Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

David Bowie -Estimated sales

David Bowie's wikipedia page states that he has sold 140 million units worldwide. The list of best-selling music artists states that he has sold an estimated 100 million units. Can this please be fixed? I have never seen an estimate of Bowie sales at 100 million , as most estimates vary between 130 and 150 million units.I look forward to some feedback regarding the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowie2 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the Definitions on the main page where it says This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.--Harout72 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Some users tried to change the 140kk copies listed there to 100kk, but there's a fan that revert all the time, even though there's a long discussion in the talk. I don't know why they didn't do an Rfc. But anyway, 100kk is the more accurate.--88marcus (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC

Excuse me , but i dont think 140 million copies is "unrealistically high".Could you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowie2 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bowie's certified sales are only 30.2 million, which is 110 million units away from the figure you're speaking of. That is an inflated figure. This list uses those available sales figures that are closest to artists' certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

By saying certified sales you are referring to gold, platinum etc. certifications right? If that's so you should bear in mind that a gold certification means that a record has sold 500,000 to 999,999 (in america ) . That means that the sales could might as well be double. So I wouldn't rely solely on certifications. Furthermore by taking into account the table in the talk page ,which states that an artists sales before 1975 should account to 25% of the sales,while sales before 1990 should be supported by certified units taht equal to 20%-64% based on the year . If Bowie's sales were at their peak during 1972-1987 , and had worldwide success, I think the numbers make sense. To conclude Bowie sold 5 million in the UK alone since january 2016.

First sign your comments. Second Bowie's US certified sales are only 11.7 million, even if the actual sales are double that amount, still having roughly 22 million in actual sales doesn't in any way suggest that he could have sold anywhere above 100 million units worldwide. Yes, the talk page table details the minimum requirements; therefore, we also have the definitions on the main page which informs that the list uses sales figures closest to artists' certified sales. BPI has certified 2.985 million units of records since January 2016. The 5 million also is inflated based on the available certs coming from the UK. Either way, it would not help your argument as the fact remains that his certified sales are only 30.2 million. If in the future, however, Bowie's certified sales grow significantly and get really close to his currently listed 100 million sales claim, then we'll be upgrading his sales figure from 100 to higher figure.--Harout72 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you cannot judge an artists sales based on certifications as i said before and i'm not talking specifically about america. Finally I believe that the sales should be based on the most reliable and commonly agreed source , not on the closest to certified units (as the Belfast Telegraph source is perhaps the only one I have ever seen claiming bowie has sold 100 million records).To conclude , Bowie probably is undercertified because of record label conflicts (ex. Fame and Let's Dance have sold >1,000,000 units but are certified gold),which is worth mentioning .P.S could you please send me the site with Bowie's certified sales , so I can take a look on my own ? Thank you Bowie2 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The 5 million figure is from the Official Charts Company here so it is probably true (depends how they are counting streaming I suppose) but either way that is not enough to change him upwards atm. Mattg82 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Bowie2 I have linked the certified sales document above, here it is again. You should not believe the sales figures you read on reliable sources, those are given to them by Bowie's record company. The more inflated sales figures are, the more impressive their artist, it's a marketing strategy. Therefore, certified sales have to be brought in to determine whether the figure published is realistic or not. In the case of Bowie, the 140 million is 100% inflated based on his certified sales. Certified sales are great tools which help verify sales figures. In fact, even the 100 million is inflated, but that's the lowest available figure.--Harout72 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well do you have a source for claiming that the company pays them? Or is it just your hypothesis?Bowie2 (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Also i saw the file and I understand just how deeply flawed this concept is . Based on this not only the certified units could be 30M-60M but also did not even include albums/singles that did not get a certification from david bowie's discography.By claiming that you are also claiming that singles such as blue jean , china girl ,golden years etc reached the top 10 but did not sell any copies just because they sold <1M. All of his albums/singles that are not certified gold,platinum or higher could have sold anywhere from 0 to 500K or 1m depending on the time and format, so we are just going to assume that they all sold 0 copies despite charting on the billboard 200 Or any other chart where they did not get a certificiation . I am very surprised as i thought wikipedia was a valid site but now I can see this list's system is completely dysfunctional. Don'you think so?i don't want to sound mean by saying that, as i'm just trying to help here. Best wishes Bowie2 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if no Gold certification in US for those aforementioned singles, then they haven't sold enough to reach Gold status. This is not assuming, this is fact checking, assuming is reading the 140 million and assuming that if it's published then it must be correct.--Harout72 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understood. The fact that a record has not been cerified gold that does not mean it sold 0 copies ok? They would range from 0-499k , doen't that change the numbers a bit if you add all of Bowie's hits?

I understood, and I'm not suggesting that his singles have sold 0 copies, but have fallen short of reaching Gold status. Also, Bowie experienced major success with two of his singles on US 100 chart. Has two number 1 singles, four top-10 singles, the rest have gone unsuccessful for the most part.--Harout72 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure there are many records that are under certified or have not reached the certification level to get a gold record, you could say the same for every artist listed. But that is the way this list operates because it is then fair to all artists listed on here. We could start adding Soundscan data (or equivalent from each country) but since such data is so sporadically published I think it is best to stick to easily accessible certification awards. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, to anyone still having doubts here is billboard stating bowie sold 140M

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7549992/david-bowie-blackstar-lazarus-musical-cast-recording-everything-need-know Probably the most reliable source out there Bowie2 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you're still having doubts that they are all copying the same figure from each other which is originally given to the first round of sources by Bowie's record company, you should ask yourself why all figures are the same if these reliable sources do their own individual research before publishing sales figures. How is it that they've all been publishing the same 140 million for years and years, why was it never 125 million, or 130 million, or 145 million? The 140 million doesn't change? After all, Bowie's records have been selling even after he died. For years and years they've all been publishing the same inflated figure. Why? Because they're all copying the same figure from each other. I think it's time we stopped this futile discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

i think its time to stop making lists based on some editors' conspiracy theories and start recognising valid data , from the people who make the charts and finally recognise bowie's sales .If you stubbornly keep wanting to keep this single source as the main one , you probably should stop relying on unrecognized hypotheses of yours. CheersBowie2 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bowie2 , I'm the one who able to bring Bowie to the list, I'm the one who found the only reliable source who brave enough to release the real Bowie sales claimed. and It's reliable. Politsi (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for this claim that the record companies pay the press to make the singer look more important or is it just a hypothesis of yours?Bowie2 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No need for me to answer your question actually, you can find it by yourself as long as you can use your logical by seeing his certification sales (31m) which is too far below of his promotional calculation sales figure (140m) which spread all over the world. In fact, If not because of me. Bowie probably still out of the list same like Tom Jones, Cliff Richard, and others artist who has a very high sales claimed but in fact, They have a very low official certification. Politsi (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible inflation

I've recently come across this which gives 40 million album sales and 125 song sales for Katy Perry (perhaps including streams even if I can't find any synonyms for figures including them when I use a translator), which would total up to 165 million records unless streams are counted. Not quite sure how to calculate an appropriate range based on her certifications, but wanted to be sure on whether it's inflated. Either way, it's not citing her label (which is a relief when record companies are known to often embellish their artists' figures for promotional purposes). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The figure for the albums is more than definitely inflated as Perry's certified sales for albums are 11.8 million only, the figure for the songs includes streaming though. Not long ago I had a brief discussion with a fellow main editor about Perry's figure stated at 143 million, see if that discussion can answer you. Let me know if you have further questions.--Harout72 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I had a bad feeling about it. While that discussion had 127 million certified sales listed and it currently has 129.5 million counted (including streams of course), what's now the most appropriate range if not between 110 million and 125 million? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as it's a difference of 2.5 million units. The newer artists are collecting Gold/Platinum awards fast mainly with the help of streaming I'm afraid.--Harout72 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That definitely hinders updates for actual sales. Unless you or Politsi beat me to it, I'll probably update accordingly once something usable with that range comes along. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep us posted if you come across a figure within that range.--Harout72 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snuggums, When Perry's certification sales has been reach 140m, we will use the source that I have found to update her sales claim. At this moment, 165m claim of her is really inflated and 143m is much more logical.Politsi (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I had a bad feeling about it. Hopefully a feasible update comes along sooner rather than later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Oasis inclusion

Shouldn't Oasis be included here since they have sold >85 million (certified) units worldwide?

Sign your post please. There is a 75m claim for Oasis, but I think their certification sales are too low to get the 75m claim (https://www.shieldsgazette.com/whats-on/music/noel-gallagher-announces-arena-dates-1-3908334/amp). I don't exactly are Oasis able to enter the list. Politsi (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

i thought so but if you add all the sales from their discography page it turns out they have sold more than their claimed sales Bowie2 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Coldplay to 100m club

Harout, Coldplay's certified units already nearly 80 million. I think it's time for this 1999's band to enter the 100m club. Still, there is no broadsheet newspaper or news TV publishing Coldplay's 100m sales. Only this (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14126481.Coldplay_drummer_s_journey_from_Hampshire_primary_school_to_the_Superbowl/), Southern Daily Echo. I know it's a tabloid but it's usable for temporary. Beside Southern Daily Echo is part of Newsquest, a Gannett Company. I'm confident with this, need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

They seem to be ok for now, but once they are around 85 million with their certified sales and we still don't have any other source claiming the 100 million, we'll use Dailyecho source.--Harout72 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

so here , where there is just a single source , a barely reliable one ,you will accept it ? I believe you should find more sources to confirm this oneBowie2 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bowie2, well then make yourself useful by finding a good reliable source for Coldplay's 100m claim from a broadsheet paper or news corp. It will better rather than only complaining or critical without doing nothing in here. But let me tell you that finding a reliable source with a match sales claim with artist certified units it's the most difficult thing. Politsi (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, please try to find a source from the world's biggest newspaper and news corp. In the last past month, I personally put a sales claim source for every artists from the world's most prestigious newspaper and news corp, in order to raise the reliability of the list. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Certification levels

If we are increasing the minimum %age amount of certifications every year, then as far as I see it, it now makes little sense to have the 2000 to present. We might as well have just 1990 to present. Mattg82 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I designed it this way because Brazil's, Austria's and Switzerland's databases start in 1990, 1990 and 1989 respectively. And then we have Australia's, Belgium's, Mexico's and Denmark's databases start in 1997, 1997, 1999 and 2001 respectively. This way it is more specific, and also easier to explain to those who aggressively demand an explanation as to what is all this based on.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

OK fair enough, I vaguely remember now the original discussion on this stuff that we did the time brackets around when certification databases were founded. Mattg82 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

featured artists and lead artists

These rules seem rather complex and arbitrary. Surely this can be made much simpler such as:

Certifications given to artists as part of a duet or group, are included if the artist is listed individually as one of the main artists that got awarded the certification. Any certifications where the artist is only listed as a featured artist are not included.

