Talk:List of best-selling albums in South Korea

Sales

To calculate the number of sales the original version of an album is combined with kits, reissues, alt versions in other languages, etc. I've been reinforcing this every time I do a monthly update. But is that really the best option? Seems kinda arbitrary to me considering that Gaon doesn't combine numbers at all. I've seen k-articles and they don't combine sales either. In fact with the last Gaon update its been said that BTS has been no. 1 on the annual album chart for five consecutive years (see some examples: 1 2 3 4 5), which is not being reflected here. - Ïvana (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Keeping track of kits and other versions is also quite strenuous, and miscalculations are more likely to happen. Since the list is based on Gaon, I would update it and refrain from combining sales in the future. --Chiya^ko92 13:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was checking the incipit, and noticed this sentence: "Exo's first studio album, XOXO, became the first album released since 2001 to sell more than 1 million copies in 2013". It links to a news article about their album becoming a million-seller after a press release by SM where Gaon sales of XOXO and Growl are combined by the agency; it should be amended if we stop combining sales. Also "BTS' Love Yourself: Answer became the first album to sell more than 2 million copies since 2000 in 2018" needs a better source, because the article only states they got a double Million certification. --Chiya^ko92 10:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure we can easily find a replacement article for the BTS ref if the change is made as there's usually an abundance of pieces about their sales records. Also, maybe some of the other editors who've had a big hand in this page's creation/structuring should be pinged in the conversation so we can get more voices for a solid consensus about such a major change? I get where Ïvana is coming from having seen all the articles myself when searching Naver, though perhaps there is a very good reason why it was decided to combine everything in the first place? I can't remember but I'm sure it was discussed in the past, maybe in the restructuring section above? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason why different album formats are combined is, because they are still the same album just in a different format. Same with reissues. If you look at the xoxo and the Growl tracklist, they are basically the same albums with two bonus tracks. Reissues are the same thing as Deluxe editions alot of Western artists release, same thing with some bonus tracks to boost sales/streams.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirim.Z (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that they're just different formats of essentially the same album. But my point is that Gaon doesn't see it that way, and this list is based on Gaon. For example, Baekhyun's Delight has 1m+ sales, because a kit is included. But the album's certification is Platinum x3, not 1m, because the original album sold less than 1m. If different versions sell more than 1m each they should be listed separately (like WINGS and YNWA), because that's how they are presented in Gaon's top 100. But I agree with Carlobunnie, I think more people should weigh in. - Ïvana (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Judging by the page chronology, it was mostly curated by IPs and editors whose usernames make me think about fans, but I see that @Mauri96: contributed a lot to the early page set up, so if they don't mind I dare pinging them.
I wouldn't be totally against combining different album formats, like kits, even though I'd rather not to to better stick to Gaon and for easier updating, while combining repackage still doesn't feel right to me. Releasing a repackage is still considered a proper comeback in South Korea, with new specific MVs, style, promotions and all the likes, and there are repackages, albeit rare, like 1-1=0 (Nothing Without You) where only 3 out of 10 tracks are from 1X1=1 (To Be One). But most of all, I'd rather avoid a situation where, because of combining, the best-selling album of the year isn't the one stated by Gaon in its year-end chart. --Chiya^ko92 15:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding some more info that may contribuite to discussing: Chapter 4 by GOD, Another Days by Kim Gun-mo and a love songs compilation album were the last to sell more than a million copies in 2001 before sales plummeted; Exo were the first artist to become a million seller in 2013 combining the two-language albums of 'XOXO' and their respective repackages (source), while BTS set the record of surpassing 1 million copies on a single album since 2001 (source). Maybe the decision of combining sales was taken because selling more than 1 million copies on a single album was extremely unlikely at the time, while more and more artists are achieving that now. --Chiya^ko92 10:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The January update is right around the corner, so it would be great to reach a consensus before then. The problem is that, paraphrasing Chiyako92, the page has been mostly curated by ips and fans. The only person mantaining it for a long period of time was Mauri96, but he's not that active right now. I also saw @Kleool: a lot so I'm pinging her to get more feedback. I'm not sure who else to ask. Maybe posting this on WT:KO would be a good idea. - Ïvana (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana, Chiyako92, and Lirim.Z: I'm not sure why the sales were initially combined, but Lirim.Z is correct in their statements about the discussion which happened (but i think in a User's talk page, not here) - what in 'kpop' is considered reissue, in "western" industry is considered Deluxe, and their sales are combined by national charts (e.g. Billboard), certification entities (RIAA, BPI and the like) and in global yearly rankings (IFPI). This logic also includes the format. With rebirth of vinyl, they are also counted together with digitals etc, despite not being exactly the usual format.

Yes, counting in the kit is bothersome and time consuming, it is in your right not to add it in the future, but if another user adds it, it would not be incorrect and we would have to allow it. This sound very similar to the controversy over G-Dragon's album which came only in USB format, when gaon did not want to count it in the chart, but later had to because of pressure from both labels and press.
The argument that we should not combine Exo's albums just because the editions are listed seperately in the Gaon chart, is flawed (believe me, i have had my own strong personal opinions against combining), and is akin to not counting song and it's remix sales together, if they were listed seperately on the chart. Gaon's job in this case is being the verifying entity that these albums were sold/shipped, and not indicator of whether album is the same album.
Take what you will from what i said. I will comply to whatever decision you come to, but my opinion is that album, reissue(deluxe) or not, whichever format, is still the same album and as long as sales/shipments can be verified by reliable source (in this case Gaon), they are valid. Kleool (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As for me, I would not object to combining editions of the same album in other languages since the tracklist is the same (albeit translated), or Be Deluxe Edition with Be Essential Edition (same tracklist here as well) – at least in the overall tables. When listing the best-selling albums by year, I think the table should report the first position on the Gaon Chart and its sales only.
I still oppose combining standard albums with their reissues due to different tracklists. Gaon Chart isn't the only one that doesn't do this – other countries follow the same praxis, for example Wings and You Never Walk Alone charted separately in Canada, France, the US and Japan. The Italian chart also has the rule that albums are considered different and chart separately if the tracklist is not the same.
I'd therefore suggest to reason on a tracklist basis: same tracklist=sales are combined (regardless of language and formats); different tracklist=sales are not combined. --Chiya^ko92 09:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: it seems that you've missed my point. Deluxe doesn't stop being the same album just because tracklist is different. Look at e.g. Folklore which had 1 extra song on deluxe, Lover had 2 extra songs. Did they stop being the same album because they had few songs more? No. They just called it Deluxe. Kpop albums tend to chart with different name.. because they just have different name attached to it. Citation from Billboard here - "it was extremely savvy for BTS and their Korean label BigHit Entertainment to focus on one single for the repackaged deluxe version of their hit album Wings titled You Never Walk Alone." In fact, YNWA charted in Japan as "Wings:BTS Vol.2" as seen here (fun fact, that BTS Vol.2 stands for "BTS 2nd studio album"). BTS's BE being called deluxe without any extra songs already raised a lot of eyebrows because it didn't have extra songs, so i don't think it can be considered valid example. Especially as it's unknown if on Gaon it won't chart as "BE (Essential Edition)" at same time "BE (Deluxe Edition)". And lastly, this wikipedia page is called "List of best selling albums", and the table is called "Best-selling album by year", not "Album ranked #1 on Gaon".Kleool (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

