Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling books/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page should be deleted

This list is original research. Even if we accepted that all the different sources referenced were reliable and comparable (and that's a big if), we can't assure that we are not missing books that should be in the list. Therefore, we are presenting a ranking that is not enclyclopedic because it may be incomplete.

Also, a lot of assumptions that are being made are completely arbitrary. Each the books that are "given" have been "sold" before (to the publisher), and many of the references included are for printed books, not sold. The decisions of what constitutes a series and what not are also arbitrarily made by the article's editors. And when two sources ofer different information, the higher amount is chosen with no critical analysis. Seriously: if we can't find a reputed source with a comprehensive list of the best-selling books, this article should not exist.--RR (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that, then you should take this rationale to article for deletion. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I'd just wanted to hear any arguments you might have here beforehand.--RR (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that "incomplete" doesn't mean "original research", and that the list explicitly indicates that it is incomplete. I have previously suggested to include both lower and higher estimates, as I did on List of best-selling fiction authors, but so far no one has done the work to improve the list in this way (and in all fairness, usually there is only one estimate, or the estimates are pretty close). As for the distinction between printed / sold / given, the list tries to go with reliable, independent sources indicating sales figures. Whether these are correct is not for us to decide (unless they really appear to be errors), as indicated in WP:V: verifiability, not truth. The division between series vs. single books is pretty clearcut in the vast majority of cases, only the Tolkien books are a problem in that regard as far as I am aware.
In the end, the only serious problem I see with the list is that, indeed, many books that should be on it are missing. We try to correct this, and improve the list all the time. E.g. the List of important operas was also nominated for deletion as being OR, and was kept as being a compilation based on reliable sources. The incompleteness of the list is the main reason that we don't add numbers to the list, we don't want to conclude that X is the 6th bestselling book of all time: but we do need to offer a reliable checklist as a counterweight to all the newspaper sources claiming that X or Y is the bestselling novel of all time. Note also that there are reputed sources with comparable comprehensive lists, e.g. Time magazine, Guardian, Publishers Weekly.http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/button_sig.png
"[...] Despite these difficulties, the lists offer all kind of interesting and valuable information about books. Anything that is known about bestselling books is useful for what it tells about public taste, reading habits, and trends in bookselling. Also, the titles included on these three lists do rank among the all-time bestsellers and deserve to be acknowledged.[...]" Eerily resembling this discussion, but it is a quote from the 1985 Book Publishing Annual[1] Fram (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the three sources you quote (Time, GUardian and PW, and I'd add IPL) offer very different rankings convinces me that we should not attempt to do this. We could report about different rankings, but we can't offer one when there's so much variability. It's OR because, at the end, it's us choosing the works that are included, the sources for the sales, and taking arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "sale" and what constitutes a "book".--RR (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Time one is from 1968, so that can explain some of the differences ;-). Apart from that, we report that according to source X, author Y has sold a number of copies of the book Z. In most cases, it is very obvious that it is a book and not something else (like a magazine or a CD), and if a reliable source claims the number are sales figures and not print figures, then that should be good enough for us. The problems you list are also applicable to List of best-selling albums worldwide, List of best-selling video games (is Wii Sports really a best-selling video game, when it is automatically shipped with the console, and is thus not actually sold but given away?), ... Best-selling books is a popular, often discussed topic, but without one defining authority. We are a reference work, we present what has been written about this in reliable sources, and present it in a comprehensive, unbiased manner, as requested by WP:UNDUE. We don't do any WP:SYNTHESIS since we don't add a ranking or claim any completeness. We don't "advance a position", we present a summary of reliabley sourced, pertinent info. having just reread WP:OR, I don't see how this article fails it. But, if you would like to add a column presenting lower estimates as well (instead of only the higher one we have now), feel free to do so. I have suggested this in earlier discussions as well, but no one so far was willing to do the legwork. Note though that the fact that an article needs improvement is not an accepted reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is not Original Research since every item cites a published source that was judged to be reliable: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Editors must always make decisions about what is and what is not a reliable source; those decisions constitute editing, not research. Such decisions are always subject to discussion on this page and many, many such discussions have occurred. Decisions are not made "arbitrarily," particularly in those very few cases where actual controversies exist regarding sales figures. In most cases, we simply cite the most recent--and therefore, most likely to be up-to-date--figures referenced in a reliable source. Regarding sold vs. printed, our policy has long been to include only sales figures in cases where sources allow the two to be distinguished, which is only very rarely. Decisions regarding items to exclude were primarily based on the practical impossibility of verifying sales figures in those cases, as is clearly stated in the article. Regarding other distinctions such as what constitutes a book, a series, etc., those sometimes difficult judgments are discussed on this page. The fact that such editorial distinctions and judgments may sometimes be challenging does not imply that they constitute Original Research. Fragesteller (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lady Chatterley's Lover

According to BBC, Lady Chatterley's Lover "sold two million copies, outselling even the Bible." I find the Bible part to be arguable but I notice it's not in the list. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/10/newsid_2965000/2965194.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.187.193 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter inconsistency

If the 400M figure for sales of all Harry Potter books is correct, then each book on average has sold 57M, or 44M if we assume the novelty books sold as much as the main ones. But no individual book has been listed as selling more than 30M copies. The list doesn't claim to be complete, but should any notice be made of this inconsistency? Mark Foskey (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One possible approach is to note the number of in-print copies of the U.S. editions, and then estimate the worldwide total from these numbers. Scholastic Publishers report the following: (http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_08022007_CP.htm)

