

I'm not questioning and against your decision regarding with my edit request, but some of your argue is not accepted from my opinion, especially about the Iron Maiden above.

You are the editor of this list, is your right to answer or not of any question from us as the reader. But note in your mind, I'm not violated or giving any personnel attack. thanks 39.215.242.167 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen, be nice, okay? I've been replying to all of your requests for the past month or even more, maybe I shouldn't anymore since you can't appreciate that. Instead of exploding the way you have above, have a look at all other references on the list. Do you see any sales claims or statements being supported by Yahoo!, no. We use news services as sources, and MTV, VH1, Billboard. Now, if Bruno Mars has really sold 50 million or more records, then you should be able to locate another article published by news services or even MTV or Billboard or VH1. Also, Bruno Mars needs 38 million in certified sales for a claimed figure of 50 million. I still haven't checked, but I highly doubt he has that many units sold and certified.--Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm apologize if you feel my questioning above giving you un-comfortable ? like i said above, i'm just a reader who asking the contain of this list and asking the reason from the editor about their decision. And even, some of the editor decision i can't accepted personally and i will supported all the editors in this list since they have the RIGHT to decided.

But i just see your name in this talk page. and it seems there is no others editor answering our question in here, that's why i'm asking are you the owner of this list?.

I'm VERY appreciate all your answer regarding all my edit request and I'm happy with it, don't forget I always says thanks in the end of my edit request. and Personally, i'm giving a highly respect to you as one of the great editors in wikipedia, and I praised you..

But yesterday, it seems you can not appreciated my contribution regarding with Iron Maiden, I'm already giving you the reliable source (even it was 10 years ago) but the contain is match with the new RULES in this list. Keep in your mind, you increase the certification percentage (5%) about a week ago and All recent article about Iron Maiden stated at least 70m claim sales, why we not keep them with the source from The Telegraph (50m) for while until we find the claim sales of them from NEW article?

It is your decision if you don't accept my opinion, but how about the rest editors? why just you?. Again, that's why i'm asking is there any others editor in this list?

and IF you are the owner of this list, fully. AND you decided to not reply any of my edit request on the future, is your right. I can not do anything. i'm just a reader.

BUT, please be consistent with your decision. I'm asking you to bringing back the old claim sources of Whitney Houston, Santana, R.E.M, New Kids on the Block, Black Eyed Peas, Kenny G, Taylor Swift, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Lady Gaga, Alan Jackson, Reba McEntire, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Michael Bolton.

And I'm asking you to ERASE the name and the claim sources of Aretha Franklin, Alabama, Toni Braxton, Supertramp, Eric Clapton, N'Sync, Linda Ronstadt, TLC, Norah Jones, Simply Red, Glen Campbell, Boney M.

Since you can't appreciate my contribution to this list. and By the Way, you said "I've been replying to all of your requests for the past month or even more, maybe I shouldn't anymore since you can't appreciate that". But why ALABAMA has been included in this list based on my edit request?.

Please Be Consistent with your WORDS!.

Personally, if i can call you harout. I really appreciated your help to my edit request. If you want, we can forget the discussion above and I can continue searching the new claim sales for those artist and contributed for this list. I will do it.

But, if NOT. please be consistent with your words, please deleted all my contribution in this list. Thanks 182.10.230.169 (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very consistent with my words and actions. I think my record speaks for itself. Alabama's source is reliable and very new, why are you comparing it with some 10 year old source that was rejected? Everything you bring to this talk-page is carefully weighed and analyzed before being transferred on to the main list. That said, those sources that you brought to this talk-page and eventually were implemented, it's because they were new sources with claimed figures that met our requirements. I hate to bring this to your attention, but before I included those artists, for whom you posted sales figure on here, I had to go over their detailed certified sales. And that, my friend, takes a lot more effort and time than simply googling for claimed figures. Therefore, those are not only your contributions. Finally, no, this is not my list, but I happen to be the main contributor with other editors helping me in some areas every now and then. If you want to continue bringing new reliable sources, you can continue to do that, but be appreciative of my hard work also. Now let's agree on something here, I will re-insert Iron Maiden to the list with the 10 year old source, however, this will be the only time that an artist will be inserted with a source that old. From now on, DO NOT post older than 2 or 3 year old sources and expect them to be implemented. Let me know if you agree on this.--Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It because all the new sources are claim the 70m or 80m sales, there is no near and match the requirement except the 2002 edition of the telegraph.

Alright, i agree. let's end all the tension, your explanation is more than enough to remind me for always be nice and understanding the methods of this list. thanks 182.10.230.169 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hall and Oates (my version)
How many certification of their albums only? The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9393490/The-net-widens-for-hit-maker-Daryl-Hall.html) and The Portsmouth Herald (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090323-ENTERTAIN-90323033) and The Oakland Press (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/06/14/entertainment/doc4df7acccc394d503049702.txt?viewmode=4) stated them to have sold 60 million in term Albums only not records. Is this reliable enough? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.10.230.169 (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This duo has been included on the list, based on my source reference. But It's seems un-usual, because if my edit request is reliable and has been successfully enter the main list you will give the green DONE remark. I hope you still doing that stuff, it was look nice. thanks 39.212.215.174 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Three Dog Night
How many certifications of the dogs? is it fit enough to support the 60m records sales from San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_21323720/dark-one-dog-night-chuck-negron) and if not fit enough, how about the source from The Buffalo News (http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121013/CITYANDREGION/121019581/1031) which stated the 50m records of the dogs? which one is the most reliable? thanks 182.4.144.53 (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Three Dog Night are on the list. Also, let me inform you that we're reaching the maximum allowed number of Citation Templates, which is 450. Once we have 450 citation templates, the entire reference section will disappear and the sources cannot be used to verify information (this has happened before). Therefore, we should not be adding anymore artists to the list. We should keep the remaining number of citation templates available in case we want to add sourced information. If we reach the 450, then we'll have to remove the bottom 55-59 million section entirely to make up space for Citations. I don't think we want to do that just yet. So, you should probably take a break from searching for sources for artists that are not on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, sorry for disturbing you in the past two months. I just satisfy, if there is artist successfuly entering this list, if the list already overload and need to keep out from any additional, therefore i supported. Even i still have one or two artist in my mind that perhaps should be entering this list, such as Josh Groban. Let me know, if you already open the list again for the others artist. thanks 182.0.233.122 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New suggestion on raising the bar on required certified sales
After years of observation and analysis of records sales, I'm confident to suggest that the 15% requirement for certified sales for those who've begun charting in or before 1975 is very low. The 15% clearly allows too many artists on the list who haven't sold as much as claimed. Therefore, I suggest that we raise the bar for required certified sales by ONLY 5% (from 15% to 20%), which will still be low, but at least it will, to a certain degree, prevent this list from being over-flooded by artists who haven't even come close to having sold as much as claimed. The suggested 20% will be for those charted in or before 1975. The required percentages will be higher for newer artists. See the suggested percentages for all periods below:

Feel free to comment below by either Support or Oppose. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I completely agree, let me explain my viewpoint as we need factual leverage. The RIAA began certifying in 1958. Under 10 of these actual musicians even began releasing music before that (and many only a year or two prior). Now, I haven't counted, but there are at least 150 listed. Just as a reminder, US sales account for around 40-50% of actual worldwide sales (I believe). I definitely think that the current percentage levels are too lenient. So right there we should have an idea on how high the artist's actual sales are. Not forgetting to mention that most major markets had official certifying agencies by the 70's (UK, Germany and France)(aside from Japan, where the majority of western acts fail to garner much popularity anyway). Anyways, to the point, I'm getting sick and tired of these crazy claims for either older or recent acts. Certifications don't lie and really are the most reliable thing we can go by (obviously we provide leeway, hence the percentages).-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons both of you have stated. The list is getting too big anyway.--  Krystaleen  11:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK then, I'll be implementing the newer required percentages to our template, and based on that, those artists on the list that do not meet the requirements will be removed. It's going to be some 10, it seems as our requirements are still very low and reasonable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, current "percentages" is absurd, new proposition is utter nonsense. Also, please change the name of the article on "List of best-selling music artists by certifications", current name is totally wrong. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No valid reason given. The list is not based on certified sales. It is based on claimed figures, simply being examined by certified units in order to avoid inflated sales figure published by sources. Identifying reliable sources clearly states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. That's the reason why the certified units are being used.--Harout72 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The present article is not about "List of best-selling music artists", it describes only certified. You try to create some mechanisms to sources but you create manipulations and incorrect data. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not giving valid explanation, and not specifying what's incorrect. The list is largely based on claimed figures by reliable sources. Please continue your discussion in the other thread. Your case doesn't belong in this very thread.--Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is reason my voice. Previous pseudo-consensus with this percentages is manipulation, this new proposal is totally absurd. For the year, you increase the percentage of the top about next 5%? A rhetorical question. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been disrupting this list and its template enough in the past. I suggest that you quit it.--Harout72 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was created in the wrong place. I see that you know that this percentages are tampering. Now you are trying to post about some old junk. Focus on the present case. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was junk created by you, such disruption will not be tolerated again.--Harout72 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Other users recommended to first discuss here. We have here to try to explain, later ANI or other. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Detailed explanation: I think that the new proposal of new percentages is more flawed than the previous version. New proposition will not give a true "picture" of sales and artists. The proposed percentages are too high. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you think. In fact the new percentage amounts, while still low, are going to provide a clearer/previous picture than the previous.--Harout72 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will be inversely, will be worse. My voice is unchanged - oppose. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your voice is unchanged, so is our policy. Good luck battling on your own.--Harout72 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a right to have their own opinion and I can give own vote in voting. User:Petergriffin9901 (CallMeNathan) and User:Krystaleen supported this new proposition, I'm don't support this new proposition (oppose). I have the same rights as others users. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, I would put my faith in respected news corporations like the NY Times and BBC, when they give a figure for how many records these artists have sold. I think the research done by professional journalists is a lot more reliable than that of Wikipedians when it comes to counting up certified sales. Even if you keep the new change to the rules of this page, treat them as more of a guide than absolute law. When it comes to bands like Iron Maiden being bumped down to the 50 million list, citing a 10 year old source, when their claimed sales from several other sources put the figure at over 70 million, the article only becomes less informative to readers, and therefore exceptions should be made. Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument as the other editor's, who opposes also, doesn't belong in this thread. You are against the fact that this list is being operated based on proof of sales (certified sales). This very thread discusses raising the bar on proof of sales (certified sales) that already existed for a year and a half, which in its turn is based on consensus. Similarly, you should open up a separate thread for Iron Maiden's 50 million claim which is sourced to a 10 year old article, and suggest it be removed. This was the wrong thread for you to bring it up in also. By the way, exceptions are made all the time, therefore, we still have Iron Maiden (any many others) listed with 50 million when their certified sales do not even make up one third of what's claimed by professional journalists. Are the certified sales that low because the 70% of sales go uncertified? No, because the so called professional journalists print inflated figures given to them by Iron Maiden's and others record companies for promotional reasons.--Harout72 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do I need to complicate things by opening up a new thread for every area of my argument? I still oppose this raising the bar change if its going to cause such a mess of things. Would you reply to my comment on the Iron Maiden part of this page please, I would like to discuss an exception being made for them with you? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to continue your discussion in a new thread because the reason you're opposing is due to not seeing Iron Maiden (your favorite band) listed with 70-80 million claim? In other words, you don't fully understand why these percentage methods are being suggested.--Harout72 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and Strongly Oppose also, I'm not one of the editors in this list, but as a reader i want to give my opinion also. I fully support harout decision to raise the percentage requirement for claim sales in this list since many un-famous artist was so desperately to gain a popularity and respect with a fake sales figures. And with the certification sales require, we can see the real quality and success of those artist.