Mattg82 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that once sentence or example doesn't cover everything specified in that table. Certifications awarded to songs with only one featured artist, is included in the total certified sales of the featured artists. However, it is not when multiple featured artists are involved. I think they need to be specified individually, otherwise, people are going to be confused when it is or it isn't included. You can come up with slightly better wording for all individually specified ones, I don't mind making changes to the way we say them.--Harout72 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I should have explained myself better I was thinking along the lines of coming up with one simpler rule replacing what we have already. "people are going to be confused when it is or it isn't included" I think that is already the case with these rules. I think If the artist (except featured) has been awarded the certification it should be given to them. Is there some kind of industry standard we could use here to apply to these situations?

• One lead artist and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added in the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of parts).

Not necessarily and how do we decide weather they have had an equal share or not? Also Moves Like Jagger for instance Christina Aguilera is a featured artist but RIAA has only listed Maroon 5 on the certification.

• Two lead artists and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added in the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Both lead artists will play a significant part in a song and the part of the featured artist also should be significant enough).

Again how do we decide weather they have had a significant enough part in a song?

• One lead artist and more than one featured artists, (it's sometimes three and even four featured artists). (The issued certification(s) should be included in the total of the lead artist only. None of the featured artists should be credited as their parts will naturally be small, unless the single includes two featured artists and all vocals are provided by the featured artists).

I probably agree with that one.

• Two lead artists and more than one featured artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added in the total of both lead artists but none of the featured artists as multiple featured artists tend to have very small parts in songs).

I probably agree with that one.

• More than two lead artists and one or two featured artists.(The issued certification(s) shouldn't be added in the total of any as all of them will have small parts).

Yes don't give the feat. artist the certification but I don't see the problem with giving the lead artists the certification. I don't think we can remove a certification because we think an artist has made too small a part in a song.

Mattg82 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I admit that some of the songs can be very confusing as to whether the certifications should be added to whose total.

• One lead artist and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added in the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of parts).

This one is very simple. "Moves Like Jagger" includes Christina Aguilera as a featured artist, therefore, both are credited for the certifications. I think you're confused because RIAA doesn't sometimes list the names of the featured artists like for "Moves Like Jagger".

• Two lead artists and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added in the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Both lead artists will play a significant part in a song and the part of the featured artist also should be significant enough).

The lead artists will normally have a significant part, therefore, both should be credited. However, I admit that certain songs can/should be discussed on individual bases. (Open for suggestions)

• One lead artist and more than one featured artists, (it's sometimes three and even four featured artists). (The issued certification(s) should be included in the total of the lead artist only. None of the featured artists should be credited as their parts will naturally be small, unless the single includes two featured artists and all vocals are provided by the featured artists).

This very case can be considered for elimination as often songs in such cases have both the lead artist and all three sometimes even four featured artists having small parts like the song "Monster" for example by Kanye West. (Open for suggestions)

• More than two lead artists and one or two featured artists.(The issued certification(s) shouldn't be added in the total of any as all of them will have small parts).

This is the kind of case when a song can have huge number of participants, and for that reason they all end up having small parts in a song that is 3 or 4 minutes long.

I'm also open to minimizing everything to including certifications to only songs that have One Lead Artist and One Featured Artist or Two Lead Artists. This way it will be super concrete.--Harout72 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be much clearer. Providing the list of songs isn't too large, I think it might be worth added a note (little letter which points to the bottom of the page) to the artist's total which says which songs are included and songs that are not. Mattg82 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So we can keep the following:

• One lead artist and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of parts). (as we already had)

• Two lead artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as both will have almost equal amount of parts). (As suggested above by me)

I also suggest we have two additional ones:

• Two lead artists and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Both lead artists will play a significant part in a song and the part of the featured artist also should be significant enough). Example of this would be Shed a Light by Robin Schulz and David Guetta feat. Cheat Codes. I think this is fair to include.

• One lead artist and two featured artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of the lead artist and to the total of both featured artists as almost all should have equal amount of parts). (Example of this is "Where Them Girls At" by David Guetta featuring Nicki Minaj and Flo Rida. I think it's only fair to have this one.

And we'll exclude those which describe in what cases songs are not included which is presently the last one. Thoughts?--Harout72 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Erm well in that case it I think we should perhaps say something like: (feel free to copy/modify)

Issued certifications for songs which have been recorded by multiple artists including featured artists are added to each artist's total amount of certified units, as all the artists would have played a significant part in a song. For example "Moves Like Jagger" and "Where Them Girls At" include Christina Aguilera and Nicki Minaj as featured artists respectively, so these songs are added to total amount of certified units for those artists. However songs that have been recorded by four or more artists are not included as the artists involved would have played a minor roles-Insert example-

As saying the same thing multiple times in a list with just a minor change to each point is hard to read and confusing to casual readers. Mattg82 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How about we insert your suggested comprehensive version right above the tables with other bulleted notes on the main page with a footnote, just like we have a brief explanation for required percentages in the definitions with a footnote. At the same time, we keep the ones that I modified/updated again on the talk page for specifications. I mean they are pretty direct, at least this way. Especially, now we'll only be specifying when songs are included.--Harout72 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds reasonable, I can't argue with that. (Edit conflict) No I would prefer it into the Definitions, like you said the first time Mattg82 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok no problem, I'll insert it into the definitions then.--Harout72 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok all done. Feel free to make changes if you like.--Harout72 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Justin Bieber to 140m club

Harout, I just see that Bieber's certification sales has pass 140 million. Therefore it's time to raise his sales claim on the list. Based on my previous suggestion, I think we should put him with 140m claim. And we are agree that the 140m claim of Bieber can be used when his certified pass 140m. And now, he has 142m certified units. I try to find the best source but still I just able to find this one, NewspaperDirect Inc. on behalf of Calgary Herald write about Bieber 140m-claim (https://www.pressreader.com/canada/calgary-herald/20180105/282282435687161), we can use it at least for temporary until I found another source from one of the world's greatest broadsheet paper. Sorry Harout, this time I'm very confident to raise his claim. So, I change it now since we already have this discussion before. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, we've already discussed this back in November.--Harout72 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Green Day

Harout. Any updated from their certified sales so we can bring them back to the list?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

They are now at 47.9 million with their certified sales, they should have 49.8 million for 75 million claim as they've begun charting in 1994. They might get there in some six months.--Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

They are so close to get into the list, if their certified sales deficiency less than 1 million. I think we should allow them to enter the list again. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake (88m claim)

Harout, I need your help. Yesterday L'Express, a French weekly news magazine modelled on the US magazine Time, write about Timberlake in French language, obviously. Inside (https://www.lexpress.fr/culture/musique/super-bowl-2018-depuis-le-nipplegate-les-mille-et-unes-vies-de-justin-timberlake_1980587.html) they said that Timberlake has sold 32m albums and 56m singles (88m claim), you might better use Google translate to read the complete paragraph. How many certified sales Timberlake has so far? is it able to cover 88m claim? This is the only source I have found so far but it's usable at least for temporary. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me have a few days to go over his certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Timberlake has a lot collaboration with Madonna, Timbaland, Nelly Furtado, Rihanna, and others. I don't know if all also count on Timberlake's certified sales. Politsi (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok so I finished going over his certified sales, he has 63 million units of certified sales. His claims should be supported by 71.3% certified sales which is 62.7 million certified units required for 88 million claim. So I put him up on the list with hat source above. In the future, however, if you come across a source that claims 75 million, replace the current one with that as the 75 million figure would be more accurate based on his available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay Thanks, Timberlake just release his new albums and singles, I believe his certification will increase within a month but I will still search a lower sales figure and better source for him. And now.... let's welcoming Justin Timberlake to the list.!!!Politsi (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Beatles's 500m from The New Yorker

Harout, in the past three weeks I was trying to put the world's most prestigious news organization on the list for every artists. But one thing I have to say, that the source for Beatles's 500m claim from The New Yorker is Unreliable, the source contain also still mention about Jackson's 400m claim sales. New Yorker style is like Daily Mail, we must avoid a source that contain essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. That's unreliable. So we just kept the 600m claim for Beatles, and then if there's a reliable source for Beatles's 500m claim, we add it back. Need your opinion before I remove The New Yorker out from the list. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No other source available that claims 500 million for The Beatles?--Harout72 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no other source. I've been searching it for years and it seems only that humour magazine speak about 500m claim of Beatles. I believe you have seen that nearly all source in the list came from the most prestigious news source, only source for Nicky Minaj which is came from Tabloid. Harout, we should not allow that kind of magazine as reference in here. The New Yorker is not like Time or Newsweek. It's like a Daily Mail in magazine version. We should not allow that magazine to be used as source sales claim. So, can I remove it from the list?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok go ahead, remove it, no objection on my end.--Harout72 (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker is nothing like the Daily Mail, and it's not a humour magazine. It was the first magazine to win a Pulitzer Prize for journalism, and it's legendary for rigorous fact-checking.JSFarman (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In order to become a reference sales claim in this list, the source must came from the world's most prestigious news organization. The New Yorker is a magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. We are not using a source that contain some fiction, and something stupid like a random cartoon of famous people. Politsi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, your claim is horseshit. The New Yorker is vastly more reliable than the vast majority of sources used in musical articles. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for what you wrote above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸, if you want to bring your argument in here, please be polite and avoid personal attack, within this case I believe you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, base on how you write down about me with the word horsesh1t, you supposed to be banned. Anyway, how can you say that The New Yorker is vastly more reliable than the other sources in the list?, have you ever seen the source and familiar with one by one? I handle all the source in the list and they are among the world's most prestigious news organization, you will find out that only a very big, famous, influential news corp used as sources in the list. They are Sky News, BBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Chicago Tribune, Reuters, CBC News. They are among the world's greatest news corp, and you are saying The New Yorker better than them? Based on what? Politsi (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi is right The New Yorker is not one of the more reliable sources we've used on this list to support sales figures. However, every now and then we temporarily use such sources until more reliable ones become available. I assume we can keep that temporarily too if there is objection for its removal at least until he same claimed figure is published by another more reliable source. Either way I'm flexible on this.--Harout72 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticizing your claim is not a personal attack, Politsi. If you really think that the New Yorker is not a reliable source, then take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard, where many editors will tell you that it is reliable, and is just as reliable as any of the excellent sources you listed. The things you said about the New Yorker are both absurd and very wrong. It is a highly respected, award winning magazine with an excellent journalistic reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸, you are not criticizing but you are directly do some personal attack on me!. Give some opinion with the word Horsesh1t straight to other editor's opinion is not acceptable, you should read and understand the rule Wikipedia:Civility, Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. You should understand that saying some rude world like "Horsesh1t" or "F##k" is not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia, I hope the main administrator of wikipedia read this section and do some Wikipedia:General sanctions on you based on your rude act. Anyway, The New Yorker is a quite reliable source but not for use in this list, the list only use the highest source from a news organization without any fiction contain, or satire comment. While The New Yorker design is not like Time (magazine) and Newsweek, both news magazine apply on general worldwide news, but The New Yorker is often focus on the cultural life of New York City and is not reliable for the list. Have you seen all the source in the list? we are not using some kind of cultural news magazine like Vanity Fair (magazine) or The Hollywood Reporter, perhaps that kind of magazine is apply on other page in Wikipedia, BUT NOT in this list. The list is contain a biography person and very strict regarding with their image and reputation worldwide. That's why only the world's prestigious general news sources used for the list. Do you understand me? and please focus to your opinion. I'm not asking about how many award of The New Yorker have won! but I'm asking the reason why you said that magazine are better than all news sources on the list? @Cullen³²⁸, please answer my question. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

