Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Boston

Boston have sold more than 75 million records worldwide, according to their Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_(band) 109.120.204.123 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

They don't have enough certified sales. Also, you haven't provided a source for 75 million.--Harout72 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

Pearl Jam have sold more than 85 million albums worldwide, according to their Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Jam 109.120.204.123 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pearl Jam don't even have enough certified sales to be listed with 75 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

Ariana Grande has earned more than 85 million certified units in the US, according to Screerant and her Wikipedia page: https://screenrant.com/the-voice-ariana-grande-salary-money-net-worth/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariana_Grande 109.120.204.123 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The source isn't really reliable and speaks of US certified sales only, not worldwide sales.--Harout72 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Roxette

Roxette have sold more than 75 million records worldwide, according to NZHerald and their Wikipedia page: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/tour-news-roxette-reschedule-nz-shows/5NN3TDLQKOBCLVQPLFHVGP42WQ/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxette 109.120.204.123 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Roxette don't have enough certified units for 75 million claim, your source says 75 million albums, which makes things worse.--Harout72 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sting

Sting has sold over 100 million records, according to UMusic and his Wikipedia page: https://www.umusic.ca/press-releases/sting-releases-new-album-my-songs-today/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_(musician) 109.120.204.123 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Claims by records labels cannot be used. Claims for records sales should come from third party reliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Depeche Mode have sold more than 100 million records worldwide, according to these web pages of Billboard, Emi Music and also their Wikipedia page: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/269153/depeche-mode-prepares-for-tour-of-the-universe https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depeche_Mode&oldid=1028991436 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depeche_Mode&oldid=1028991436#Legacy https://web.archive.org/web/20110727072016/http://www.emimusic.com/news/2009/new-depeche-mode-album-number-one-in-20-countries/ 109.120.204.123 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Depeche mode don't have enough certified sales for 100 million claim, but they could be listed with 75 million claim if there is such a number for them.--Harout72 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Harout, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8047161.stm here is the source but the statement is 75m "albums" and not records. As I remember, they are inside the list previously but we removed them because their certified sales are too low. Should we bring them back to the list?. Politsi (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It says 75 million albums, they don't have enough certified albums to be listed for albums claim only. They need 25.8 million certified units for 75 million records sales, and they do have 28 million certified units, but based on albums, singles, videos. Their certified albums sales are 23 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oasis

Oasis have sold over 75 million records worldwide, according to their Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_(band) 109.120.204.123 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The source provided on their wiki page says 70 million, not 75 million. But if 75 million claim can be found, they only need 900,000 more certified units to be qualified to be listed with that.--Harout72 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Harout, here is the source http://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/05/27/noel-gallagher-would-reunite-oasis-for-100-million-pounds-liam-said-hed-do-it-for-free.html if they only need less than 1 million to be qualified in the list. I think is okay to let them join the club. Politsi (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for them to gain another 400,000 certified units, and we'll put them on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Rihanna

Rihanna has NOT had over 300 million album sales. Please fix this.

Harout, I begin to think that we should bring Rihanna back to 200m club. And put her inside the list with only 200m claim. I think 250m claim is too much for her since her certified sales exactly same like Drake. Most of hers just streaming and not sales. What do you think?. Politsi (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source https://www.baltimoresun.com/la-et-ms-rihanna-highlights-20160824-snap-story.html let's bring Rihanna back to 200m club and when her certified sales more than 350m. Then she could back to 250m club. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, only her recent few years of certifications are streaming based, the earlier certifications are digital sales based, and physical sales for albums. She's already listed with only 250 million claim while her certified sales are over 300 million now. So, she's fine where she is.--Harout72 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Math, claimed sales versus certified sales, and sources

There are a lot of questionable figures on this page. Figures that consists of both confusing math and inflated(and deflated) figures. These questions are as follows:

1. What is the reliable source that reveals how these numbers should be calculated?

2. Why is there such a huge difference in the claimed sales for the Beatles and Elvis Presley? Though the artists that appear after them does not reflect that big of a difference between their their available certification and claimed figures?

3. What is going on with Elton John and Madonna? They are in the same bracket even though John has 16.5 million more available certifications than Madonna. And his first charted record was 13 years before Madonna in 1969. Something is way off here.

4. Why are Michael Jackson’s numbers below Elvis? The available certification of Elvis Presley as of today is 227.7 million (compared to Jackson’s 236.8 million) and his claimed sales stand at 600 million. That is an incredible gap between his claimed sales and available certification. That math is 600M-227.7 Million = 372.4 Million(similar to the Beatles). It is a huge gap. Elvis may in fact be the oldest artist on this list who (debuted in 1954) during this period, but nowhere in the world had a certification system and if it did, it would not reflect that 3 times more records were sold in the 60’s-70’s.

5. What source concludes that artists like Elvis and Beatles could have sold up to 3 times the records in the 50’s or 60’s? Or is is just WP:NOR? That can’t be reality in non-English speaking countries where Beatles and Elvis worship does not exist, and is 2nd to the more world renowned Michael Jackson. Also, the consumer population was a lot smaller in those days because the population was smaller. The Beatles are at 77% and Elvis is at 88% available certifications in the USA. The USA is the biggest market in the world, which is also their biggest market. There is no way they are selling similarly in the rest of the world. Even with no certification back in the day, the “math” on this page is not logical. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that The Beatles and Elvis Presley's 600m claim is very high. It was over 1 billion not so long ago!

I know the RIAA was the only certification source in the 50s/60s but The Beatles + esp Elvis would have had the vast majority of their sales in the US for reasons you give.

At the other extreme it is easy for recent Artists to have very high sales as downloads of individual tracks used for certification - and now with Streaming there's very few actual sales.