Harry Potter books in print in the U.S. by title:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone - 29 million
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 24 million
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 20 million
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 19 million
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 17 million
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 17 million
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 14 million

These add up to 140 million. Multiplying each of these by 2.5 (to get the announced worldwide total of at least 350 million), we could get reasonably good estimates for each of the seven titles. Fragesteller (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter has sold at least 400 million check the link (http://www.thebookseller.com/news/61161-page.html) --70.60.0.160 (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, so that would imply a multiplicative factor of approximately 2.9, which would yield the following sales:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone - 84 million
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 70 million
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 58 million
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 55 million
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 49 million
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 49 million
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 41 million

(These add up to 406 million.)

The figure for Deathly Hallows is close to the recently reported total sales figure of 44 million, so these estimates might be reasonably accurate. Fragesteller (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't these figures used in the article? Surely they are reasonable estimates and would remove the confusion caused by only one Harry Potter book being listed and improve completeness. The article makes clear that figures are not necessarily acurate. I changed the article some months ago, but my alteration has been removed. Leongrubach (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These reasonable estimates are original research. Everything in the article is (or should be) sourced to a reliable source. This means that the article is clearly incomplete (see other sctions on this talk page about the lack of Pilgrim's Progress and Don Quixote, for example), but what is there is reliable. If we start including reasonable guesses, where do we draw the line? By following Wikipedia standards, we have a more incomplete but also more reliable list where it is fairly easy to conclude if an entry is legitimate or not (examples of the contrary, as with the Twilight series, exist of course). Fram (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sticking to all these standards will almost certainly make several articles remain forever incomplete. Filling the tables with approximations (by the way, the title of the referred coloumn is Approximate sales) and then inserting and linking footnotes will both make the table more complete and keep clear the fact that those numbers are assumptions. Imho, paradoxes like these are much more important to avoid (for the sake of consistency) than some extra footnotes regarding uncertainty. Please feel free to express disagreement. --84.3.34.195 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even an approximation needs a reliable source, and neither Wikipedia nor original research are acceptable sources according to Wikipedia rules. We're just trying to follow the rules and be consistent about it. Incompleteness is unavoidable given the constraints of the rules, and given the lack of reliable sources for this topic. Fragesteller (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the final book of the series, I note that one of the linked sources to its sales figures states that the book has sold over 72 million copies (footnote #35). Is there a specific reason the lower sales figure is listed (i.e., 44 million)?

Also, in regard to how incomplete this entire listing is, should there not be at least a disclaimer to that effect? The Harry Potter series is grossly underestimated given that it accounts for some half-a-billion in sales, yet, as of yet, we have one book, listed at 44 million copies to account for its overwhelming influence on the publishing industry over the last decade or so. Something has to be done about this. I for one, am going to attempt to find citations for the other six books, especially since the oldest of the lot is less than 20 years old, so this information must be available somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleluiacone (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these books have to be included. They have been the most successful and influential books of the 21st century and among the most successful and influential of all time, so omitting them is unnacceptable. The original is one of the best selling books of all time, with an estimated 120 million sales, so we must act to include these in this article.

The source for the 72 million (Baltimore Sun) is indexed in Google News and gives results for that date, but no articles on Harry Potter that day... But any reliable source with figures for worldwide sales of individual HP books is more than welcome, just like a source with sales of Don Quichote and many other classics we are missing. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The 72 million figure was simply wrong, and a rather bizarre claim at that. It was disseminated just a few days after the book went on sale without any substantiation. The official publisher's figure of 44 million came many months later. I don't know why the publishers have not released worldwide sales figures for the other books. Although you can find various sales figures for those books around the web, it is obvious that they originated from unreliable estimates published on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I believe the best estimates available are those shown in this Discussion, a few lines above. Fragesteller (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Harry Potter books, it seems, is that the publisher has always preferred to attribute a bulk sales figure to the entire series, rather than ascribe the appropriate sales figure for each particular book. In turn, this has caused confusion, where sometimes the sales figure for the entire series has been confused as the one for a single book. The most obvious example of this is the sales figure often given to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which is usually given as 120 million copies, when this is actually the sales figure of the entire series at the time the first movie, on the first book, came out.

That being said, this problem is not unsolvable, at least in my view. We know the lowest possible sales figure for any of the books is 44 million (and this is probably a gross underestimation since the books continue to sale at a brisk pace). We also know that is it unlikely that any single one of the books has crossed over 100 million in sales. So I believe the other six books should be listed in the 50-100 million section, written thus: ~ 50 to 100 million. This is a temporary measure that should be adopted until we get more exact figures, and is better than not listing the books at all.