To repeat: I am not attacking you personally, Politsi. Instead, I am criticizing the falsehoods that you posted about the New Yorker. This is not your article; and every Wikipedia editor has the right to contribute to this article. Please read and study WP:OWNERSHIP. You have no right to establish special rules for this article that disallow the use of reliable sources widely accepted elsewhere. Nowhere does the word "prestigious" occur in our policies or guidelines regarding reliable sources, and even if it did, the New Yorker IS a highly prestigious publication which has published work by hundreds of the greatest literary figures and greatest investigative journalists. As for "main administrator", there is no such thing. I am an administrator and I can assure you that no editor is ever disciplined on Wikipedia for single use of the word "horseshit". So, please admit that you made a terrible mistake in your description of the New Yorker, comparing it to the Daily Mail, or take that matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Politsi, I am an administrator and a generalist editor and I have done major work on hundreds of articles. You are a single purpose account focused entirely on sales records of musical performers, particularly this article. Thank you for your work here but I believe that your narrow focus does not give you the broad understanding of our overall policies and guidelines. Well, now I am paying attention to this article, and I intend to work to make sure that it is brought into compliance with all our policies and guidelines, and that includes the use of any reliable source, including the New Yorker. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, I have mentioned elsewhere that I am somewhat uneasy about the way these lists are handled, mostly by resident "gatekeepers" seemingly arbitrarily "enforcing" an arcane set of locally developed "rules" that often look uncomfortably close to WP:OR. I don't think a little outside scrutiny would be a bad thing. I think the editors here act with the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and I'm grateful for the effort they put in, but I am often a little concerned that these lists have become something of a self-governing "walled garden". Perhaps we need some kind of RfC? -- Begoon 03:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸ you are writing Politsi, your claim is horseshit, it means directly that you are saying that my opinion is a horsesh1t!. I've seen your profile and being a master editor of wikipedia doesn't mean that you can say everything to other editor!. You should still follow Wikipedia:Civility and always treat each other with consideration and respect, do not say some rude word to the other editor especially in public page like this.! For me, the word horsesh!t is very rude, it's same like an animal dirt. You should understand that!, not everyone comfortable with all of your written. If you have some argument, then bring here with polite and no need to showoff your status in here. Again, you still not answer my question with good theories. WHAT IS THE REASON! that The New Yorker is better than other source that I have listed in the list, especially if you compare with The New York Times, what's the reason that you said The New Yorker is better than The New York Times?. Please describe.. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

While The New Yorker isn't unreliable, I don't think highly prestigious publications would publish music fan's opinion as The New Yorker has done here in this article. Politsi, I suppose we can use The New Yorker temporarily, at least until we can come across another perhaps more reliable source that claims 500 million for The Beatles.--Harout72 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

One more thing for @Cullen³²⁸, I put Time (magazine) as source for Tina Turner's and Whitney Houston's sales claim in the list. And you are saying The New Yorker is vastly better source than Time (magazine)?. Why? Please explain...Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, my opinion still same. We should not allow that kind of magazine with most concern in Politics, social issues, art, humor, culture being used for sales claim in the list. And there is a Controversial covers regarding with The New Yorker especially the never ending issue about 2008 Obama cover satire and controversy in that magazine. Harout, if you wan't to bring back that humour magazine to the list, then go ahead. But I will not doing it. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Just temporarily until we find something better. Politsi, I think we both know how well you choose the sources for this list, and I really appreciate it. Let's patently wait, something will come about claiming 500 million records for The Beatles.--Harout72 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, sorry for bothering you. I will still searching a better source to replace that humor magazine in the list. Thanks Politsi (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Music fan", Harout72? You must be kidding. Wyman is a professional journalist who is an expert in music and popular culture. Read the article. He is engaged in serious research on the accuracy of music sales, particularly the hype around Michael Jackson, and you should be happy to use such an excellent source in this article. As for you, Politsi, you are overly focused on the word "horseshit" and have stopped discussing the substantive issue. So let me ask you directly: Are you still claiming that journalistic articles in the New Yorker are unreliable sources, comparable to the Daily Mail? I am not talking about their poetry and fiction, which are at a very high literary level, but their journalism. Do you really think that they have a journalistic reputation as low as the Daily Mail? Please answer that direct question. As for me mentioning that I am an administrator, that was only after you mentioned your wish that "main administrators" would punish me. Otherwise, I would not have told you that I am an administrator. Politsi, Time is an excellent source, but this is not an all or nothing proposition. When you call the New Yorker a "humour magazine", you are showing a deep and profound misunderstanding of that publication, which publishes serious journalism, fiction, poetry, cartoons, literary criticism and satire. Any intelligent reader can distinguish between these various forms of content quite easily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, I have read the article. I'm not referring to the person the article is written by. The article is based on opinions of a French music fan as stated I occasionally consult with a French music fan, Guillaume Vieira, who, in his off hours as a web developer, obsessively collects sales news from labels and official industry statements all over the globe. The only reason I reinstated the source is because the 500 million for The Beatles is more reasonable than higher figures based on their available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The content from Vieira is a small part of the article, Harout72, and has almost nothing to do with the claim about the Beatles, except that he lists Abbey Road. Also, when a professional journalist (as opposed to a Wikipedia editor) reports positively on the work of a fan, then that transforms the fan's work as described by the journalist into a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸, I'm not repeating the word horseshit for no reason but TO REMIND YOU and all of us to remain polite and avoid any personal attack while doing some argument in here, follow the Wikipedia:Civility rule. You're not answering my question yet, is it difficult to find the best answer why you are very confident to say The New Yorker is a better source than The New York Times and Time (magazine)? well then I suggest you to think twice before saying something in here. Make yourself get used to be polite and do not easy to get angry when something look not good for you. Cullen³²⁸, is not me who labelling The New Yorker as a humor magazine, the magazine itself who categories as humor magazine. Please look at the section Categories below the image of the magazine in their profile page. It is clearly stated Politics, social issues, art, humor, culture. That's the main reason why I considered that magazine is not that serious because they are too much proclaim themselves as a humor magazine, we need something very serious to be used as reliable source in the list. The New Yorker contain is nearly like Daily Mail, publishing too much sensationalist stories rather than some serious world's issue. Daily Mail also win a lot of journalism award in the past same like new yorker, but the quality both of that source is seems not appropriate as reference in the list, don't forget the Controversial covers of The New Yorker. Do you understand?. Politsi (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, if you truly believe that the New Yorker is an unreliable source comparable to the Daily Mail, then all you have to do is to take that matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard, and get the opinion of editors who are experts in evaluating the reliability of sources. Until you do that, your opinion on this matter remains, in my opinion, false, ridiculous and uninformed. So, go to that noticeboard and file your report. I will happily abide by the decision made there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸, Let me clarified this once and for all. The New Yorker is still a reliable source but the quality of that magazine is too low to be used as a reference source of sales claim in this list. There are a lot of highly regarded source that more serious and reliable than the New Yorker, that's the reason we do some high priority to only use a kind of source like Sky News, BBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Chicago Tribune, Reuters, CBC News rather than some popular culture magazine like Vanity Fair (magazine), Wired (magazine), or Entertainment Weekly. As for The New Yorker, we previously make some special case since that magazine publishing 500m claim sales of the Beatles and the only one at this moment published that sales claim and since there's no other reliable source publishing a same claim, we decided to keep New Yorker in the list for temporary. I suggest an idea to remove that source from the list three days ago because I feels The New Yorker could pollute the reliability of the list since all others source is already come from the world's greatest news corp. Politsi (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, are you going to take this matter to to Reliable sources noticeboard? Yes or no? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Poltsi, please read this quote from the editor Herostratus at the Reliable sources noticeboard: "The New Yorker is an AAA-level source. I can scarcely think of a better source on the planet. The Economist, maybe. They are certainly more reliable than the New York Times or the LA Times or the Washington Post, for instance. Their editing is legendary for being of the highest possible quality, and this includes their fact checking. It is a byward in the industry that nothing gets into the pages of the New Yorker without being carefully checked, including for veracity, by some very able and high-powered editors who have a lot of authority." What is your response to that?Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've come across that discussion too. How does one make sure whether The New Yorker is always far better and more reliable than any other news agency on the planet especially when it comes to fact-checking? Those comparisons can easily be viewed and taken offensive also. To make a comment like that, one literally must be familiar with every single news outlet's work all around the globe.--Harout72 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It is simple in this case, Harout72. I am not arguing that it is far better than the sources widely used in this particular article. I do contend that it is far better than most sources used in new articles about bands and performers. But it should be obvious that it is a perfectly acceptable source for this article. The first step is to stop making demonstrably false statements about the source, such as comparing it to the Daily Mail, which is absurd. The second step is to discuss any concerns at WP:RSN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen³²⁸, at this moment I don't have much time to conduct some consensus and asking about reliability of a humor magazine to Reliable sources noticeboard, it's wasting my time. My opinion remains the same, a magazine which proclaim themselves in categories a Humor Magazine should not be used as a reference of the list. No matter how incredible the achievement from one of their journalist in reporting, as long as they are still proclaiming themselves as a Humor Magazine in their general categories, they are NOT that serious. When some prestigious Broadsheet paper publishing the 500m of Beatles in the future, we should remove The New Yorker out of the list. For example, If The New York Times also publishing the 500m claim of Beatles's sales, we should take out the new yorker. Anyway, about that statement from Herostratus regarding of The New Yorker reputation, may I know who is she/he? Is Herostratus a Key people of the Associated Press or United Press International?. Leave his position as the super master of wikipedia's editor but in real life who is he/she?. Because I think, only the world's leader in Publishing who are able to say some news organization as the best of all. Can you answer my question?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Politsi, if you don't have time to seek consensus at WP:RSN, that is fine. This a volunteer project after all. Wikipedia editors determine consensus without the need to consult outside experts. If you are too busy, then just step aside and let generalist editors who have the time clean up this article. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What's happening in the list?