The different ways sales figures have evolved is not explored. Coachtripfan (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I understand the calculations up to the point where it’s claimed and accounted for that the likes of Elvis and the Beatles could have sold 3 times more in the rest of the world than they did their biggest markets. It’s simply not logical. Also, truth be told, Elvis, Beatles, and Michael Jackson all have claimed sales of over a billion records with a lot of reliable sources echoing as such. Why are those sources ignored for others? Let’s at least be consistent, let’s at least have sources that cite the equations, and let’s at least WP:STICKTOSOURCE. There’s far too much that isn’t adding up, while ignoring Wikipedia policies in order to make it make sense, when it doesn’t.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Woah! Okay, you’re right about everything... These are serious questions that need answering. I performed the math time after time, after TIME, and it’s just not adding up! Even with both the Beatles and Elvis having 3 times the sales (which they don’t). I am equally concerned about how the streams and sales for these artists during the digital age are being calculated. This entire article needs revamping, with much more reliable sources, the correct math, and complete transparency. As of now, none of that is present here. Factlibrary1 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see this discussion. I gave up on this article, and discussing it, several years ago. The methodology is bizarre, the math makes no sense, and the weight of albums vs singles is in no way logical. However, most importantly in terms of Wikipedia and sourcing, there are no existing global sales charts published by a trade magazine or relevant organization to verify worldwide sales: this is original research by default. (I would go on and on, about the sourcing, about the editors who believe they own this article, and the arbitrarily applied criteria, but it will make my head explode.) JSFarman (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand, it’s extremely frustrating when unverified information is used, especially in cases like this. People allow personal bias to take over, and give that more importance over accuracy / the truth.Factlibrary1 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What's your points? Do you have any good ideas? Which is reliable to applied on this list. Several editor are work so hard to provide reliable source and updating of certified sales of those artist. I believe you already see the source sales from those artists on the list one by one. They are among the world's biggest news provider (BBC News, Times Group, Herald Group). If you have a better source and good for the list reliability, then bring it here. Politsi (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Politsi, How about answering the questions as posed above? My solution would be to delete the article entirely. JSFarman (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point I won’t be opposed to supporting the deletion of this entire article. There is no supporting sources for the math. I have looked everywhere.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your question is still unclear and only from your personal suggestion. As long as we have a Reliable source put inside the list. The list is reliable. Politsi (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@JSFarman, how about going over the Definitions? Politsi, he has no point, they were all invited here through off-wiki Canvassing by a Michael Jackson fan, someone who's trying to discredit The Beatles and Elvis Presley in order to push Jackson to the top of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I invited myself as a Wikipedia editor seeking answers for hocus pocus math. I will be WP:BOLDLY updating these numbers if explanations aren’t provided. This isn’t about discrediting Elvis, Jackson, or Beatles. This is something that needs to be fixed because it is broken. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You should look for your hocus pocus math elsewhere because it doesn't exist here. Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough.--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your replies are disruptive and doesn’t answer the questions above. Instead you focus on false accusations, empty threats, and actually defending unsourced math, that at this point is makes no sense to me, and the editors above. If you can’t answer the question, I will kindly wait until someone can. If no one does, I will be well writhing policy to update this page accordingly to prevent it from being put up for deletion.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are warnings on my end not threats and accusations? You're already trying to save this page from deletion without having contributed a single thing in all these years. The answer you're looking for which you disrespectfully label as hocus pocus math is provided by IFPI, your explanation is within the Definitions and also on the top of this talk page. Piece of advice, if you want to change something on any page, approach the main editors respectfully and kindly and not jumping on the talk page by screaming, shouting and calling years of work hocus pocus.--Harout72 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m actually attempting to contribute, but in order to contribute, I need this math to be sourced and to make sense. While I agree that IFPI provides a general outline of calculations, I don’t agree with the unsourced methods of how some of the older artists are calculated. Nothing anywhere says that artists like Elvis and the Beatles would have sold 3 times the amount of records outside of their main markets. And even if that was the case (with the times 3) the math does not add up. Why are very reliable updated sources like CNN, GMA, BBC, and others hear make claims of different claimed sales for Jackson, Beatles, and Elvis, but ignored for articles that are questionable, which includes their lower end numbers. But then Artist like Madonna uses her higher end number claimed sales? I truthfully don’t know who the main editors are, and that’s my lack of attention to that detail, but I do know that no single article is owned by any editor or group of editors. The article is Wikipedia’s property and is subject to the same rules as other articles. Though I didn’t think my questions were out of line, perhaps referring to the math as “hocus pocus” is and I will delete each instance.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You know Harout, some users are only active whenever a discussion is opened about Michael Jackson, whether it's AFD, RFC, or Talk page thread like this. So you are right that in a second, some of these so-called editors will come here to favor him. I don't know why some of his fans are obsessed with Madonna, clearly he's way above her in some departments, including sales. Before you all accuse Harout for inflating/deflating some acts, you need to check the earlier versions of this article circa early 2010s, before streaming completely ruined "sales" certifications. Some legacy acts are updated with streaming figures for their past catalogue (MJ, Whitney, Mariah, Elton), while some others did not (Elvis, Madonna, Celine, Rolling Stones). And stream is not the same "sales/selling" (product ownership), hence certifications should not be taken in face value anymore. Unless this page is called List of highest-certified music artists. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just explain the math? I don't care about the artists that are listed; I care about Wikipedia's accuracy. JSFarman (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to ignore the conspiratorial nonsense above, but just to echo the point that Editor “JSFarman” raised, what is so difficult about explaining the mathematics here? Does accuracy not matter to you so long as a certain artist who is favourable to you holds the top position? We need accurate information, this is no fan-page or blog for people to flaunt their biases.Factlibrary1 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@TruthGuardians We're actually using lowest available claimed sales numbers for all including The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Madonna etc. The certified sales calculations are based on IFPI 2010 market share as you probably noticed. While, the US must be where all American and British older artists have sold most of their records, keep in mind that the US generates only some 20-25% of the global music sales. And since the US has had a certification system since 1958, it has managed to capture the sales of The Beatles and Presley for example. We should not forget that the rest of the larger and medium sized music markets which generate at least another 50% of global sales did not have certification system in those years when Presley and even The Beatles were charting. Take for example, Japan, the second largest music market after the US, the certification system of which was launched in 1989, it has almost 5 million certified units for The Beatles. 1989 is many years after The Beatles have stopped releasing most of their materials. Imagine how high the Japanese certified sales would have been, had Japan had certification system since 1962 for example. The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US. Madonna has much higher claimed numbers published, but we avoid using those because her certified sales do not suggest higher sales than 275-300 million. Also, let me point out one other thing for Presley, his US certified sales, the 199 million is based on 115 albums and 54 singles. US certification awards are very high, 500,000 for Gold, 1,000,000 for Platinum, whatever sales exist between before the album/single gets certified from Platinum to 2x Platinum is very significantly high. So imagine if you have roughly 500,000 units sold between already certified Platinum and the second Platinum which will be issued only if the sales get quite close to 2 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

All bands/artists from the US, UK, Australia, Canada sell much of their records in English-speaking countries than in other markets. USA (22.5%), UK (8.5%), Australia (2.5%), Canada (2.1), New Zealand (1978) (0.35%). These are the available English market today. and the total market share of these English-speaking countries is 35.95%. The current available certification of both Elvis and Beatles proves these facts to be true.

I don't think the calculations based on IFPI 2010 market share will be accurate for the sales of any artist on the top 8 of this list except Rihanna. I will explain my reasons below by quoting your reasons for Beatles and Elvis having much higher claimed sales considering the period of their charting despite having their available certifications that do not represent that.