this wikipedia page is called "List of best selling albums in South Korea", not "in the world". The "repackage" kpop albums have "new title" songs and new songs not extra songs, they are new albums during promotion period not "Deluxe" albums. In April 2018, Gaon introduced music recording certifications for albums, downloads and streaming. Album certifications are awarded based on shipment figures provided by record labels and distributors. Kpop albums' sales need to be certified according to the chart, that published after 2018(or 2010, the chart published). If we talk about repackage, how about "화양연화 Young Forever" and "LOVE YOURSELF 結 'Answer'" from BTS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andychang03 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Andychang03 Those albums have never been called a repackaged. Unsure where you got that information from. It states everywhere that it is a compilation album. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Inconsistency

Is there a specific reason as to why the sales of NCT 2020 Resonance pt. 1 & 2 are not combined? As far as I can tell, pt. 2 is a repackage of pt. 1. This would mean that not combining the sales of the 2 parts is inconsistent with what happens to repackages of other albums. Jackbmh (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jackbmh: To be honest I'm not really familiar with NCT, so I didn't know. Under what name should I list them? Resonance? Or Resonance pt. 1 & 2? - Ïvana (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the tracklist alone, Pt. 2 contains all the 13 tracks from Pt. 1 and eight new songs, and on top of that they are described as "first" and "second" part of NCT's second studio album, so combining them might make sense. Their two articles should probably be merged to NCT 2020 Resonance as well. I see it is/was discussed in the talk pages and there's also a draft, so before combining the sales here it might be best to wrap up those discussions first. --Chiya^ko92 09:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as those discussions have been inactive for months, I'd guess that this issue is just going to stay in limbo and remain inconsistent. Jackbmh (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

NCT

DREAM

Update:

NCT DREAM surpassed 2 million album sales with their latest comeback. On May 10, NCT DREAM released their first full album "Hot Sauce." As of May 25, the album had 2,040,360 copies sold. After earning the title of "million seller" within the first week of sales, NCT DREAM achieved the title of "double million seller" after achieving more than 2 million sales within 16 days of launch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:4f0:521:3b10:2d12:594d:84b6:2af8 (talk)

It will be added after the next Gaon update at the beggining of next month. Wait 2 weeks. - Ïvana (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RESONANCE

According to the press, NCT is a Double Million-seller:

"NCT released its second studio album with two parts, in which" RESONANCE Pt "was first dropped last October. Upon release, the album recorded 1,463,798 million album copies, earning the title for a million-seller. Meanwhile, "RESONANCE Pt. 2" released in November, and maintaining their tremendous influence, NCT recorded 1,217,122 million album copies, garnering a total of 2,680,920 million copies for their second full-length album alone, making them Double Million-sellers."

I think we should put the result in a single box and not separate it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nctdaoying/status/1341616283545075712?lang=es

https://www.kpopstarz.com/amp/articles/296433/20201223/nct-becomes-double-million-seller-exceeds-5-11m-total-album.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:4f0:521:3b10:2d12:594d:84b6:2af8 (talk)

That has already been discussed here. Right now there are separate articles for each part; it would be better if they were merged into one. You can open a discussion on any of the articles talk pages to see if someone can update this draft. - Ïvana (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: do we know what exactly is the holdup w that draft? I saw it being discussed on either the WP:KO talk page or a related music project talk page recently but I don't remember seeing a conclusion to whatever the proposal or request abt it was. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie, Draft:NCT 2020 Resonance is this the draft. The discussion is taking place here and here. It has been stale since last year. Pinging @Hiroctzen and @41matt14 EN-Jungwon 06:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I have no idea - I don't follow NCT articles (which is why I wasn't aware of this issue until someone pointed it out) and I didn't see anything on the WP:KO talk page. As EN-Jungwon mentioned, the draft and associated discussions have been abandoned for months. The people pinged can probably contribute more. - Ïvana (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: yes I know, I've read both those discussions before :), and Ïvana linked the draft in her reply above mine. @Ïvana: that's why I said "or a related music project talk page" because I don't remember where I saw it specifically. I don't follow NCT articles either so it might've been another music talk page discussing albums of a similar nature that I read within the past month or two, didn't mean a recent discussion so sorry for not making that clearer. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Yeah sorry for the short answer, it was almost 4am. I don't follow music projects, but I checked the WikiProject Albums talk page and its archives yesterday and couldn't find anything. Maybe the discussion happened somewhere else but idk where. I guess we will have to wait til someone decides to open those discussions again and/or update that draft so it can be published. - Ïvana (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: just letting you know the Resonance draft was published to mainspace just now so if any adjustments/updates need to be made to the table for NCT you'd be able to now. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think we should color it blue like standard+reissue albums, since Pt. 2 was released later than Pt. 1 and contains all songs from Pt. 1? --Chiya^ko92 08:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: I'm leaning towards yes, but you guys would know better than me tbqh. Pinging @Lirim.Z: cuz they're probably one of the best people to advise on this. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Resonance also be marked by (Full & RG) like other repackages? The current title implies that all of its sales were achieved with 1 comeback, but it was split between 2 comebacks just like any other repackaged album.Jackbmh (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jackbmh: Honestly this whole Resonance thing is confusing, because pt 2 was marketed as the 2nd part of a single album and not a repackage, even tho it's just pt 1 plus a few new tracks (like, for example, Wings and YNWA). Nowhere in the Resonance article says that it's a repackage. So I'm not sure if I should mark it as one or not. - Ïvana (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: Even though it's not explicitly stated as a repackage, it functionally is identical to a repackage and I believe that it would make more sense and be more consistent to mark it as one. Jackbmh (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jackbmh: I just saw that the same question was asked here a few days ago so I moved the convo to keep everything in one place. If everyone agrees then I'm on board bc you're right, it's pretty much a repackage. - Ïvana (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

BTS, The Best

According to this website: https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2197063/full/ 572,000 copies 1 day so today i estimate 6864000

Those sales were recorded in Japan, not in South Korea. --Chiya^ko92 08:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

True, because its a japanese album. Thank you!