Harout, I've seen there are a lot of changing happen in the list. There are a lot information has been removed from the list, that information although look repeat in every table in the list. But it's important to inform the rules how to operate the list. Who's doing that?. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Politsi (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone (All editor) have a good Idea to make the list more reliable. Then bring it here first for talk together with the other editor, do not make a lot of significant changing in the list without discussing it with other in the talk page. That's the function of the talk page. Do not act like the owner of the list no matter how long of your experience as Wikipedia's editor, DO NOT change something big without discussing it first. @Harout, need your help. Who's done removing some information in the list today?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you use a PC monitor, it shows a View history tab at the right top, when you click on it shows the edits and editors that have made the changes. I guess you're mostly using mobile device. Anyways, they've been removed by the same editor that we had a discussion on The New Yorker. But all the info is still available for the first table. Anyways, the only reason I didn't restore them for every table is because the list has gotten large, we could use some weight dropping. But if in the future we see editors are adding unreliable sources and/or adding markets with lower than 100,000 in certified sales, we'll restore what's been removed.--Harout72 (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I just tidy up some of the tables because it looks messy after that master editor remove the table's info. I hope all editor make sure the list always looks neat and tidy, DO NOT leave the list messy after you guys doing some editing. Thank you Politsi (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Rihanna false information

Why on earth is Rihanna listed as having 229.7 million certified Riaa sales? Whoever wrote that is obviously doing some free PR work for her. All it takes is a simple Google search to disprove that: https://www.riaa.com/coalition-of-copyright-industries-highlights-major-impediments-to-foreign-markets-in-special-301-submission/ According to that link she only recently surpassed the 100 million mark in singles worldwide and 7.5 million albums in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.242.117 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another link: https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAS#search_section , if you sort the results by "Top Artists (Digital Singles)" Rihanna is listed as having 120.5 million sales (the highest ever number of digital sales). So now I ask you, where did the 229.7 million come from..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.242.117 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you even aware that the RIAA is the certifying body for the US only? Did you even click on [Show] to see what other markets are listed under that drop down button? Also, are you aware that the 120.5 is only the certifications for her singles as a solo/lead artist? She has millions of certified units for songs as a featured artist. And her certified sales for albums stand at 13.5 million, not 7.5 million. For her detailed certifications see this file.--Harout72 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

On Janet Jackson's certifications, it states that she has 39.75 million sales in the U.S. when in actuality she has 40.65 million certified sales. Please update, thanks. Justifylips (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I went over her US certified units one by one again, and it is 39.750 million units. See this file, whatever you see on that file is included on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

Katy Perry's sales have been updated on RIAA. She is now certified for 94 million digital single units. 97.5 million needs to be changed to 100 million (95 million singles and 6 million albums) Itsevren (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's already been updated hours ago.--Harout72 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The total was updated but not the US figure. Mattg82 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done

KATY PERRY

Hi , I would love to remind you people that in Katy Perry l’s oage you mentioned that she has 40 million albums sold worldwide! And 100 records !! That’s im not sure what do you mean by it . Anyway as of today on RIAA they updated her sales to 100 mills in US I would love to see her sales updated on this list.

83.221.231.132 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When Perry's certified sales has been reach 140m. I will updated her sales claim to 143m, meanwhile you can help Perry by buying Perry's records as much as you can, so her certified sales will be up immediately. Politsi (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rihanna

Harout, I've seen Rihanna's certified sales has pass 230 million. I think it's time to raise her claim again and I believe her certified sales will increase in the next few weeks. About two years ago, I suggest this very reliable source (https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/11/23/rihanna-anti-world-tour-phoenix-concert/76285950/) for Rihanna's 264m claim sales, and now when we can put Rihanna's position into the top section?. What do you think?. Thanks. (Anyway, I just put a better source for Nicky Minaj, now there's no source from Tabloid in the list). Politsi (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Harout, I change my mind. I think 264 million is too much for Rihanna at this moment. But, I think it's time for her to join the most prestigious section (250m club), She is already has 230m certified sales and it's reliable for 250m claim. Here the source (http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2016/03/rihanna_dazzles_in_metro_detro.html) from The Grand Rapids Press, I'm very confident to see her status equal with Beatles and Elvis Presley. Need your opinion before I move her up. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And if it's final. We should keep her 230m claim. And placed it along with her new 250m claim in the tables. Politsi (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, when I take actual sales figures into account vs streaming generated certified units for those singles/albums that have available published sales figures, Rihanna's US total gets chopped off by 27.6 million units. It would actually be a lot more if we had access to all of her actual sales figures for all recent singles that are streaming generated. So her grand total goes down from 230.7 million 203.1. And that is based on some of the US actual sales figures we have access to. Streaming helps newer artists get over certified worldwide these days, not only in the US. So in order for us to use that 250 million for Rihanna, her certified sales should at least be 250 million also.--Harout72 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel that too somehow, well then at least we have a reliable source already for her 250m claim. When she's already reach 250m certified sales. We raise her to the highest place. Thanks Politsi (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Santana's 90m records claim is no longer reliable?

Harout and also I need opinion from other editor. We keep Santana's 90m sales claim in the list with consideration that 90m sales claim is the closest with their certified sales (62m). But I feel that claim is too old and no longer reliable to be use for Santana especially when I found out that Brookhaven National Laboratory/https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=110537 in 2006 already speaks about Santana's 90m records, they are not a news organization but their reliability above of all news corp since they are United States Department of Energy national laboratories and also CNN in 2009/http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/31/santana.joint/index.html already mention Santana's 90m records claim. According to their Santana discography, they release another four albums since 2009 (with the new album released in 2016). It means their 90m-records sales claim is an old claim. Harout, I think we should update their sales claim. The 100m sales claims for them is more reliable now (https://www.channel24.co.za/Music/News/santana-returns-to-sa-20171206) 2017 edition of News24. Need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There are newer articles published by reliable sources that still claim 90 million records. We can replace our current source with northernstar.com.au, which also claims 90 million records and it's from September 2016. Since 2016 September, Santana has collected only 3x Plat. from the RIAA which is a single released in Feb. 2014, meaning it had mainly already sold before its certification date. He also has 200,000 units certified by the BPI since 2016. In my opinion 90 million is still OK. We still have over 28 million units between the 90 million claim and his available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with a source in Tabloid format, I've seen the source from The Northern Star but since the paper is a Tabloid, I'm not taking it seriously. Beside, from now on we should looking a source from a National Broadsheet newspaper/news magazine or online news corp for sources in the list. Harout, I still feel we should raise their claim to 100m. But since this discussion is still between me and you, we still use the 90m claim for Santana. If there are at least three editor agree with my opinion. I think we should conduct a consensus. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Northern Star is a daily newspaper, it's not a tabloid. For such a jump as 10 million units, we should at least have 6-7 million certified units. And they should be newer releases with recent certification dates. Anyways, what other sources claim 100 million records besides this?--Harout72 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Harout. The Northern Star is still considered a Tabloid (newspaper format), most of the Australian Newspaper now distributed in Tabloid format and only two of the most important Australia's Newspaper released in Broadsheet quality. They are The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald, that's why if you look in the list, I only use both of that National Broadsheet Australian newspaper for the list. If a Newspaper already change their format into Tabloid, their quality has been decreased. Anyway, beside News24 there are a lot of very reliable source saying Santana's 100m claim. The Florida Times-Union/http://www.jacksonville.com/entertainment/music/2017-10-19/echoes-woodstock-santana-one-few-big-names-still-road and The Express-Times/ http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/01/carlos_santana_will_kick_off_m.html in 2017. The Jerusalem Post / http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Report-Santanas-Smooth-rhythms-due-to-sway-Israel-concert-448366 in 2016. Harout, I'm not intend to compete Santana with the other artists in the 100m club, but Santana's certified sales is much better than several artists in the 100m list, especially in almost same year early career. That's why I still feel their 62m certified sales is more than enough for getting the 100m claim. Politsi (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in that case let's upgrade him to 100 million using The Florida Times-Union. I guess our upgrade will be somewhat justifiable since he's got 1,240,000 certified units from the UK and 3,170,000 certified units from the US since 2010.--Harout72 (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72 Thanks for your information. I just move up Santana's position to the 100m club. Politsi (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"If a Newspaper already change their format into Tabloid, their quality has been decreased." Politsi, if you are judging the reliability of sources using this simplistic "logic" then you have not understood the nuances of the term "tabloid". I assume that you would be happy to use The Guardian? Tabloid journalism is not the same thing as Tabloid (newspaper format) - (just read the lead sections of the article which you linked to and of Tabloid journalism), and you should acquaint yourself with the difference. The distinction is very important. Begoon 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon, have you read the information at Tabloid (newspaper format) completely?. Let me help you to learn more about the reason why we should only fully trust the Broadsheet format of the Newspaper. Please read carefully Some small-format papers with a high standard of journalism refer to themselves as compact newspapers. Larger newspapers, traditionally associated with higher-quality journalism, are called broadsheets. Therefore if The Guardian considered themselves as a Tabloid and not a Compact (newspaper) or a Berliner (format), I have to say that their quality has been decreased and for that reason, we should not using The Guardian as a reliable source in the list. Even I think an Online newspaper is better than a Tabloid. Another thing for you to learn, please read Chicago Tribune profile carefully, Traditionally published as a broadsheet, on January 13, 2009, the Tribune announced it would continue publishing as a broadsheet for home delivery, but would publish in tabloid format for newsstand, news box, and commuter station sales.[3] This change, however, proved to be unpopular with readers and in August 2011, the Tribune discontinued the tabloid edition, returning to its traditional broadsheet edition through all distribution channels. Smart readers understand that if they are read a newspaper in Tabloid format, they will feel uncomfortable. Politsi (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, with that you confirm what I suspected. You do not understand the difference, and should not be making these judgements. You need to stop reacting like this when people point things out to you, and actually listen - you may learn something. I repeat Cullen's suggestion - if you think your understanding is correct, take it to WP:RSN. Ask there if the format of the newspaper matters when judging reliability, or the journalistic standards. If you won't take it from me then stick your head outside this little walled-garden and see what others say. You are simply wrong, and I don't appreciate your attempt to "talk down" to me, amusing though it is, in its own way - you'll need a lot more experience, knowledge and understanding before you can pull that off - don't forget, I've known of you ever since you had a newly registered account and were still posting semi-requested edit requests while logged out to try and get others to make your edits for you. Honestly, I know you work hard on this page, and you've come a long way since then, but the isolation and insularism is unhealthy - you need a broader perspective. And quit with the pointless argumentation from a position of no strength - you did it with Cullen and now you're doing it again - it makes you look foolish. Begoon 07:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon No need to judge another editor with word it makes you look foolish when you find there is something wrong in other editor's opinion, your language please! and I believe you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, To be honest I like to have discussion with you in here but it will looks uncomfortable if you look not polite. Please read this carefully Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article or add it to the discussion. I already give you some evidence why we should not using a source which released in Tabloid (newspaper format) for the list, if you're not agree then bring some evident of a reliable source to support your opinion. And not your anger, please bear in your mind THIS LIST IS A Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and it's clear in the rules that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This list is Biographies of the world's famous artists!, their worldwide reputation! a lot of world's news organization are trusting this source when they are saying some artists are among the world's best-selling act. That's why all source must came from the highest possible reliable source. The rules already exist, no need wasting time to make some consensus. Anyway, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? you bring my personal editing history in here!. Have you ever read this policy? Wikipedia:But I'm an Administrator!,DO NOT SHOWOFF your experience in here and DO NOT UNDERESTIMATED another editor based on their editing experience. I hope you able to read and understand what I write here. Politsi (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm I'm done here for now as it appears you are unreceptive to help. If what I said was strong, Politsi, it was in an effort to help you to understand that the way you react to anything you see as the slightest criticism by instantly going on the all-out defensive with reams of repeated argument and bluster is not helpful to others or to yourself. It's ok to just be wrong, you know, and people pointing that out are not "attacking" you. In answer to your question, yes I can understand most of what you write first time - some of it I sometimes need to read again because of odd phrasing etc, but that's to be expected when English isn't your first language, so no problems here with that. Good luck. -- Begoon 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Begoon, you were saying it was in an effort to help you. I need your help, please find the reliable source from Broadsheet paper or online news corp for sales claim of R. Kelly's 75m, Christina Aguilera's 75m, and Eric Clapton's 100m sales. Can you do that?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, I have no idea why you would ask me to find sources for things with specific numbers which I have not expressed an interest in adding or altering, so I don't think I'll be doing that right now. I'd imagine you know where to look far better than I do, since this is what you do, exclusively. If you're just trying to "prove" something then understand that nobody has questioned the effort you put into finding sources for this list, or your skill at finding them. A couple of people have questioned the way you sometimes judge reliability of sources, and you have not accepted that - that's all. If this was a genuine request for help then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously once I had seen evidence that you were prepared to take the advice offered by Cullen and myself seriously by taking it to WP:RSN for further guidance instead of ignoring it. On a separate note - please see WP:TPG and don't alter other editors' comments as you did mine above. Anyway, I've done my best to offer what I think is good advice, and I said I was done here for now. I am, so you may have the "last word", below. Thanks. Begoon 12:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Bowie Uk sales