Take for example, Japan, the second-largest music market after the US, the certification system of which was launched in 1989, it has almost 5 million certified units for The Beatles. 1989 is many years after The Beatles have stopped releasing most of their materials. Imagine how high the Japanese certified sales would have been, had Japan had certification system since 1962 for example.

According to IFPI the market share of the USA in 2004 was 36%. (The total market share of all English-speaking markets of today combined) Whereas the market share of Japan was just above 15%. If you go back to the 1960s the market share of Japan will get lower. It proves your argument of the Beatles selling the same amount of albums in countries like Japan, like they did either in the USA or the UK, is just an assumption. If there are sources for this, they need to be provided and they need to say that The Beatles had sold X-amount of records in Japan before 1989 and went uncertified since there was no certification system there until 1989.

The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958.

I think this is also quite an exaggeration because I couldn't find anyone on this list, except Ed Sheeran, who has crossed 50 million sales even with today's streaming or digital downloads. Moreover, Elvis only has one song in the List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom. The list has many entries from 1960 and having a certification system since 1958 or not doesn't stop anyone from selling albums on those respective markets and being published on sources like this.

Having or not a million-seller single in the United Kingdom doesn't make you unable to sell by collective terms more than other artists. See this example by Official Charts Company in 2012, where Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Madonna have more singles sold than Jackson or John (the other top 5 seller artists).

Also, let me point out one other thing for Presley, his US-certified sales, the 199 million is based on 115 albums and 54 singles. US certification awards are very high, 500,000 for Gold, 1,000,000 for Platinum, whatever sales exist between before the album/single gets certified from Platinum to 2x Platinum is very significantly high. So imagine if you have roughly 500,000 units sold between already certified Platinum and the second Platinum which will be issued only if the sales get quite close to 2 million units.

This is the same for every artist on this list. for instance, Garth Brooks has 158.4 million certified sales and Michael Jackson has 146.3 million.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay all of this. This saved me so much time. You were able to articulate my concerns better than I believe I would have been able to. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Akhiljaxxn or TheWikiholic, now you're back with another user name promoting Michael Jackson again. The US may have generated bigger market share data in earlier years, but that doesn't change the fact the Japan was still the second largest music market in the world, the 5 million certified units for The Beatles could have easily been close to 25-30 certified units, if not much higher. As for the UK, take a look at Queen's certified sales, over 40 million. The 90% of that is based on real sales, not streaming. UK has had a certification system since 1973, that's exactly when the Queen began to chart, the 25% of Queen's certified sales are generated by the UK. What you suppose the certified sales of The Beatles would have been for the UK, had BPI's launched its certification system in 1962? I've explained many of this to you in earlier discussions, and yet you're circling around the same thing because you simply won't except the fact that other artists may have sold more records than Michael Jackson, your entire behavior is disruptive. Also, my example for Elvis Presley that his US certified sales are based on 115 albums and 54 singles isn't the same for others. You won't find a single artist on the list with such a large catalogue that size, so many of which have been certified by the RIAA. --Harout72 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see it that way and don’t think any admin would consider wikiholics behavior as disruptive editing. I think it’s safe to point out that his concerns were never address with with sources. Something beyond WP:OR. The editor, just like, have both assisted me with understanding this a bit more. Even with what Wikiholic claims, it appears as though that it does not change the rank and file of the order of the artists here, but it does make the numbers make the most sense, at least to me so far.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Talking about music sales is mislending, and everyone can have bias. But I also agree that there is a bias related to Michael Jackson. Seems actual and first suggestion (or now the original request) is having him at number one spot in this list while he's often compared with the rest of Top 5 seller artists.

With the Beatles and Elvis Presley obviously if we look at their numbers in this list, we got the impression they only sold in the United States and the Anglosphere. But the other reality we're talking about 3-2 decades (50s, 60s, 70s) when databases didn't exist in many countries, including the Anglosphere (their main historically markets). However, music consumption and record sales existed in Europe, and many other countries around the world since then and genres such as pop and rock and roll were among the most popular almost everywhere. Both Presley and the Beatles were popular in countless countries beyond the Anglosphere at that time. Probably is in that era —in their active career— when they sold most of their records outside the Anglosphere. Thus gap with them, and considering there is two claimed figures (500/600 million), doesn't look outlier at least for me.

Now, with Jackson-John-Madonna. First, some users here suggested in the past having Janet Jackson with 200 million records, with the advantage among other policies "stick to the sources" WP:STICKTOSOURCE. And is was also suggested, that Madonna is someone that we need to deflate and that idea still present here. I know that Michael Jackson is the most important thing in the world or music world for his fans and he outsold many other artists. But if we look at yesteryear claimed figures, estimated sales for John, Jackson and Madonna have been similar since the 1980s according to several third-party sources. And obviously if we forget his promotional sales of 750 million originated in 2006 by his people.

