Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

If claimed sales are so unreliable and vary so much, why are we using them?

Came across this article at ANI, and couldn't help but wonder. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If they're unreliable? Don't use them. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Are there lower claimed figures for the album The Score by Fugees, and also for the album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? by Oasis. Those two albums do not meet the required amount of certified sales. They both need lower claimed figures than 22 million.--Harout72 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: Regarding The Fugees, I tried a few months ago to put the album sales at 20 million, which is pretty inflated too, but there's a fan of them in the article who undid all my edits and put that hugely inflated 22 million. It seems common among artists of this genre (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales enough to value the artists and place them above other artists, especially white ones.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, for this list the 20 million is what we need, because based on the requirements this list has, the certified sales for 22 million should be at 12.3 million. It falls short by 700,000 certified units. Do you have the source?--Harout72 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Harout, in this source it is stated that the album has sold 20 million copies worldwide. Perhaps it can be used. Salvabl (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a good source but it has a paywall, we'd need something that everyone can access. I'll look around too. Harout72 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: you can use this one from Boston Herald for the Oasis's album.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I also found this source by New York Observer which states 20 million.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems common among artists of this gener (black music, R&B, Hip Hop) to inflate sales enough to value the artists and place them above other artists, especially white ones. REALLY? Are you saying the sales of white artists are not inflated or exaggerated on Wikipedia and elsewhere? I can show you the edit history of many incident to inflate the sales of Elvis Presley, Beatles, Madonna, Taylor Swift, and Eminem as few white artists . Are you saying you do not consider them as white artists?. I've been expressed the concern about the Racial bias on Wikipedia in the past and you are further proving my points. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Contrary, Markus already deflated many inflated sales of artists you constantly attribute him as a "fan", while he is neutral most of the time. He's not with the old hat of "but it have reliable sources". Certainly, artists related to urban music have IPs or other editors increasing the sales with the next available higher sales. That's not racial issues, but a true fact. See Janet Jackson history, eg. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that there aren't fans of white artists who want to inflate their idols' sales around here. But most of the cases I see and also the ones I've had problems with are artists of this genre.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, as a person of color, I certainly was deeply offended by the comment. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are not supposed to generalize things based on what you have allegedly seen. This is not the first time you are grouping a specific genre with a specific race. Apoxyomenus, I didn't call Markus a fan of anyone and you have to show me proof if I did so. Even though he already deflated many inflated sales of artists, I have noticed he is not showing the same enthusiasm when it happens to white artists. For example, he wasn't there when we were discussing how Madonna got an exception of 60% minimum requirement for her 300m claimed sales for many years, over a decade, of being on the list of best-selling music artists. I also checked the archives and I found no evidence of him raising concerns over such inflated sales. Have a read of how Wikipedia:Systemic bias works and compare it to what he was writing above with a new outlook. TheWikiholic (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