But, I feel that you have operate this list strongly based only from your own opinion and is not fully depend and consistent with the rules that you've made in this list.

I'll give you some examples. In this list, it was said cleary that the claimed figures of the artists will be posted on the list, if their certification sales meet the requirement. But i see that you not implemented that rules, but you chose the lowest claim figures from those artist to be posted but NOT their claim sales figure which is meet the requirement of the percentage certification. This is really un-fair and silly.

Personally, i not a fan of Rod Stewart, The Monkees, and Mary J. Blige. But i have seen that their highest claim figures which is posted by a reliable source and meet the requirement, has been REJECTED by you with some reason which is NOT been stated in this list (you said that you want to keep the claim figures not far from their certification sales, then MAKE it that to be one of the rules on this list).

I'm fully supported you as the leader editor in this list, since you have been answer all edit request in this page perfectly. But i think you need to reduce your own ego. thanks 182.5.245.255 (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I clearly understand what this thread is about... And whether you agree with my argument or not Harout72, it is still relevant and valid. So what if I might like Iron Maiden? I can still use them as an example of how this percentage change has negatively impacted on this page. Last time I talked to you was a few months ago, and you were a lot more level headed, where as now you are just borderline rude. No disrespect intended, I fully appreciate all the hard work youve put into this list Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Green-Halcyon, in order for your argument to be valid and relevant, you need to provide a clear explanation as to why for example Iron Maiden's certified sales are not even one third of their lowest available claimed figure, 50 million. Whereas other bands on the list who have also begun in/around 1980 have their claimed figures supported by 80% certified sales, one of which is Metallica. Or Van Halen, who have begun charting in 1978 (before Iron Maiden) and have their 80 million supported by 62 million in certified units. BTW, I have replied to your comments in Iron Maiden's section.--Harout72 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Harout (if i can call you then), i don't know if my opinion above gave a hurt feeling to you, if yes then i'm sorry. Because, usually you always answer my edit request and question less than a day. But now, it seems that you ignoring all my questions in here, and i think that's weird and un-responsibility. Because if you stated yourself as the main editor in this list, you will answer all the question in here not depending how he/she nicely or hurt for you.

Let's continue my opinion regarding with this matter, I'll give the examples of List of best-selling albums which is running in the same way like this list. The album in the list must published by a reliable source and need to have an adequate certification sales, but in that list THE HIGHEST Claim figures which is reported by a reliable source, will be posted in the list NOT the nearest claim figures from the certification sales. And i think this is GOOD and RELIABLE for those artist.

For Examples : the claim figures of Britney Spears's debut album is between 25m (FoxNews), 26m (The Guardian), 27m (Bloomberg), and 30m (Telegraph). and The highest claim figure (30m) will be posted in the list as long as meet the requirement of certification sales.

Why this list not running in the same methods and the same way like that EXCELLENT list?. thanks 182.3.213.42 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti and Scorpions
According to your information, the list has been nearly reach the maximum space require in the page. I suggest you to remove some artists in the list which their certification can not cover the new percentage in this list (20%) to make some rooms for others artists who more deserve to be placed in the list.

Such as Scorpions (certifications at 18m to 100m claim) and Luciano Pavarotti (certification at 19m to 100m claim), if you are consistent to implemented the 20% require rules, then their name should be remove from the list even the gap between the level only 100.000 or 2m.

This is only a suggestion. thanks 182.5.245.255 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-New The Claim Sales
I decided to delete my post which is NOT DONE to not waste and make this talk page more comfortable to see.

If we can not add any new artists to this list since the maximum templates has been nearly reached, then how about if we re-new the claim sales figures of those artist which is meet the new requirement even it seems inflated but as long as meet the requirement percentage rules ?.

such as Oasis (their 50m records sales came from 2008 news edition), is it possible to change their claim figures to 70m according to the 2011 edition of The Daily Telegraph?(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/8343551/Liam-Gallagher-I-am-adored-by-millions.html) Listen, i have a job but for me it was fun to see the music legend being placed in this list. thanks 182.5.245.255 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

rules and regulations on the list
i dont think that there should be a rule of 25% proof of certification for their claimed sales. as far as i am concerned, many countries did not begin certifications until the age of digital music, where digital singles are easy to purchase and certify. here in the philippines and masy elsewhere, certifications are lowered down so it is a bit confusing what rule you are technically using in this page. furthermore, most countries, such as in the usa and uk, dont necessarily certify hits as is; they usually certify them maybe after long-time periods (riaa and bpi does that). so to say there should be no rules in the listing of the artists; besides theyre claimed sales after all, not proven sales (it is hard to prove anything in the music industry, i guess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.129.255 (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ABBA
Okay, ABBA has been relocated recently from 300 million section due to their under requirement certifications. But, it's still weird to see ABBA on the top of 200 million records section, with the lowest certified sales among all artists there. Let's see, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, and Bee Gees started years earlier than ABBA. I propose to reduce ABBA's claimed sales to 200 million records. I know we should not turn this page into competitive list, but we have a 2004 tabloid article (New York Daily News) for 260 million versus two 2012 articles from more reliable publications (BBC and The Telegraph) for 200 million. What do you think guys? Bluesatellite (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, our low requirements for certified sales allow ABBA to be listed with 260 million. They need their claimed figures supported by 20% only, which is 52 million for 260 million claim. As for the reason why they're at the top of that section, it's because those with highest claims go first, and then the number of certified units determine their position on the list among those with the same claimed figures.--Harout72 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I know how this page works, you don't need to explain the reason why they are on the top of the section. My concern is that why they should have the highest claimed sales with the lowest certified sales among all artists on the section. As I explained above, the only source supporting 260 million figure is a 2004 article by New York Daily News, while we have 200 million claim from two 2012 articles by BBC and The Daily Telegraph. Do we say that the tabloid's article in 2004 is more reliable than two articles in 2012 from those two major publications? Or do we need to include higher claimed figure for Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, and Bee Gees who started some years before ABBA, but still have much higher certified sales than ABBA? Bluesatellite (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Daily News is a news service as well, although it may not be as prestigious as the BBC or even The Telegraph, but it is reliable. Is the former less reliable than the latter two? Well, that is something maybe the folks at the WP:RSN can tell, if you want to post a question there. The section of ABBA, actually, is not the only one that has an artist/band on the top with lower certified sales than others below them. But if you want to remove the article by the Daily News for the 260 claim, by going through WP:RSN (if they say it's not as reliable as the other two), I will personally support your decision as I know ABBA could not even have sold 260 million records worldwide when their available certified sales are 55 million. But trying to bury ABBA's 260 million claim by fetching more inflated figures for those below them is definitely not the right approach. Personally, all I care about is follow the required percentage amounts and keep artists with outrageous claimed figures out (more outrageous than ABBA's).--Harout72 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012
katy perry has 74.6 million records worldwide. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katy-perry-part-of-me-interview-339341

Ralphjohnkelly (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source above states 74.6 million tracks and 9.1 million full-lengths sold, that is 83.7 in total. Since Katy Perry has begun charting in 2008, per this list's requirements, she needs her claimed figures supported by 72.8% certified sales. That is 60.9 million in certified units needed for 83.7 million claim. Perry's available certified sales are 45 million, which can support claims of up to 62 million.--Harout72 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Shakira
The problem is that the Colombian singer Shakira has registered 70 million copies in sales, to what I consider a mistake and if she has sold 70 million, but only considering albums and singles, all sales gives a simple total of approximately 50 million copies, meaning that in total 120 million copies sold gets as other artists like Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Adele, and others were marked sales of both concepts (albums and singles), I ask the more attentive to correct that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.77.30 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Split 3 largest sections into their own article
Split - Three sections ("75 million to 99 million records", "60 million to 74 million records" and "50 million to 59 million records") should be split into an article entitled "List of music artists with 50 million to 99 million records" due to article length. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We may soon have to to get rid of the bottom section due to reaching the maximum number of citation templates (450). Splitting this page into multiple sections is not an easy task, I had to do that once because it'd gotten at least three times longer than it is now due to not having Template:Hidden for certified sales column. I think for the time being we're ok, but in the future we may have to remove all artists listed with 50-55 million to make it shorter.--Harout72 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Splitting VS Trimming
Seems like we may need to decide on either Splitting or Trimming our gigantic list. I was going to wait until we hit the maximum number of citation templates (450) before I proposed either Split or Trim. But it seems to be long enough already. In my opinion we could start with trimming it first. I say we remove all artists listed with 50 million claims and rename the bottom/lowest section 55 million to 74 million records. That alone will reduce the list's current 347,770 bytes by 67,270 bytes. That should help the page to save/load faster, although, it will still be 280kb (280,500 bytes) and any page with 100 kb or over may need a split according to WP:Splitting. Opinions/thoughts?--Harout72 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not even sure 50 million in claimed sales is that notable anymore. Yeah its alot, but for this list maybe not. Even if we were to remove the duplicate sources for certain artists, (which aren't many to begin with) it would still be too long. Would it make much of a difference in article size if the images were removed? — Gabe 19  (talk contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I put all of the images in my sandbox, together they take up only 3,033 bytes.--Harout72 (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SPLIT - I prefer shorter articles (under 100 kB). NOTHING wrong with making this article a collector, and having separate articles for each ranking.  I just split the bottom chart off.  If people disagree, we can add the chart back, and have the new article redirect to the old.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jax 0677, you should have waited until we had decided what we were going to agree on. If we are going to agree on splitting, it's going to be more than just the section of 50 million to 59 million records and it will need the footnotes copied and pasted there as well as the lead. Also, this list attracts more fanatics than expected; therefore, immediately after splitting it, one needs to request for a page protection as we have it on this one. I think for now, it should be added back here. We need more editors to engage in this discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sincerest apologies. I have reverted the edit, but left the new page up for now, until we decide what to do.  The page I created is just an example of pages we can split off for the higher ranking artists.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No damage done. But I honestly think we should work around on a single page by trimming and bringing the bytes down to around 200,000-220,000 (200-220 kb). After all, there are many articles on wikipedia with bytes around or more than 200,000 (200 kb) including articles on USA, United Kingdom, Michael Jackson (just to name a few). In other words, the 100 kb per WP:Splitting is descriptive, not prescriptive.--Harout72 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Trimming. I think we need to re-determine how much record sold is still considered "best-selling of all time". The 50 million records claim is clearly not notable anymore, especially in this 'digital tracks' era. Believe me, within next two years this page will get mooore bloated with Justin Bieber, Bruno Mars, Kesha, and other current mainstream stars. I'm sure that even anything under "100 million records" is no longer considered "best-selling". No splitting please, this is not a collection of artists' record sales, only the notable ones. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (Additional suggestion for trimming)