I know we have already discussed Bowie's sales but I would like you to re-check some data such as his uk sales , in which you have written its about 11 million although the official uk charts have announced that Bowie's singles only have sold about 11 million . So please check that out http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-10-biggest-selling-male-singles-artists-of-all-time-r__2470/ . Also , about the japanese sales , you have written that he sold 200k there but the lets dance album only has sold about 300k copies and earthling another 100.I dont want to annoy you people about this subject , just thought it might help !! Greetings Bowie2 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lady Gaga has sold over 180 million records check the Xfactor intros

Please correct that Andresitosp (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Latin Singers

Julio Iglesias sold around 300m copies

• url=http://latinmusic.about.com/od/basics101/tp/Latin-Music-Legends.html
• url=http://elpais.com/elpais/2011/12/16/actualidad/1324021732_850215.html
• url=http://www.europapress.es/cultura/musica-00129/noticia-julio-iglesias-sigue-fuerte-vivo-20090814130111.html
• url=http://musica.terra.com/generos/pop/ranking-los-latinos-mas-vendedores,75dc45b3e0261310VgnVCM10000098f154d0RCRD.html
• "Allmusic Julio Iglesias"/>.

And a lot of latin artist with more than 75 millions copies and they aren′t at the list.

Something Just Like This

Did you update Something Just Like This Canadian certification? (6x platinum) Esambuu (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul McCartney sales

In October 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records presented Paul McCartney with a rhodium disc recognizing him as the "most honored composer and performer in music" based on three entries in the 1980 edition. The three entries involving McCartney were as follows:

1. Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.

1. Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.

1. Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.

The Guinness award was widely reported via wire reports which, in various edited forms carried in newspapers, did not include complete details and gave the false impression that McCartney himself, not the Beatles, had sold 100 million singles and 100 million albums. This misconception has been repeated many times since then including the source cited for this list. Piriczki (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The current source says The Guinness Book of World Records calls him the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time,". The figure comes directly from the source, it's not a statement by The Guinness Book. Based on McCartney's available certified sales which stand at 60.6 million units, he has sold 100 million records as solo, including his collaborations with others as a solo. While I see no problem whatsoever with our current source, for the time being I'll replace that with this.--Harout72 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Harout, previously I use that source to support McCartney's 100m sales because I thought that source it's part of USA Today but after I read the source carefully, that source ForTheWin.Usa today is more like a website that sport's fans are talking about and it's powered by wordpress.com. It seems not an official USA today reporter news but more like a website where the sports's fans give some opinion. The writer of that news also (Chris Strauss) is not a USA Today journalist. That's why I replace it with source from Today.com (U.S morning news program) which I think more reliable and looks like a general news corp like Fox or ABC News. Please remind me if I'm wrong. Thanks Politsi (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You can replace it with another source that speaks of McCartney's 100 million records in sales, otherwise, this should be ok temporarily.--Harout72 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, please read the paragraph in this source http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/barry-saunders/article121755843.html I think the citation able to explain that Paul has sold 100m records in his solo career. We can use it?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It says "McCartney was only a member of the most influential pop band in music history and one of three musicians to sell 100 million records in a group and solo". It's gonna confuse readers.--Harout72 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran (76 million)

Harout, today I read a source from The Hollywood Reporter \ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/songwriter-review-1088160 speak about Sheeran's 76m sales claim. I admit that I always remind us to not using a popular culture magazine, but I thought if we able to use a kind of Humor magazine like The New Yorker for temporary then why we not using a same kind magazine and within this case, The Hollywood Reporter. That magazine is part of the Billboard-Hollywood Reporter Media Group, a group of properties that includes Billboard (magazine), a reliable source that we use in the list. Harout, I have feeling that Sheeran's certified sales is excellent and more than enough to get the 76m claim. Let's have and welcoming Sheeran to the list, we use the source from the Hollywood Reporter only for temporary and I promise once I get the reliable one, I will put it immediately. I need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I added him to the list as his worldwide certified sales are now at 106 million, good 25% of it is streaming generated though. But Sheeran still deserves to be on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. With that amount of certified sales, Sheeran even able to enter 100m list. I will begin to searching a better sales claim and also better reliable source. Politsi (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris Brown

Harout, need your help. Is there any re-certified sales of Chris Brown since our last discussion about him? If yes, perhaps he able entering the list with 79m claim / http://www.tbnweekly.com/diversions/music/chris-brown-brings-party-tour-to-amalie-arena-april/article_d62abd16-af1c-5fb8-a2a9-39690d91bbb4.html need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeap, Chris Brown has collected many Gold and Platinum awards recently from the RIAA. His worldwide available certified sales are now 97.8 million. Let me also work on his New Zealand's certs, and then we'll be able to put him up on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Welcome Brown!!. I have another homework, I will find the higher sales claim and better sources for him. Politsi (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Harout, please is there any update about Drake? He's taken a lot of platinum certifications, and I think he's supposed to be in this list, please help update me bro, thanks Jay el rey (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Highest selling musicians

I also found this, he's one of the highest selling digital artists in terms of singles, just check the artist ranking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_in_the_United_States Jay el rey (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Depeche Mode

They've reached the level of 100 million sold albums in 2009. They've bring few more (two studio albums, two live albums + singles) since 2009, so should be located in 100-119 milion division.

Sources: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/269153/depeche-mode-prepares-for-tour-of-the-universe and http://http//www.musikindustrie.de/presse_aktuell_einzel/back/82/page/3/news/depeche-mode-mit-weltpremiere-beim-echo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmazur (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Simon (100m)

Harout. I'm using mobile phone now so I can't show the source here. But I just need some information regarding with Paul Simon which is also a part of duo Simon & Garfunkel. Currently there are a lot of reliable source saying Paul Simon has sold 100m records, I've seen his albums discography. If it count only from his personal solo history, his certification too low to get the 100m claim but if his certification in the Duo (Simon & Garfunkel) also count on his certified sales. Then the combination of his certified sales from solo career dan from the duo able to support the 100m claim. I need your opinion, is his certified sales in the duo also will be add in his personal solo certified sales? Because if it Yes. Then he able to join the list as Paul Simon only without the duo name credit. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Politsi (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, here the source (http://www.kvue.com/article/entertainment/music/paul-simons-farewell-concert-comes-to-austin-in-june/514915926) from KVUE. So, What do you think Harout, is Paul Simon's music career sales same like Tom Petty? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually don't have Paul Simon's certified sales, you'd need to give some time to go over all that.--Harout72 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Harout, if you have much time. I need your help to look at Paul Simon, he is a part of the legendary duo Simon & Garfunkel, based on the source that I bring here, Simon sold 100m records. And I think if his work in the duo and solo are combined, I think he has a lot of certified sales to get 100m claim. But I need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Simon's solo career's certifications should not be combined with Simon & Garfunkel's certifications. It was a band on its own as Simon & Garfunkel at the time, it was not a collaboration while Paul Simon was active as a solo. They had started as a duo (a band). Later on, Simon went solo. So if there are sources that talk about Simon & Garfunkel's records sales separately, then each one should be looked at individually. Anyways, Simon's certifications as a solo from the US are just 16.050 million. Simon & Garfunkel's US certification stand at 42.6 million. Do we have a source that speaks about Simon & Garfunkel's records sales alone? Because Paul Simon as a solo doesn't have that much certified sales to justify 100 million claims.--Harout72 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually there is a reliable source saying that Simon & Garfunkel sold 100m records as a band alone, but since I'm using mobile phone now then I can't not showing it to you. However, after I look Simon & Garfunkel's discography. They have a very short career (active only until 1970). I'm not sure, they are deserve to be in 100m list. But what do you think? Are the duo able to get 100m claim, because If yes then I will bring the source immediately. Need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that claims 100 million for them, we can definitely put them up on the list. They seem to have serious number of certifications in almost all markets. But Paul Simon as a solo is hopeless. I'm just gonna work on the duo's certified sales, will take me a few days to complete it.--Harout72 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, I will immediately bring the source once I get into my laptop. Politsi (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, First of all. There are a lot of reliable sources who write about Simon & Garfunkel's 100m sales but all of them saying in terms Albums and not records. They are Leader-Post/ http://leaderpost.com/entertainment/local-arts/success-in-natural-for-the-simon-garfunkel-story and The London Free Press/ http://www.lfpress.com/2017/11/13/simon--garfunkel-story-brings-timeless-music-and-poetry-of-euphonious-1960s-duo-to-centennial-hall-stage and believe me, all of other Broadsheet newspaper also said in 100m albums of the duo sales. Only one source saying the duo sales in terms records, but it's a newspaper in Tabloid format and it's The Shuttle/ http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/10081485.The_singer_with_Art/ written at the below of the main article. I think we can use the source from the Shuttle for temporary because that paper although in Tabloid Format but the contain quality like a Broadsheet. What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can use that temporarily. While most of their certified sales are based on their albums sales, they also have certs for some singles and videos.--Harout72 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Drake