My advise to y'all as I posted above in the RfC of Thriller is center your energies to find sales by territory to support and reinforce your changes as a whole. Markus is an exceptional example with many artists here, including MJ. Black or white artists. He just noticed a particular addition of "apply the next available sales for [xx title]" and has been a modus operandi applied to many artists related with urban music. His overall Wikipedia contributions, mainly music-related articles are of far-reaching since over a decade, unlike many of you guys with a MJ-centered contributions. So, I assume good faith in his comments. Ofc, he generalized, as there are others like the Spice Girls (for example) that time to time, appears an insistent user/IP elevating their sales, for example. Myself, I can upgrade even all Madonna's albums but I didn't. Perhaps, one-two examples of her large catalog, but with an improvement finding sales and a small gap. I don't run to "put the next available higher sales (and with recent references)". --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And once again, as you insisted on the reliability of sources such as RIAA, etc and that Madonna always have had "inflated sales". In this regard, let me remind y'all that atleast IFPI used the figure of 200 million albums back in 2006. Not records. IFPI has more authoritity of global music reports, than RIAA. Plus ofc, there is evidence of uncertified sales to support that gap. Perhaps, it was a bit inflated at that time, when rules were newer etc, but not closer in those days. The same analogy with MJ, that have even as of 2012 almost the same amount of certified albums with Madonna in the US. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit that I hadn't really read all the messages in this section when I posted here the last time. I just read "Well, for this list the 20 million is what we need" in Harout's message and wanted to share a source I had saved in a text document that states that The Score album has sold 20 million copies worldwide. I have to say that I consider Markus WikiEditor' message inadmissible. He not only mentioned musical genres that are completely associated with Black people, but he directly talked about "black music" as a whole, adding that there is a regular inflation of figures to "value the (Black) artists" over other artists, especially White artists. If mentioning the physical qualities (such as skin color) of specific artist(s) is already disgusting, this case goes beyond that (by making accusations against an entire race and its artists, ergo against its art and culture). Salvabl (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Markus clarified what he was saying very well. His actions seem to be of a person who's unbiased, in fact he's the one that downgraded the claimed figure of Bat Out of Hell just days ago.--Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Harout, I'm not judging the changes made by Markus WikiEditor (in fact, I myself have thanked him for some of his contributions recently), but his recent message herein is completely inappropriate, regardless of whether it is biased or unbiased (about that we could talk a lot and name a lot of artists; but that is not my intention now, as I don't think it is convenient or necessary in this discussion about the claimed sales of The Score album). Salvabl (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I had to take a couple days off of wiki because of Markus’ racially triggering edits. I really couldn’t believe my eyes and what I was reading. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I have started an ANI thread about some of the comments above. Levivich^[block] 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Contrary, I look his context and assume faith. He has been active on Wikipedia for more than a decade, watching several albums, and artists of different styles/genres/nationalities/races, not focusing solely to one-specific artist or without a tendency of over-celebrate that specific artist. He doesn't said, black people, and as far I can see, genres related to the scope of urban music which it reads different. Definitely, if you start watching massive other titles, that perception will change. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not here to excuse perceived racism, in exchange for being an “active” user. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources used must be newer than the sources currently being cited, per reliable resource rule WP:OLDSOURCES. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if WP:OLDSOURCES as a whole point apply and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS can be used as well. I can remind a case of one album, attributed to 20 million in 1998 (the figure used in this list, btw), and newer sources have claimed sales of 16 million, which match better with its certified units. The other thing, mainly with older albums are circular reporting when was applied the next higher available sales at that time, instead following gap. This has been the problem with other titles. And so on. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It does. You can’t use a source that is 20 years old to justify lowering a sale when for newer sources exists. When it comes to math and science WP:OLDSOURCES matter very much on wiki, or else it would not exist. I certainly would not use an old paper map from 15 years ago to get me around the United States. The same logic applies here. Now if it’s a 1-3 years difference, that’s debatable, that may not matter as much depending on the quality of the article. WP:CONTEXMATTERS should not involve WP:NOR. I see some editors here look at the guideline and think it does. It doesn’t, but generally speaking yes, combining the two will be required when determining sales, excluding one’s own original research. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Aside science, industry reports of "claimed sales" for a music record, despite are numbers, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS largely applies here. Is not a matter of original research, as always is in mind using reliable sources; so is not an user "opinion". Thus using your same analogy, applying as we see when a source could report a very different estimation from other: Billboard said in 2011, that "A album" sold 10 million, but Rolling Stone said in 2018 that "A album" sold 7 million. As long there is no exist an authority source, like IFPI reports, this fictional scenario illustrate what actually happens in many cases. Others cases, occurs because some IP or user here cherry-picked the next available sales of an album, instead using others one closer with sales reported by territory. Others are just simply outlier and so on. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We’ll cross that bridge and have a discussion, RFC, or AFD if the time comes. Generally speaking you are not wrong, but you are ignoring WP:NOR Although there is no example of that at the moment. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Regards The Fugees album, I saw some citing 16 or 17 million. Because I don't have time in these days, y'all can google it. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, Flashdance (soundtrack) has lower claimed sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In regards Goodbye Yellow Brick Road by Elton John, with a notorious only available certifications in 4 English-language speaking countries after its half-century of release (9.6M certs), I found a different claimed sales, but of 15 years ago. It is music critic Tom Moon who wrote in 1,000 Recordings to Hear Before You Die (2008): "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is Elton John's biggest hit, with 20 million copies sold", pag 399. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I took care of the claimed figure for The Score, WSJ has a paywall so I scanned the pages so everyone can access the figure. As for the 20 million for "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", I would completely support that over the 30 million. Here is another source stating 20 million, their editorial seems reliable enough. The claimed figure for the soundtrack Grease should also be lowered, the 38 million is absolutely laughable based on the available certified sales. Harout72 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep an eye on The Colour of My Love and Cross Road by Bon Jovi. Perhaps, Greatest Hits by Queen is one of these titles that an upgrade doesn't look bad instead. Regarding Back in Black by AC/DC at least book sources such as Shut Up and Give Me the Mic (2012) by Dee Snider (pag 358) or Popular Music: Topics, Trends & Trajectories (2011) by Tara Brabazon (pag 162) have used 45 million copies. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Queen's Greatest Hits may have actually sold more than 25 million. Since it was released in 1981, clearly we don't have their entire sales certified in many markets including the Japanese and the Italian markets.--Harout72 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The Fugees album: reliable or somewhat reliables sources, providing 20, 17 or 18 million. Black Music Greats (2019) by French journalist Olivier Cachin citing 20 million (no pag available). 17 million by Vibe (2016), 17 million by The Vinyl Factory (2016), 17 million by Complex Networks (2012), 15 million by Mojo (2022), 18 million by BBC (2010). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(What's the Story) Morning Glory?: briefly found other claimed sales with tenier of its reference ranged in 10 years ago or a bit more. 14 million by Clash (2010), 15 million found in The Boy in the Song: The real stories behind 50 classic pop songs (2014) by author Michael Heatley (no pag. available), 16 million by Exclaim! (2016), 16 million by DIY (2012). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Little late to the convo but whatever, first of all gotta say, I'm truly disappointed with Markus' comment, but that's not why I'm here, I'm here because of The Score (Fugees album) and (What's the Story) Morning Glory? It seems Harout didn't give any solicitude to the IFPI Platinum Europe Awards certifications, ik this list is based by including each separate country, but still it's a very good metric to see how the album performed overall in Europe, now both The Score and What's The Story have been certified 6× Platinum denoting 6 million sales in Europe, if we gonna use Europe certification instead of using each separate European country, then the total sales (including other territories) for both album would be 13.685 million for The Score and 11.605 million for What's The Story so based on this analysis, I guess we can still use the 22 million claimed sales for The Score though (What's The Story) Morning Glory? should wait till it's total certified sales reach 12.1 million. Though gotta admit the Europe certification for What's The Story is a little bit outdated by 262k, meaning the total would be 11.867 million, still that unfortunately would put it under the required 12.1 million. Moh8213 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Albums with similar results, ternier and with available 20M figure comparing to The Fugees, have lowered sales. And don't ignoring the fact that Fugees album have also available similar lowered sales. This means, it would be included some others such as Celine Dion, Mariah Carey or Madonna with Ray of Light. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