Butter

I believe the butter CD got 2 million copies: https://mb.com.ph/2021/07/10/bts-butter-cd-sells-2-15-million-copies-on-first-day-of-release/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎202.168.34.124 (talk • contribs)

Butter will be added after the next Gaon update on August 11. We don't update sales in real time. - Ïvana (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency with repacks

There should be a consensus on if repackage albums get counted with the original. According to the korean charts they do not and ive never seen them counted as one except on this page. It’s wildly inconsistent, and in all realism should be edited. This change would reflect the charts more accurately, and change the following info

NCT Dream Hot Sauce - 2,049,042 NCT Resonance pt 1 - 1,289,594 BTS Wings - 1,320,000 EXO Tempo - 1,450,358 EXO The War - 862,849 NCT Neo Zone - 836,779 TXT Freeze - 784,394 Wanna One 0+1=1 - 785,578 EXO XOXO - 401,032

So on and so forth.

Counting repacks and albums in one number is inaccurate, and this single page is the only page I have ever seen it happening on. It’s inaccurate to the charts and artists, and it should be changed. Jayb.rd98 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I raised the same points a few months ago, and the discussion didn't really reach a conclusion I guess. Like you said, sales are not combined in any other article apart from this one. Not on the Gaon Album Chart, albums (such as Hot Sauce, Wings and Resonance), or k-pop artists discographies (there's always a different table for reissues). So if anything the question is about consistency. - Ïvana (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused as to why Wikipedia is adopting this methodology when the South Korean market doesn't use it. Not even IFPI combined the sales for the 2020 Global Sales Chart: Resonance had more than 2 million combined sales in 2020 but it wasn't listed. --Chiya^ko92 08:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: I checked the top editors and from the top 20, excluding us, only 6 have been regularly active in the last few months. And that's including Carlobunnie, Lirim.Z and Kleool who participated in the last discussion. Most have been inactive for years. I'm pretty much the only one who regularly updates the sales, with the occasional addition by other editors when I forget something. But I can't just do a major change without some sort of consensus. Should I just tag the other active top editors -and hope they respond- so we can vote and get it over with? I'm not sure if a RfC is warranted here. - Ïvana (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I think it would be wise to do it. --Chiya^ko92 17:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kleool: @Lenoresm: @Ukiss2ne14lyfe: @Lirim.Z: @Evaders99: @Carlobunnie: Hello! I'm pinging yall for the reasons mentioned above and in a previous discussion. Everyone here is a top editor on this page so I think our opinions weight more. Some of you already commented back then but I think it would be better to just summarize everyone's povs here, even if it's just a yes or no. Should we keep combining sales? Or keep them separate which is what happens literally eveywhere else? Right now this article is inconsistent with the rest. So maybe that's what we should be focusing on, instead of arguing if a reissue is truly a different album, even if Gaon says so. - Ïvana (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I know even on discography pages they're counted separate. This page has always been touchy about changes so I let it be. I think for consistency sake it should be like the rest of wikipedia. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also for separating them rather than combining the sales, even though I've gone along with how this page been all this time. Iirc, one argument previously made was that Billboard/Oricon combines reissues w orig releases, but I rly don't see how that's relevant to an article on Korean albums/sales in which the preferences of outside chart bodies play no role. Both origs and reissues sell+chart separately in various countries because they're considered individual releases, and not the same album. I've never understood why an outside standard should be enforced, over what Gaon (the ruling SK chart authority) and K-media outlets report each year. I also remember it being said that the end table is for the best-selling album wwide, not Gaon's #1 album, but the #1 position represents the best-selling album as posited by Gaon acc to its data (excluding ofc much older releases supported by MIAK when it was the ruling chart authority). What else is the position for? What else does the #1 represent, if not that? If Gaon considers X and Y to be individual releases, and says X is the best-selling one, and K-media all report the same thing, why are we enforcing a different standard and saying X+Y=X? I understand the arguments against but I disagree with them. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Carlobunnie. --Chiya^ko92 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviving this before the next update, which will happen in a few days: @Kleool: @Lenoresm: @Lirim.Z: @Evaders99: do you guys have any input? So far everyone agrees that the current methodology to calculate total sales should be changed. - Ïvana (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I still stand by my opinion that repackages are essentially deluxe editions in terms of "western" equivalents and that this page is "List of best-selling albums" not "gaon ranking". Frankly, this decision stands by the people who are currently upkeeping it, i guess. Don't know.. might try attract some 3rd party editor opinions from WP:ALBUMS? Kleool (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is trying to make an equivalence with western albums/rankings/whatever. Gaon works differently. And yes, the name of the article is "List of best-selling albums in South Korea" not "List of best-selling albums in South Korea according to Gaon" but Gaon is still the only authority regarding sales. So, if they publish that x album is #1 and has x sales, and k-media repeats it, then why would we say otherwise? Even the kr version of this article reflects their chart. And pretty much the rest of english wikipedia because none of the articles I checked combined sales of albums, kits and reissues. So this is about consistency. - Ïvana (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: talking about k-media now is a moot point, because k-media was the one which called EXO "million-sellers" for crossing 1m sales (yes, including repackages) for their album(s). "Standard and reissue albums" might give you problems with yearly ranking, e.g. SG Wannabe's Saldaga was listed on RIAK combined. But as i said, do what you guys want, if you as upkeepers of the article think it would be better. It's not like it hasn't been rebuilt several times (e.g. there used to be seperate tables for Male/Female artists, or table(s) contained albums which had a lot less sales etc). But if you do decide to seperate "main" from "repack", i'd suggest keeping the minimal sales threshold as is aka 1million (don't lower it). Kleool (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's a moot point. In the context of this discussion, mentions of K-media labelling an album as the "best-selling" are referring to them reporting based on Gaon's year-end chart report as they've always done. They don't just take it upon themselves to designate the best-selling album of any given year. They get the information from somewhere i.e. Gaon. That is wholly different to them using "million seller(s)" interchangeably to refer to both an album and/or repackage that has sold that many copies individually+combined.
This discussion has no bearing on the threshold minimum for inclusion being 1M sales because that was never up for debate. If we end up separating repackages from originals, obv those that haven't sold that amount yet won't be included at all. If the only data available for a release is its combined sales, making it impossible to separate the two (re: your Saldaga example, hopefully I interpreted what you meant correctly), then we can simply add a footnote indicating that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I agree with you, but was thinking what if rather than separating full and RG we just make another column for RG side by side and then total it. Before starting the list we can once explain what does RG or repackage means. I know it will increase the work but will just close the discussion for once and all. What do you think? @Ïvana Data For Life (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Data For Life: We're trying to decide if the sales should be combined at all, not how to present the data once they're combined. Adding an extra column to make the individual sales public instead of hidden would be more confusing for the people navigating the article. And sometimes it's not just an album and a repack that are being combined, but an album, repack, kit, alt language version of an album and then its repack, kit, etc (check the code of any Exo entry - it would be a nightmare). As of now, it looks cleaner this way. But again, that's not the main point of this discussion. - Ïvana (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If we are voting, I vote to keep the current system in place. I agree with Kleool that repackaged albums are essentially the same as Western deluxe or special edition albums. I think what makes Korean repackaged albums seem different is that a Korean artist will usually actively promote the new song on the repackaged album as a single (whereas a Western artist might just drop a deluxe edition with a "bonus track" that's not marketed like a single). It's a clever marketing trick, but I don't think it makes the repackaged albums substantially different from the originals. Lenoresm (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I also want to keep current system as it is. Otherwise it will be shock to many people visiting the page(after all the media play which hyped artists for selling certain amount of albums), also it will cause removal of some artists/or some albums from the list for not clearing 1M cut off.