Why is it better to add original research for this one series, and not for anything else? We should stick to what is reported in reliable sources, not make an exception for a book series with a large fan base. There are many other books and series missing where we know for sure that they should be included somewhere (Maigret and Poirot, Don Quixote, The Count of Monte Cristo, ...). We can create a list of books we think should be included but aren't here, on the talk page, but we should not include these in the main list. Fram (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The first six HP books should at least be included with the American sales figures given above, which are all above 10 million.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Scholastic is not an independent source, it's the publisher. And I'ld rather not include figures than include hugely incomplete (US only) ones. Fram (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the article explicitly notes claims of the number of copies, I think Scholastic is a valid source. And the US figures show that the HP books belong to this list, so they should be present. Just add "more than" or "at least" (or "US alone") to the numbers so that readers are aware that the "real" numbers are still higher. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The intro to the article states "The books are listed according to the highest sales estimate as reported in reliable, independent sources." Scholastic is reliable but clearly not independent. Fram (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, the only way a "reliable, independent" source is likely to report a Harry Potter sales figure is by getting information from the publishers and, after due consideration, publishing it with the implication that they believe it is trustworthy. That, after all, is where all of the "more than 400 million copies sold" reports originate. (They don't come, for instance, from Nielsen BookScan.) So perhaps, at some time, such a reliable source will report total sales estimates for one of the books apart from "Deathly Hallows." However, for whatever reason, the only such estimates that have been reported, so far as we are aware, are on the page you are viewing right now. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source and since original research is not allowed, these estimates may not be used in the article itself. And I agree with Fram that figures known to be grossly incomplete should not be listed, since we have not done that for any other item on this list. I hope that Bloomsbury will eventually report sales figures for the individual books (which can then be vetted by "independent, reliable" sources), but (apparently) with the single exception of Deathly Hallows, they have not done so. Fragesteller (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did not notice the sentence from the intro. But then the word "Claims" in the subchapter titles should be removed - reliable and independent sources are not usually called "claims" on Wikipedia. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. BTW, I found a reference for individual Harry Potter book sales: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/21-best-selling-books-of-all-time.htm (already used in the article for Qu'ran figures, so apparently a reliable source) The numbers given there seem reasonable to me. So I think we can now add the first six HP books to the article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source. In fact, these figures were lifted directly from an old version of this same Wikipedia page (without attribution), as can be seen by comparing the version of this page from 20:20 on 31 March 2007 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_books&direction=next&oldid=118946832 It was some time later that we first eliminated all unsourced figures from this page. The sales figures shown on this page and reprinted by the "howstuffworks" site are therefore not reliable.Fragesteller (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you know? It might have been the other way round, or both "Howstuffworks" and the 2007 Wikipedia editor used a third source. (Note that the old Wikipedia article you link to has 4 entries in the "Top 20" that are not in the HSW table (the places 5 to 7 which do not have numbers given, and "Watership Down" which does have). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not the other way around. You can do the same thing that I did--go back to the history archives for this page and follow the day-by-day changes in 2007 to observe the continuous shifts in figures for one entry after the other. You will see that only for a very brief period do all the top 21 items with sales figures coincide with the Howstuffworks list. (Although "Watership Down" is omitted, it was only in a tie for the last place so would not displace another item.) It is obvious that the Howstuffworks list was lifted directly from here during that period, as so many other "facts" on the web are simply lifted from Wikipedia without attribution and without verification. It is impossible for the reverse to be the case because on this page, each of the item sales figures was continuously shifting up and down, literally day by day, with the revisions being made by dozens of different editors--many of whom constantly disagreed with each other--and most certainly not by one single editor. The items did NOT all suddenly change in unison on a single day, which is exactly what they would have had to have done had they been lifted all together directly from the Howstuffworks list.
However, I have a more direct basis for my assertion. I have been editing this page myself since 2007 and monitoring it since well before that time. I have had a specific interest in the Harry Potter books and have attempted to follow up each and every reference to sales figures for them, trying myself to find reliable figures for the individual books. (The minute I found such figures for Deathly Hallows I posted them.) Although it is possible that I and all of the other editors of this page have missed some obscure set of references unearthed by the Howsuffworks page editor in 2007, it is extraordinarily unlikely. Far more probable is the simple explanation that Howstuffworks had no source beyond this Wikipedia page on a particular day in mid-2007. Fragesteller (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not quite convinced. I agree "Howstuffworks" may be a (erroneous) Wikipedia mirror, but it may also be a coincidence. Given the hundreds of different versions of this article over time it's not too unlikely that one of these has 21 (of 22+3 without numbers) entries identical. May I suggest two possible compromises:
a) to add the HP books with that particular reference to the list, but clearly noting that it may be an unreliable Wikipedia mirror, or
b) to only add them under the "lack of reliable sources" section, again with mentioning the possibly unreliable source.
However, for consistency, the Qu'ran has to be given the same "status" as the HP books, since it is also based solely on the same Howstuffworks reference. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The probability of a chance match between two random sequences of 21 numbers--when EACH ONE of the 21 numbers has an effectively infinite number of possible values--is zero. It is not simply the ordering of titles that is identical; it is the sales figures themselves. More conservatively, if each of the 21 entries has 10 different possible values--roughly the number of different figures we ordinarily see on this page, over time, for a particular item--then the probability of obtaining one specific set of figures for all 21 entries--even assuming that the titles of the entries are the same and in the same order--is approximately 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It can't happen. If there were only THREE different possible values for each entry, the probability of observing one particular set is less than 1 in 10,000,000,000. The "Howstuffworks" page was simply copied from Wikipedia; there is absolutely no reason to believe that any other references were used to create that page.
Regarding the Qu'ran figure, I agree that it is worthless. It is simply a copy of a copy of somebody's guess. Feel free to substitute a reference to a reliable source and correct the entry, re-ranking the item if need be. I have no objection to putting the HP books (aside from Deathly Hallows) in the "lack of reliable sources" section, but the reference to Howstuffworks should be omitted. Rest assured that the very same day a genuinely reliable source of sales figures for any one of the remaining 6 HP books appears anywhere, it will be reflected on this page. Fragesteller (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source for Qu'ran numbers. So I'd ask you to add one or remove the Qu'ran from the list.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I think I will remove the need for "independent" sources from the intro and add the first six HP books with the above Scholastic figures as a lower limit. We agreed above that the Scholastic press release is a reliable source, and I see no reason why this article should have stricter inclusion rules than Wikipedia in general. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There's another problem: the press release mentions books printed, not necessarily sold. But I think we can safely assume that all HP books printed until 2007 will be sold by now, at least for the first six books. Does someone disagree? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. We shouldn't be using any non-independent sources, to avoid all discussions to what is reliable and what isn't. Furthermore, it doesn't make much sense to include books based on US figures alone, which are obviously too low, and which have the result that our individual listings for the HP books will not add up by far to the overall 400 million total. Internal consistency in a list is a good thing, and using the Scholastic figures will diminish said consistency. Fram (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