European certs should not be used on the list because those certs begin in 1996 and get cut off in 2013. Whereas, the certifying bodies in the UK, Germany, France and in other markets have certified albums (and made them available online) way before the year 1995/1996, and have continued to do so after 2013. Even if one takes European certs into consideration for research purpose, the 22 million would still be completely overblown for both albums. Harout72 (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Apoxyomenus comment, yeah it definitely makes sense, and one interesting point about the artists you mentioned above (especially for Dion & Madonna) is that they were much more successful overseas (specifically Europe) than in the US, the biggest music market in the world. And that's where information becomes a problem, and just like the case you brought with Madonna's Ray of Light, that album sold well everywhere except the US, but despite this, the album can actually be included on the list, given the percentage criteria and since the album was released in 1998, the required certified sales for the 20 million is 11.6 million, and RL so far has 12.230 million (without the Euro cert) and since Madonna was a household name in that era, wouldn't be surprised if it sold more. Now back to Harout, maybe for (What's The Story) Morning Glory? But not for The Score, how come the 22 million would still be completely overblown? As you mentioned before, the certified sales for 22 million should be at 12.3 million, and according to the calculation I did early on, The Score have certified sales of 13.685 million, that's more than enough for it to be included with 22 million. I obviously wasn't suggesting the use of the Euro certs but they can definitely determine the total sales throughout Europe instead of just using the certs of few European countries. And since these figures are coming from IFPI, I don't think there's any questions regarding the reliability of the source. Moh8213 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If we're not going to use the European certs on the list, what makes you suggest that the The Score has enough certified sales to be on the list with 22 million? The listed markets do not support the 22 million. What you're suggesting is the same as suggesting that yes, we're not using Neilsen Soundscan figures, but if we included those NS figures, we'd have enough units to list the said album with such a figure. To answer your second question how come the 22 million would still be completely overblown? Do you ask yourself where that album could've sold the 22 million if its certified sales stand at 13.6 million. Where has the rest of 8.4 million sold? Doesn't that suggest that the 22 million is completely overblown? Harout72 (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The listed markets do not support the 22 million figure cuz most of them are pretty outdated, the same case goes with Bon Jovi's Cross Road, it only has certified sales of 4.873 million by the available certs from some European countries, yet IFPI certified it 8× Platinum for sales of 8 million in Europe in 2007. And that's where the Euro cert come into place. Are you really comparing Nielsen Soundscan with the IFPI Europe Awards certification? Cuz they're completely two different things, first of all, NS, unlike IFPI Europe, doesn't certify records, they only track the actual sales of the records released in the USA since RIAA only certify records based on shipments, IFPI Europe on the other hand, collect the sales of the albums throughout all the countries in continental Europe and certifies it based from sales of those countries. It's clearly obvious that you're underestimating the success of The Score and there's no need to hide it. Where has the rest of 8.4 million sold? Doesn't that suggest that the 22 million is completely overblown? Well isn't the same thing goes with all the albums on this list? For instance, what about Mariah Carey's Music Box doesn't those 10.2 million concern you? Or better yet, what about Grease doesn't those 23 million concern you? Admit it, you're just looking for excuses for not raising the claimed sales. And if that's the case then, I guess I'm just wasting my time here. Moh8213 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You accept that the listed markets do not support the 22 million and you're not suggesting to use the European certs on the list. So what's going to justify the 22 million sitting on the list when it's not going to be supported by the listed certs? You clearly didn't understand why I brought up the Nielsen Soundscan as an example. And no, I don't underestimate the success of The Score, 7 million certified in the US and 6 million in Europe, that's a successful album. But based on the available certification, even 20 million isn't true. Yes many of the albums are listed with completely overblown sales claims, that's why I decided to get involved just recently, I never contributed to this list before that. And the reason, why so many albums are listed here with inflated figures is because the requirements are set too low. The person who brought the requirements here from the List of best-selling music artists long ago isn't active anymore. So my suggestion is to have the requirements at the other list to reflect here also. That way many sales claims will have to be downgraded, in some cases some albums will be taken off the list altogether including Grease. Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Harout72, Can you show me the sources of the 24M units of RIAA certification of Elvis' Christmas Album?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no source. No other artist is getting this type of treatment and should be fixed. Truth is, RIAA does not count the albums all as one and they don’t all have the same songs. If RIAA did count them as one album, they would be certified as such. They are not. For the same reason why RIAA does not count Thriller 25 sales as part as the Thriller album sales. If Elvis’ holiday albums can be combined, then so can Thriller. If not, remove Elvis off of this list. He doesn’t have a qualifying album. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Then why haven’t the 5 million units of RIAA certifications of the 1991 reissue of Greatest Hits (Queen album) been added to its tally? TheWikiholic (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Whats the story morning glory 22 million sales