According to Drake's Wikipedia he's sold 12 million albums and 74 million singles Worldwide, that's 86 million Records sold ,he's supposed to be on this list , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_(musician) Hope someone can update it soon Jay el rey (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That sales claim of Drake in his Wikipedia profile is found by me but we can not use that kind of source (moneynation.com) in the list. So I put that source in Drake's profile and wait a reliable source read and verify it. Just wait and let's patient, I need your help to maintain Drake's sales claim in his profile from any edit-vandalism. Politsi (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Well I hope they verify it cuz I really think he's supposed to be on this list, lol I'd be happy to help bro, just tell me how, i just joined wiki yesterday lol, please update me when you confirm Drake's total sales, thanks Jay el rey (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for Drake that claim some 100-110 million records, then we can put him up on the list. His worldwide available certified sales have already reached 131 million. But I would avoid claimed figures that are higher than 110 million as 25-30% of newer artists' certified sales are streaming generated.--Harout72 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Well I'm sure there should be a reliable source somewhere, I'll make my research and let you know what I find, update me if you find anything too. Jay el rey (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran's 125m claim from Daily Star U.K

Harout. This could be a lot of controversial for the list but I need your opinion before I showing it to us here. We are not using some entertaintment tabloid newspaper to be used as a reliable source but sometimes we make some exception. Regarding with Sheeran's high certified sales, I try to find a higher claim figure for him and I found 125m claim which is look appropriate enough for him. The problem is, that claim figure came from Daily Star UK, a popular Tabloid Newspaper in UK with same typical like The Sun. For me personally, looking from how high his certified sales (106m and counting), we could use the source from Daily Star UK only for temporary until the better one comes along. It's weird seeing him with sales claim only 76m while his certified sales are very high. Beside, Daily Star UK doesn't have a lot of controversial issue about their contain so far, unlike The Sun or Daily Mail. So, what do you think? We can use the source from Daily Star UK for temporary? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Politsi (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, the 125 million claim is very high for Ed Sheeran. His US certified sales alone based on a few actual sales figures I have available, get pulled down by 13 million units. So the 106 million certified units turn into 93 million, only by bringing in a few available actual sales figures for the US. If we had all of his actual sales figures for the US, his certified sales would come down by good 25 million I'm sure, all due to streaming generated over certifications. So, if we're going to upgrade his certified sales, the claim shouldn't be more than 85-90 million. Remember that streaming helps certifications worldwide, not just in the US.--Harout72 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I Agree actually, but let's see. His songs and albums still topped the chart worldwide, I believe his certification sales will increase within a weeks. Harout, I suggest we considering to upgrade his sales claim to 125m when his certified sales reach at least 130m. I think that range is reliable for him. Anyways, here the source from Daily Star for his 125m claim/ https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/goss/668273/Ed-Sheeran-Divide-Multiply-panic-attacks Politsi (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It'll be awhile before he gets to 130 million with his certified sales, we might have another, better source by then.--Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes the Daily Star is the most downmarket, tabloid & unreliable newspaper in the UK. A better source is needed. Mattg82 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well then we need your help also Matt.Politsi (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What about Salvatore Adamo?

Sources claim he sold over 80 millions https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/salvatore-adamo/id13073996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolapon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Country / Market" column is nonsensical and arbitrary

I'll remove the pointless "market" and "country" conflation that is arbitrarily applied on one or two entries (leading to two countries being mentioned for one act).--Loginnigol 17:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll remove? You mean you want to get yourself involved in disrupting the list. Well, we can always report your actions and behavior for removing content without consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Eminem's 211m certified sales?

Harout. I just see his certified sales and it is at 211 million. Is that true? Because if yes, I will bring him to the 200m club immediately. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Politsi (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the RIAA just recently certified/re-certified countless number of Eminem's singles. Let's go ahead and upgrade his sales figure to 200 million.--Harout72 (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Harout, I was intended to put Eminem with 200m claim by using this source/ https://mg.co.za/article/2013-12-05-eminems-glaring-homophobia from Mail & Guardian, however his certified sales are over 200m so I decided to put him with 220m claim by using this source / http://www.mtvindia.com/thebuzz/this-day-in-music/tdim-eminem-went-no-1-on-the-uk-charts-with-stan-10th-dec-51972677.html from MTV India, and It's reliable. But if I put Eminem with 250m claim, is it reliable for him? what do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's for now use the 200 million as the streaming clearly is what must have pushed his US certified sales up significantly.--Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Then. 200m and then 220 when his certified sales reach 220m. Politsi (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Harout, to be honest I feel uncomfortable seeing Eminem's claim at 200m while his certified sales has been pass 211 million, regardless with the streaming system. I think it's okay to put his 220m claim along with his 200m claim together. It's more reliable, I will implemented it. But undo it if you still feel my action not yet necessary. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of his new certifications are influenced by streams as well. If you put his 220 m. claim I think it will be fair to put 250 m. claim for Rihanna as well. (she has so many non-updated certifications from international markets) So I would suggest to either wait on Eminem or update both of them. Thanks! :) — Tom^(T2ME) 10:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom!. Why we are comparing Eminem with Rihanna?. It's a different situation, Eminem's music career started since 1999, and in that time his singles and albums reach the highest popularity worldwide until 2003. In that span of four years, streaming system is not soaring yet. While Rihanna's music career started since 2005 and her worldwide popularity reach the peak in 2007 when umbrella era rule the world. So, there is a different year between them. Eminem popularity began to decline in 2012 (when streaming system begin to raise) while Rihanna's success still in peak between 2011-now. So, Rihanna's streaming issue a lot bigger than Eminem. That's the reason why we treat them differently. Politsi (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You have a point here. But it's not like Eminem didn't gain any certifications from streaming as well. For example, "Not Afraid" (released in 2010), it has sold 5+ million copies, but it's certified Diamond in the US (which is +5 million). I am not saying that we must update Rihanna, but I feel like it would be fair, or at least maybe also add the 250m. claim and keep the 230m. as well. — Tom^(T2ME) 13:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

These two artists cannot be compared to each other as far as streaming generated certified sales go. For starters, Eminem has 67.8 million certified albums, while Rihanna has only 27 million certified albums. While I agree that some of Eminem's recent certified singles issued by the RIAA are significantly affected by streaming, his worldwide certified singles sales are not as aggressively streaming generated as Rihanna's and many other newer artists. Rihanna's total for US certified sales drops down by some 27 million units when some of the available actual sales are taken into account vs certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

I believe that Mary J. Blige should be added to the best-selling artists of all time list because she sold an estimatedge 75 million records worldwide. She also little over 26 million units in the U.S. alone. Baser on her UK certifications, she sold an estimated 1.3 million records in that country. In France, (based on certifications), Mary sold 520,000 records in that country and in Italy, 115,000 units. I really think she sold be included, especially in since her global certifications (28.4 million) are supported a little over 20% of her 75 million records claim. So I really hope she is added to this list, because it'seems been long due.

KerryKJones56 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

For Mary J. Blige see this discussion. Also, the 20% requirement is for those artists that have begun charting before 1975, for the rest of the required years, see the second yellow box from then top on this talk page.--Harout72 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tina Turner

Over at the Tina Turner article, an editor is trying to include a claim of 200 million records sold, based on this article. Do any of the knowledgeable editors on this page have a view on whether that can be considered a reliable source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That figure is highly inflated based on her available certified sales, therefore should not be used. Even reliable sources publish inflated figures.--Harout72 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The claim is also made in sources like this, but I'm happy to revert to the lower figure based on a consensus here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I know, that's why we always look at artists' available certified sales to determine where the actual sales figure should be.--Harout72 (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Lady Gaga 190 million records sold true ?

Check the X factor performance in 2016 singing million reasons there you can see in the intro that she has passed 180 million records that year Andresitosp (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Britney Spears US and UK sales

Britney′s US and UK sales are more than you say here.

• Britney US sales are 73 million record solds. 40 million albums and 33 million singles.http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-spears-lovato-s-x-cellent-1007165552.story?page=1
• Britney UK sales are 15 million record solds. 3 million albums and 12 million singles.https://www.bpi.co.uk/bpi-awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmisterioso1979 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Do your additions correctly for the BPI, it is 4.2 million for albums, 6 million for singles and 150,000 videos. As for the US, ours is the certified units by the RIAA, not the actual sales amount, and your Billboard source doesn't support any such figure you've posted above.--Harout72 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

In the Spanish version of the Spears biography say that https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears . in the last paragraph.