I think most of us lean towards Trimming, but I'd like to wait for more opinions. Also, I suggest we trim the bottom 20 million, and start the list from 70 million records upwards. That way we'll have it at 244,000 bytes. Because trimming only the 50 million artists will still leave it long at 280,000 bytes. Thoughts?--Harout72 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - If we are going to remove the "bottom 20 million" from this article, why not create a separate article for those artists? If they are going to be deleted, then they should not have been there in the first place.--Jax 0677 (talk)
 * Initially, whoever created this page, listed artists with 50 million claims probably because the list was not at all large. But over time the list got larger and larger. And it's time for us to make some changes, and frankly, the title of it (List of best-selling) suggests to list artists with claims close to 100 million and over in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Trimming. Agree with above posters, and I think I've said this several times before, that yes 50 million is not that notable anymore and I think we should only list those with 100 million and above.--  Krystaleen  02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The bottom 20 million has now been trimmed per our consensus. Hopefully, it doesn't get big again soon. Thanks for your votes.--Harout72 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
rihanna has now sold 100 million records. If you search it, her record label (Def Jam) has given her a ceremonial plaque for this achievement. As the article says she only has record sales of 85 million it needs updating Thank you

86.144.62.86 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the source that claims 100 million records?--Harout72 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to This article by Black Entertainment Television, Rihanna just received a plaque from Def Jam for 100 million records. Is this reliable enough, considering that the claim published by her own label? Bluesatellite (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use that source. While it mentions about Def Jam awarding Rihanna with a plaque of 100 million records, in the content it says The plaque showcased each of her six albums, which have collectively sold more than 25 million worldwide. Boosted by 11 hits that topped the Billboard Hot 100, she’s also sold more than 60 million digital singles globally. So which is it? 85 million or 100 million? Besides BET seems to have a history of publishing outrageous sales figures including the 150 million for R.Kelly.--Harout72 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland
An IP seems to think Kelly Rowland has sold 82 million records worldwide (as mentioned in this source), although looking at her discography it doesn't look like she has. Can someone please find out if this is true or not? Oz talk  21:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't seem to be reliable. It seems to speak of the combined sales of both Destiny's Child and Kelly Rowland (as a solo artist). When you combine the available certified sales of Destiny's Child (total of 29.7 million) and Kelly Rowland (total of 5 million+), it suggests that the total combined actual sales shouldn't be more than 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Oz  talk  23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a ref only for album sales and not album&singles sales... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.97.72 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is a ref only for album. Destiny's+Rowland ALBUMS=44million Destiny's+Rowland SINGLES=38million TOTAL 82  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.198.0.58 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Roger Whittaker
Sorry to interrupt, I normally only edit in the danish version of wikipedia, but I can't help to notis that Roger Whittaker is missing from the list. Whittaker has a worldwide record sales of over 55 million according to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marstalsson (talk • contribs) 10:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. Ich901 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to go over Whittaker's available certified sales if a highly reliable source was provided claiming 55 million in record sales. Whittaker would need the 55 million supported by 15% (or 8.2 million) in certified sales per our requirements.--Harout72 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can’t say that I know if these are reliable sources, it obviously depends on the criteria we have for the sources. On the list below there is Whittakers own web-site, plus a handful others. They all indicate that Whittakers record sales are above 50.000.000. There is a lot of others webpages, but they all seem to have the same their information from Wikipedia, most of them claiming that the sales are aroung 55.000.000. http://www.rogerwhittaker.com/bio.htm http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Whittaker/e/B000AQ06TE http://www.last.fm/music/Roger+Whittaker http://www.jango.com/music/Roger+Whittaker?l=0 http://lyrics.ghafla.co.ke/biographies/roger-whittakers-biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.238.5 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those sources above won't do. Please see our reference section of this list, which will help you to know what sources other artists' claimed sales are supported by.--Harout72 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WIKI-PEOPLE Y U NO ADD AGUILERA's PHOTO
In the 50 million to 59 million records section why do Taylor Swift, R.Kelly etc get a photo in the gallery and not Christina Aguilera? Partial much? R.kelly and Jay-z both have 50 million record sales and so does Xtina. i don't understand why everytime i add her photo some d****e**g reverts my edits!! :@ --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you decided to discuss, which is a good start. See the fourth line at the top of each section where is says: Sections are to include maximum of seven images of the top certified artists/bands? Well, since Aguilera is not one of the top seven certified artists in that section, she will have to wait until she collects more certifications than the current, seventh artist (The Black Eyed Peas) in her section has. I think that will be a quite a long time as she's behind by 12.5 million in certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

creed
here's what i got about creed....--

My own prison 6 mil in us             3 mil in canada

human clay - 11.5 mil in US             5 mil in aus 6 mil in Can 7 mil in NZ

Weathered 6mil in US           3 mil in can 2 mil in aus 500,000 in uk full circle - 400000 +

greatest hits- 2.1 mil in US              Gold in can Gold in aus

this article shows it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshkataria (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

it accounts for over fifty million albums please include them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshkataria (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Coldplay Should be Moved up...
Coldplay should be moved up on this list.. They are currently low on the "59 to 50 million" List.. and Since their latest album "Mylo Xyloto" Has nearly 5 million sales... So they should be somewhere near "Roxette" on the list... Can someone change this please?

Proof of Sales for "Mylo Xyloto" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylo_Xyloto Near bottom under "Charts and certifications" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.70.200 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that claims anything higher than 50 million records for Coldplay?--Harout72 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions about splitting, trimming and criterions among these 26 archives
Before my talk, I will apologize that I'm not be used to editing or questioning as an amateur and thank to your posts that I can refer through these archives. You or I should deleted my posts if the condition is not occupied, however, I beg your pardon, and, in the end of this text, I will leave my e-mail address for waiting your kind answer about my question because I couldn't figure out your (Harout72) address! [November 26 (UTC + 09:00 - Cleared!]

You were discussing since archive 24 and some criterions were changed, and the 26th archive : Trimming. 1.  According to 2010~2012, the criterions was that; (~1975 : 15%), (1975~1990 : 15~35%), (1990~2000 : 35~50%) etc...      In this point, I can figure out that the period 3rd is shorter than 2nd. But, in the new policy, (20~40%), (40~60%) is on your criterions. Why you lengthened the 3rd, instead of keeping the pre-24 archive one? I guess some artists were deleted during 1991~1999 cause of that sharp gap.

2.  It seems that the large seller of music market, especially up to 80~100M, will sharply increased since 2013, and some editors say that it will be soon not notable although a person made the 100M. In 2012, on this mth, you trimmed 20M sales. So, are you willing to trim in a decisive manner if "Under 100M" will not be notable? If not, about 70~99M, will you split this post, like the policy between 10~22 archive?

Out of this main question, as the least limit 50M (Was changed by 70M); I wonder whether the first archive's limit number was. Once I got this doubt, I searched this comment.

''[Previously, List of best-selling albums had criterion of 15 million copies sold at least, but now it has changed to 20 million due to the large size of the page. I think why we don’t increase this page criterion too, instead of splitting the page with title (page 2), which violate.]''

I'm sure that it was on the 22nd archive, which asked why 50 Millions? But, cuz I misinterpreted in my mother language, I couldn't understand what it really means. "At first archive, the person up to 15 million sales,      could be applied." or, "At first archive, the table's gap was 15M,      but was changed into 20M, steady keeping the limit number 50 millions" That has been my doubt point, since I just had found that 22nd 1 weeks ago. If the former was correct, please explain to me how the limit number since 2005(1st) has been changed. If the second was correct, I can infer without the answer.

Thanks a lot that you kept read my very long talk! --Csciey9654above8848 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question about percentage amount: The third line for 1990-2000 (35-50%) was turned into 40-60%, while the forth line for 2000-present (50-75%) was turned into 60-80%. So we still have equal amounts overall.
 * To answer your second question: We currently don't have [Page 2] anymore, it was created at one point but it was re-merged with the original. And the main reason we decided to trim the bottom 20 million is because the list had passed 350,000 bytes. For many months ahead, we won't be modifying the length of the list. And we may never will, if we manage to keep the bytes around 250,000.--Harout72 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I can understand. Through the conclusion, it depends on the web-post size, and next, makes sure the common notable context because this list is all over the worldwide music industry! Also, revising the criterions, whether all years-of-period number is separated with 10, 15 years, it makes clear : 20, 40, 60, and I guess it drive a more comfortable works. That's... though my favorite music artists were lost in the list (started on October 2012).

By the way, there are two boxes (Box No.3 and No.4) left on this post. If the final comment is on talks, it makes me help the collection, correction and research, later that I can arrange and figure out that principle of editing the list. For the rest of talks, I could catch how to participate in this! Thank you! --Csciey9654above8848 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Increase the status
I will increase the claim figures status for several artist in this list. Such as Aretha Franklin (75m - 100m)/http://www.thenational.ae/featured-content/channel-page/arts-culture/film/middle-article-list/the-instant-expert-aretha-franklin since the several artist certification sales meet the requirement of the certification sales.