We can not assume that all HP books printed by 2007 were sold because we have no basis for such an assumption; books remain on store shelves even without reported reprintings, and we have no information about what percentage were actually sold. On the related issue, I must say that I consider Bloomsbury (the UK publisher), though clearly not an "independent" source, to be the ONLY reliable source for worldwide Harry Potter sales figures. They are the only ones in a position to have reports from all of the more than 100 nations and territories in which sales have been made. Proprietary reporting agencies such as Nielsen are simply not able to offer complete figures, and many (or most) territories have no such reporting agencies. I believe we have to exercise judgment as to which non-independent sources are reliable, and this is such a case. Fragesteller (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Associated Press has directly quoted Neil Blair, spokesman for Christopher Little Literary Agency (agent for J.K. Rowling), as saying that "about 450 million copies" of the Harry Books have been sold. On that basis, I will update the figures. Fragesteller (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


The rule to "ignore all rules" was created for exactly this purpose. The rule in question is that all content in this encyclopedia needs to be cited to a reliable source. The problem is, this rule makes this page completely worthless. Don Quixiote and the seven Harry Potter books are some of the best selling books of all time. Every single one belongs on this page. And yet they are not on this page, and there is no footnote or mention of this fact anywhere. Now this page is worthless. It is less than worthless, it is misleading. Someone who comes to this page to learn what the best-selling books of all time are would be left with the impression that Don Quixiote and the top 6 Harry Potter books do not belong on this list. It would be better if this page did not exist, because then no one would be misled by its false promise to inform you what the best-selling books of all time are.

No, I do not have reliable sales figures for the Harry Potter books, or Don Quixiote, and I will not make them up. I am going to make a special section for books that are known to be on this list, but do not have reliable sales figure information. This section will have a note making it abundantly clear these figures are gross estimates, and only used to put these books on the page where they belong.

If someone has a problem with this, let me know. But I can't stand by and do nothing while what is normally a perfectly reasonable rule is making this page a complete waste of server space. littlebum2002 04:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a further disclaimer that the page is incomplete and missing some books that obviously would be included if only we had reliable sources for them. Now, how do you propse to make these "gross estimates" for these books? Please make sure that you don't violate WP:OR when doing this. Fram (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The Harry Potter series has sold 450 Million books, which includes, at most, 10 books. The policy on No original research says that routine calculations are acceptable. This means that each book sold, on average, at least 45 Million copies (although it should be noted that the 7 main series books would average higher than this, and the 3 spin-offs would average lower, but this is original research). However, the first 4 books have sold a combined 200 Million copies, which means they will appear somewhere on this list, although exactly where is not clear.
Along with this, the only criteria for a book to be on this article is that it sell at least 10 Million copies. The last few books sold more than that in 24 hours. So as long as it can be proven a book sold more than 10 million copies, it should be listed in this table, as it can be proven it belongs on this page, but it cannot be proven where it belongs. littlebum2002 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

La divina cmmedia

10 millions sales? it's ludicrous..since mid 50s in italy we study it at school...eveybody must buy it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.138.71 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Millennium series"

it had sold 65 million copies world wild according to BBC here

i hope you will add it.--hosam007 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tables and wikilinking

Looks as if the tables need a "consistency edit". In particular,

  • the "More than 100 million copies" and "No reliable sales figures" table are the only ones with a "genre" column - no obvious reason for that.
  • should not first table be "At least 100 million copies"? What about the subsequent headings? Perhaps there is a WP standard for such?
  • the wikilinking of languages is highly inconsistent and of little utility - better with none in a table context.

Davidships (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

    • First and third done, not certain about the second. Small chance that any book has exactly 100 million copies, so it's not as if the current title is wrong. Fram (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Expectations

Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" sells 200 million copies, but "Great Expectations" doesn't even sell 10 million? Anyone got a source that would at least put Expectations on the list? 66.66.149.221 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

List do not organize correctly

When organizing by "number of installments" the lists treat 1 and 10 and 100 as equal numbers. 1,10,2,27,33,4,...72.187.96.236 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Web site design

Yes ... the design is clearly needed to be changed :) The dark green color would fit perfectly xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.125.19.248 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

List of most-printed books

Why was the page List of most-printed books deleted and redirected to the current page? The reason why I made it is because the only real justification for excluding religious and political books from this List of best-selling books is that they are usually given away rather than sold.