Of course, Jackson has sales everywhere. The same goes to Madonna and as of now, her certification units are slightly higher than Jackson outside United States (90 million vs 93 million). Now, there is another reality based on "RIAA numbers" as many artists including Jackson and John have updated certifications while others such as Madonna don't. For both sides, we can add a large list of examples because isn't exclusively to these three artists. Back to what matters for Jackson fans here but that is another reality: RIAA figures for John or Jackson (that include now streaming figures) give us the impression that both outsold everyone here (RIAA numbers are millions and millions) and thats why we need to deflate Madonna, Presley or the Beatles or have him at the top of this list. With Madonna at least, IFPI (their own website, not a secondary source citing IFPI) mentioned terms albums with over 200 millions, and I don't think she didn't sell "singles". As far I understand, they have more authority than any other source regarding worldwide figures. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m the user you mention for Janet claimed sales on Janet’s page, not this list. This list with its unsourced math does not get to apply to other pages. We should always WP:STICKTOSOURCE. And as I can recall it I was advocating for 180 million as it is far more sourced my reliable resources than any other figure out there. Furthermore, a lot of my understanding (based on sourced math) about calculations come from a sourced that in my research has shown is not allowed on Wikipedia(for now) and that’s chartmasters [1]. It is my opinion, and only an opinion, that they have the most comprehensive calculations for too selling artists of all time. While their list is similar to this one here, there, it makes a lot more sense and everyone can easily follow it, with sourced data. I don’t know what people are wanting to accomplish here, but all I want is more accurate calculations, a sourced equation that can be followed(and not assumed), and if that changes the position of certain artists, so be it. I also think that Elton John is too high on this list. Madonna is right where she should be, and I know a lot of queens current certs are from streams, but since that biopic they have shot up there and probably should trail Madonna. This of course is based on the math that I want to use. However, if we stick to the equation here in the article, minus the unrealistic 3 times as much sales in non English speaking markets for Beatles and Elvis, the order does not change. The only think that changes is that the Beatles’ and Elvis’ claimed sales are lowered, and according to an old consensus I found today, Jackson’s is raised by 50 million. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to brand editors as Jackson fans or Madonna fans, but I find this type of user branding is just another attempt of diverting from the issues being raised here by multiple users. While I appreciate everything that Harout does to update this page with recent certifications I still find him imposing his assumptions and original research on this page and other editors and thus having a monopoly on this page. The math and logic are way off here. That’s not an insult, it’s just a fact that everyone here has picked up on. While taking a detailed look at the claimed sales of the top 2 artists, I found the first two artists have been given more consideration because they are artists from the ’50s and ’60s and have certifications that are missing considering there was no certification system except the USA during this period. That’s is far too liberal for the time period. Follow the math here: The difference between claimed sales and available certification of The Beatles is 315.7 million (600-284.3.) whereas the difference between claimed sales and available certification of Elvis Presley is 371.9 million (600-284.3.). In both cases, more so Elvis than the Beatles, this is quite egregious, especially because all bands/artists from the US, UK, Australia, Canada sell much of their records in English-speaking countries than in other markets. There is no logical way these artists are going to sell another 300 million from the rest of the world’s available markets and other editors are coming to that realization. Furthermore, the list has been using the 2010 IFPI market share to assume the artist who already peaked in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I think it will be impossible to calculate any assumption based on the 2010 market share with artists of the 20th century.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on that math, nor even Madonna or Michael Jackson have sold more than their "sons" such as Rihanna (300M certified units) or Drake (360M certified units) both with more than Jackson-Madonna. As well, there is a lot of "assumptions" when it comes to the Beatles or Elvis Presley in a less positive way rather than that apparently liberal assumption. WP:STICKTOSOURCE will also include any larger figure for all artists, rather than closer to [available] certificationss, including 1 billion claims for Presley, the Beatles, Jackson or Sinatra. Rises more question and ambiguity. Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

But that’s not true(the Rihanna statement). That’s not what I understand Wikiholics math to be. But I’ll read all of this again at some point in next 48 hours with a fresh mind. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Apoxyomenus, I don't think the difference between claimed sales and available certification of 315.7 million (The Beatles) and 371.9 million (Elvis Presley) is a less positive way, rather than that apparently liberal assumption of considering all bands/artists from the US, UK, Australia, Canada sell much of their records in English-speaking countries than in other markets. These egregious gaps between the claimed sales and available certification are the exact opposite of what is claimed in this very article. the available certified units for each artist should get relatively closer to already listed claimed figure in order for higher figures to replace the listed ones. Here on one hand we removed 1 billion claims for Presley, the Beatles, Jackson, or Sinatra. by assuming these figures are inflated, which are frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes, and on the other hand, we give the weightage of 300+ million to two artist. These two artists are definitely missing millions of records from around the world, but calculations of those missing certification on the basis of the 2010 market share are nothing but laughable and hardly even logical. Assuming this artist has sold X-Amount in Japan and X-amount in Germany, if there was certification back in the 1950s, then they would have sold X-amount of records is not even a legitimate and sourced argument. It’s lame because the popularity of artists varies in different countries. TruthGaurdians is right, this is only WP:NOR and have no sources that have ever made that assumption.– TheWikiholic (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

TheWikiholic, stop writing the same thing over and over and start listening to what others are saying, you are again like in the past interested in pushing your point of view only. I repeat, you're being disruptive. I personally provided multiple explanations on The Beatles and Elvis Presley, and they are sufficient explanations. The bottom line is that this list is using the lowest claimed numbers by most reliable sources for The Beatles and Elvis Presley. Finally, one, the 600 million claimed figures for The Beatles and Presley will not and cannot be removed to make Micheal Jackson look better, which is why you're all here. Two, Michael Jackson's 400 million will be placed in the list when he reaches at least 240 million with his certified sales. I think, we all can agree that this lengthy discussion is going nowhere anymore, it's unproductive as hell. Let's all stop!!--Harout72 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't make any sense since it's nothing but pure assumption without backing any proof. There must be sources for this. It’s got to be. It can’t be just your own postulation here. On January 17, 2021, you have said that you will only lift MJ's claimed sales to 400 million when his available certification reaches 250 million. Now you are saying you will lift to the 400 million when his available certification reaches 240 million. I wonder what has changed within the last 5 months to give a 10 million leverage. I agree that this lengthy discussion is going nowhere anymore since the page has clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues by depending on the decision of a single editor and also very clearly doesn't follow WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTALBALL.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I still haven’t re-reviewed all the information. But I understand both explanations at this point. I would just like to see sources now. Primarily the ones that state that it’s feasible that 50’s and 60’s artists would sell upwards to three times the amount of albums in non-English markets. I will continue to look for them myself later on this evening. I don’t think Jackson(who I am a fan of, no secret there, will be made to look “better” by correcting anyone’s claimed sales. How could he when he will still be in the third position? Wikiholic, what is your objective? What would you like to see happen?TruthGuardians (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic Regardless of how many ways one explains a disruptive editor like you anything, you will continue with weak arguments such as WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTALBALL because that's all the argument you could ever have as someone who doesn't understand music sales at all. If you believe that I'm doing a bad job as one of the main editors and I should be stopped, then perhaps you should take the matter to ANI. As for the 240 or 250 million certified units, I said at least 240 million above. Jackson's recent certifications are streaming based so it makes little difference whether the 400 million is placed in the list when he reaches the 240 million mark or 250 million, but that much certified sales he must have, in order for us to remove the 300 million first and replace it with 400 million. We can place the 400 million in at 250 million certified units if there are objections.--Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

