Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of best-selling music artists/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:19, 28 May 2012.

List of best-selling music artists

 * Nominator(s): Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now quite close to becoming a featured list. Please note that List of best-selling music artists and List of best-selling music artists (page 2) have just recently been split into two parts due to its large size. The list was listed for peer review (see here) just a few months ago, further improvements have been made since then. Should I list both split pages separately?--Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to nominate both pages for FL, then you need to open separate nominations for both of them. However, as per the guidelines, you can't have two open nominations, so you'd need to wait for one to pass/fail and then nominate the other one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem, I'll wait until the first page passes/fails the nomination.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments some quick thoughts...
 * I'm certainly not keen on the "continued on page 2" business. However, the slow load time of this page may necessitate a split. It may be that we need to think about renaming the list so it captures the number of sales more precisely, then we can just use See also for the other lists.
 * I guess we can think about that. Although, most likely there will always be inflated sales figures we have to put up with.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still would prefer just a list of see also links. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have an example in mind for renaming it? Should we change it into something like List of best-selling music artists based on certified units? Or maybe List of top certified artists. Do you recommend not use sales claims anymore?--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no linked "headings", just a "see also" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I completely misunderstood you. Ok done.--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sections are to include maximum of seven images of the top certified artists/bands." is this note really necessary? I'm not sure the image galleries will be that popular either.
 * I thought having a basic guideline for images would be a good idea as fans every now and then either replace images with images of their favorites (see here), or simply add their favorites to what we already have (see here).--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't it be added as a hidden note? We don't normally have notes saying "do/don't edit this article in this way" actually visible on the article, frankly it looks a bit ridiculous IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We also have a hidden message which gets ignored as well. See this recent edit, for example, from the second page of the list. I re-phrased it into: The seven images are of the top certified artists/bands. I think it will serve its purpose, yet doesn't immediately sound like a do/don't.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better but usually this kind of instruction is placed as a comment in the code rather than for our readers to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By code, you mean a hidden message? I'll just leave the instruction as a hidden note.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would "Certified sales" or "Certified units" work better? Those are the certified sales from available markets after all.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means the column does not sort certified units highest to lowest, need to use ntsh to make it work I think. Mattg82 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought placing the largest market (the one generates the most sales) at the top and the smallest at the bottom would be a better idea rather than placing them in an alphabetical order. I based this on IFPI annual report (see page 24) that RIAJ releases every year.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called Total certified units, so it should sort by the total sold in each case. Right now it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. I think perhaps we can get rid of the word Total and have just Certified units. Would that work? Because I don't think it would be the right move to place some medium-size markets before the larger ones only because the formers occasionally generate more sales for some artists.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you need to make sure the sorbability of the table works for that column as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I make the change, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. We should place the bigger certified figures at the top and smaller figures at the bottom, correct?--Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You should ensure that when I click on the heading of the column of "Certified sales" that it sorts by the total of sales. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok Done. Inserted "ntsh" for each, it now works.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a lot of work has gone into this but I have reservations about saying that this is ready for a star. BencherliteTalk 01:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Switching to oppose
 * Yeh, I'm not keen on the "(page 2)" title format either, as it offends against WP:TITLEFORMAT ("Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another"). But that's not this article, after all...
 * I'm going to remove the Continued from page 1 on Page 2.
 * You need to rename the list, not just remove the "continued from page 1". BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the list split into multiple sections? If it was one table, you would be able to sort the entire lot and compare countries, periods, years etc, rather than just be able to sort within arbitrarily chosen sub-sections.
 * I believe having separate sections for artists with 100 million records and 300 million records is more specific and clear.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, I'm afraid to say. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basic point - use sortname to sort by surname etc rather than everything sorting by first letter.
 * "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." Quite apart from the fact that "a highest level of fact checking" is not good English, I don't think we ought to be putting quality claims like that in articles, let alone repeatedly.  I don't remember seeing featured articles that say "To ensure the highest level of fact checking, this article only uses the very best and most highly regarded sources", for instance.
 * The list attracts many music fans; therefore, I and other editors have been forced to come up with methods that could minimize insertions of sources which often claim inflated sales figures and fail to conduct thorough research before publishing their numbers. The wording is mine; therefore, it's probably not well constructed since I'm not a native English speaker. I have to add though that ever since we implemented that sentence, we've seen a big decline in poor sources.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Use an edit notice, then; don't have editorial instructions in articles. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is poor, really - it tells us about how the list has been compiled but nothing about the list contents. It also tells us who isn't in the list, which leads onto the next point...
 * Well, that's not entirely correct as the lead does state about the content of the list: The world's best-selling music artists includes artists with claims of 50 million or more record sales in multiple third-party reliable sources. The sales figures within the provided sources include sales of albums, singles, compilation-albums, music videos as well as downloads of singles and full-length albums. The artists in the following tables are listed with both their claimed and certified sales figures and are ranked in descending order, with the highest claimed sales at the top. Artists with the same claimed sales are then ranked by certified units. Sales figures, such as those from Soundscan which are sometimes published by Billboard magazine, have not been included in the certified units column.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can read, and thanks for making my point for me. I can't find the Beatles mentioned anywhere in the lead, for example, or who the highest-selling individual is, or who the highest selling group/person in genre X is... no summary of the content of the list at all. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "All artists included on this list have their lowest available claimed figure(s) supported by at least 15% in certified units.... However newer artists such as Lady Gaga and Rihanna are expected to have their claimed figures supported by at least 60% in certified units. " Why? Who's decided that 15% is the figure for older artists, and 60% for newer artists? Is that a ratio supported by reliable sources, or is it just something that Wikipedia editors have decided? WP:OR alert?
 * Unfortunately, inflated sales figures do come from reliable sources also. Therefore, we've designed a method to prevent the list from being filled with inflated sales claims. The discussion for that could be found here. While it may seem like an OR, all certification are supported by reliable sources. After all, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles, which is not the case for this list.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is original research, then - there are names that could be included on the list which are being omitted because of inclusion criteria of your own devising that do not have support in reliable sources. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The tables are to include two sources only for each claimed figure." Says who, and why?
 * We used to have fans inserting four and even five sources for their favorite artists to make their points. Again, while the requirement of two sources may sound like a dictation, it seems to work well. But it can be removed.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we can avoid all the empty white space in each line?
 * If it's absolutely necessary the we could use , which would get the job done. However, I feel that it's important to have the certified units by country visible once you land on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose per above comments and responses. BencherliteTalk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.