Rates for publishing can and have been aggregated relatively reliably for things like the Bible, Qur'an and Mao's Little Red Book because most copies of these have come into existence since the existence of printing and credible record-keeping, especially in the last one or two hundred years. Figures show that these and other political and religious books are very widely printed and would be on this list if it were a list of most-printed books.

If the list was deleted because it was too similar to this one, then maybe this List of best-selling books should be renamed List of most-printed books so that it can include other figures that people might be interested in when they look for a list of books by distribution or copies in print. Nanib (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your list was a 99% duplication of this one (without acknowledgement of it, which is required). It makes no sense to duplicate that much information over two articles, which will then certainly start to grow apart and present two versions of the same topic. You can create a list of those books which are explcitly excluded from this one, or we can discuss whether adding a fourth section to this page (apart from books, series, and regularly updated books) would be the better and easier solution. Fram (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not just change the title of this list to List of most-printed books and just have the other current name redirect here? I would guess that the majority of books on this list are primarily sold rather than given away, so that the figures for books-printed and books-sold would be about the same and not required new citations for each entry - I don't know of any cases of millions or tens of millions of printed but not distributed books. The only thing that would need changing is the name of the column entitled "Approximate sales" to "Approximate copies printed". Although "best-selling" is arguably a colloquialism for a highly printed books which is used because of a lack of pleasant-sounding alternatives, a list of most-printed religious and political books within this list without any name change might not be accepted by some people because of their interpretations of the Wikipedia naming policy, and much the same reason why political and religious books aren't already included.
I guess I could just create a list of most-printed political and religious books separately from this, but it seems like it would be more convenient for people looking into this just to have it all together on one list. Nanib (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Because the vast majority of sources are about best-selling books, about sales figures, not about print figures. We shouldn't change a page title to accommodate a few books that otherwise wouldn't fit in it. 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Then I probably will just restart the other listing, but only based on the top ten or twenty books listed on this list and let others expand it from there. They may only be a few dozen books excluded from this list, but the copies sold are a great many. For example, I've seen listings show that the Bible, Mao's sayings, Mao's poetry, the Qur'an and the unabridged Chinese dictionary (which was given away free quite often and might be classified as a textbook for purposes of this listing) are actually the five most printed books in the world. There are also several others titles with about a 100 million copies printed or more
Sales figures and print figures may differ sometimes, but I don't imagine very much in most cases on this list. If there are 200 copies of a particular title that were sold over time, for example, I don't imagine that there would be even 10% in reserve. A book that was rapidly printed and widely demanded for a little while, like the Da Vinci code, might be a rare exception. Nanib (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan

I believe that it should be on the list but I need help trying to find how many books have been sold --Kittyluna (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Destroyer series

Considering that the Destroyer series has sold tens of millions copies, it should be on the list. But where do you find reliable numbers? There is an article from 19885 saying "Remo, the hero of more than sixty action-adventure paperbacks that have sold over 25 million copies, comes to the screen October 11 in Remo: The Adventure Begins , one of the most elaborately promoted movies in the history of Orion Pictures." Link: Heroes We Don't Deserve. Since the more than 25 years that have passed since then, many more books have been written and sold in new millions. According to book sellers like Barnes & Noble, more than 50 million copies have been sold to date: "There are now over 50 million copies of the Destroyer novels in print in 11 languages." Link: BARNES & NOBLE | Slave Safari by Murphy, Speaking Volumes. Also Amazon use the same numbers: "Murphy is probably best known for the Destroyer series, which he created with the late Dick Sapir, and which has produced 150 books with worldwide sales of over 50 million copies." Link Amazon's Warren Murphy Page. But since we are talking about online book sellers here, and not articles, I'm not sure if the source will be accepted. (And unfortunately, because there is little information about how many books in total that has been sold by one of the creators, Warren Murphy, they simply add the sales numbers from Destroyer to the list (despite the fact that most of the Destroyer books have been written by ghost writers), and then writes something like "Murphy's books and stories have sold fifty million copies worldwide and won a dozen national awards", which makes it even harder to find the required info.) 84.210.17.201 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Count of Monte Cristo

Quote from the net: "The Count of Monte Cristo” is estimated to have exceeded 200 million copies sold". Link: Top Ten Best-Selling Books of All Time.

Also, the 83 million copies of She (H. Rider Haggard) that is sold, is based on numbers from the 60s. Not impossible that it is over 100 million these days. It's also most likely that more copies of The Neverending Story has been sold since the source used on this page was published. Just some of the stuff that should have been updated, if it was only possible to find the information needed. 84.210.10.52 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good source for individual Harry Potter books and perhaps others

Has anyone (access to) a copy of the book "Media of Mass Communication" by John Vivian? (A recent edition, 2011 or 2012)[2] It looks to be a good source to expand this list, including as far as I can tell figures for e.g. some individual Harry Potter novels. Fram (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Alchemist