We need something which can make people go and check the gaon chart by themselves. So what I am proposing is adding an extra column and writing the gaon certification over there.

Before the start of the list we can explain what the repackage means and how gaon(officially) give certification to only full album not after adding repackage and all. What you all think? Data For Life (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But yeah this also won't solve the problem as certificates are available for albums after 2018.

If there is is no alternate solution for this, then I am voting for not combining the sales at all. Data For Life (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the page in its current status could be considered an original research. It's true that routine calculations are valid, but the policy also states it's allowed "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." WP:SYNTHESIS adds "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 that is 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 performed by an editor here." As others have already pointed out before, our source (Gaon) presents divided sales data according both to tracklists (original album, repack) and formats (vynil, kit); manually conbining them here doesn't seem "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection", at least not to me. --Chiya^ko92 07:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Repackaged in kpop aren't 1-2 new songs. It's 3-5 songs, which in kpop is a whole mini album. Repackaged in kpop are still new albums. They just add old album songs of previous album to boost sales. Not to mention unlike deluxe albums in the US where they're not marketed, kpop groups market these new albums and songs on different shows. A deluxe album is not the equivalent of a repackaged album in the US. There is no equivalent. Much like in the Japanese market things are very different as well. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Chiya raises the most valid point besides the consistency issue and the current methodology could be considered original research. Some editors opposing the change argued that this would cause artists to be removed but that's exactly the point. I also don't think that changing the entries would confuse people or be a shock to them, if anything the current page is not a reflection of gaon or a lot of karticles, esp the ones mentioning best seller of the year. Mediaplay is mediaplay, we don't have to honor it or base editorial decisions on it.

If we're voting, amongst the top editors we have 4 approving the change, 2 against, 1 undecided? (Lirim just made one comment so idk) and 1 unknown because Evaders didn't respond. We've been talking about this since January so I just want to get over it lol. And the next monthly update is in 12 days. I've been working on the alternate version here, in case anyone wants to check it or has any suggestions as to how to improve it. - Ïvana (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: The sandbox looks good, Resonance pt. 2 total should be 1,145,602 though, I think. --Chiya^ko92 18:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox looks good. I just have one final thing to say: if, as per the editors who disagree above, repacks are nothing more deluxe editions of albums and should be treated the way billboard treats deluxe albums (combines sales+charting), then why on discographies or album articles do we not combine them for ALL countries? Why do we include separate charting info for them? If a repack charts higher than the orig release then that would be the only chart position displayed on the album article or artist discog, right? The repacks wouldn't be shown as separate album entries either right? But no. You'll never see those editors who update myriads upon myriads of music pages removing chart entries for repackages that chart independently of the orig releases, nor will you see them say that both albums are the same and therefore entries for both shouldn't be included. We treat these albums how the charts/sources treat them. Oricon combines them, we combine. Billboard combines them, we combine. In Ita, Fra, Ger, Bel, etc. or whatever countries where they chart as standalone releases, we list them as such. We don't say, well I think they should be treated like deluxe albums are treated in America so I'm going to combine the chart data. We can't handle the sales one way while treating the charting differently. That makes no sense. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: I double checked and couldn't find anything wrong with Resonance pt 2 sales. 791,590 in 2020 + 394,012 in 2021 = 1,185,602. No idea where that 40k difference comes from. - Ïvana (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: You're right, I mistyped it (like, thrice ^_^'). --Chiya^ko92 14:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm against: i think that for counting the "Album sales" we should count original + re-issue altogheter for the simple reason that are the same album + 3 songs (some says even 5 but are a very rare cases), because even if that re-issues are promoted with single like a full comeback, is also true that is promoted as a "Re-issue" of the album, so promoted as an "extension" of the album. Is exactly like a movie that is re-published but with an extension, will you say that is a different movie? If you watch the extended version of Lord of the Rings, you just watchs Lords of the Rings, not an another movie. This is the exact same thing. You Never Walk Alone, Growl, 0+1=1 were promoted as a "re-issues" and are actually the original album + 3 songs, we can't consider differents album from the originals's one (Wings, XOXO, 1X1=1). Moreover there are tons of tons of article regarding "XOXO being the first milion sellers since 2001" that make actually obvious that, despite what Gaon do, South Korea's musical journalism count the total of all album's version for evaluate the grossing of the album. Why we should divide them only because Gaon do that? Why not divide also the kit (that Gaon count as a different album too)? Even MAMA considered all version of an album for make their prize "Album of the Year", and wikipedia did for more than 10 years before people starts to say that "Re-issues are different album" despise they aren't. I repeat myself, if you watch the extended version of Lord of the Rings, you just watchs Lords of the Rings, and not an another films, so why we want to count a re-issue (pratically, an extension of an Album) as a different and stand-alone album? While only Gaon did that and everything count them as a single album?. -- Jotzy (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2021

• @Ïvana: Hi, although I currently don't have any stand over combining reissues with original or not, one thing that concerns me and which was not raised properly during this discussion is that Gaon also ranks and counts different formats of albums [i.e., CD (most common), LP (Vinyl) or KiT player]. The tracklist, the time of pre-order, and generally the time of release of the albums in different formats is same but still Gaon counts different. Reason is unknown to me. Maybe because LP and KiT player are produced in limited numbers only on the basis of pre-orders. But problem of reissues raised above doen't resonate with me why only CD numbers are only counted and LP and KiT numbers has been reduced from the countings of other albums? Different format doesn't make it a different album. -ink&fables «talk» 02:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: Hey there. That's a fair point, one that I didn't think of. I think you're right, and in older entries different formats are already combined (cassettes and cds). I'll add the ones that are missing then. Thanks! I don't know if I should mark those with a different color, or add another legend explicitly stating that there is more than one format included. Thoughts? - Ïvana (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: I don't see any reason for them to be explicitly highlighted. Having an extra column for the release format of albums can be an option, but it will be a tedious task. Thank you for entertaining my thoughts. -ink&fables «talk» 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jotzy:

For what a re-package is, according to "Merriam-Webster" the definition of Re-Package is: "to package again or anew"; "specifically : to put into a more efficient or attractive form" Or ": to put (something) into a new package"; ": to present (something) to the public in a new or more attractive way". So this means that re-packaging an album is to "put that album into a new package for pagkaging again or for a more attractive form", this means that a re-package can't be considered as a different album from the original, because is the original's one but in a "more" attractive (or efficient) form but is the same album accordig to the definition of "re-package". I believe that is simply wrong to separate them, also because saying "Gaon didn't count them as a one album" when, as the user @Ïvana: noted, Gaon didn't count as a single album different format of CD isn't enough, because if we want to separate them (Original & re-package) due to Gaon, for having coherence we need to separated different format, mostly because according to "Re-package" definition, a re-package is the exact album but "more attractive" or "re-published". Jotzy (talk) 7:10, 11 November 2021

@82.60.9.251: May I know why you are using someone else's signature for your comments? -ink&fables «talk» 08:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am Jotzy, i don't get your question. Probably i don't know how to make a signature but i am Jotzy, whatever, even if i am not Jotzy, this doesn't change the definition of "Re-package" that i wrote so is actually irrelevant who am i since we are in Wikipedia, not in a forum or in Youtube when we can talk like fan saying "We can't combined re-package" and so on. We must wrote soemthing that is true, and if we don't know if something is true or untrue, we need to check out. Re-package is an another form of the same album, so is wrong to not combined despite what people in this Wiki chosen, isn't an opinion, but a fact. Re-packaging something is actually re-published that thing in a more "attractive" way, this make that thing change? No. If Gaon didn't list them togheter is irrelevant, Gaon is a source for the selling, not for the definition of an album, so saying "Gaon doesn't count altogheter" isn't relevant to the argument. This page need to be reverted, because we actually spread a false thing: That a re-package is a different thing that the original thing. I will revert that page everytime, because as af now, according to "Re-package" definition, this page is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.9.251 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@82.60.9.251: If you're Jotzy, then please login into your account before making a comment or else you would be considered a sockpuppet of Jotzy, for which you could be blocked and banned from editing on Wikipedia. You just have to put four tildes (~~~~) after your comments to sign. You should follow BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if you have some differing opinion. Be constructive and don't be an ignorant, thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

May i ask you why my comment is ignorance? If the definition of "Re-package something" made by english dictionary (like Oxford's one: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/repackage?q=repackage) talk about "to change the boxes, bags, etc. in which a product is sold", means that "product" didn't become a different thing, so we cannot considered it as a different thing. If for show-business in South Korea (k-pop) they uses repackage for make an additional comeback isn't something that we need to consider for "Repackage" definition. If we talk about combining sales of original+repackage we need to know if we can consider that as the same album, but if a reissue "change boxes, bags etc." for make more attractive a "product" didn't change the "product" itself. So a Repackage of an album make more attractive an album (with more songs, photocard, different package and styles) but don't change the fact that is that album. "You Never Walk Alone" was a way to boost "Wings" selling. It isn't important that Gaon count them as separates, becuase Gaon also count as separated different version of the same exact album like "COUNTDOWN" by Super-Junior D&E (Ref:http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=45&hitYear=2021&termGbn=week) then separates repackage from "the originals" due to the fact that Gaon did (reliable source for "SELLING" not for "Definition" of an album) is uncorrect. This page is incorrect, because the definition of reissue is wrong. Jotzy (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Gaon matters because that is the reigning metric of measuring these albums. If, according to South Korean charts, the albums are two different things then they are two different things. The page is here to reflect the charts and information from south korea, it’s not “non-korean interpretation of south korean charts”. Regardless of if you agree or not, it’s the precedent set by the industry we are here to reflect information from. The simple fact that to count it as one you need to search two different albums and then add it together should be enough to indicate that it’s not an accurate measurement. - Jayb.rd98 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This answer make me understand that all of you just ignore how Marketing work and what's happen on K-pop, since i studied k-pop because i was interest in a marketing way and i actually graduate on marketing (specifically another thing, but for make all of you understand i will labelled myself as a "Marketing graduate" guy) i will make all of you understand something:

1) Gaon is highly inconsistent of definition of an album for a lot of reasons; - first of all the "kit version" of an album just existed since 2010 but only in modern times Gaon count them as a separates; - second Gaon sometimes considered different version of an album as a different albums (Super Junior D&E's COUTNDOWN) and sometimes as the same album (L., O., V. and E. version of Love Yourself: Her that are considered as a one album); - Third Gaon count a repackage different from the original only when have a different name, for examples "Bambi" by Baekhyun had a repackage on june (and if you think that don't have a repackage on june this means that all of you really ignore some simply definition so please don't reply with ignorant answers) but since SMTOWN didn't labelled as a repackage and didn't change the name actually Gaon considered as the same album despite make Re-issue (o Repackage) a completely different album while counting; - Fourth "single album" are "physical single" not an actual "album" but Gaon considered the physical version of "Solo", "Lalisa" and "Butter" as an album despite being incorrect. This is why Gaon would be considered only for "sales source" and not for "definition" source because is highly inconsistent with itself (the first three point) and don't have a proper definition of "Album", labelled them as a "phisical or digital product with more than a song", that definition is incorrect. 2) Saying that "Koreans have different definition than westeners is highly incorrect and it is only based to "Gaon" that we just see that is highly incorrect whit itself so not a reliable source for what koreans believe an album or repackage is: - Depsite what everyone thinks, even in western market (because in all world happens) a re-issue have newer songs, newer videos, and the musical artist return on radio for talk about his/her album, an examples is "Di20" by italian singer Francesca Michielin, an album that have the single "L'amore esiste" for promoting. After months Michielin's label published "Di20are", the repackage version, with more songs, the single "Nessun grado di separazione" with its MV, styles and atmosphere, exactly like happens on k-pop repackage. The only difference is about show-business, because in k-pop a comeback need a new dance, new styles, new photocards and so on. But if we eliminate the show-business around k-pop, there no difference about "Di20are" and "You Never Walk Alone", both album are extension of the original, with newer songs, new MV and styles; - Even South koreans Industry seeing repackage album as a repackage exactly like all Industry in the worlds do. If we note every repackage are published in a span of one or two months from the original with the only exceptions of "You Never Walk Alone" and "TWICEcoaster: Lane 2", with some album, like "Skool Luv Affair: Special Addition" even published the same month! While the actual comeback have every time a lot of time of difference. Examples: Dreamctacher's Dystopia trilogy were published in a very long time in comparison with repackage, with "Dystopia: The Tree of Language" being published on february 2020, "Dystopia: Lose Myself" on august 2020 and "Dystopia: Road to Utopia" on January 2021, while repackage version of an album, like "Taste" by NCT Dream (repackage of "Hot Sauce"), "Modern Times - Epilogue" by IU (repackage of "Modern Times") are published in a span of two months. Have you ever questioning why repackage are usually published so fastly compared to an actual comeback? - South Koreans actually see repacakage exactly like we do, becuase if you actually note repackage have ever extremely low copies sold compared to the original (with the only exception being "Growl" and "You Never Walk Alone") this means that actually yes, South Korean see them as the same album and didn't want to spend more money for a product that they have actually just sold, and only fans bought the repackage version. In deed "Taste" sold only 1M copies while "Sticker" by NCT 127 (the real NCT comeback after NCT Dream's "Hot Sauce") sold 2.3M copies. Repackage sold extremely low compare to the original (except "Growl", which outsold "XOXO" and "You Never Walk Alone" that is near to "Wings" copies sold) beacuase they are seen as the same album by Koreans citizen. - Repackage usually have similar concept to the original's one, for examples "Lotto" has the same dark vibe, "against rule" concept as "Ex-Act", but "The War" is completely different from "Ex-Act" concept, exaclty like "Obsession" is completely different form concept, musical style and so on to the other EXO's album. Now i feeling myself that i talk with k-pop's fan in a Youtube video more than in "Wikipedia" so let's be real. I didn't talk because i have different opinion, i talk because i actually studied this argument and i am a "Marketing graduate" guy, not someone who don't know what's talk about, i know what i talked about, and i know, that all of you atually ignored how Show-Business work and actually all of your argument are based of a not "reliable" source. "Gaon" is reliable speaking about "Selling" but like i demonstrate before, is highly inconsistent with itself speaking about definition of an album (the first three point). If all of you ignored how something work, please don't change a page in base of your opinion not based by the reality but only about superficial way to see something (there are a lot of other points that make clear that for Koreans Repackage definition is the same of western definition that i studied back in 2019-2020 for university), this is vandalysm, all of you actually vandalyze a page making misinformation. This is why, despite i'm a user since 2014, this is the first time i actually talked a lot, i study this argument, and i know this is misinformation based of a "not Reliable and higlhy inconsistent" source like Gaon (that i repeat, speaking about selling is the best we can have from South Korea) so please, now i will correct that page and please don't vandalyze reverting in that wrong way like you did in the last days, and please let pople who know an argument to modify that argument. Thank you for your attention. Jotzy (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

First, a few points: unconfirmed credentials are irrelevant. I could say I'm a marketing graduate or a kpop expert and that would not carry weight in this discussion. See WP:CAI. Second, assuming how South Koreans think or why they buy the way they buy is also irrelevant. Same with random stats. You can't make an equivalent with westerns albums, that was already covered in previous discussions. I suggest you look at them, because this change has been in talks since the beginning of the year, it wasn't decided in a day.

Now regarding your arguments:

• "first of all the "kit version" of an album just existed since 2010 but only in modern times Gaon count them as a separates" kits are already included in the calculation of sales because they are simply a different physical format of the same album. If you check Gaon's chart it says at the top 앨범(Tape, LP, CD, USB, Kit 등) which is why we combine those. So whether they are listed separately or not changes nothing.
• "second Gaon sometimes considered different version of an album as a different albums (Super Junior D&E's COUTNDOWN) and sometimes as the same album (L., O., V. and E. version of Love Yourself: Her that are considered as a one album)" LHY is one album with one tracklist and different pictures, it makes no sense to consider them different versions just because the external package changes. Super Junior D&E's COUTNDOWN has three versions and all of them have 2-3 different songs; is not one unique tracklist so I don't see your point.
• "Third Gaon count a repackage different from the original only when have a different name, for examples "Bambi" by Baekhyun had a repackage on june (and if you think that don't have a repackage on june this means that all of you really ignore some simply definition so please don't reply with ignorant answers) but since SMTOWN didn't labelled as a repackage and didn't change the name actually Gaon considered as the same album despite make Re-issue (o Repackage) a completely different album while counting" I couldn't find any indication of the album having a reissue on its article, or googling it.
• "Fourth "single album" are "physical single" not an actual "album" but Gaon considered the physical version of "Solo", "Lalisa" and "Butter" as an album despite being incorrect" that is not correct for South Korea. See single album.

Boldly reverting something outside of an already established consensus is not vandalism. The editors reverting you are not the ones at fault here. - Ïvana (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to intervene, but I thought it could be good to remind that the definition of "repackage" isn't questioned here; rather, the current format was decided according to the policy about original researches on Wiki, which amongst other things states: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." --Chiya^ko92 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

For the first point (the kit point) that is exactly the point: Gaon consider Kit as a part of an album but randomly change their mind and considered something different from the album, in deed we can know how sold a "Kit version", that is exactly the point;

For the second point you are right, and i make a mistake; For the third point is actually a shame that google didn't have any information about that (Bambi re-release) that make all of we actually believe that in the last week of April (was in april, not in june, i made another mistake) Bambi had a random blow up and return at number #1 despise the newer version was the number one, so actually, since there aren't information about it i can't talk; For the fourth position, single album in south korea are exactly like physical single in western during '70 to '90 the only difference is that they do now, but since all the point i made are wrong (except the first) i can't say that Gaon is wrong, so a single album is an album for South Korea. But i'm not sure about "Butter" since i didn't find no infromation about the fact that Big Hit want to release a single album, but only that in the "Physical version" of the song they also put "Permision of Dance" so i don't get it why Gaon listed that as an album. I search on Google Schoolar, but there are or wrongly information (You Never Walk Alone listed as a 2015 album) or neither information about that argument, so without reliable source i can't talk. For answering Chiyako92, asking if a repackage should be listed as separated from the original is actually asking if it can be considered as a different album, so the definition of repackage was the argument of the discussion, because actually Gaon was ever used for the selling source, not for divide the album was actually the argument: if a repackage can't be considered as a different album, and if Gaon was used (for more than 7 years) only for sales source, i don't get why now we want to change something that make actually the page untrue, despite every argument, despite my mistake, Wiki policy, your decision and everyone opinions, since repackage can't be considered as a different album from the original, divide them make actually this page incorrect. Moreover, according to the Wiki policy you cited, this page is inconsistent with its source due to the fact that, acrroding to Repackage definition, a repackage can't be considered a different album. Why is inconsistent? Becuase we separated the repackage due to Gaon, but actually not the Kit, that for Gaon are separated album, "Delight" didn't reach the 1M mark without its kit version, and if we want to separate repackage (despite being the same album according to its definition) for not being inconsistent with our source (GAON) we need to also separate the kit version, so actually this page is wrong even for the policy you listed. Since all of you want to separate repackage from original, for make this page consistent we need to separate also the kit, or we re-bring the page like it was. Jotzy (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason why "Butter" is in the album chart is because "album" has a different meaning in South Korea. As The JoongAng explained, "In Korea, all physical records are called albums, such as regular albums, single albums, and mini albums, but in the West, only physical records containing 10 or more songs are called albums." The "Album" in the name "Gaon Album Chart" is a placeholder for "Physical"; it's a chart that ranks every physical release, regardless of their durations.

