Talk:The Ultimate Hits

Fair use rationale for Image:GarthBrooksUltimate.jpg
Image:GarthBrooksUltimate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GarthBrooksUltimate1.jpg
Image:GarthBrooksUltimate1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it IS 10 million UNITS
.

Look under "MORE DETAILS". "CERTIFiED UNITS: 10 MILLION".

Yes, the album has sold under 4 million COPIES, but the RIAA have indeed certified it for 10 million UNITS. That's the way the RIAA does it, so that's how wiki states it. 197.87.135.139 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What you are entirely confused is the amount of shipped copies which with double albums are 5 million but RIAA counts it twice so that is 10 million units. With triple albums is over 3 million shipped copies but certified amount is diamond (but that does not make it 10 million shipped copies). That is RIAA's quirk, while everyone else does not have a habit of counting it twice or thrice. From wiki's own page: "M
 * Multi-disc albums are counted once for each disc within the album if it is over 100 minutes in length or is from the vinyl era. For example, the Smashing Pumpkins' Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness (running time of 121:39) and OutKast's Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (running time of 134:56), both double albums, were counted twice, meaning each album was certified diamond after 5 million copies were shipped. Pink Floyd's The Wall and the Beatles' White Album, both vinyl-era, are also counted as double even though their running times are under the minimum requirement. Rules may or may not apply depending on most recent staff within the Distributions position"
 * And music wiki editors that have created templates when you put in the parameters with diamond and multidisc times three for a reason it throws out 3 million number not ten. Dhoffryn (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How am I confused? That's what I explained to you. And it's not 3 million for Diamond, it would be 3 333 334. But, UNDER RIAA RULES AND REGULATIONS IT IS A DIAMOND ALBUM. It has shipped 10 million units. So, RIAA certified it as a Diamond album. Anything else is your WP:OR. M'kay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal opinion or original research, when quite literally certification table calculates with right parameters the amount. : can you pitch in? Dhoffryn (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * RIAA says 10 million, while the other sales source says 3.1 million. That isn't a problem for Wikipedia because we don't try to figure out which of two valid sources is correct. The RIAA has slightly different methods than other observers -- they count shipped product as sold, and they multiply times the number of discs in the album. Most other observers count sales to the end customer. The second source says 3,135,300 which is 9,405,900 if multiplied by 3. The difference between 9.4 and 10 million is probably the shipped albums. So if both sources are true, somewhere there are roughly 200,000 shipped 3-disc albums sitting around in retail storage and counted by the RIAA as 600,000 untis but not sold to the customer. We list RIAA certifications prominently, and it is allowed to add sales figures from other sources. Personally, I think it's confusing to add a second sales figure if it doesn't agree with the first one... RIAA is very much standard for the industry, and listing it alone is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If RIAA is very much standard for the industry, and listing it alone is sufficient... why did you undo the RIAA figure? In fact, RIAA certified for ten million units. Apparently, there is a wiki rule to count all multi-disc RIAA Certifications as 1 unit. This creates further confusion, as some 2 or 3 disc sets were certified by copies sold and others were certified by units sold. Are 2-LP sets that were certified Gold for 500 000 COPIES now listed on wiki as 250 000? I'd have to look. And then there's the standard "Gold album is 500 000", which is another whole issue in itself. But back to THIS topic. It's Certifications. The other fellow insists on some outdated "sales figure" that is significantly LOWER than the RIAA number. That alone should make the RIAA figure the "proper" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.135.139 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)