I put my respect to the senior editor in this list, but we need to stand with what we said before and consistent with the rules.

If the artist meet the requirement of percentage sales figure and the reliable source is available. I will put their name. thanks Politsi (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you have become a registered editor, I will post this here again one more time for the record. We will ONLY be updating the sales claims of those artists whose Certified Sales and the Actual Sales are very close. In the case of Aretha Franklin, we will NOT replace her 75 million claim with 100 million claim, because her certified sales (24 million) do not suggest that Franklin has even sold 75 million, let alone 100 million. In other words, we are to go with the lowest available claimed figures that meet the required percentage amounts.--Harout72 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Harout, please read this statement in the List of best-selling albums worldwide In this list the highest sales figure reported for an album is added to the list. Which is mean the BEST and the HIGHEST selling claim figures from those albums will be added in the list, as long as their certification sales meet the requirement. Eventhough in some case, this rules can not be put in some albums since many controversies occur between the editor (such as Madonna's Ray of Light).

About 13 albums in this list has been added with their best claim figures according with my reference. And i think, it make the list more prestigious and reliable, I also re-new several claim figures sources from those albums which is more reliable and NEW and erase the album which is stand with a DEAD link (such as Eminem's The Eminem Show), but i'm still looking a reliable source from that album, if i'm found it. I will bring back that album again to the list.

I suggest you to put the statement We will ONLY be updating the sales claims of those artists whose Certified Sales and the Actual Sales are very close in the top of the article. Because it will make some editor like me, or reader more satisfy with this list.

What do you think?. thanks Politsi (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This here is not List of best-selling albums worldwide, therefore, we operate differently. Each list of this kind on wikipedia, has a different method due to consensus reached by main editors. And please understand once and for all that we cannot insert every single detail this list operates by, including your suggestion above on updating the sales figures of those whose Certified Sales are close to their Actual Sales. This is an encylopedia, therefore, we only include the main instructions, the rest can simply be given to editors on talk-pages. And I have given this to you over and over again, yet you keep asking why, why, why.--Harout72 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy please, if you think my suggestion is not appropriate for this list. I'm accept, that's reason why i said What do you think?. Alright then, case closed for that thing above.

Meanwhile, if you feel you are the main editor, please be more carefully and critically to make this list more reliable and prestigious. As i remember, you are the first editor who decided to cut the 50-60m claim figures. That's mean Lady Gaga has been OUT from this list.

This statement :

The percentage amount of certified sales needed increases the newer the artist is, meaning, artists such as Lady Gaga and Rihanna are expected to have their claimed figures supported by over 60% in certified units. is not appropriate again.

I think, let's change Lady Gaga to Taylor swift in that statement. because Swift have same year with Rihanna i guess.

I'm also will be looking a better source for artist in the list which is more NEW and reliable. But if the claim figures need to change, i will asking your opinion. thanks Politsi (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you're not sure how to find out the year and what the needed percentage is for artists, I thought I'd provide you with instructions, so you can do it yourself. You don't have to ask me or others. For example, let's say you want to find out the required certified amount for a claimed figure of 72 million for Taylor Swift.
 * 1) You need to find out when she first began to chart. On our list, the fourth column from right says, Release-year of the first charted record. So for Taylor Swift, it's 2006. Once you have established the year.


 * 2) Then you can move to the talk page. See the second box from top which provides the required percentages based on years of first charted record? For Swift, it's 69.6% (60% for the year 2000, and 1.66% for each additional year).


 * 3) Then, in order to find out what the 69.6% translates into in certified millions, you need to do the following criss-cross multiplication:


 * 100% (total percentage) ---> 72,000,000 (Claimed sales)


 * 69.6 (required percentage) ---> X (required certified million)


 * Multiply 72,000,000 by 69.9 and divide the total by 100=50,112,000 (required amount in certified millions).--Harout72 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been change several claim figures source from those artist in the list which so OLD, such like Barry White and The carpenters.

for the first step. Kenny Rogers claim figures source is from 1999? that's 13 years ago. it should be change, but what do you think if we increase his claim figures from 100m up to 120m based on this reference? (http://www.nst.com.my/latest/an-evening-with-kenny-rogers-1.141734. Need your opinion first, I dont want any edit war again regarding with this matter. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't, because Kenny Rogers' available certified sales (57 million), barely suggest that he's sold 100 million, let alone 120 million.--Harout72 (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For that reason, i suggest to cut ABBA 260m records claim and let them only with their 200m figures, since the source from that figures is old enough already (8 years ago) and their certification is too low if we compare with others artist in the 200m list and to be honest, it is look silly looking their position in this list is higher than pink floyd. Politsi (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Harout, regarding with their certification sales, let's put ABBA at the bottom of the 200m list. If you are really concern with the certification sales. They should be put under BEE GEES. I will put them, and if you object. i hope you have a good reason for that and just bring them back in the previous position. thanks Politsi (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Splitting VS Trimming - continuation
Big changes have been made after two days of discussion and between only four users. Also, there was no clear consensus to remove content from Wikipedia, but only to reduce the size of the main article. After the discussion, one user create List of best-selling music artists with between 50 million to 59 million records but Harout72 changed to the false redirect, and then removed. I also support "Splitting" if you want to reduce the size of the article (generally, I oppose to reduce the main article). It should be a clear consensus to delete the contents from Wikipedia, and should be more opinions from more users. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus is very clear. Why would anyone think it's not clear in any way?--Harout72 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First: four users: Gabe19, Jax 0677, Bluesatellite and Krystaleen. Gabe19 - did not specify how, Jax 0677 support split, Bluesatellite and Krystaleen support trimming. This is not clear consensus. Second: your big changes have been made after two days of discussion and between only four users. Too fast. Please give more time for discussion rather than 2 days and quickly change. Should be more opinions from more users. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Four editors (including myself) have suggested Trimming VS one Splitting. That clearly qualifies for Trimming, especially when the name of the list itself (Best selling), suggests it should contain artists higher than 50 million. Consensus does not say how many days should pass after the last comment to suggest whether the discussion has reached consensus. The list was modified a full day after the last suggestion was inserted. Now here you are after almost TWO months, saying there was no consensus when there CLEARLY was. Before creating the already trimmed page as you've done, you first should have discussed it with those editors who were against splitting it.--Harout72 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First: the authors are not taken into account. This is the norm, and you should know it (another example and your comment). User Gabe 19 did not specify how, has not written that supports split, sorry. Not counting the author's opinion, Gabe19 - did not specify how, Jax 0677 support split, Bluesatellite and Krystaleen support trimming. Second: Wikipedia:Consensus does not say how how much time should pass after the last comment to suggest whether the discussion has reached consensus? so tomorrow I create some consensus in 1 minute and immediately I start to make changes :) Thirdly: you wrote "TWO months". Hmmm... 14 November 2012 and my edition in in 27/28 November 2012. Hmm... I think, you mean 2 weeks. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point out where Consensus says that the main editors do not count as supporters? And what makes you think that Gabe19 didn't support Trimming when he wrote Support? I meant almost one month. You restored it without trying to discuss or find out as to why the bottom 20 million was missing. Naturally, your problem is that Kylie Minogue no longer can be seen on the main list. Even if List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) doesn't get deleted, we are going to apply the same rules to that list as here. Therefore, Kylie Minogue's 60 million claim should be supported by 35.9% (or 21.5 million in certified units) as she's begun charting in 1987.--Harout72 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm?? Kylie? Ok, good singer, however, according to article and sources in article, Kylie has 36.5 million in certified units (not 21.5 million), so, why there is no source to 68 million (thousands sources shows 68 million for Kylie). Subtropical-man (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say, Kylie Minogue's has 21.5 million in certified unit, I said she needs 21.5 million for a 60 million claim. Her available certified units are only 19.6 million. Meaning she can't even be listed with 60 million claim. Make sure you familiarize yourself with certification-levels for all periods and for all markets if in your eyes her available certified units seem as high as 36.5 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where Gabe19 support Trimming? User Gabe19 support reduction in the main article, ok but did not specify how (Splitting VS Trimming). I meant almost one month? to my reaction: two weeks. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If I suggested Trimming, and Gabe19 supported it, that means he supported Trimming. It only takes simple common sense to figure that out.--Harout72 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well aren't I popular today? JK. I supported the trimming of the article; meaning the removal of the bottom half (50-69 m.) of the listed artists, due to the size of the article, and my belief that 50 million, while impressive, is not too notable nowadays. It's not necessary to spilt the article to List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) either. What's the point of it? — Gabe 19  (talk contribs) 02:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tables
An editor has done a partial revert on my table improvements. I would just like to point out that on my set-up the "show" link in the certified units column is still truncated in spite of your revert. I am using a Toshiba laptop and Chrome. The "show" link overlaps with the content of the box unless I take my screen resolution down to 90%, at which point I can no longer read the text. I normally view Wikipedia at 125% zoom. Different users have varying computers and widths of monitors and are using various browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer. Some people are blind and are viewing the page with a screen reader. A well-designed web page will take these considerations into play so that the largest possible number of users will be able to view the page. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good on my Sony computer's screen with a resolution set at 1920x1080, it's perfect when I view it with Firefox, but with Explorer, "Show" still overlaps by some 10%. Should we leave it like this perhaps, since it seems to work for resolutions? It adds only some 600 bytes anyways. Previously, it overlapped badly, the "Show" covering the "millions" entirely. The list currently has 242,386 bytes (242 kb), and this is after we trimmed the sections 50 million to 69 million records and brought it down from 350,000.--Harout72 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest move section "Total certified units" from the table to sub-page (like as Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox). Certified units it is only necessary for one purpose: for the calculations. Moved section "Total certified units" to sub-page automatically solve this problem and article will be about 1/3 less. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, I did not realise that you had already trimmed out one section, and the page is still way too big. It took me nearly thirty minutes to do three edits last night because the page loads and saves so slow. Might I suggest that the main page could be a parent article with links to the sub-articles? I know I've seen it done in article space, but I don't remember where. An example in Wikipedia space is at Vital articles/Expanded; the 10,000 articles were formerly all listed on one page, and huge numbers of logged-in users could not load the page at all because of the templates. Note how it's laid out now, with sub-pages a person can link to, pages of a manageable size that pretty much anyone will be able to view and load. To aid people in navigation between the articles, you could also make a navigation template that would list the set of articles and could even include the artists on each list. The template set for Pulitzer Prize winners springs to mind. There's a lot of Pulitzers given out in a lot of categories each year, and we have a set of navboxes to link stuff up. Here's an example template: . You could consider working towards this type of set-up as a goal. Some other examples of how to organise lists can be found at List of lists of films. By the way, on the current set-up, I cannot see the word "units" at all. Here's a screen shot how it looks right now at my preferred screen resolution. I suppose you are getting the images all in one row; I am seeing one row of four pics and a second row of three pics. Your header for the "claimed sales" column is missing right now; it looks like you clipped it out of each table when you did your last edit. -- Dianna (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: If you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there's a link you can click on to view what a person would see using the mobile version of Wikipedia. If you take your window and re-size it to the size of an iPad, it will approximate what those users will experience. -- Dianna (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It normally takes me one minute for each save but I have 15Mbps, I think that helps it. I took a picture of the screen while on Firefox, uploaded it here. Is your screen really small? That might be the reason why everything kind of gets squashed. The Template:PulitzerPrize Fiction 1951–1975 will allow us to condense it, but it won't affect the Save time. I know this because before we didn't have the Hidden template for the Certified sales column, so we had an extremely long list because of all the white space. So at one point I decided to split the list into two pages, but other editors didn't like that idea very much. So after I implemented the Hidden template for the Certified sales column and got rid of the white space, I merged the two pages back together, but it only improved the Load time, the Save time wasn't affected.