TruthGuardian, for me 500 million to the Beatles and 450 Million to Elvis is a more realistic figure considering the same methods Harout72 is currently using, but if you ask me if that is my original research, I would say yes. Harout72, I never said you are doing a bad job as one of the main editors, besides the aforementioned WP:OR, I have complimented your work on updating this article in this very thread if you scroll up and look. My main concern is that you are imposing your theories into the calculation based on only your assumption. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. You are simply attacking users personally who oppose your views by going as far as using the old username of an editor who underwent a username change on privacy grounds as their well-being is at stake, even though It's known that a public log of the renaming will always remain after changing username.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, Wikiholic, you can’t sit here being the pot calling the kettle black. In your last reply you just admitted to using WP:NOR yourself. I can’t condone the use of similar assumptions that you are condemning Harout for. We should stick to what reliable independent sources say like this article [2], which says that RIAA may still me inaccurate even if they were certifying music in the decades at the center of discussion here. I’ll be going over all this information in the next couple of days. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Elvis debuted in 1954, and The Beatles in 1960. The available certification of Beatles is 56.2m higher than Elvis' but both Elvis and The Beatles have the same claimed sales? Any reason? Israell (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a complete mistake that The Beatles and Elvis Presley have the same claimed sales. And please, let's avoid personal attacks. There are users who label others as Michael Jackson fans in order to discredit their statements. If I for example say that I consider the Catholic Church as the most important and relevant in history among all the Christian churches... Is someone going to tell me that I can't discuss about it because I am Catholic? How can we know if others are fans of other artists? or haters?. Let's leave all that aside and focus on the present issue of claimed sales. I think it is more accurate that Elvis Presley's claimed sales should not exceed 400 million. Why? Because 400 million is almost double of his certified sales. Elvis Presley was a very US-focused artist (this also has a clear extension to the UK, for cultural and market size reasons), but most of his sales (in his home country, the US) were adequately captured since certifications began in 1958 in America. Systematically setting The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson’s claimed sales taking the lowest from the existing claims is bordering on nonsense. Because even if there are 4 different claimed sales figures for an artist/band, all of them can be wrong and exaggerated; and this way we get the same claimed sales for The Beatles and for Elvis Presley, which is simply wrong and impossible if we take into account that both are temporally almost parallel. Just look at this top (made with a complicated but impressive accuracy) in which the Total CSPC amount for The Beatles is almost 100 million higher than that of Elvis. Apart from that, The Beatles’ globality is much greater than that of Elvis, and there are even academic papers supporting it. The same goes for Michael Jackson, his globality is clear (if we take a look at this, right now his fan country #1 is Romania, a post-Soviet eastern European country; his fan country #2 is Dominican Republic, a Latin American Spanish-speaking country; his fan country #3 is Cambodia, a least developed country in Asia…), which makes him an artist whose sales have not been captured properly in many markets around the world. Anyway, facts such as that certifications in Japan started in 1989 and that Michael Jackson had even already played concerts there as part of his Bad World Tour in 1987 (which began in Japan), while Elvis never toured outside the USA… Without straying too far from the main point, I firmly agree that Elvis Presley's claimed sales should be lowered as a matter of realism with respect to The Beatles. And in the case of Michael Jackson, his claimed sales should be raised, and since this may be a conflict (although it shouldn’t be), I think an effective solution would be to equate the claimed sales of Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley (neither one above the other), or add some kind of note, because the current situation must be fixed as it is neither accurate nor encyclopedic at all. Salvabl (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Then bring the reliable source for Elvis Presley's 400m claim to the list. Bring the Reliable source to support your argument, put that source inside the list. Do something and not only speak. Do not talk without real action.Politsi (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Politsi, I think the main point here is we still need evidence that Elvis has sold upwards to 3 times the amount of records in other markets outside of his main markets. I’ve yet to come across any. But I do second the notion that we consider taking action on something soon.TruthGuardians (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, after a long time thinking about how this claimed sales issue could be fixed, I think that the "Top 3" of this list (The Beatles - Elvis Presley - Michael Jackson) needs to be reformulated to make it more realistic and accurate. Keeping in mind that most users will agree on the fact that The Beatles' numbers are pretty superior to those of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. And that in turn, equating the figures of the latter two may be somewhat conflicting for some users, without obviating the fact that Wikipedia users already long ago considered Elvis' highest claimed sales (of even 1 billion) as inflated and excessive, and that there were also too high claimed sales for Michael Jackson of 750 million (years before his death) and 1 billion later (which have also led to him being referred to as "the best-selling music artist of all time") that have also been rejected as Elvis Presley's. All this leads me to think that actually a Top that uses more complex formulas such as CSPC provides greater realism and accuracy. This top once again sheds light on the undisputed superiority of The Beatles. And, on the other hand, it also reaffirms the parallelism of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson's sales (with figures very close to each other, but which are higher in the case of Michael Jackson with respect to Elvis Presley). Taking all this into account, I suggest that the solution is to indicate it in the following way using margins (±): The Beatles 500±100 | Elvis Presley 400±100 | Michael Jackson 350±50 | I think this way it is much more realistic and we avoid conflicts, while improving the list. The sources would be the following... For the ≈400M of The Beatles, and the ≈300M of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson: ChartMasters; for The Beatles' 600M: Independent.ie & BBC; for the 500M of Elvis Presley: International Business Times; and for the 400M of Michael Jackson: ABC News Salvabl (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I can’t find anything I disagree with the thought out response by Salvabl above. I agree with your margins. Like Harout said, we can raise Jackson to 400 million once his certifications pass 240 million. I think that a consensus can be reached, but if we have to proceed with an RFC, then so be it. However, I don’t think we need to take it to that stage if we can agree to this.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Salvabl was proposing 400 million for Presley, he couldn't locate a source for that number, and now what is exactly being taken into account for his proposed 500 million? Chartmasters? That's unreliable. Since our best tools, the certifications didn't exist on most of the planet with an exception of the US when Presley was charting, I don't see how it's possible to determine precisely whether he’s sold 500 million or 600 million records. Unless it can be explained in detail why Presley has sold 100 million fewer records than 600 million, such suggestions/assumptions can't help our discussion. As for Michael Jackson, in 1979, which is when his popularity became somewhat worldwide, the markets that generated at least 64% of global sales based on IFPI earliest data, did have certification systems, those are US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Argentina, Finland, New Zealand. In fact, based on the 400 million records that Salvabl is proposing for Jackson, the certified sales from those markets alone, should have been 255 million units. Instead we have 202 million from those markets, combined. But as I stated above Jackson will receive his upgrade for the 400 million sales when he reaches 240 million certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Harout, it is impossible to determine whether Elvis has sold 400 million or 500 million, or 600 million. In this situation, the only thing we can do is what Wikipedia requires, is to depend on a reliable source with claimed sales closer to the available certification. In Elvis's case here is a source from 1977 that says Elvis has sold 260 million records worldwide and here is another source from 1997 that says Elvis has sold 100 million records between 20 years since his death in 1977. I don't think Elvis has sold 240 Million or 140 Million between 1997 to 2021. Wikipedia first used the 600 Million claims on December 27, 2009, with this edit. There were two sources used for these 600 Million claims. But interestingly none reported the 600 million claim. It was made up. The first source was a tabloid newspaper, Daily Record (Scotland) which says Elvis has sold 300 million in his lifetime and another was a BBC report from 2002 claimed Elvis has sold 300 million since his death. I have tried my best to find a source for Elvis Presley's 600 million claims before 2009, and I think it’s clear that the 600 Million claims were a WP:HOAX generated by Wikipedia itself because there isn’t a single source making this claim before 2009.