There seems to have been confusion here. Careful reading of the back cover of the paperback edition of the Alchemist seems to clear up the misunderstanding, for 65 million copies of ALL of the author's books had been sold by the printing of that edition of that book. According to the author's own site, 21 million copies of "The Alchemist" have been sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondw (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jonw. When I found the wrong figure (65 million copies) in the article about the book as well I subsequently replaced the figure (down to 30 million copies) in the article, explaining on the talk page that the wrong figure is referring to an error in an AFP-article. (Read the section on the talk page here.) However, there are a lot of people how just don't care. I corrected it also on this list, placed the correct source but someone undid it afterwards again. So even the 30 million figure seems too high and should be replaced with the 21 million figure from that book edition. I think you can find a lot of wrong figures on this list. --Eusc (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong figure

Once again. The figure of sold copies (65 million) for The Alchemist is wrong. Read about the reasons here on the talk page of The Alchemist.--Eusc (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This article usually takes the highest figure from reliable sources, unless it is really clearly a typo or figure of speech. For the Alchemist, we have figures going from 20 million to 100 million, so there is no reason not to use the 65 million figure. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A Tale Of Two Cities

The sales figure for A Tale of Two Cities is unbelievable, especially as no other Dickens novel – not Great Expectations, not David Copperfield, not A Christmas Carol – features at all in the lists. When I first noticed this anomaly, the sole source was a review of a Broadway musical production of A Tale of Two Cities in the which the figure of 200 million was mentioned. I hunted around on the net for other sources and found lots, all quoting 200 million sales and all cut and pasted from Wiki. A while later the source on the lists page changed to the David Mitchell article in the Telegraph that is currently quoted and which itself doesn't quote a source.

Does it seem at all reasonable to anyone that a Dickens novel, most of which were originally published in serial form in newspapers has sold 50 million more copies than any other book and at least 190 million more than any of his other works? Doesn't it seem more likely that the original source miscopied thousand as million or something similar?Stevecb (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Two points: first, you are right that the figure seems too high. Second, the lack of other novels by Dickens in this list doesn't mean that none of them sold over 10 million copies, only that for none of them any sources could be found. If we had all information and only correct information, probably four or five books by Dickens would be in this list, and Two Cities wouldn't be at the top with 200 million, but lower down with X million. But it's either going with the sources, or adding our own guesses... 12:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Jack Reacher series is in twice

One entry quotes 60 million copies, from its 2012 source, while the other quotes 40 million from its 2011 source. 20 million in a year. Clearly the series should only be in the list once. Which is the more reliable source? 81.157.86.102 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the 60 million is talking about international sales, while the 40 million is only United States sales. Can't be sure though about the 40 million. Try finding a third source which verifies one number of the other.Kude90 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the lower estimate, since that is older and the list (arbitrarily) goes with the highest reliable estimate in all cases (excluding obvious mistakes or hyperbole). Fram (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is Uncle Tom's Cabin?

On it's own wikipedia page "Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is no Hindi or other Indic languages book present in the list?

Is this because no data had been collected from Indian publishers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.85.182 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing bible from top of list, or adding Quotations of Chairman Mao, printed or proven units sold

While I do not disagree with including the bible here on sheer numbers in existence alone, seeing as how Quotations of Chairman Mao was removed, due to the numbers mentioned being numbers PRINTED, this should be as well. It clearly states at the beginning of the article that this is about units sold, not printed. Even the citation "The Bible listed here refers to all versions ever printed, many of which have been given away freely, not sold (for example, during missionary work)." contradicts this. If this will be the basis for the article (proven units sold), then the bible should be removed. However, if not, Quotations should be added, as its estimated print/give away etc, may very well be more then that of the bible. Please discuss. (Majin Takeru (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

The issue with this list is that there are truly no exact figures for most of these books, especially the Bible due to its sheer age, popularity, distribution methods, and staying power. We must remember that a Bible distributed is purchased by a church, a group, an individual, and given to someone. Technically it's sold, but the distribution is not conventional (for example, the person who has it didn't necessarily buy it in a bookstore).

What makes the issue sticky is that Quotations was largely distributed only a few decades ago, yet come claim its copies sold rivals the Bible, parts of which have been around for over 2 millennia. Personally, have over 6 billion people lived and died in China since Quotations was published? If they each got a copy (some forced to), would that justify over 6 billion copies? The current population of China is estimated at about 900 million right now. I just don't think it adds up, and I consider the estimate of a billion copies sold for Quotations to be more accurate.

In the end, I see copies distributed for the Bible, and copies forced upon for Quotations, to render each a moot point. I support adding Quotations, but at the 900 million copies sold mark. There are simply too little sources supporting 6 billion copies sold for Quotations, and too many sources saying Quotations has sold only about 900 million. Lastly, we cannot forget that the Bible is a message for all people regardless of race, gender, or political regime. In other words, its appeal and audience is much broader than Quotations, and further supports the 6 billion figure for the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidstrom82 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both should be included, or neither. I also agree that 5 or 6 billion for the "Quotations" seems a highly dubious figure. But please don't continue with your soapboxing in your last lines, it is utterly irrelevant. And the current population of the [[3]] is closer to 1.3 billion than to 900 million. Fram (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, seems like we all agree it at least should be at the billion mark, and included on the list. Majin Takeru (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Majin,

Quotations is back on there as it was before, cited at 6.5 billion copies PRINTED, not sold. I agree with including it on the list at about 1 billion, but now it's back to square one. Did someone else post it back up?