 * But I believe currently it's not that bad. I mean if you have a relatively larger screen and a bit faster connection, viewer should be ok. To be honest with you, at this point I want to keep it as is, and see what happens with Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) first.--Harout72 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I narrowed down some of the columns and removed the eighth image in all sections.--Harout72 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, i thought only me and harout who gave some attention to this list, nearly a month i leave this list. there's a lot of tension between sub-tropical and harout.

Just do your best buddy Politsi (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Eminem And Britney
If you count Beyonce, Taylor and Rihanna for their singles, I think you should also count Britney and Eminem for their singles as well. They both should have total of 100+ or 200 records sold! Not counting Britney's and Eminem's singles and DVD sales causes a disgusting underrepresentation of their actual sales numbers and should be edited. Britney's total sales with albums, singles, and DVDs worldwide is just over 200 million. The page showing Taylor Swift and Rihanna having only 30 million less in record sales than Britney is erroneous and offensive. Britney has outsold them by FAR and has sold just over 100 million albums (and only albums) worldwide. The number given on the page would be accurate if Britney's 100 million were listed as album sales, but not as record sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.202.191 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012
You didn't put the australian pop star Kylie Minogue who sold 70 million of albums! Vansullivan (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We require certain amount of certified units for all artists. First, you haven't provided a source for Minogue, second for 70 million, Minogue would need 25.1 million in certified units. Her available certified units are only 19.6 million.--Harout72 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Shakira has sold between 50 to more 60 million albums
What should we say about the worldwide sales figures for Shakira? Various sources give various numbers.


 * Colombia Reports (2012): 50 million albums.


 * Forbes (2012: Age 35): 50 million albums.


 * Rolling Stone (2009, October): 50 million records.


 * Chicago Tribune (2009, November): 50 million albums.


 * Billboard (2010, October): 50 million albums.


 * About.com (2011: Age 34): 50 million albums.


 * BBC News (2007): 50 million records and same in 2008 and... 2009; but, in 2010 acording to BBC were 50 million records (check the url: /2010/artists/shakira/....).


 * Le Figaro (2010): 70 million albums.


 * The Telegraph (UK): (2009, December): 50 million albums.


 * Brand Republic (2010, October): 50 million albums.


 * MTV Base (2012): 60 million albums.


 * The Daily Star (Bangladesh) (2011): 60 million albums


 * The Age (2011): 60 million albums


 * Dawn (2011, November): 60 million albums.


 * MBN News from Maeil Broadcasting Network (2012, September): 60 million albums.


 * BMI (2007): 50 million albums.


 * Reuters (2008): 50 million albums.


 * Fox News (2011): 50 million albums.

Shakira article:

Definitely, "Le Figaro" (2010) does not match the others. Turning to article "Shakira", since at least this version (as 12 January), says: "[...] sold over 70 million albums worldwide.[11][12][13][14]" The reference [ 11 ] is El Informador from México, but the problem is that the other references are more credible: [ 13 ] from (The Age = 60 million and is in 2011) and finally, [ 14 ] from (The Indian Express = 50 million and is in 2011).

As seen in the historial, only El Informador "from" Mexico to refer to the alleged 70 million albums Shakira, and the others said the exact opposite ([13] and [14]). This, of course, remained so and most likely is as was used as a primary source for all sources that come; Recall that until credibility sources have been based on Wikipedia, without seeing if they are true or fallacies, The Irish Times (from 1859 ) for example. Please do not inflate sales. Chrishonduras (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Our current sources are reliable. The figures within are not for albums only, they are for all sold records (albums, singles, videos). The 70 million also meets our requirements for an artist who's begun charting in 1995.--Harout72 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several references indicating that Shakira has sold 70 million (primary source?, maybe), but also any (current) indicating she that only sold 50 or 60 million; also, Sony only indicates 60 million. It is more conducive provide a figure representing certified sales actually, as MTV Base for example: ( 2012 ). Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand what consensus you're talking about in the edit summary? There is a reliable source supporting the 70 million figure which is NOT for albums only as your other sources claim, it is for singles, albums and videos (records). Also, we have a certain policy which in its turn supports the figure. In fact, your repeated removal of Shakira from the list is nothing but disruptive editing.--Harout72 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, really I no saw that Le Figaro say [records. It was a misunderstanding on my part; I was just assuming [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good faith]] and remain impartial. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove of contents incompatible with article title
We should consider delete of contents incompatible with article title. I suggest: With these suggestions, article size will be reduced by tens of percent. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) move section "Total certified units" from the table to sub-page (like as Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox). Certified units it is only necessary for one purpose: for this calculations. In other words, data base of certified units move to sub-page because it unnecessarily takes a too lot of space in the article.
 * 2) remove section "Release-year of first charted record" from the table (existing section of "Period active" - is more useful)
 * 3) remove all images, except for the first eight of best-selling music artists
 * 4) join tables
 * 5) consider removing the section of table with additional information, for example: "Country of origin" or/and controversial "Genre"
 * You suggestion above is as weak as all your arguments have been in the past. The only conflicting thing that I see with what the title suggests (Best-selling music artists), is all the inflated claimed figures for lot of the artists on the list. In fact, those inflated figures would have been even more inflated if it wasn't for the requirements of Certified sales. Therefore, it is necessary to have all available certified units posted, in order for readers to know which claimed sales figures are true and which ones aren't. The images take up only 3,000 bytes, removing them is not going to change anything. Finally, the size of the article had already been reduced due to consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to remove section BUT move section "Total certified units" from the table to sub-page (like as Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox). This data will be further. Second: pictures and 3,000 bytes, ok but this is just one option. Apply all of the options and the article will be about half the size. PS. Maybe someone else will say on this subject. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears
If you add up all the the sales and other accreditations of all Britney's albums and singles, she has sold more than 150 million records worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.11.37 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Official Sales Vs Claimed sales
I believe Wikipedia should use all official sales and not just official certifications. Use Soundscan or OCC sales. If you use download sales this must cover some track sales - but what about album sales by Spondscan or OCC? Or historic singles sales?

Reagarding claimed sales, it's a sad fact that many figures fing their way into respected newspapers but have no evidence to back them up.

That said, your list is an improvement at least now you are saying The Beatles and Elvis' sales could be from 600m and not just abillion plus - or that ABBA's claimed sales are 200m and not 375m. Micahel Jackson hasn't sold over 350m let alone 750m! (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Album, Single, Download sales
Perhaps we could have a breakdown of an artists sales - album, singles, digital tracks. The Official Charts Comapny in the UK has compiled All Time Singles, Albums and Artists lists - perhaps we could use their figures and not just the limited BPI certications for British sales figures. (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * We need to be consistent throughout the list. We can't use official sales figures by the UK's OCC for the UK and certifications for others. Sales claims are not available for every artist as the certifications are. If we are to use sales figures for one market, that means sales figures for all. In our case, since the certifications date back to '70s for UK, Germany, France, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands and '50s for the U.S., they seem to be our best choice. You could never find official sales claims by Nielsen Soundscan or GfK for earlier periods.--Harout72 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sales claims are used for the Top Artists of All Time - these Wikipedia lists are for the top selling artists. Surely, you have to go for the most accurate sales - in the UK, that would be the OCC's All Time Lists. Certifications only go back to the 1970s and multiple certifications were only used from late 80s. If we had Certifications only, The Beatles would have no UK sales from the 1960s at all!!! . http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-million-sellers-the-uks-biggest-ever-selling-singles-revealed-1685/ (Coachtripfan (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

It is a bit rich for Wikpedia to talk about 'consistency' when they ignore 'reliability'. Most of the 'Claims' are Record Company talk, figures by fans or the media without any basis of fact at all. Reliability surely must trump consistency! (Coachtripfan (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