Calculations of missing certification of an artist peaked in 1979 or 50s and 60s based on 2004 market share also will not be accurate. The 64% of global market share of the 60s could have been from just two markets if you compare the difference between the market share of both the UK and the USA from 2010 to 2004. It means even if there was a certification system back in the 50s like 2010 their sales figure won't be much higher than how they are in the USA or the UK.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Harout72 Firstly, the 400M figure for Elvis Presley is a central, intermediate number. I am not saying that it is a claimed sales figure in itself, but it is a suitable figure, so that, with the use of the margins (±), the 500M claimed sales is covered and on the other hand, it provides the possibility of more modest and realistic figures. The same applies to The Beatles figure (500M), which covers the 600M claimed sales as part of the ±100M margin.

It is inappropriate and inaccurate to include too high claimed sales figure for Elvis Presley by simply claiming that many of his sales were not captured because his career began in 1954. Of course, apart from taking into account the fact that Elvis Presley was a more US-focused artist than The Beatles or Michael Jackson, which means that most of his sales could be properly captured, it is still a fact that not all of them were captured (mainly UK sales), and I admit that (and have taken it into account in what I have proposed). However, you should equally keep in mind that Michael Jackson have uncaptured sales (both past and present) from markets all over the world (as I said in my previous message, his fan countries “Top 3” right now are: Romania, Dominican Republic and Cambodia). There are many uncertified sales, as in the case of The Beatles. Apart from that, I respect your work, as I think it is excellent for the most part, and I respect what you said, but I think statements like "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US." do not bring a realistic solution to this issue. We must try to reach a common consensus. And for that it is necessary that we are all willing to do so.

Concerning the CSPC-based Top by ChartMasters I think it is a very valid reference, since it is a site focused on music certification. I do not see more value in some news sources. Just to be clear, the figures provided by news sources may be the result of a research, exactly as in the case of ChartMasters, where without a doubt their researches are quite extensive. It should be noted that the evidence that ChartMasters has done a good job (as has been done on this list) is that most of the artists/bands are correctly placed. There is not a great difference between the Chartmasters Top and this list in terms of positions. Applying the reformulation I have proposed using margins (±) we can note the following: in the case of The Beatles, 500-100 = 400M (figure similar to the one provided by ChartMasters), in the case of Michael Jackson 350-50=300 (figure similar to the one provided by ChartMasters). However, in the case of Elvis Presley, starting from his 500M claimed sales figure (the lowest on the list right now), applying the same margin as The Beatles (±100M), the result would be 500-100= 400M, almost 100M difference with the figure provided by ChartMasters (316M). This is undoubtedly due to a lack of realism in Elvis Presley's claimed sales. Even so, my proposal keeps the numerical superiority of Elvis Presley over Michael Jackson, so I humbly believe that it serves to solve two much needed changes that should take place in this list: 1.- that The Beatles' claimed sales should be higher than Elvis Presley's as a matter of realism; 2.- that Elvis Presley's and Michael Jackson's figures should be more parallel. I, as user TruthGuardians has rightly said, certainly believe that a consensus can be reached by us to fix this issue, and bring more realism to the list. Salvabl (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, if you ask me, most of the claimed figures are bunch of hoaxed numbers tossed about by record companies and the news outlets blindly end up printing them without doing any research. Anyways, I'm still not convinced that chartmasters is reliable, because there really is no way to track down how much each Presley's '50s or '60s or even early '70s albums/singles could have sold in each music market. Charmasters numbers on Presley's must also be based on available certifications. I can't bring myself to call them reliable just yet. @Salvabl, Romania, Dominican Republic and Cambodia are ridiculously small music markets and they combined generate less sales than a small tiny market like New Zealand. However, TheWikiholic's source here makes it worth to reconsider having Presley listed with only 500 million. Surely, the 100 million records was too low for Presley even back in 1997 as stated by Irishtimes. Just so it's clear to everyone here, we're deciding to leave The Beatles listed with 500 million and 600 million, Presley with only 500 million, and we're bringing in Jackson's 400 million only when he's at 240 million with his certified sales. If no objections from anyone, that's what we'll do.--Harout72 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Progress is certainly getting made here. Firstly, I’m in love with Salvalb suggestion for margins. Brilliant. For sure, Elvis has sold waaaaaay over 100 million. I can agree to keeping Beatles at 600, Elvis at around 500 for now, right now and raising MJ later. However, I do believe that the Chartmasters discussion is an interesting one to have. More so than any third party source, the website has helped me understand music sales better than any single source I’ve come across. I think more research on my behalf is needed to address Harout’s concerns about sales in 50’s-early-70’s and how they reached that conclusion. I’m not sure if this particular thread should contain that discussion, or if we should start another. Probably the latter, but I would need about a week before I’m ready for the chartmasters discussion. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As an user who have commented here two-three times, I don't oppose to the latest suggestions: keep only the 500M for Elvis (at least by now), and upgrade Michael Jackson's claimed sales once his certifications reaches 240M units, (an international act since 1979; almost 80s). Salvabl: Presley's 600 million claimed sales seems aren't a Wikipedia-hoax WP:HOAX; at least I found some previous sources claiming that figure for him before the existence of Wikipedia (or its massive usage).