″Worldwide, Spears has sold nearly 200 million albums, making it one of the best-selling musical artists in history. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), since its debut, Spears is one of the female artists that has sold more recordings worldwide and the eighth woman in general in the United States, with 34 million certified copies. Until March of 2014, it had sold more than 38.7 million albums and 31.3 million song downloads only in the United States, where it was also one of the female artists that sold more albums during the 2000s. In the United Kingdom it has sold 3 Millions of albums and 12 million singles, and is the fifth female soloist with the highest sales of singles in history. Spears took first place in the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful and influential celebrities in the world in 2002 and is also the eighth most-mentioned singer on the Internet, according to the magazine, Spears is also one of the singers. most awarded in history, only behind artists like Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston. [citation needed] She is also the seventh most wanted artist in the history of YouTube, her success in the music industry has led her to venture into the The perfume industry, in addition to launching its own lingerie line under the name The Intimate Britney Spears, Variety magazine said that thanks to endorsements of its products and musical career, Spears had created a Billion-Dollar Empire, while which was quoted in ninth place along with other entertainment women in achieving that figure.″Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim McGraw (80 million)

Harout, I need your help and I also need opinion from other editor. I have a good feeling that McGraw's U.S certified sales is very high and able to support 80m claim, I try to count it in manually and it's reach at least 50m. Therefore, He able to join the club. But, the main problem is... I still can not find a very reliable source to support his 80m claim until today I read a news from HuffPost, and inside it was said that McGraw sold 80m records / https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-mcgraw-collapse_us_5aa61077e4b07047bec7daa8 . We are not using a kind of news website like HuffPost as reliable source in the list, since the website full with public Blog but I thing this time we can make some exception for temporary. HuffPost is the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win Pulitzer Prize and several Peabody Award, it means HuffPost has a very good reputation and a high quality evaluation. Harout, I need your help, if McGraw able to get 80m claim then we should let him join the list by using the source from HuffPost only for temporary. Once I get another reliable source, I will implemented it immediately. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

McGraw's available certified sales are 61.7 million, coming mainly from US and some from Canada and thee UK. But if we don't have a reliable source, it can wait. Over 97% of his certified sales are US generated. There is almost 19 million units of gap between the cert. sales and the 80 million, which suggests that his actual sales might not be as high as the 80 million. So it's not a situation that we absolutely need to put him up on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree that we should wait since perhaps it's too risk to use HuffPost in the list. But given the fact that McGraw first chart career happens in 1993 or 25 years ago and his certified sales pass 61 million. I think he able to join the list with 80m claim, because the range is quite sufficient. I will inform immediately when I found some reliable source for him, we should let him join the list because I think he deserve it. Politsi (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

please change George Michael's total record sales from 80 million to 115 million. This has been mentioned in various credible sources including Sony Music and Billboard. I would be happy to provide you with links if you need them. Please note that his sales with Wham! are usually listed under his solo material (it would be unfair otherwise as they were all written and produced by him), therefore total record sales exceed 115 million. Also whatever article you read about George Michael, states that he has sold over a 100 million records worldwide. so please take these into consideration as he deserves to be recognized for his actual achievements. 112.134.199.72 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read up the Definitions on the main page where it says This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.--Harout72 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand to 150m club

Harout, is it any possibilities to put her at 150m club with 150m claim?. Given the fact that Streisand's certified sales are incredible excellent for artists who starting her career since 1960 and her consistent releasing a new album. I think she deserve to gain a place at the 150m club. What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to upgrade her claimed figure considering that she's had no certifications coming from anywhere in the recent years.--Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Icon with ABBA missing

Could someone with the right (and the know-how) to edit the main page please add an icon for the group ABBA with this image (from their wikipedia page):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/ABBA_-_TopPop_1974_1.png

They are already on one of the list but the only ones without the icon.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

Change Britney Spears sales from 100 million to 150 million. Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/britney-spears-radio-disney-music-awards-icon-award-991376 Source: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-02-15/how-to-buy-tickets-for-britney-spears-live-in-the-uk/

Nielson also notes she sold 70 million in the US alone

Source: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7461674/britney-spears-by-the-numbers-billboard-charts 101Ausfan (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Rea the Definitions on the main page to know how the list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran

Harout, the distance between current Sheeran's certified sales vs claim sales already quite far. I believe his certified sales will non-stop increase every day within this year. This source is usable/ http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/comment-why-do-we-love-ed-sheeran-so-much/news-story/b2d21bcd518287819c50149c2e880ece from a former Broadsheet now turn on to be a Tabloid format Australian Newspaper, The Courier-Mail. When Sheeran's certified sales pass 115-120m. We could use the 126m claims sales from that Australian paper. Politsi (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it will be fair to upgrade his claimed figure to 126 million once he's around 115-120 million with his certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Jay Z (125m)

Harout, today I see that Jay Z's certified sales already more than 100m, while we still putting his claim sales stuck at 100m claim. Jay Z's biggest hits already top the chart worldwide since 1996 before streaming era, therefore his 100m claim sales is absolutely no longer reliable. We should move his position, I'm very confident to put a new Jay Z's claim sales with 125m by using this source / https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/beyonce-jay-z-tour-tickets-14403603 from Teesside Gazette. But before I'm move him up, I need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He's ok for now as there is quite a bit of streaming involved in his recent Gold and Platinum awards.--Harout72 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So when we can move him up? I suggest we move him when his certified sales pass 110 million. Politsi (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, the 110 million in certified sales should give us that green light for an upgrade.--Harout72 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Katy Perry

Harout, in our previous discussion. We are agree that we will move Perry's position at the list with 143m claim by using this source http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20170515/katy-perry-coming-to-mohegan-sun-in-september from The Providence Journal, once her certified sales reach 140m. However, her certified sales already near 137m and it will look not good for the list if we still let her at 100m list. The distance between her 136.4m certified sales vs 143m claim sales is very close. I think it's time we give Perry a new claim sales. Need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Perry's US certified sales drops by 26.5 million when actual sales are taken into account. And that's just for the US. We could, however, upgrade her claimed figure to something like 120 million, if we have such a figure.--Harout72 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to find such of that figure, especially when Perry's official site even still insist that she has sold 40 million adjusted albums and 125 million tracks. I suggest we move her up when her certified sales pass 145m. Politsi (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, when she hits 145 million with her certified sales, we'll move her up, agreed.--Harout72 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Jennifer Lopez - 82 million records sold worlwide (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/10/carpool-karaoke-jennifer-lopez-james-corden-cbs-special/) and https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/jennifer-lopez-on-being-jlo-hard-times-made-me-what-i-am-20140702-zsou3.html

For more references please see her wikipedia pages for albums and singles (On the 6 = 11 million worldwide, J.Lo = 18,2 million, J TO Tha Lo! The Remixes = 4 million, This is me...then = 6 million, Rebirth = 2 million, Brave = 1 million, Como Ama Una Mujer = 0.8 million, LOVE? = 1.5 million, AKA = 0,2 millions) = 44,7 million albums which means 38 million singles 2A02:C7F:223C:7700:88D9:20CF:D9A8:4025 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

She doesn't have enough certified sales to be listed on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

South Korean singer IU

The south korean singer IU sold more than 90 million records in South Korea. Problem is that South Korea has no music recording certifications, but the Gaon Chart gives sale numbers. The question is how can we proof this in short? We would need hundreds of single refs to proof her sales. Has anybody an idea?--Lee (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

update data Tina Turner

this is last data from Tina https://tinathemusical.com/creative/tina-turner/ turner has sold more than 200 million albums and singles worldwide to date. 100 million outdated data Calearm99 (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Britney Spears 200 million club

I found a reference of spears sales are 200 million copies https://closeronline.co.uk/beauty/makeup/win-trip-see-britney-spears-live-las-vegas/. and her us sales are more bigger than the sale put here

• Billboard (albums & singles 1998-2013) 61,930 millions https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7439077/ask-billboard-britney-spears-career-sales-how-big-a-hit-will
• Other RIAA Certifications 1,8 millions https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=BRITNEY+SPEARS&ti=BRITNEY+--+THE+VIDEOS
• Collaborations (S&M Remix and Scream and Shout) 7 millions https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=RIHANNA&ti=S%26amp%3BM https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=WILL.I.AM&ti=SCREAM+%26amp%3B+SHOUT

• TOTAL: 70,730 million copies sold in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmisterioso1979 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Before you continue posting similar edits on this talk page, you might want to read the Definitions on the main page once and for all. This list requires certain amount of certified sales for all artists. Britney Spears needs her claimed figures supported by 69.4% certified sales, meaning an inflated figure such as 200 million must be supported by 138.8 million certified units. Also, the certification for the song "S & M" isn't for the remix version. Spears' entire US certified sales stand at 45.7 million units including "Scream & Shout". The total certified videos are 1.5 million units total, not 1.8 million. Your source here speaks of actual sales figures, not certified units, which represents a total of 56.5 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias

Enrique Iglesias woulbe at the list he sold 140 million copies

• "Enrique Iglesias, ¿superó al gigante de su padre?". Univision.com. 10 November 2014. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
• "Artistas que más discos han vendido". 25 November 2013. Retrieved 17 January 2016.Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

Harout, I've been searching the best claim sales figure for him but still it seems impossible. His certified sales are nearly 70 million, which is absolutely better than ABBA in the list and not far from The Rolling Stones' certified sales. So, his claim sales in range 130 million based on our previous discussion isn't too much. Anyway, I need your opinion this source is reliable or not to be used as Clapton's 130m sales? At least for temporary until I find the better one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4hlX9ns3j3mMT9PbfTkYWYH/18-reasons-to-feel-cheerful-about-2018 Thanks. Politsi (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss that figure already?--Harout72 (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I know... I just, I can't hold myself for not seeing a legendary singer like Eric Clapton in the list yet and the fact that a lot of old artists in the same years career with Clapton, had their legacy already as one of the best selling artists. Waiting for another 10 million certified sales to fulfill his lack of certified sales will took several years. While still, there is no reliable source yet interest talking about his sales claim. Okay then. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Coldplay to 100m club

Harout, I think it's time we allow Coldplay entering the prestigious 100m club. Today their certified sales has pass 80m. Their certified sales are spread all over the world, which is absolutely in fact they have sold over 100m records. I will use this source only for temporary / http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/coldplay-tribute-act-set-to-present-a-field-full-of-stars-at-harpenden-fundraiser-1-5437622 from Herts Advertiser of St Albans, although it is not a national broadsheet newspaper but it is quite reliable to be used for temporary. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

But I thought we agreed we were gonna upgrade their claimed figure when they were around 85 million. You're forgetting how much streaming helps singles reach certification levels everywhere.--Harout72 (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Harout, in our previous discussion. I agree that we will upgrade Coldplay's certified sales when their certified sales reach 85m and there is no reliable source other than the popular tabloid Southern Daily Echo. But this time, I found a source from a real newspaper although perhaps that paper distributed in Compact or Tabloid format. But still, I think the quality is better than Daily Echo. Please remind me if I'm wrong, Coldplay's biggest hit happens between 2000-2008 and in that span of years I think the streaming format is not soaring as much as this current year (2010-now). But to make it more clear, I need your help to see the detail of Coldplay's certified sales. How far streaming inside their certified sales?, if their total calculation sales after we cut the certification from streaming, not reach the requirement for 100m sales. Then I will bring them back to their previous place. I need your help and I'm sorry for bothering you. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall, yes, most of their certifications are issued before streaming came into the picture but still their recent singles are affected by streaming including "Something Just like This", "Hymn for the Weekend". Anyways, since their overall certified sales are not as badly affected, I suppose we can leave them in the 100 million section.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for putting Coldplay on 100M club, you're right Coldplay's recent certifications are including lot of streaming. But Coldplay 1990s group, charted in 2000. Coldplay's main market is US. Coldplay still well performing US market. But Coldplay can't update their US certifications because of label issue.In 2013 Coldplay transferred into Warner Music Group/Atlantic records. So no one have interest to update their old label's releases. That's why their certified unit is only 80M.Esambuu (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Esambuu you're welcome, I understand that seeing Coldplay in the 100m section of this very prestigious list, it would mean a lot for you. Politsi (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, I need your opinion. Regarding with what Esambuu was saying, I somehow agree and feel weird seeing Coldplay's U.S certified sales only less than 30m. For a very popular band who has released seven studio albums, four live albums, six compilation albums, three video albums, 13 extended plays, 46 singles, four promotional singles, and 47 music videos in U.S but only get less than 30m in certified sales, it looks weird. Is that true that Coldplay can't update their US certifications because of label issue? because if it yes, well then their actual certified sales could be a lot bigger than the current 80m, it could be over 100m. Harout, I need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such issues. On their Coldplay discography, the US actual sales for albums perfectly correlate with their US albums certified sales, both for old albums and new.--Harout72 (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