Hi how are you ?. It says on the list of best selling artists 22m is disputed ?. That article said it sold over 20m copies and the article is dated back to 2015. it has gone 16 times platinum in the UK this summer alone. where is the dispute please ? 178.167.234.107 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Any reply to this ? 31.200.133.169 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This album was suggested in having "inflated" sales in sections above. And considering that there exists references (not too olds) showing that sold about 15, or 16 million as far I remember. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any source to back up this theory ?. MG is listes as well over 22m, between 22-23 and close to 25m. So camn we have some evidence please ? 92.251.148.109 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. While there is not an authority source for worldwide claimed figures per se, with the exception of IFPI, other third-party sources such as DIY magazine claimed 16 million for example (2012). Found in Google Books, author Michael Heatley in The Boy in the Song (2014) cited 15 million. Back in 2010, Clash used the figure of 14 million. 10-6 years are old, but not too old. Take also consideration of other contexts:

It is safe to say since (or perhaps before) the 2000s, third-party sources used to report the figures above 20M. For example, in this Dic 2009 version, we used a source from The Guardian supporting the figure of 22 million, which is correct. But curiously judging by the article's edit history, seems the page was vandalized prior years, 25 million or 20 million eg. Perhaps Wikipedia played a role with the figures of 22-25 million.

Be advise, numerous 1990s titles with similar summaries of certifications/sales/chart performance aren't included with the gap that currently Oasis' album have and when there exists actually third-party sources supporting a claim of 20 million for them. To mention a very few examples of the latter claim, see: Merry Christmas, Ricky Martin or Ray of Light and so on. Nevertheless, the Oasis album hasn't been removed in the list after all, it is just the template. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have to remember MG turned 16 x platinum just recently in the UK only this year that is 300k more already, and it is in the top 30 of the uk album sales weekly to this day. I would say it is at least 22m at this stage ! 92.251.232.46 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Can this album be moved back to 22m sales now please ?. 80.233.24.94 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Album keep selling, for sure, but as in its current summary of certified sales/other sales (gap), doesn't suggest that we could keep upgrading their claimed sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Beatles vs The World of Music

The Beatles are by fact and not by opinion the most successful artists of all time. They have contributed to the world of music more than any other artist and had many successful years. Every song of the beatles (even the ones that aren't hits) are all signatures. Every song is a masterpiece in simple words. 80.5.50.62 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

michael jackson's history album

it's a double disc album, cost double the price of an album to buy at the time, should it not be counted as double then instead of the current 22 million, like some other double discs actually are? 2001:1C00:F1F:7400:FD53:D573:4F2F:F3DC (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Céline Dion's reduced?

I noticed that Céline Dion's “Falling Into You” and “Lets Talk About Love” has been heavily reduced. In the definition, it is stated that albums released between 1990 - 2000 are required to have their claimed figures supported by 50–60% in certified units. (That is 1% for each additional year after 1990.)

In this case, Falling Into You (1996) only needs 56% of its available certified sales to support the 32 million claim. And Falling Into You currently has 21.1 million available certified units, that's more than the 56% requirement for the 32m claim.

Same with Lets Talk About Love (1997), the album needs 17.67 million to support the 31 million claim, and currently the album has 19.5 million available certified units, which is more than enough to support the current claimed 31 million sales.

Why were these albums reduced though? Its always been at 32m & 31m for a long time now. Loibird90 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In previous months/weeks, the list was revamped and some albums estimations were lowered, or even increased when applicable by multiple users. For Dion, both sides could be right. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Loibird90: I think that more important than the certificates being enough to keep sales, is looking at the context. In the articles of these albums there are cataloged the sales of 100% of the biggest markets of the music industry, so keeping sales higher and not closer to the certificates is helping these inflated numbers that fan clubs have been putting in articles over the years. I think sales closer to certificates are the ideal. Celine Dion is one of the artists with with more inflated sales here in Wikipedia.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So are we not gonna follow the criteria? My point is that based on the definition, both albums' has enough certified units to support their respective claims. It's in the definition. And these numbers were never inflated and has been used for like two decades now. Reducing it just because you feel like it's inflated is not being objective, specially if it met the required criteria. Loibird90 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the criteria was made to prevent these exaggerated numbers from appearing in the list. For me it is more than understood that the ideal and the reliable are the certifications, and the cataloged sales that are in the articles. Reducing sales of some of these albums to conform to the certificates and verifyed sales doesn't seem to disrespect the criteria and makes the article more believable. --Markus WikiEditor (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Methodology?

Is the e.g. "must be backed by 30% certified sales" methodology something reliable sources use? Sorry if I'm just missing it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

30% seems a rather low bar. 50% would be more acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The percentage for the required certified sales increases for newer albums. The 30% requirement is for albums released before 1975. Methodology is based on the IFPI global market share data. The more recent the album is, the higher percentage of certified units is required, this is because more music markets instituted certification systems after the 1980s and 1990s.--Harout72 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. I'm referring to the methodology listed at the top of the talk page, not just part of it. So the IFPI publishes data using a methodology which says e.g. "albums released before 1975 are required to have their claimed sales figures supported by 30% in certified units"? I'm trying to reconcile the claims that "claimed sales" are so varied and unreliable with inclusion in Wikipedia. If reliable sources use the same methodology, that's fine -- just making sure it's not some Wikipedians setting their own standard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