TruthGuardians provided this interesting article. As far I understand and RIAA replied me, they don't deal directly with sales per se while they both audit numbers and give their awards via submissions (made by record labels). And part of this "issue" is happening with many artists here and its counts by millions. For example, in one side we have examples such as Michael Jackson, Elton John, Mariah Carey, Queen etc as a group of those artists whom record labels (or someone else?) made multiple submissions in recent years while Madonna, Celine Dion or Britney Spears are part of the other group that haven't been received updated certifications (based in numbers provided by a third-party measurement firm like Nielsen SoundScan). Look this example: Christmas by Michael Bublé (this artist is not listed here, is an illustrative example)... more than 4 million uncertified units, but not even with a platinum cert from RIAA. Also since Wikipedia's superlative lists like this are visible in the Net, I can't be amaze that some people from those artists are aware of the existence of this list or our "method used". I've seen listicles by sources enough to be "reliable" for an insertion here that have used those amounts of "certified units" (in almost any language) as well. While its ambiguous so let's be a bit careful with that, when a group have that "benefits" while others don't. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The concessions being made are quite admirable. This entire discussion has introduced me to a reality that makes me feel bad for artists. How in the world was there no sales tracking efforts back then? If I was let’s say Lisa Marie Presley, I would want to know how many records (album and singles) my dad and ex-husband sold. And the fact that this comes down to an educated math equation of sorts, there’s no wonder why we are all here. I have reviewed chartmasters website and find it quite intriguing. I love how eloquent it breaks down the myth of MJ, Beatles, and Elvis all selling over a billion records. It broke my heart, it makes sense. One editor above mentioned margins, and a lightbulb went off and I think that is something I can really get behind. I’m not quite if I’m onboard yet with the Beatles being at 600m, Elvis at 500m, and MJ being raised later. I’m more comfortable with Beatles being between 500m-550, Elvis at 425m-450m, and raising Jackson to 400m right now, but I’m not completely opposed to the suggestion. If the majority of us chooses to go with whatever the suggestion is, I will too. Factlibrary1 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source to put inside the list, MUST come from a NEWS organization. There is no way to use ChartMaster for the list. All news organization are operated with legal law and regulations in their area. I also agree to use 600m-500m for Beatles, 500m only for Elvis, and 400m for Jackson only when he passed 250m. Politsi (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Politsi Do you have a source for 600 Million claims of Elvis Presley before 2009?. And can you show me the RELIABLE sources that we used for his 600 million claimed sales in 2009?. I still believe the 600 Million claims were a WP:HOAX generated by Wikipedia itself because there isn’t a single source making this claim before 2009. Elvis Presley fan sites, his fans, and other associates were pushing a theory of Elvis selling 600M in the US and 400 M outside for so long. Here you can see how the chart master counters their arguments. I've read that in the ’50s and ’60s, the USA occupied a huge chunk of the music market and it was followed by the UK instead of Japan. This is exactly why both the Beatles and Elvis have 85% and 95% of their total available sales from these two markets respectively. This is an important fact that does not need overlooking. Yes, both of these two artists have the potential to outsell Ed Sheeran if there was a certification system back in the 50s. However, considering the population and the market share of the UK, even though it is next to the USA in the ’50s, I don't see any chance of them selling 100 million beyond that. To this day, only one artist managed to cross 50 million certifications even with the help of streaming and digital sales. So I'm not in favor of using 600 Million claims for the Beatles or 500 Million for Elvis without margins.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Politsi is right, chartmasters isn't reliable, and should not even be used in discussions. Unless they at chartmasters can provide reliable sources for each album/single sales figure, their posted figures out of thin air isn't going to help them to become reliable. TheWikiholic, let's understand something here, the claimed figures for The Beatles are not going to be lowered, The Beatles do have enough certified sales to claim they've sold 500-600 million. Your diverting the last part of this discussion towards now trying to lower the figures of The Beatles, is only going to disrupt the consensus that's being built here by the majority.--Harout72 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I also welcome the common consensus we have reached, and I believe it is time to implement it. I would like to thank Harout72 and all the other users. It's certainly a big step, and most importantly it does improve the list from how it is right now. Of course, in the future we can have further discussions about other matters, like ChartMasters or news sources, for example. But right now, since all the references of the claimed sales figures in the list are news sources, the only margin we could include is that of Michael Jackson (350±50), since the entire span is covered by news sources (300M, 350M & 400M). Either way, not much separates Michael Jackson from reaching 240 million certified sales and consequently including the 400M claimed sales figure.

Taking all this into account, and as a summary, this is what has been consensually reached:

• Leave The Beatles listed with 500 million and 600 million claimed sales.
• List Elvis Presley with only 500 million claimed sales. (here the current reference can be kept and add International Business Times as second reference)
• Leave Michael Jackson listed with 300 million and 350 million claimed sales, and we will increase Jackson to 400 million only when his certified sales reach 240 million.

I consider that these changes, result of a productive discussion and consensus, should be implemented now. As I said before, we can discuss further in the future.

Therefore, please Harout72, if it is possible, proceed to implement these changes we have consensus on. Salvabl (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Since most of the involved parties in the discussion agreed with what was proposed here, I have removed the 600 million for Presley. We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million.--Harout72 (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

More progress. If margins were added, where would they be added? Would they be added in the claimed sales cell? This is something I stony support and definitely agree to adding margins to the top 3, but may be something to consider for some in other in the top 10(looking at Elton John. I’m not convinced with the sources out there that he has sold more records worldwide than Madonna. But for the sake of progression, I’m willing to ignore that for now so we can finally close this thread. Adding margins would represent the complexity of trying to figure out these calculations, while giving the perception that they could change at any moment based of future reliable sources. It’s not to discredit any artist or editor, quite the opposite actually. It prevents accusations of future editors claiming inflated or deflated numbers for the artists. I would agree that chartmasters is a later discussion as it stands now we don’t know and probably wouldn’t pass WP:RELIABLE. If they could offer more transparency about what sources they used, that could change. I plan on writing them and to see if they can add this transparency somewhere on the site.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on the year Elton John has begun charting, and based on his available certified sales, his actual sales should easily be between 250 and 300 million. I'm against adding any type of margins suggested above, the list's definitions provides enough information as to how it's operated. If readers/ editors have additional questions, they should raise them on the talk page.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Kesha

Harout, is it possible to put Kesha into the list with claim sales, let's say 76m? https://www.hcpress.com/front-page/pop-superstar-kesha-performing-at-appalachian-state-university-on-march-29.html Thanks. Politsi (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

She has some 40 million certified units in the US. Lot of her certifications are streaming generated, so she would need to have good 100 million certified units from all around the globe in order for us to consider to list her with 76 million claim. I'll start going over her certified sales, but I doubt she's got 100 million certified units all combined.--Harout72 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks. If she has at least 95m in certified sales. I think it's okay to let her in. Politsi (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

The RIAA confirmed in 2015 that Michael Jackson sold 1 billion records worldwide and called him the best selling artist of all time. They also mentioned the thriller album selling 100 million, not 60 million. However, the 100 million milestone was reached in ca. 2007. ‘Rolling Stone‘ has mentioned before that the thriller album sold approximately 120 million copies worldwide. Jesspiekto (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RIAA doesn't get itself involved in such promotions. Also, you might want to go over the Definitions on the main page.--Harout72 (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The minimum requirement percentage is now raised from 20% to 30%

I have raised the minimum requirement percentage for certified sales from 20% to 30%. Based on IFPI data for most years available between 2002 and present, the US market generates more than 30% of the global sales. In fact, the US market has generated 40% of the Global sales based on the earliest IFPI data we have.--Harout72 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Period active

To bring up a point that has been raised before but, as far as I can see, not really discussed properly: Surely it would make more sense for the "Period active" column to list when the artist was releasing original music rather than the period they were performing (which is the information taken from the infobox in their articles)? This article is about sales – if they weren't selling music before a certain point, it's not relevant.