And Fram, I'm not sure if you were referring to my last post regarding soapboxing, but if so, I'm citing the Bible's worldwide influence and audience of the Bible as support of its numbers sold, not to endorse its message. If that's what you're referring to, that's more oversensitivity toward religion on your part, but if you're talking about another comment, then that's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.167.194 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Try changing your "the Bible is a message for all people regardless of race, gender, or political regime. In other words, its appeal and audience is much broader than Quotations" to "the Quotations are a message for all people regardless of race, gender, or religion. In other words, its appeal and audience is much broader than the Bible". You would probably argue that I'm soapboxing for the Quotations and so on. The appeal, the audience, the intended message, and so on, are completely irrelevant here. The only things that matter are independently sourced figures, and the discussion if these are sold or just printed (and given away or forced to people). Why any book or series on this list has a a large circulation is not relevant, nor whether any book deserves it more than another. Fram (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


We put it back up because the simple fact is the bible sources are also numbers printed, not actually sold. I think the assumption is wither it is churches or the Chinese government, the books are being sold in some form. If that is not the assumption, then both books need to be removed, as they are both going on print numbers. (Majin Takeru (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

In case someone still reads this discussion: Now both the Bible and the Quotations have referenced sales figures so there should no longer be a dispute. (For the Bible, I could only verify the first reference given (for 2.5 billion copies); in case the second is only about print numbers, it should be removed IMO.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To not include the Bible among "sellers" is simply a recognition that it tops the list each year. To not include it because it is often given away (although purchased first) is silly. Are you excluding all books, novels, and classics that are purchased by schools and force fed to students? They are purchased...and given away. Do you exclude library purchases? And I very much doubt that the children reading Harry Potter, or Goosebumps are purchasing these books themselves... so the 'gifting' of a book is a big part of what makes any of them part of the "sellers" list at all. 74.91.72.67 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Dave Fowler

Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer?

The main article on Mickey Spillane says that he sold 225 million copies. Can anyone find a breakdown of how many sales were Mike Hammer titles? 216.184.15.103 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

...and where is Simenon?

With 1.4 billion books sold, I think he should remembered somehow... Some statistics here and here.--Monozigote (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now entered Simenon in the "series" table, after checking some more statistical records.--Monozigote (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are many books and series that should have an entry here, but which don't have reliable independent sales figures. I tis hard to get this list complete and reliable at the same time, and for the moment we have chosen to have an incomplete but reliable list. But the more complete it gets, the better of course. Fram (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • His Maigret novels sold EIGHTY million not 800; however his total single novel sales reached 1.4 billion. [Simenon 1].
    • I've readded Simenon, with the 853 million copies source, and an older source that claimed 550 million for Maigret. Please, unsigned IP, explain how Simenon sold 1.4 billion novels if his most famous and prolific creation, Maigret, only sold 80 million? This is self-contradictory. It is much more likely that the "80 million" is a typo for "800 million". Fram (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2007/nov/02/noadjectivesnecessarysimeno

Middle-Earth Legendarium as a series?

Why hasn't Middle Earth been added as a best-selling series? Combining the sales of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the rings the sales of the series is more than 250 million. I am saying this from the sales figures of both books from this article itself. Even though it does not include sales of other Middle-Earth books, it is still one of the highest-selling book series. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Dyer's Your Erroneous Zones 30-35M not listed

Not listed in this list, sold between 30 and 35 million copies, if Wikipedia is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Erroneous_Zones Google confirms in about a million places the book sold at least 30M copies. Can't seem to nail down a solid wikipedia quality source, be that is sold most of the books before the internet.

Darrellx (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

added it. Other references are welcome. Greetings, --Qaswed-Ger (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Land of Oz series?

L. Frank Baum authored 14 books in the series, and after Baum's death, his publisher, Reilly & Lee, released an additional 26 Land of Oz books. That is a total of 40 books, with many of them being quite popular. I have no information or sources, but I would assume that the series would fit the criteria. Gstridsigne (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but we need a reliable source to include it, otherwise we start guessing. Fram (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

source 9 is gone

the article no longer exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.70.180 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy of TOTAL sales

While TOTAL sales of books has a certain level of validity, it does NOT, in a historical sense represent influence as reflected by sales over the long term. A similar list - very hard/laborious/difficult to compile, granted - which shows sales in proportion to population could be of great value. Other people's thoughts? DKCwiki (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC) DKCwiki

Honestly I think we already cover that with the many articles we have along the lines of The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2013 and Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1920s. Andrew327 20:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In proportion to what population? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Do Not include any other Religious books than Bible andQuran

Please do not include any other Religious books other than Bible and Quran because there are many religions in the world and we are considering only major religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shake16725 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Hinduism is no longer a major religion then? Only a billion adherents, third largest religion in the world, nah, that's not really major of course... Please check List of religious populations. Fram (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
That's stupid and not neutral, please include every religious books, as far as the number of sells are in the top list. PLEASE REVERSE THE SILLY SUPPRESSION OF BIBLE AND QURAN IN THIS LIST; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:C581:CB6B:6A94:89A4 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the media

If we need to have a section on "in the media" for this talk page, then instead of a seemingly random blog, we can include quite a few other more reliable media, like "How to Write a Book That Sells You"[4], "The Anthropology of Magic"[5], and so on[6]. If we want to include random blogs, then we should also mention e.g. this one or this one. Fram (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comics not included