RFC on article scope
I'm adding an RFC tag to this discussion to attract more participants. The concern is with whether List of best-selling music artists should increase the minimum threshold for inclusion. As the article was previously split and then merged back per discussion at Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records). I want to be certain that this discussion comes to a widely agreed upon conclusion so that no one is accused of attempting to bypass the AFD result.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete the sections 50 to 59 records and 60 to 69 records
Since the title of the list, List of best-selling music artists suggests that this should be a list for those who've sold close to 100 million records and up, I'd like to propose to remove at least the bottom 20 million from the list. In other words, the bottom two sections 50 to 59 records and 60 to 69 records no longer seem significant to remain on the list, perhaps they were earlier at one point. Please cast your votes below by Support or Oppose. Feel free to comment next to your votes. Please be informed that we are not discussing Splitting, just removal of the bottom 20 million. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. But I thought we've gone through this? Personally I think it'd be better to remove everything below 100 million.--  Krystaleen  05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: With a threshold as low as 50, the list becomes excessively large and unwieldy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Of course. That was kinda the reason I wanted a deletion and not a merge... I actually kind of agree with Krystaleen, anything under 100 is excessive.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   05:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's see how votes progress, in a few days maybe we can agree on 80 million and up. Sounds good?--Harout72 (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support everything you want, as long as the reduction makes the page better. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. How many times should I repeat this?! This ridiculously long article really needs to be trimmed. This is list of best-selling music artists and I don't think a list of nearly 200 artists' record sales still meet that term. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Whether it's 70+, 80+, 90+ or 100+ million, either way's okay! Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. To decrease size of the article, this idea is better. Also, 50+ million is okay! Subtropical-man (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There seems to be some canvassing going on here. As I am writing this, User:Subtropical-man is adding notes to the talk pages of dozens of articles asking editors who "feel that this should not be removed, please vote against (oppose)."(example) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was just about to say the same thing, and actually warned him on his talk page concurrently. Sergecross73   msg me   16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, but angered me it, user Harout72 again gave an idea and Krystaleen or/and Bluesatellite come and vote again as Harout72 want. Also, of course, he send notice to "friend"-users, again. Within one hour earned 3 votes, about 05:00-06:00. Hmmm. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Anger" isn't a valid excuse, and again, read up on the policy. There's a difference between how you presented the scenario, and how Harhout72 did. He asked people who had discussed it before to give their opinion again. You went about talk pages for bands that would be cut out, and pleaded for support. You obviously were targeting people who would be upset by this. (For instance, you stayed clear of talk pages for bands like The Beatles, who are relevent to this list, but not the part that would be cut off. Pretty clear bias there. Sergecross73   msg me   16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, I've just come across a posting on this issue at Talk:Adele (singer). What concerned me was it was asking for votes, and as we all know, votes aren't the thing that count in debates of this nature, rather succinct arguments. As for my thoughts on this debate, 50 million sales is a significant number to reach, and the information is sourced. I oppose the move to delete, but would suggest merging several sections together to create something like 50-100 million, which seems more sensible to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this digitalized era, anyone can reach 50 million sales easily. Ke$ha started singing in 2009 and by the end of 2011, all her singles, albums and other records combined sum up to more than 50 million. Same to Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars and Justin Bieber, to make examples. Actually, anyone can do that. After "Somebody That I Used To Know", both Gotye and Kimbra are close to reach 50 million each. So, a best selling artist is not one that has two albums selling 5 million and 4 singles selling 10 million, but an artist that has a long trajectory of commercial success, and that is showcased with the 100 million mark, which is, indeed, difficult to break into. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no need to remove reliably sourced information.  There are no space constraints.  The information is useful and noteworthy.  The initial comment that "the title of the list, List of best-selling music artists suggests that this should be a list for those who've sold close to 100 million records and up..." is untrue.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The current list is getting unwieldly. It's actually one of the reasons I stopped working/maintaining it a while back, it typically took too long to load up. Sergecross73   msg me   16:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Forgot to mention before, but I'd be in favor of trimming to the 100 million mark, although would accept less in the event of a stalemate if necessary to find consensus. Sergecross73   msg me   19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I agree. Also, why not remove everything below 100 million? — ΛΧΣ  21  17:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - all under 100 million should be removed.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment aimed generally at those at supporting trimming. Why?  If it's because the sources are unreliable, that is a good reason.  If it's because it's thought to be "unwieldy", that is not a good reason - there are no constraints on space, and loading problems can be averted by splitting the tables more finely.  It's not clear to me - I haven't been involved in previous discussions here - what the reasons for trimming the list are.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahc21 mentioned above, that conceptually, 50 million is becoming less of a benchmark, partially due to more and more artists hitting the mark, and partially because sales marks seem to be hitting that mark faster with digital sales and whatnot. Your other point - how do you cut down the loading of the page with splitting the tables differently? If you mean by splitting into 2 articles, it seems that was attempted but ultimately did not work out. EDIT - This happened - Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) Sergecross73   msg me   20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the things that feeds it is the ability to buy single songs. An "album" counts as one record sale, but if you only buy the three songs that you like from the album that's three sales. The last single I bought was Rag Mama Rag by The Band, and that was 43 years ago. I buy a lot of individual tracks these days. though.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That's true, we do see a lot more of 50 and 60 million claimed sales these days than we used to. This is only partly due to digital sales, but mainly it's because the record companies are in a serious competition with each other and claiming 50 or 60 million for their artists is a way of saying, we have more of those artists than you do. 50 and 60 million are such normal inflated claims nowadays that I personally won't get surprised, if tomorrow, I see a figure like that being claimed for artists like Kesha or even Justin Bieber (although they haven't sold nearly as much). Therefore, we need to set our threshold somewhere around 70 or 80 million at the least, for this list to be as its title suggests.--Harout72 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know what to say, because most of my recent edit request has been rejected by harout. Politsi (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We should consider another way of catalog the digital sale artists, like "here the artists with more certfied sales as from the digital era" --Watquaza (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

75 million and up?

We seem to be done with attracting anymore people (last vote inserted over three days ago), and most of the editors here support the trimming I proposed. I think we can proceed. Quick question to those supporters who prefer to see everything below the 100 million line trimmed: if we trimmed the artists below the 75 million line, are you okay with that? My initial suggestion was 70 million and up, but we could set the minimum requirement at 75 million. It will still make a lot more sense per its title than it does in its present form.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Based on the number of supports, I removed the artists below the 75 million mark. Six out of nine supporters wanted everything trimmed below the 100 million, therefore, I raised the proposed minimum requirement from 70 million to 75 million. That still kept us within the range of initial figure. Thanks everyone for your votes.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ABBA - UK sales
ABBA's singles certifications are 6.5m by the BPI. However, it's total singles sales are 11.3m. http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-20-biggest-selling-groups-of-all-time-revealed-1682/ (Coachtripfan (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC))


 * Not that it matters, but where do you see the 11.3 million in singles sales for ABBA in the source you provided above? I see 1.06 million for "Dancing Queen" only. Where are you getting the rest?--Harout72 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I put up the correct link. If we used your method The Beatles wouldn't have any singles sales - as there were no certifications in the 1960s. It's not credible! (Coachtripfan (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Why does Wikipedia insist on having "Claims" - to use a Legal comparison that's the equivalent of "hearsay" it is not "evidence", (Coachtripfan (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * What in the world are you going on about with the Beatles? The way it's sourced now is both reliable, consistent, and does not come up with "no certifications" claim you're going on about. I fail to see what you're getting at... Sergecross73   msg me   22:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles do NOT have any UK certifications from the 1960s - as there were no certifications then. This is the case in most countries too. The Beatles' certifications are mainly from US and form other countries from various dates since 1970s. FACT.


 * What I'm getting at, is that you say, "If we do it Harhout's way, the Beatles wouldn't have any certifications", and yet we're currently doing it "Harhout's Way", and that's not how the Beatles are portrayed, so what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73   msg me   15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I amended the above posts to make it clear I was talking about the Beatles' UK sales. They of course have US certifications from the 1960s.(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Having certifications only is limiting. For example, The Beatles, IN THE UK, would have no sales for the 1960s as there was no certifications then. The Official Charts Company does have Beatles sales from the 1960s - even though there were no gold or platinum discs then. I hope this makes it clear. Basically use OCC or Soundscan sales in addition to certifications - as certifications have their limitations. (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Use Soundscan/Official Charts Company sales
Let me give some examples. If we use only certifications The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis amongst others would have no UK sales from the 1960s - as there were no certifications then.

ABBA, Rod Stewart, Elton John amongst othere would have their sales from the 1970s under-recorded for the UK as multiple platinum discs were not used until the late 1980s.

Wilipedia uses the OCC for its UK Best Selling singles and albums list - but not in its global lists. so, Sergeant Pepper for example has 5m according to the OCC in the UK list but no sales at all from the UK in the global list. (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Is there a chance you're missing something? I find it hard to believe that there has been such a huge oversight here. Have we really be overlooking such a major region's sales? Sergecross73   msg me   15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The UK is over-looked for much of The Beatles' sales - for the simple reason there were no certifications in the 1960s in the UK or many other countries.


 * Coachtripfan, when you are able to provide official sales figures for all albums/singles/videos, for all artists on the list, that is for all markets, not just for the UK, then we can have a discussion about this topic. But until then, consistency rules. And our consistency is currently based on certifications, whether or not, some markets did have certification-system back in the '60s. Readers are informed to not expect to see certifications cover all sales, that is stated at the footnotes on the list. Finally, our main ranking is not determined by certified sales, but it is based on claimed sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Claimed sales? That can be anything that appears in the press or online! No credibility whatsoever. Having certifications only is extremly limiting. Perhaps you should re-name these "Best-Selling" lists "Most Certified" it would be more honest, instead of having your explanation in 'footnotes'. To be honest, it's a waste of my time. Most people know Wikipedia is not reliable. I've posted my last contribition here.

Your Singles List is the worst - there is no minimum rule of certifications for any claims. (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Yes, you're welcome to give your opinion, but your relentless "This is why I don't like Wikipedia" comments you keep leaving are both tiresome and pointless. It's rather irrelevent to the topic at hand. Vent that sort of stuff elsewhere. Sergecross73   msg me   19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Coachtripfan, you not only making some "tension" in the best selling albums list, but also in here. thanks to make this talk page more cheerfull. But hopefully your argue not only a piece of crap but appropriate with the rules and the method in this list. nice to see your name and making some argue which for me actually a little bit fun because like The Joker said " why so serious! ". Politsi (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Spice Girls
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/leeds/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9377000/9377923.stm) claim them have sold 80m records?

Can i move this britain girls to the 80m section? Harout, i need your advise because you are the most expert editor in this list, but if you not answer this question in a day. I will insert them in the 80m section.

thanks Politsi (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave you this simlple instruction before, but no problem, here it is again, so next time you can do it yourself. For example, let's say you want to find out the required certified amount for a claimed figure of 80 million for Spice Girls.
 * 1) You need to find out when they first began to chart. On our list, the fourth column from right says, Release-year of the first charted record. So for Spice Girls, it's 1996. Once you have established the year.


 * 2) Then you can move to the talk page. See the second box from top which provides the required percentages based on years of first charted record? For Spice Girls, it's 52% (40% for the year 1990, and 2% for each additional year).