While there is no direct source what the methodology states, the years countries/markets instituted their certification systems, and what percent of the global market sales each market represents, are all available in sources provided by certifying bodies and IFPI respectively. Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t completely true. When reached out to IFPI, they said they don’t have an official methodology as to how older albums are calculated at the moment. There is simply no sourced public formulas that they are using. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The market share data for each market is provided by the IFPI, the year each country launched its certification system is made available by the certifying bodies. Essentially, everything the designed methodology brings together is available in sources.--Harout72 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a total of 195 countries in the world. IFPI is limited to 70 of those. Albeit the major ones. They calculate market share only based on these countries. In their own words, the market share is never the same from years to year. Also in their own words, what they are working on is a year to year market share calculation per year, versus per decade. IFPI have no data base for the 1980’s and any calculations are based on pure assumption, a clear violation of WP:NOR. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

While IFPI data is based on 50+ markets, the 90% even more of the Global sales are generated by 20 countries only. The top 10 markets today and in mid 90s have pretty much been the same. Consequently, the global market share data for each has also pretty much remained within the same bracket. It would have been OR if pulled these numbers out of nowhere. Harout72 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

IFPI data is based on 50+ markets which means the 90% global sales generated by 20 countries will go further down if it was based on 100+ markets or 195 markets. The top 10 markets today and in mid 90s have pretty much been the same, but doesn’t mean it was the same in 80s or 70s or 60s. What is the second and third biggest market in the world today did not apply in the 80s or 70s. Do you still say it's not WP:OR. I don’t believe that the numbers you use come from thin air. However, I believe that the numbers are being used incorrectly throughout the various years and decades as there is no source that indicates that your methodology is the methodology that should be used. Like you, I don’t conclude this out of just thin air. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We've talked about this before, if you have data for earlier years, bring them forward so we can further develop our system. But as it stands right now, we have IFPI data for 25 years, and that's far from being OR. Harout72 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, GoodDay If you go over this List of best-selling music artists you can see that the list follows the same method as that page. And literally, there is no source mentioning that a minimum of 30% certifications are required for an artist/album who began charting/released before 1975. Harout72 has completely made up a definition and minimum required percentage for artists/albums to be on these respective lists. Harout72 argument of this methodology is based on the IFPI global market share data and doesn't make any sense. IFPI doesn't provide any market share data before 1975 or in the ’80s. So Harout72 used the IFPI data of 2010 and applied that to all the artists and albums. And if you compare the market share of 2010 and 2002 you can see that the market share was never consistent. According to this academic journal Music the US takes up the largest share of the world market, but its share fell from nearly 80% in 1960 to a low of 40% in the mid-1980s. This means the US represented 80% of the global market share in the ’60s, but it was reduced to 40% in the middle of the 80s. It completely debunks Harout’s methodology. If you check the archives now, we can find that there is a consensus to use the market share from 2010, which can only be changed by an RFC. Why was the data from 2002 or 2015 ignored? Why was the data in 2010 not used for 2010 only? 2015 in 2015 only? I have searched the archives and I see no discussion anywhere on talk pages related to this. If it happened on other pages on Wikipedia it would have been dismissed on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:OWNERSHIP.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The minimum is set at 30%, because according to the IFPI the US, which was the only market with certification system before early 1970s, has generated around the 30% of the global music sales. How is that made up Wikiholic?. The methodology has been developed over the years as more sources by IFPI came to light. There is nothing wrong with further development, there is no rule that says everything must be kept as it original was started. There is no data currently that supports the 40% for the mid 80s or let alone 80% in the 60s. In fact, that is something you are making up Wikiholic and you're labeling my work made up. If that is not disruptive, I don't know what is. Harout72 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the IFPI report does it says that the US generated 30% of the global music sales in the 70s. In fact, they never released such reporting in the 70s or 80s. The US generates a 30% global market share today does not mean they generated the same share in previous decades. It is purely based on your hypothesis, which contradicts the academic journal, which provided the market share data for the US in the 60s and 80s. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We have IFPI data for three decades, since 1996. The average US market share in the 90s was 31.66%, the average for the years 2002-2009 was 32.8%, the average for the years 2010-2017 was 29.5%. And the average for US market share between 1996-2017 is 31.2%. The 30% isn't a made up percentile. As for your source, the page you provided doesn't speak anything about US market share data for the 60s and the 80s. You might want to provide those specific pages that contain that information. Harout72 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I gained access to the pages in The Economic Journal, I scanned them all and made a PDF, so we all can see it. The data on the pages 8-12 includes charts also, however, all of the information is based on market share data for Music Exports, not Global sales. This is not a data as to which country has generated the largest portion of the global sales. To be convinced, see figure 1 on page 9, the US music export has fluctuated within 60% in 2000s (2000-2009), whereas IFPI data we have available shows that US has generated 25-30% of the Global market sales between 2000-2009. Let me know if I'm missing something. Harout72 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The second and third para on page number 642 contradicts your argument information is based on market share data for Music Exports, not Global sales. It also suggests that there’s a difference between scanning and reading. The US music export has fluctuated by 60% in the 2000s (2000-2009) doesn't contradict the IFPI report or their market data. Here this 60% was purely based on music export while IFPI data included both the domestic consumption and export. We have had IFPI data for three decades, since only 1996. This doesn't mean we can take the average of it and apply that to the artist from the 50s, and 60s. That is certainly WP:NOR. Furthermore, IFPI never claimed this is the average for the last three decades, and you can’t make the claim for them. It was you who made the calculations and you are not supposed to do that unless it was published by a source. In this case, it wasn’t. And WP:SYNTHESIS says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. TheWikiholic (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone here and anyone reading this is likely to discover that it is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH if they would just contact IFPI as I have. Anyone can email them and everyone will discover that the organization have no known method to calculate sales for older albums. So any argument scapegoating IFPI’s figures are immediately voided. Also, I looked at the academic publication above and it does say that US share of the market decreased as low as 40% in the 80’s. After being near 80% in the 1960’s. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly you two cannot distinguish between Export Sales and Global Market Sales, that article does a great job breaking down the Export sales of the main markets. The 80% falling to 40% stated on page 641 is indicated on the Figure 1 on page 642, that is a graph for Export sales, not Global market share. As for WP:SYNTHESIS, we're not combining multiple sources, it's only one source we're relying on, and that's IFPI.--Harout72 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The academic journal do talk about exports, but in what context? You are creating a narrative that does not exist in the journal as a whole. But journal aside, like I said, anyone here is able to contact IFPI. I personally got a response from one of their top executives. They will tell you exactly what this Journal does about US AND UK market shares through the decades. They will also reveal that they have no calculation methods for older albums and artists. If they don’t have a method I certainly don’t understand why won’t even exist here on Wikipedia. Seriously, all involved editors contact IFPI. Ask them for their method in calculating older sales. Ask them about market shares from year to year throughout the decades. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Export sales of a country are one of the factors to determine the global market share as there were not many ways to find out the market share of each country like it is today. Can you show me one IFPI source specifically saying that the average market share of the US was 30% for the last 25 years?. And can you explain how you come up with certain percentage increases, for example, 1.33% for each additional year after 1975 and 1% for each additional year after the 1990s, and again 1.33% for each additional year after 2000?. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Saying there were not many ways to find out the market share of each country like it is today is an absolute fabrication. If they were able to determine the Export sales, similarly they were able to determine the total revenue (the market share data for each country). We have 25 years of data from IFPI, I suggest you determine the average by adding all available data for US market, then divide the total by the number of the years. That's not original research. Harout72 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not a fabrication. I'm talking on the basis of my discussion with one guy from IFPI last year. Considering the fact they never published any data related to the sales prior to the 90s speaks volumes. As a person that is in love with math, I have already calculated the percentage. As long as the average is not specified by the IFPI or any other secondary source this is a WP:SYNTHESIS and hence WP:OR. So yes, absolutely yes, taking the average is not sources by IFPI or any reliable secondary sources. It comes from your head. Show me a source that says to take the average. That will end this conversation right now. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your argument including "there were not many ways to find out the market share of each country like it is today" and "I'm talking on the basis of my discussion with one guy from IFPI last year" is what qualifies as OR, not determining the average based on the IFPI data we have for decades, which is an arithmetic that's not forbidden per WP:CALC. Harout72 (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not an example of routine calculations. Routine calculations would be RIAA releasing a report of new certifications for an artist and those certifications are added to the artists totals. What you are doing is not that. You have created an equation that even IFPI says they do not use. That is certainly WP:NOR. Calculating the averages based on multiple YEARS ANNUAL reports of IFPI By Harout72 or TheWikiholic or myself will be pure example of wp: SYNTH. It would be an idea that I put into motion myself, not one directed to by a primary or secondary source. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have provided an academic journal for my argument that proves American market shares were much bigger from 1960 to 1980 than today. You can argue their method of doing this is not the same as IFPI. WP:CALC doesn't apply here as we have no consensus here that the calculations are correct since the sample size of IFPI has varied over the last 25 years and incomplete since the data is not available for years like 1999, 2000, and 2001. Besides that, there is no logic in your theory of applying the average of the last 25 years to artists and albums released between the 1950s and 1980s. If there is no data of market share available pre-90’s as you appear to not deny, that doesn't mean you can simply apply the available data of later years for all the artists and albums from different eras, especially considering the fact that the US was the sole market in the world with the certification system until 1973. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any sources that support Harout72’s mathematical methodologies here. TheWikiholic has provided an academic journal that does successfully counter Harout72’s argument. Where does the IFPI require to take the average of latter year data for previous decades? Is this information in a secondary source that has not yet been posted? As this is not the first time this argument has come up, I might suggest taking this to a dispute resolution format. Israell (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A dispute resolution is a good idea, but it is pointless and I’ll explain why: There would need to be a source that word for word encompass Harout’s methodologies. There aren’t any. I have partook in a couple of dispute resolutions before in the past and won based on this. A dispute resolution will be successful at removing the current methodology. There is no question about that. However, that will also do away with the claimed sales column. I don’t think any editor here wants the column deleted. We just don’t agree on the methodology, but there is no sourced methodology on any side of the fence here. I do believe that there needs to be a consensus reached among experienced and sales knowledgeable editors. This will resolve any future debates about the methodology and have a strong bulletproof consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So start an RfC, as I've already advocated at ANI. If the methodologies involved here are indeed Harout's wild-ass guesses (however much he might have based them on various industry numbers of extrapolations), then they are certainly not immune to the consensus of interested editors. Ravenswing 22:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