The argument "Gaon Chart tabulates sales of albums and repackages separately, but a repackage is the original album put in a more attractive package, so their sales should be combined" is, unfortunately, an example of original synthesis, which is a type of original research. You could read the page example as, "NCT 127 Sticker sold 2,391,193 copies and its repackage Favorite sold 626,036.[Sourced to 2021 October Gaon Monthly Chart] A repackage is the original album put in a more attractive package.[Sourced to a dictionary definition of "repackage" that does not mention album sales] (Implied: Thus Sticker sold 3,017,229 copies.)" This is, of course, a simplification: it could also take the form of a note on top of the page sounding something like, "Since repackages are the original albums put in a more attractive package,[Sourced to a dictionary definition of "repackage" that does not mention album sales] this page lists them alongside their original albums."

Another thing: the album+repackage sales combination creates a circular reporting situation where Wikipedia becomes its own source (an original research, again). See for example the previous version of Oh! by Girls' Generation which stated: "The album was listed by Gaon Albums Chart as the second best-selling release of 2010 in South Korea, with 197,934 copies sold, with the repackaged version at fourth with 136,851 copies. Taken together, these sales made Oh! the best-selling album of the year, exceeding the combined total of Super Junior's Bonamana and its repackage." All media outlets reported about Bonamana being the best-selling album of 2010, the conclusion that Oh! exceeded it was made by the editor. The only answer to the question "Why is Oh! listed as the best-selling album of 2010 in South Korea?" is "Because Wikipedia says so", which is not allowed by Wikipedia rules – Wikipedia is made to display existent conclusions, not to make its own. This circular reporting situation was a recurring occurence in the Best-selling album by year section until last week.

I agree with you about kits, though. Maybe a footnote "Album X also sold No. kits" (similar to the ones in the Best-selling album by year section) would be more appropriate. --Chiya^ko92 10:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Got everything you said and, since South Korean consider Repackage as a whole different album from the originals and since there aren't publication about the specific definition of "Album", "EP", "Repackage", "Single Album" and how we need to count them i agree with this change, thus i still consideed dividing an album from the original as a mistake in general due to his definition, but like you say, i'm no one for saying what is it the proper thing to do, so i will accept it. Jotzy (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

XOXO

This is kinda related to the combination of sales but I didn't wanna divert the discussion. The lead mentions how Exo's XOXO was the first album since 2001 to sell over 1+ million copies, but it fails to clarify that it did it by combining the sales of the album and its repackage, none of which sold more than 550k. The actual first album since 2001 that sold more than 1m+ copies was Love Yourself Her in 2017, as reported by kmedia (source 1 & 2). None of the other million seller albums that broke records (LYA, MOTS:P and MOTS:7) include repackages, chinese versions or anything other than a single album so I don't see why this one should. I'm not sure about old albums but I think they were also not combined with anything, or at least the sources used here didn't stat it. So I would think that the achievement belongs to LHY, not XOXO. Thoughts? - Ïvana (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the XOXO announcement and sales combination came from SM Ent and were later ignored when media reported the LYH achievement according to the Gaon Monthly Chart, so I agree that there should be at least a clarification about XOXO sales in the lead. --Chiya^ko92 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this list complete?

Is this list truly complete? If it is then how can I verify that? I see that many albums on this list were released before the establishment of Gaon charts, and there sales figures are mainly based on news articles. What is the probability that all albums have been included on the basis of research through news articles? I don't think this is complete. The {{Complete list}} should be removed from the top of this article as soon as possible, because that is a false declaration which can't be verified. -ink&fables «talk» 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistence in this page.

After the decision of making separate the repackage version from the original the page had a lot of inconsistence and errors. 1) Due to the decision being made for Gaon divide that version is incorrect and inconsistent to add "Kit version" of an album with the total, due to being a different version that Gaon see as a standalone album. 2) The best selling album of 2013 was "Growl (Korean version)" cited as "1st Full Album Repackage XOXO (Kiss Version)" and not "XOXO (korean version)", cited as "XOXO (kiss version), that we can found at #3, (URL: http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=2013&hitYear=2013&termGbn=year) 3) SG WANNABE's Saldaga have combined original + repackage selling despite the source actually have 2 columns which divide that two version and a third column with evaluate both sales (URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20171014133613/http://www.riak.or.kr/chart/riakpdf.asp?hit_year=2005). If we want to divide original and repackage version we need to divide that sales in 307,954 sales (original) + 106,901 (repackage) so actually sold 307,954 copies, not 414,855. Moreover in that source we can also note that the album are classified with the combination of two sales and not only for one sale. 4) This page talk about the best selling album in South Korea, not according to Gaon, since Gaon was established in 2010 we can add another source for pre-2010 for the best selling album of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotzy (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Fns for sales where only combined numbers are available

Hey Ïvana, for album entries where the only sales figures available are of all the formats combined (like Saldaga), the fn should be adjusted to state exactly that, rather than just saying the album+repackage nos. were combined. That way anyone will understand why the exception(s) has been made. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Yes, you're right. I got rid of the legend/color for that reason, so it doesn't seem like a common occurrence. I'm not sure how to word it though something like "The only sales figure available combines sales of the album and its repackage." but that sounds a little bit repetitive. - Ïvana (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You could put "This figure includes repackage sales as only combined sales data was made available after the album's release", or something to that effect. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! - Ïvana (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sales as of" indication (+ revamp idea?)