on Coldplay discography, their US sales as 2012, especially their first 4 albums. Their sales data about 5-6 years ago. These albums and their singles still selling well including Paradise, The Scientist, Yellow, Clocks, Viva la Vida etc. Recently, i saw Chartnews (twitter various chart data collector) has said Fix You's pure digital sales at 2,461,530, Clocks 3,148,969, Yellow 2,162,855. But these singles only certified Gold in 2005. Additionally, RIAA is profit organization, we all know that. Someday the band or their new label update their US certifications.It will be like Eminem's recent certifications with tons of album & singles certications. Finally, last two releases Ghost Stories and A Head Full of Dreams their singles certifications are OK.Esambuu (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Esambuu, unless you have specific sales figures and reliable sources to support your argument, it's useless to come back to comment. Coldplay and Eminem are on completely different levels both by certified sales and actual sales. Certifying bodies are not considered as profit organizations, certification fees don't make them so.--Harout72 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Harout72, you're right. We need reliable source. I found. On Yahoo article Coldplay's Yellow already reached 2 million digital sales in October 30, 2014. But Yellow has certified only Gold in 2005. This is only one example. That's why i said Coldplay's US certifications are OUTDATED. Link: https://www.yahoo.com/music/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch--maroon-5-busts-up-all-female-top-five-214218531.html Esambuu (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Chris Brown

Today. I move Brown position to 80m club with 86m claim, not so significant since his certified sales nearly 100m but it's better than previous claim and also with a better reliable source, http://www.timesonline.com/entertainmentlife/20180327/chris-brown-to-play-burgettstown thanks. Politsi (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Shakira

Harout, just for remind that we still count her in our watch list. Need your help if there's some significant updated from her certified sales. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hey. I found her us certificied sales by the RIAA. she have 20,5 million copies in the usa https://www.riaa.com/?s=shakiraElmisterioso1979 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Japan Sales 147,900 http://www.riaj.or.jp/f/data/cert/gd.html Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• UK Sales 4,8 million copies https://www.bpi.co.uk/bpi-awards/ Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• German Sales 4,775 million copies http://www.musikindustrie.de/datenbank/ Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• French Sales 4,425 million copies http://www.snepmusique.com/les-disques-dor/ Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Australian Sales 1,147 million copies http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Canadian Sales 900,000 https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/ Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Italian Sales 855,000 https://web.archive.org/web/20150210212350/http://www.fimi.it/certificazioni/ Elmisterioso1979 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Elmisterioso1979 you keep posting incorrect certified sales for all markets, I have detailed certified sales for Shakira, when she's reached her required amount of certified sales, we'll put her on the list. She's still some 3.4 million certified units away from her required certified amount. She needs to have 50.2 million certified units for a claim as high as 75 million.--Harout72 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2018

Please add the band Sade to the list as they have also claimed worldwide sales of 75 million. 42.98.116.235 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sade don't have enough certified sales to be listed with 75 million claimed figure.--Harout72 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Madonna

Hello everybody, Guinness confirmed her records sales: 335 million. Can we write 335 million or at least 330 million? Her certificate units enough for it? And In her wikipedia pages (album discography and single discography) when you calculate her sales it’s more than 330 million (albums: 215 million, singles: 115 million please look her albums and singles discography wikipedia pages)

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-female-recording-artist

(talk)

Navyiconer (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing more realistic about 335 million figure as you state here in your edit. You might want to read the Definitions on the main page where it states This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Rihanna to 250m club.

Harout, I'm surprised that Rihanna's certified sales has pass 250m. I never thought it will be so soon. Well then, as our discussion previously. I will bring Rihanna to the highest place and respect in the list. She is now equal with the Beatles. Thanks Politsi (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep forgetting how streaming helps the certifications of the newer artists. Her US total drops by 40 million units when we take into account some of the available actual sales. And that's just the US based on some of the actual sales figures that are available to us, other markets' totals would drop significantly also if we had access to their actual figures. We should use that 250 million figure when Rihanna reaches at the least 260-265 million with her certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Harout, I'm not forgetting about the streaming issue and I also concern about this. But don't forget that based on our previous discussion, we are agree that once Rihanna's certified sales pass 250m, then we will update her claim sales. You never mention about 260-265m of her should be previously. But I understand our concern about not to change those claim sales in the list without discussion. Especially for a newer artists. Politsi (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Knowing how much streaming affects the certified sales of the newer artists, I shouldn't have said 250 million certified units should be enough. A huge gap gets created between that 250 million and where her actual sales stand. Rihanna has 59 singles and 8 albums on my file that are certified, and I have actual sales figures for 16 of the single and 8 albums, and based on those, her certified sales drop by 40 million. Imagine if we had actual sales figure available for all singles? Her certified sales would probably get halved. Therefore, let's wait for another 10-15 million more certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, in fact I really appreciate your effort to look twice and carefully for over certified units. I should more hold myself before changing those artists position with a new claim sales and bring it here first for talk. Politsi (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Drake

Drake has sold more than 110 million record sales! Wonder why he isn't on this list lol, wikipedia makes me laugh sometimes Jay el rey (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is required to show the evidence of claim sales from a reliable news source. If you think that Drake has sold 110m records, then bring the source here. The source must came from a big news organization and not from a gossip tabloid or self published. If you don't have a reliable source for Drake, please remain polite. Wikipedia is full with a respectable editor, not a playground for absurd people. Politsi (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jay el rey: @Politsi: I have already inquired into this in the past. I have compiled a list, and technically Drake should potentially be able to garner a 120 million claimed figure, but there are no outlets that have published this number unfortunately. This Forbes article has Drake's single sales at 55 million, and it's citing the RIAA. If we go to the RIAA page for albums and singles it adds up to 73.5 million units for Drake. Even if we were to use the RIAA pages as sources for claimed sales, that's still not a claimed total of 75 million. I don't think Drake can make the list quite yet unless a magazine or tabloid gives a sales number upwards of 75 million. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bobtinin:, Drake's US certified sales alone are 110,228,000 units.--Harout72 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't include features, I'm still not clear on whether those count. --Bobtinin (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We have detailed explanation as to when singles with multiple artists count. You can find all that at the end of the Definitions on the main page, as well as on this talk page posted in the third yellow box from the top.--Harout72 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that now. What if it surpasses two featured artists? --Bobtinin (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Two featured artists with one lead artists or two lead artists with one featured artists is the maximum.--Harout72 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I will bring Drake to the list. Politsi (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, he deserves to be on the list, nice work btw. Politsi Jay el rey (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hymn for the Weekend

Germany : Coldplay - Hymn for the Weekend Platinum Esambuu (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Source : http://www.musikindustrie.de/nc/datenbank/?action=suche&strTitel=Hymn+for+the+Weekend&strInterpret=Coldplay&strTtArt=alle&strAwards=checked

Tim McGraw (75m records)

Harout, I need your opinion. Please look at this source from GoLocal24 (http://www.golocalprov.com/lifestyle/25-must-see-spring-summer-concerts-in-new-england2), it is one of the leading local digital news and information model in U.S. In that article, GoLocalProv Lifestyle Team collect a lot of artists profile and release the date of their concert in New England. Please see Tim McGraw's concert schedule in June 15, click the picture below and then you will find out that McGraw's was mentioned has sold 75m records. I suggest we use this source for temporary to bring McGraw to the list, he has 62m in certified units and the source itself although not a global brand news corporation but still a news organization, we could use it for temporary. What do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good source even for temporarily use. Let's wait until something better come along.--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Politsi (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran

Harout, Sheeran's certified sales already pass 121 million and I'm afraid his certified sales will increase day by day since his song still topped the chart worldwide. As my previous suggestion, when Sheeran pass 120m in certified sales the we can put him at 120m club. Here the source (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/comment-why-do-we-love-ed-sheeran-so-much/news-story/b2d21bcd518287819c50149c2e880ece) what do you think? Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have any sources that claim 100 or 110 million?--Harout72 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, in fact. This is the only reliable source so far which stated about Sheeran's certified sales in range above 100m. I think, it's quite reliable to use that claim now Politsi (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC).

Ok I think we should move forward with upgrading Sheeran's claimed figure, because 76 million is ridiculously low for him.--Harout72 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Britney Spears has sold over 150 million records (100 million is old information). Here's the source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/britney-spears-radio-disney-music-awards-icon-award-991376 80.220.130.233 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's just an inflated figure.--Harout72 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Eminem

Harout, I think we should erase his 200m records claim, since his certified sales already pass 215m and leave him only with 220m records claim. It will be look more reliable and not confusing. Eminem's highest popularity happens when streaming not yet booming like this moment, I really sure streaming is only had a little impact in his total certified sales. Is that okay now if I erase his 200m claims?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's keep that until he reaches 220 million with his certified sales. His recent US certifications were streaming generated I'm sure.--Harout72 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Hi Harout72. (https://www.bustle.com/p/christina-aguilera-teases-her-new-album-true-fans-know-its-been-a-long-time-coming-7999136) (http://www.newnownext.com/drag-race-season-10-christina-aguilera/03/2018/) Can Christina Aguilera be listed with one of these 75 million claims? Thank you for your reply in advance?.--Jlo Fan 1999 (Talk) 17:20, 27. Apr. 2018 (CET)

I'm afraid neither one should be used as source as they're not the kind of sources we normally use to support claimed figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

@Harout72: I think I did a mistake while calculating Gaga's German update for "Applause" and "Do What U Want". I had updated the total certification by 0.3 million, but forgot to update the individual BVMI units. Can you recheck this please? I can see the total was lessened from 101.7 to 101.5 million which is also strange? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The grand total was incorrect by a few hundred of thousands. I noticed this this afterwards when calculating the addition of the Gold for "Edge of Glory" for Germany. Anyways, it's correct now. No worries, you did it correctly, the mistake was there already.--Harout72 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2018...Green Day

Green Day is not at all included in this list! One of the most popular rock bands of all time. There are multiple reports that state that they have at least sold 85 million units. They should be on the list, please look into it!

Thanks. 70.168.59.106 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll include them when they meet their required certified sales amount.--Harout72 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Recalculate Gaga’s numbers check the xfactor last performance of her in which it is said in the intro that she has sold over 180 million records by 2016 also in other pages is confirmed please check these Andresitosp (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)