(What's the Story) Morning Glory? actually sold over 22 million copies worldwide, not 20 million copies. I would like someone to find the sources to fix this issue, as I don't know how to put sources in articles. 2601:407:4100:87A0:4CD8:641B:8908:D490 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you can provide a link to a reliable source, it can be formatted and added to the article for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If you say a list?

Where is the list? Research what a list is yeah. Very frustrating. Imma go find somewhere they know what a list is. Lists do not contain paragraphs of jibber jabber ok. You waste people’s time. 62.232.167.101 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

Oasis' sophomore album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? actually sold over 22 million copies worldwide, not 20 million. This source should prove it:https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/dec/06/noel-gallagher-oasis 2601:407:4181:4260:5D3E:BFE0:B89D:622 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

Please change Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell Sold copies from 34 million to 43 million copies. JoshKettle97 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Snowmanonahoe (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

The Def Leppard album Hysteria actually sold more than just 20 million copies worldwide. According to this source , Hysteria sold 25 million copies worldwide. Is this correct? 2601:407:4181:4260:B0FC:DD25:72FA:962D (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. your source just says "Hysteria, which sold more than 20 million copies worldwide." No way to tell how many more than 20 million it was. If you have another that shows 25 million or another updated number, link to it here and reopen the request then

Cannolis (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Hi, you need to update the album sales of michael jacksons dangerous album. It has sold 32-35 million copies. Not 30. Here is my source.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_(Michael_Jackson_album) 211.30.198.211 (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To be specific, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

“Cracked Rear View”

As mentioned above, the Hootie and the Blowfish album "Cracked Rear View" is completely missing from this list, but it is RIAA certified at 21 million sold. See here: https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/ (Select "Top Tallies" at the top of the page).

Therefore, please add the following section between Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms" and Madonna "The Immaculate Collection":

Artist	Album	Released	Genre	Total certified copies (from available markets)*	Claimed sales*	Ref(s)
Hootie & the Blowfish	Cracked Rear View	1994	Alternative rock, soft rock, roots rock, heartland rock, jangle pop	21 US: 21 million	21

IAmNotDonaldTrump (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi IAmNotDonaldTrump, do you have a source indicating worldwide sales above 20 million?. I only found this but source says "shipped" and not sure if it can be added. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It is RIAA certified at over 21 million (21x platinum). That is just US sales and is based on the most commonly used definitions of sales as defined here IAmNotDonaldTrump (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I know. But certifications aren't automatically sales/copies sold. And we have all albums with sources supporting their claimed (ww) sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per response from Apoxyomenus. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Best selling albums of all time

Best selling album of all time is The Eagles Greatest Hits (2018), not Michael Jackson’s Thriller. 38.41.62.232 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)