I think there should be a visible "sales as of" indication besides the totals, since a lot of them are from years if not decades ago. (see List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom)
(On a side note: because of this, we completely revamped this page on it.wiki. We just put the best-selling albums lists as of 2011 by the Korean Music Statistical Yearbook, already used as a source in this page, and a list of the Million-certified albums on Gaon (plus the best-selling albums by year). The main reasoning was that the list was 100% incorrect since sales amounts came from too many different sources and most of them were outdated: we could not claim that, for example, Seo Taiji and Boys II is the 20th best-selling album in South Korea if its sales weren't updated since 1993, so it was nonsensical to keep the tables as they were. It's also easier to update in case of editors changing or long periods of time passing between updates. Whatever you decide to do with this, please just also know that the Korean Music Statistical Yearbook list has some albums that aren't included in this page, doesn't have some albums that are included in this page, and for some gives different totals.) Chiya^ko92 09:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chiyako92: I wouldn't be against showing when the sales were last updated in a more explicit way. Or maybe adding a separate table for old albums pre gaon/circle chart since they have unreliable numbers. But I don't think adding certifications is a good idea (we already have a separate article for that) or worse, replacing sales with certifications. For starters, certifications were only implemented in 2018, so anything released prior to 1/1/2018 is unable to receive one, which means some albums wouldn't be reported even if they surpass 1 million sales, like Wings. For post gaon/circle albums we have the benefit of getting the exact numbers, so why would we use an approximation? There might be a time when the article stops being updated monthly, but even if that happens, the numbers are still going to be there for anyone to access and update. - Ïvana (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the 'Sales (as of date)' col from the UK list is a good idea, but we don't need to round up our figures like they did there (ik no one suggested we round up, but I'm just saying). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we remove the 'Estimates' column and add those sales as a efn or in some other way? Not saying we should get rid of that data because it is important. But right now we have more than 100 entries and only 5 have estimates; feels like a waste of space tbh. - Ïvana (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Since those albums should remain on the list, if the Est. col is removed then a fn saying only estimated sales data is available for those particular entries should be included, to denote why the figures are not exact like the rest of the table. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Artist	Album	Year	Sales (as of date)	Ref.
Kim Gun-mo	Wrongful Meeting	1995	2,860,000 (Jun 2015)

@Carlobunnie: Would something like this work? This way we could get rid of the Estimates column, without deleting data or footnotes. All of the entries with estimates have confirmed sales which are the ones that should be given priority IMO. Edit: I don't think the efns are showing properly here but looking at the plain text or preview you get the idea. - Ïvana (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ïvana, I tweaked the fn a little. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation removal

The source I posted corroborates the info, waiting for GWR is not necessary as they aren't the ultimate source, and also gives it undue weight as a resource. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The same info is used in FML (EP), I don't understand why it is being removed here. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ïvana I don't think your rationale makes sense, unless you can justify removing a citation you shouldn't be reverting my contribution. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gamowebbed: I have justified it. My rationale is the same as @Chiyako92: your ref states that FML is "the biggest-selling K-pop album" (which if you wanna be technical about it doesn't necessarily corroborates the claim that it's the best selling album in South Korea overall) and that information comes from their distributor and/or a primary source. Previous record by BTS was certified by GWR and the ref used in the lead referenced that. I fail to see the problem in waiting for an appropiate source (I checked and this record hasn't been picked up by mainstream sites either, just random and/or unreliable ones). Whatever is being used in the FML page is irrelevant and unrelated to this article. - Ïvana (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Ivana said. For the time being, the info was only reported by the artist's side and not picked up by any significant third party. In fact, it should probably be removed from here and replaced with "as of March 2021, the best-selling album in SK is MOTS 7 by BTS" with the GWR as source, until they update the record entry on their website. As for the EP page, I think it should be noted, as the Korea JoongAng Daily does (The National, on the other hand, doesn't cite a source), that the sales are the highest ever according to Pledis Entertainment and that they are an aggregate number compiled by the distributor. Chiya^ko92 08:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I wondered myself how this UAE newspaper all of a sudden became a concrete source for the claim when I saw it added. The KJAD source is a far better choice on the EP page. I removed the National ref and reworded the information. Once Circle (and/or GWR) confirm the sales record, this page will be updated accordingly, and the wording on the EP's can be adjusted again with the additional sources included. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie @Ïvana @Chiyako92 Forbes has now stated seventeen has the highest selling album in south korea as of 2023, a removal of that source would elicit implicit bias and non-neutral editing standards. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a deprecated ref per WP:FORBESCON. And this has nothing to do with bias. Please refrain from making WP:PERSONALATTACKS. - Ïvana (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my addition?

I don't get why my additionally keeps getting remove. I'm asding correct and proper information. Could you please elaborate on why you keep removing my information? If you need me to cite naver, I will. The information I'm adding is correct and facturalo and adds to the topic of best selling albums in sk 2601:587:300:F3F0:E6EC:A2F8:1FE6:DE87 (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@2601:587:300:F3F0:E6EC:A2F8:1FE6:DE87 Clearly stated twice in the edit summary (if you even bothered reading) that you added sources i.e. Koreaboo, Soompi considered as unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing albums

Hello, I keep up to date on Gaon as well as well and I think the following albums might be missing from the list. I just wanted to ask/check/verify in order to hopefully help with any additional entries. I didn't want to edit/add them myself since I didn't want to risk messing up any formatting.

-The ReVe Festival 2022 - Birthday by Red Velvet (their discography page here on Wikipedia has it credited with over a million and I believe was previously on the list)

-Formula of Love: O+T=<3 by Twice (their albums' discography page here on Wikipedia has it credited with over a million)

-Love Dive by IVE (861,185 reported sales (year-end 2022 list on Circle, + 114,771 reported sales (month-end Dec. 2023 list on Circle) + 21,153 (month-end Feb. 2024 list on Circle) +11,785 (week end, week 14 2024 list on Circle) = 1,008,894) 47.138.109.60 (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look later today to see if they fit the criteria to be added. If not, I'll explain why here. - Ïvana (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't include weekly sales - calculations are made using only monthly charts. Checking these albums articles I can see that most of them use weekly sales so that fails our criteria. So I checked every monthly chart since each of them were released and was able to track enough monthly sales for some. The ReVe Festival 2022 – Birthday and Love Dive were added. You can see the details here. As for Formula of Love: O+T=＜3, it doesn't have enough sales. This is the sales breakdown:

714,955 (December 2021) + 101,173 (November 2022) + 34,908 (June 2023) + 19,998 (March 2024) → 871,034

Even if you wanted to include the Result File Version (I think that's a reissue and we don't combine sales for those) it wouldn't be enough. That version sold 93,911 copies in 2021 and 26,891 in 2022 (as of February 2022). That makes 991.836 copies, a little bit short of a million. - Ïvana (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

New records breaker

Seventeen surpass the numbers of best selling albums and total numbers of album Guptaviishi18 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)