 * 3) Then, in order to find out what the 52% translates into in certified millions, you need to do the following criss-cross multiplication:


 * 100% (total percentage) ---> 80,000,000 (Claimed sales)


 * 52% (required percentage) ---> X (required certified million)


 * Multiply 80,000,000 by 52 and divide the total by 100=41,600,000 (required amount in certified millions). They cannot be listed with 80 million claim, because their available certified sales are only 37.7 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and explanation. But I want to give two opinions regarding with your method calculation.

First. To be honest, i dont have a good mathematic skill even for a simple thing like the calculation above, It took a little bit time so i just wondering. Why not? if i just ask you to do that and just give you a reliable source?. i'm sorry, for saying that.

Second. You are very concern with the certification sales, and you always STANDING to put the artist at the section which is the claim figures came close with the certification sales, even actually their certification sales meet the requirement and the calculation to claim the higher figures.

for example, Kenny Rogers. he released his music record in 1975, and his certification sales nearly reach 58m. His claim figures only at 100m. based on my calculation, he even could claim the 150m-figures.

this source from Hartford Courant (http://articles.courant.com/2012-06-11/entertainment/hc-kenny-rogers-performs-at-mgm-grand-june-16-20120611_1_platinum-albums-mgm-grand-theater-kenny-rogers) claim his records sold 120m.

But you still rejected that claim, and let him alone with his 100m figure.

That's the reason, why i will ask your permission for the new claim figures of those artist even i actually could calculate the minimum requirement claims. Politsi (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna's 100m claim from BET????
Harout, please advise. what's wrong with you? as i remember you doesn't agree with the source from BET?. why now her name include in the 100m list with the black sources?

Please bring her back, we need to be consistent with our word. thanks Politsi (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias
Julio Iglesias has sold 300 million records worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.78.222.249 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Harout, please down for a moment and help me on this, is it possible to bring back my favorite band (Red Hot Chilli Peppers) to the list with 80m claim records from The StarPhoenix ?(http://www.thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/Review+Legendary+rock+band+still+after+three+decades/7607555/story.html)

Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ On the list now.--Harout72 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Enya
Her name also has been erase from this list because the previous claim figures only said her have sell over 70m records. But Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/entertainment/la-ca-new-age-20110703/2) claim her have sold 75m records and then i think we should bring her back to the list.

thanks Politsi (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ On the list now.--Harout72 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Eminem
Thanks for the update above harout, and how about Eminem? did he deserve to join the 100m-list? because The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-festivals/9736568/Eminem-will-headline-Reading-and-Leeds-festivals-in-2013.html) said his records has sold more than 100m. thanks Politsi (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes he most definitely has enough certified units for 100 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated explanations?
Why does the article repeat "To ensure a highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone" in every section of the table? I wonder if people actually pay more attention to this statement when it is repeated so often in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This list attracts so many fanatics who update sales claims with sources completely unreliable. I've noticed that lot of the fans won't take their time to read the instructions before editing unless it's posted at the top of the section they are going to touch. Having repeated instructions in every section minimizes disruptive editing. We also have repeated hidden notes in every section.--Harout72 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But it seems only me and you who gave some attention to this list. hehehe. Politsi (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sells 1 Billion?
I thought earlier this year it was confirmed that MJ has reached the 1 Billion mark in sales? there are plenty of websites that report this. Update this please.

http://thatgrapejuice.net/2012/01/michael-jackson-sells-1-billion-copies-worldwide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.87.203 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do Not Waste our time with a trash like this buddy, i suggest you to find the claim figures from a Newspaper which have a profile in Wikipedia. Beside, don't you see the certification sales of Jackson on the list? how could you believe he has sold 1 billion? Politsi (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@68.32.87.203 ❌. Chrishonduras (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Iron Maiden and Van Halen and Scorpions
Iron Maiden has already sold 85 million or more albums worldwide dear Harout and Van Halen is not Heavy Metal or Hard Rock band they are Rock or Pop Rock band dear.So please change it and add Maiden to the list also Scorpions they've sold 110 million copies of albums worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabbathbloodness (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sold 750 million units?
Did you sell Michael Jackson really more 750 million units?. Estimates of Thriller sales remain as disparate as those for Mr. Jackson’s oeuvre. Thriller's sales: 70 or more 100 million are primary source by edits as:, in the articles "Michael Jackson", "Thriller" or "List of best-selling albums" through time; Besides of forums conspiracies as UKMIX Forums, Fan Sites, Blogs and more. When some mistakenly believed that the Guinness Book of Records had certified in 2006 by the sale of over 100 million copies, and when in fact, they were 51.)


 * Some sources:
 * Tour Dates [UK] (2004) 135 million albums (including 47 million alone for "Thriller")


 * Pitchfork Media (November, 2004) 150 million  records 


 * BBC News (2005) 135 million albums (including 60 million copies of Thriller)


 * Pitchfork Media (2005) 150 million  records 


 * Kingofpop.info [web fan] (October 2006) 750 million units by Raymone Bain.


 * Daily News and Analysis (2009) 300 million  records 


 * China Daily (2009) 300 million  records 


 * Daily Telegraph (2009) 300 million  records 


 * CNN (2009) 350 million  records 


 * Jam! (2009) 300 million  records 


 * My Opera (2009) 170 million albums


 * Yahoo! Music (2009) Between 300 and 750 Million


 * Univision (Univision Communications) (as July 2012) 350 millones de discos: 350 million albums.

According to Barry Ritholtz

"For many years, Mr. Jackson’s lifetime sales tally typically was reported at 200 million albums world-wide. But in late 2006, news articles began putting the number at 750 million, a figure that became part of the popular lore as Mr. Jackson was attempting a comeback. In the last few weeks, it has popped up in obituaries and retrospectives.[... That figure first got legs in late 2006, when Raymone Bain, a publicist for Mr. Jackson at the time, touted in a letter to Jackson fan clubs that sales had “exceeded over 750 million units]"

According to Ritholtz and WSJ, is probably that this reference is the first in which he states that Jackson has sold 750 million. Is from Kingofpop.info (web fan) by Raymone Bain. The powerful and iconic The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) (typical "Made in Use" in the world), investigated this case. Plus When we were asked how many albums Michael Jackson sold, we were as embarrassed as anybody," says Adrian Strain, a spokesman for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a London-based trade group. "We had to go to the Guinness Book of World Records."

WSJ Blog says: The higher number appears to have originated with Raymone Bain, a former Jackson publicist. Her claim of 750 million units sold emerged in late 2006, and was cited by Wikipedia — until the online encyclopedia was able to instead cite the many news outlets that began reporting the figure, as it did through Tuesday night. This version It is the first citation of Wikipedia and 750 million according to WSJ Blog. But, This is the first time you said that Mr. Jackson had sold 750 million with this reference of a Fanclub web. Subsequently.....

Moreover, according to many means "serious" in multiple languages, as is ImpreMedia (2011): Los 750 millones que aparecieron como por arte de magia in English: The 750 million that appeared as if by magic. As will see, the first reference that says that Jackson has sold 750 million is a fan website (2006). This information since 2006, spent enough time (years) to become a primary source and so unprecedented consolidation during and after Jackson's death.

And if there is a possibility that I'm wrong, or Holtz, WSJ, ImpreMedia and more, The certifications give him away: 157 million (after his death, probably) and if the inflate, only about 200 million. Recall that until credibility sources have been based on Wikipedia, without seeing if they are true or fallacies, The Irish Times (from 1859) for example or EFE. So I think we have to put that Michael Jackson has sold over 350 million records and explain in "Notes" both in this article, as indicated by the sales of Jackson in the other articles, some of this information. Thanks. Please, we have to be impartial. Chrishonduras (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't have his earlier certifications coming from lot of notable size markets including Japan, Australia, Italy, Spain, Belgium. Had we had the certifications of those aforementioned markets, we would've had good 175-180 million in certified units. But surely, he hasn't sold 750 million records. But he's not the only one on the list with inflated sales figure. Over 50% of the artists on the list haven't sold as much as claimed. It would be incorrect to pick on one artist. Besides, MJ's 750 million is supported by our required percentage amount. MJ's 750 million is required to be supported by 20% certified sales (or 150 million in certified units), it's currently supported by 21%.--Harout72 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, "piecemeal". This: "It would be incorrect to pick on one artist" I do not think is a strong argument. Yes, Over 50% of the artists on the list haven't sold as much as claimed. But common sense we are dealing specifically with the case of Jackson, and I'm giving that sales of 750 million are primary sources. It's like I wrote in for example, "The Beatles have sold two billion records", using as source a fansite. Nobody the detected and this remains so, until encyclopedia, international news agencies. Of course this is unacceptable. Please ignore the rules: Besides, MJ's 750 million is supported by our required percentage amount. MJ's 750 million is required to be supported by 20% certified sales (or 150 million in certified units), it's currently supported by 21%. . I hope to see more comments from other users. Chrishonduras (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious case of vandalism that wasn’t repaired inmediatly and we can see its consequences on other media sources that later published the exaggerated amount of albums sales, without supporting their statements on reliable sources. The fact that Michel Jackson sold around 750 million units was originally stated by a primary source, Raymone Bain, who was the artist publicist at that time, and it was clearly expressed in an effort to promote album sales. Since Wikipedia has to reflect accuracy, veracity and prevent biases in each statement, it would be right to include the most reliable number of units sold and a note indicating the statistical fallacy of 2006. Taty2007 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's more convincing. ImpreMedia (2012) says: "Michael Jackson's real sales figures must be between 350-400 million, taking into account the 40 million plus records he has sold after his death." I think that's the real selling. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Taty2007, it's actually not vandalism when an editor brings a figure as inflated as 750 million published by major news services like CNN, The Daily Telegraph and so forth. That was actually immediately removed/corrected by me which resulted in this and this. Eventually, we had to come to an agreement in including all available sales claims with all available certified sales, so that way the readers would judge on their own as to which claim is the most logical based on certified units. Later on, we devised the current method of requiring certain percentage amounts of certified sales, which seems to be the most feasible system so far. It triggers no edit-warring whatsoever. Just wanted to let you guys know how this list functions as none of you two is a frequent editor of this list.--Harout72 (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is so many explanation above, the conclusion please? is it the 750m-figures of Jackson's sales still reliable for this list or not? because if not, i will erase that immediately. thanks Politsi (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Again, Harout72. These arguments don't seem valid. After all, after or before Jackson death, many of the media claimed sales of 350 million, including CNN. The primary source, Raymone Bain, the said in 2006 that Jackson sold 750 million units, enough that for all references today that claiming 750 million are primary sources (2006... 2007... 2008... 2009 enough to make that marketing strategy is primary source; Wikipedia also helped that much about it. Moreover: is already a reason enough to believe that all major news services do sometimes copy these figures from each other without doing the research themselves). Many media claim that Thriller has sold more than 100 million, the account is infinite, and some claim that "The Guinness Book of Records" what has certified more than 100 millions, when in fact today, [Guinness] it has only certified by 65 million. Both sales hoax of Thriller as Mr. Jackson was consolidated over unprecedented after Jackson's death, including sources such as MTV, Billboard, Rolling Stone and more. You know you're breaking the rule: "The requirements of certified sales are designed to avoid inflated sales figures, which are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes." And this would violate the five pillars of Wikipedia also. Since no one owns the articles, I'll have to be brave and fix this problem because I have support (research sources as: ImpreMedia, WSJ... and me) and I am impartial. Furthermore, the 350 or 400 million claim that other means, are more real and of more credibility (are several sources, verifiable). Finally, Many other sources have picked up the 750 million figure including MTV as stated by the Wall Street Journal Article for casual sources. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My statements are not arguments, in fact, I am agreeing that the 750 million is inflated. But I'm really confused by your suggesting that I'm breaking rules, when you yourself wish to remove the 750 million basing your arguments on MJ's available certified sales. If you disagree, with certified sales being used for analyzing purposes, then on what grounds are you trying to remove the 750 million? Because there are as many reliable sources claiming the 750 million as there are reliable sources claiming lower figures. The Identifying reliable sources states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Isn't using the certified sales a way of scrutinizing whether the statements in sources are true or not? Now I'm really not following your motive. Anyways, long story short, if you wish to remove it, then fine by me, but if it gets added back by another editor, I personally (as the main editor) won't revert it, because it is supported by the required amount of certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I did not understand when I spoke of the cerficaciones with all. In conclusion, after all, it would be useful to explain in a "note" of the 750 million that were originated by Raymone Bain according to several medias. Or, simply leave more reasonable figure: 350-400 million, which are also supported by many media verifiable and are closer to actual sales. Thanks for your comments. As I said, I will be brave although many will disagree as well you said. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, Is it so bother you seeing the 750m-figures of Jackson? We should listen harout also, because he is the true editor who always maintain this list all the time. You and me, we just playing with this list and give some contributed inside.