Why are comics excluded from this list? Are they not books too? Stripy42 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of them (e.g. comic books) are magazines, not books, making it harder to distinguish between those tw-hat can be included (Tintin, Asterix, Lucky Luke, ...), those that can't (Batman, Spiderman, ...) and those that are more on the fence (most manga). A discussion about whether true comic albums (not magazines like the comic books) should be included is maybe due. Fram (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comics are not books. Comic sales should be in a separate page. (November 31, 2009, by alias: Bob Dole Fan Page Guy)
Due to the controversy maybe there should be a separate list, but somehow compare them and have links from each to the other. How about that? Stripy42 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Manga Tankōbon such as those for One Piece seem to be very much a gray area but, as with some of the other excluded categories that have ambiguous or incomplete sales data, it would be extremely difficult to maintain consistency if any of them are included. Fragesteller (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Harry Potter sold 400 million books world wide. One Piece sold 200 million books in Japan.[7][8] -- Globalphilosophy (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The current table include even 连环画 铁道游击队 which are in the format of this. As wikipedia said, "A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side.". I don't see why it shouldn't be included.C933103 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

William Buckley said on Charlie Rose that Atlas Shrugged was the highest selling novel in the world (he may have meant that year). He was prone to getting his facts wrong, but can anyone find a reliable source for how many copies Ayn Rand's books have sold in total? Gregcaletta (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"More than 7 million copies"[9], so not enough to be included, never mind being "the highest selling novel in the world". Fram (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I had the same question, thanks!--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Chances are Wiliam Buckley was talking just plain nonsense here (probably to a typical of ideological wishful thinking).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Hmm, something is really wrong with this list, AC has sold over 4 BILLION books. Twobells (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Source? Jcmcc450 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
2-4 bn here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
Topped 4b here All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of best-selling books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings -- Not Single Volume

The Lord of the Rings is listed here as a single volume. Clearly, false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.22.188 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of response, I'm going to assume that everyone else has realized that you were wrong too, but were not nice enough to tell you. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is listed as a single volume because Tolkein wrote it as a single book, and then it was made into 3 books to publish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.217.120 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My only Problem here is, of we see the LotR as a single Book, it has only 150 million sales. But if we see it as what it was published (which would only be right since that what people buy) it has reported sales figures of 450 million Books, + 100 million from it's Prequel, the Hobbit. that makes 550 Million alone from the Books published during his Lifetimem and would put him in the Palce he deseveres, above Rowling, on Top of the best selling Series list.

And yes, the LotR was published as a Sequel to the Hobbit, just like every HP book was published as a Sequel, so that should also count for the Hobbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.140.91 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would hate the see the Lord of the Rings taken off the list, but I find a consistency problem when the article for the novel, The Lord of the Rings, on this very site, consistently defines it as a 3 volume novel. It was published as such, therefore it is as such.--Tornvmax (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, LotR is just a case in point of a larger issue: The term "volume" is simply misleading. LotR is not the only book that was published in different formats over its lifetime. For example, a lot of Dickens' works was published as serials, on their own or in magazines. That does not fit the term "volume" at all. Please find some other means of expressing the idea.-217.248.32.212 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of best-selling books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is 50 Shades of Grey not considered in this list?

The series is included in the list, but for some reason, none of the standalone books are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the figures for the individual volumes? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

The entire series was put as a standalone book in the over 100 million section, with a note saying (published as a series). Since unlike lord of the rings or other examples each book was written as a separate novel, I have removed it from that list. Since there is no figure for the sale of each individual novel it could be assumed each novel sold around 41-42 million copies each. Since this is a vague estimate each individual book cannot be listed as standalone until we have their figures. As well the series again cannot be among the over 100 million sales as a standalone novel it would only be considered 42 million sales. 72.53.64.124 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The single novel is listed as having sold 125 million copies as of June 2015 in the Wikipedia article on the book (which see). My personal copy of the paperback novel (2011) states "over 100 million copies sold." The second novel in the series, Fifty Shades Darker, as stated in its Wikipedia article (which see): "The novel reached #2 on the USA Today best seller list[1] and is considered by The Guardian to be #11 on the Top 100 Bestselling Books of All Time.[2]" Fifty Shades Freed, the third novel in the trilogy, was released in 2012 and its Wikipedia article (which see) states that it "entered The New York Times Best Seller list at number three.[2] In the UK the novel sold over two million copies.[3]" I would say that your list is badly out of date.Gdthayer (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If anyone cares about keep the various manga up to date: Naruto

It will soon be the third-best-selling manga ever, and if we're keeping manga on this "book" list (they are there now)... Naruto should be included.2605:E000:2384:BA00:6478:4966:40B7:EF67 (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No manga should be on this book list, if any are included it is by mistake. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

russian novels

It is a bit to provide only a russian sales figure and ranking based on that. At least in the Tolstoi case, i'd guess the international sales probably double the russian figure or at least their inclusion will lead to a significantly higher figure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Stratification into various ranges necessary?

Why is it at all necessary to split these categories into ranges of numbers (50-100 million, 30-50 million, etc.)? It seems arbitrary to me and considering that these numbers are not considered particularly precise anyway, it seems misleading. I propose to consolidate each of the sub-categories into one list for each category. Thoughts? --Ibenami (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_books/Archive_3&oldid=1136932427"