Moreover, your argument is really good but still i choose the argument from harout. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Politsi. I'm just being fair, for though, support policy with the certifications that Jackson has sold (probably) 750 million, this is violating another rule: "[...] avoid inflated sales figures, which are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes". It means many have said, as WSJ or ImpreMedia is originated with reference with "the big comeback of Michael Jackson". In addition, there are many other references that give figures of 350 to 400 million and are verifiable and are there from 2009 to the present time and in multiple languages; Sales are more real, and are more fairly with their certifications, and tend to be more precise. Or no is that what we want?

Politsi, with the other, I'll explain a thing A priori: "be the veteran" is not an argument, even if I say so subjective, I often edit lists of "best-seller" in other wikipedias and me, almost everyone knows the system here, of the English Wikipedia. So that is out of place. With a note to explain this specific case of Jackson, is more than enough. It is common sense and ignore the rules, in principle. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Harout72, after reading your previous interventions on the matter, I have a better idea and understanding of your argument. Now I realize why is better to keep both numbers. However, it would be better for the reliability of the article to add a note next to the 750 million units indicating that several sources like the Wall Street Journal (which is one of the most trustworthy newspapers in the United States) or ImpreMedia state that the 750 million albums sold by Michael Jackson is an inflated figure and a statistical fallacy, which was originally claimed by Raymone Bain, who was the artist publicist at that time, without any factual proof and in an effort to promote album sales. Taty2007 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, we need to let Jackson with his 750m-records claim without any note or hot controversies because at least that claims figures still meet the requirement.

Beside, to Chrishonduras. Let’s compare your source with my source which is very new and more highly regarded and famous then your sources above. And All those source Bravely claim Jackson has sold 750m-records.

here all the sources (sorry for long editing) :

The Washington Post/(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503127.html)

Bloomberg Businessweek/(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/michael-jacksons-estate-wants-to-keep-thrilling-01052012.html)

Forbes/(http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2011/01/25/michael-jackson-secret-business-genius-music-business/)

Reuters/(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/us-michaeljackson-life-idUSTRE7852M420110906)

Time (magazine)/(http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/10/04/michael-jackson-gets-posthumous-album-%E2%80%94-and-cirque-du-soleil-show/)

The Daily Telegraph/(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5643650/Michael-Jackson-a-career-of-awards.html)

Could see that sources buddy, all the editor could not be so idiot to put the 750m-figures of Jackson's without checking the fact. Politsi (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Politsi, I am in total disagreement with your point. I don’t understand why you want to show just on truth, if there are two truths. The 750 million albums sold statement has reliable references as the notion that the figure is inflated. So why don’t we show both truths and allow the readers to choose by themselves what to believe. We don’t have to act as judges of the information, we have to present both realities and let the readers decide what to think and what to do with both facts. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful. Therefore, I don’t understand why we have to hide a fact that has reliable sources as well. We don’t have to cherry pick statements, we have to show all that’s in front of us and that actually comes from real sources. Taty2007 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Politsi, too also I totally in disagree with you. In summary, Harout72 has said many very true things:

1) Michael Jackson is not the only artist with sales (super) inflated in the list, supported by fairly reliable references.

2) Most likely is that a fan of Michael Jackson returns to modify the list without consulting before the debate.

3) For to respect the neutrality and impartiality, an article must include the views of as many reliable sources as possible. In this case, it is very difficult to despise publishers like CNN and Reuters..........

Okay. Moreover: " Michael Jackson is left by 750 million but eliminate 375 million ABBA" for example; And that the same president of: Universal Music Group were given such recognition and Billboard too also mentioned this. Apart from that there are many publishers worldwide weight that give as done the 370 million such as The Biography Channel, The Times, MSN, The Telegraph, Reuters, MTV and even the government of Sweden. Although personally I doubt they have sold 375 million and therefore the figure of 200 million is more realistic, I do not think the 375 million should be overlooked. Julio Iglesias is another example, many media such as Allmusic, Rolling Stone or Daily Independent has spoken sales by 200 or even 300 million records. Also, Following this part ( To ensure a highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations ) many media in Latin languages as is Notimex (based company has worldwide, including organizations such as the UN) or the powerful Univision Communications reported sales of 400 or 500 million records sold by Madonna. In short, they wanted to be fair and that Michael Jackson was not the only one who justifiably take away sales ...

Harout72, I understand, in the past you wanted to change the Michael Jackson's sale and her "750 million" against several fans and their insistence. However, there are inevitably going against the sources, even if they are wrong, you opted for the solution of adding two numbers and let readers choose what they consider more rational. I understand this part. I at no time (I think) I said to be erased 750 million, what I said is that it is better to place sales more realistic (than other media -of credibility- give) 350-400 millions and of course, as a note placed at 750 million, according to what he has said ImpreMedia or WSJ are also verifiable sources and approach the other policy: "avoid inflated sales figures, which are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes".

There is also the chance to talk personally with Jimbo Wales. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No offense Chrishonduras, but I'm having a hard time understanding some of what you write. But I'll try to respond to you as much as I understand your writing. It's important to note that we can only include those claimed sales which meet the requirements. The qualification of claimed sales is determined based on the first year of charting and amount of certified units. So that in mind, ABBA have begun charting before 1975, which requires their claimed figures to be supported by 20% certified sales at the least. That would be 75 million in certified units for a claim of 375 million, which they don't have. Julio Iglesias is also lacking enough certified sales for 300 million sales claim. He'd need 60 million in certified units for a figure that big. As for including some sort of a note for MJ's 750 million indicating that it's quite inflated, I think it could be done, but I personally think his available certified sales (157 million) do deliver that message. This discussion didn't need to be this long. An inclusion of a simple note could have been said in a sentence. Don't you guys agree?--Harout72 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Harout72, yes, sorry for my bad English. For not to make a edit war I was responding to Politsi, above all for his argument it may even be arbitrary or sabotage. But, Taty has explained very well. I just put as an example to Julio Iglesias and ABBA for to note that policies are ambivalent, so it should not be punitive to any context, more rather to evaluate cases separate such as Michael Jackson. Regards and sorry for this long discussion. Chrishonduras (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, No and No buddy. this is very interesting. There is nothing wrong to bring such a good argument like you did even that make this discussion too long and not boring for me.

And i hope you understand about the method in this list. We are registered editor, not a user guest. Listen, Harout already explain why ABBA, Julio Iglesias, and Nana Mouskouri could not get their BEST claim figures which reported around 300-400 million by many famous and reliable sources.

Beside, actually i've been searching the internet to find the reliable sources which is claim Jackson's sales figures around 400-500 million records (NOT ALBUMS!, understand that this list mentioned about records). But believe me, all the sources only claim between 350 and 750m.

If you feel that we need to remove the 750m-figures of him and put only between 350-500 million records. then please, FIND THAT SOURCES by yourself. Do not ask Harout, me, or any other editors to do that for you.

Especially to Harout, we need to put our respect to him even sometimes we could not receive his argument.

You wanted this list better, then find the best reliable source. all your sources above is not good enough to support your argument. Politsi (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear, Politsi. Just as there are sources that indicate 750 million albums or records, there sources (verifiables) indicating 350 o 400 million albums or records. Moreover, then there is the statement of support from Adrian Strain, spokesman for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry that indicated that the 750 million are unreal and also backed verifiable sources that support this. Enough to add in this specific case, this data. Harout72 is an extraordinary user (and who really knows this list), but, Politsi, We can not judge other users with regristro old. In principle, it would fall into this. Everyone contributes to what can and I think we can learn from all users, not just veterans, rookies and also for ordinary users. There is no distinction, we should all be treated equally and the same respect. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, do it what you have to do buddy. And i've seen that Jackson's sales figures have been made around 400-350m with a note. Personally, i think that's GOOD. Is that done by you chris? good job. Hopefully all the Jackson's fans could be understand what we need to do in the list. Politsi (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für Ihre Worte, Politsi :D. Jetzt nur noch eine Frage der Überwachung der Liste der Vandalen oder Nutzer, die nicht wissen, die Verfahren und Richtlinien der Wikipedia. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)