For example, the Beatles are listed as 1960–1970, but they didn't release their first record until 1962. 1962 is when the sales information starts, so surely that should be the start date. As for the end date, music could keep selling forever, so either the end year should be scrapped or it should be the year they released their last original album, which in the Beatles' case, is Let It Be (1970). Albums released after they stopped making music shouldn't count. MClay1 (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Harout, What is your opinion on this?— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The column for Period active or Genre both provide quick additional information about artists as to how long before artists began to chart on official charts were involved in making music, or what Genre to expect from the listed artists. Whether their materials continue to sell after they end their career should not affect the end year. The listed end year should match the release year of artists' last material. I think that's what we have for all.--Harout72 (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The start year is what's in question. As in my example, the Beatles are listed as 1960 because that's when they started using that name (which seems arbitrary to be honest) but they didn't start recording music for sale until 1962. So if what you say is the intention – that the column is meant to show how long before artist began to chart that they started making music – it makes it appear as if the Beatles took two years to chart, whereas in actual fact, their first record charted. Before that, they were just playing clubs like most bands do when they start out. I think it would be difficult to put a year on when some bands (with much less written about them than the Beatles) started playing small gigs, and more importantly, it doesn't seem relevant to the scope of this article. MClay1 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if they were actively doing gigs in Hamburg or elsewhere in 1960 as the source we have on the list supports, I don't see why the 1960 seems problematic, even if they began to chart in 1962. If we have a source that supports artists being actively doing performances with their charting years being a few years in the future, I don't see how that makes it irrelevant for the list. For lot of the artists, the first few years on the charts go without generating much sales anyways.--Harout72 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

Harout, since we decided to raise the minimum level of certified sales to 30m in order to be placed in the list. I was a little bit sad to see Frank Sinatra's name removed from the club. Please look at this source https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/theatre/ol-blue-eyes-frank-sinatra-is-coming-back-to-west-end-in-new-musical-a3262126.html inside it is said that Sinatra has sold "tens" million records. The word "tens" could be considered as 100. I think it is reliable enough and at least for temporary to be used for Sinatra and able to make him back to the list with 100m claim. What do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That source also says 150 million records. We'll put him back on the list when he reaches 45 million certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

AC/DC's 150m claim

Harout. I think we should removed AC/DC's 150m sales and let them with only 200m claim since their certified has been reach nearly 127m. I think their 150m claim not needed and they are earlier artists. Is it okay? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but let's do remove it when they're at 130 million with their certified sales. There is no 175 million claim for them, is there?--Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is 180m claim for them https://www.irishtimes.com/news/how-ac-dc-conquered-the-globe-1.793535 but the source speak albums only and not records. It's not good using a source that speak albums only. I think it's okay to removed their 150m sales when they have 128m in certified sales. Politsi (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Jackson 5

Harout, What is the available certification of the Jackson 5/Jacksons? From my research, with claimed sales of over 75 million, isn’t that enough to be added as an artist on this list?— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Their available certified sales are only 15.9 million. They'd need 22.5 million for 75 million records. I'm not even sure there is a reliable source that claims 75 million records.--Harout72 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Celine Dion

Hey, you told me not so long ago that Céline needs to have around 140m certified sales to remove the 175m claim. Another question, Céline currently has 250m claimed career sales, does that mean she needs around 170m certified sales to raise her claimed sales to that figure? Thank u. Loibird90 (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I never said 140 million, that discussion is still available in the archive in case you need to go over it.--Harout72 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my bad, so she has to have atleast 150m certified sales to have the 175m claimed figure removed? Also, do you think around 180m-185m certified sales is enough to claim a higher records sales? Loibird90 (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 185 certified units would be enough to bring in a claimed figure at 220 million records (not albums tough).--Harout72 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Loibird90 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Celine Dion's new ARIA Australian Certifications

Hey! Céline Dion recently received multiple updates on her certifications in Australia.

Here's the link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k9o2q7p7o4awhqx/AADC6P4pds8BMBO2uc6D4aVwa/May%202021%20Accreditations.xlsx?dl=0 Loibird90 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Courage (album) by Céline also received a new certification in Canada (Platinum). Loibird90 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Alan Jackson

Harout. Is it possible to let him join the club with 75m claim? https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/realestate/article/Country-Music-Star-Alan-Jackson-Selling-Massive-15608787.php what do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, his certified sales are 47.2 million, he needs 50.7 million at least to join the list with 75 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sales of Broadway Cast Recording or Motion Picture Soundtrack Album

Looking for some clarity about claiming sales for compilation/multi-artist albums (e.g. Broadway cast recordings and motion picture soundtracks). Can individual artists who recorded songs in the album claim its certification and sales towards their own total album sales? In the case of Idina Menzel, the Frozen: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack had a worldwide sales shipped at 10 million. Could she claim/add that to her total worldwide album sales? Itssheenabautista (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If more than 50% of the tracks on a compilation/soundtrack album are performed by the said artist, then yes, the certification for the said album could go towards her total certified sales. In your example, the certifications would go to Christophe Beck as most of the tracks are performed by him.--Harout72 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Herb Alpert

75m I don't remember if I already mention him. https://www.pottsmerc.com/arts_and_entertainment/herb-alpert-and-lani-hall-play-the-sellersville-theater/article_c0aadeb9-03ea-54a6-8cb4-a86622522455.html what do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He has very few certifications. He has no chance.--Harout72 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Question re the 4 artists rule on a track?

Hi Harout - I'd like to ask where does the rule come from, is it something commonly used by official record companies / certifying bodies? It seems rather illogical as there are albums that get certifications due to such tracks, which are then counted towards an artist's total. For example, Kanye West or Nicky Minaj have multiple tracks on some of their albums that contribute (mainly due to streaming) to getting the parent album certified. It's just more logical to include the certification to each credited artist, especially if it is included on one of their albums. Thanks. Uncleangelo (talk) 17:43, 8July 2021 (UTC)

The maximum we include is three artists on a track. It's actually shouldn't be more than two artists, I had a little different set of rules applied in the past, but it seemed confusing to some editors, so we decided to keep it simple.--Harout72 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

Oasis needs to be added. They sold 75+ million records worldwide 2A00:23C7:B8F:DF01:D04F:3029:64BD:7405 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Please change Justin Bieber's United Kingdom sales figures from 28.445 million to 30.545 million. The change is based on the latest count of BPI Brit Certified units sold in the country which includes all singles (solo, duets and as featured artists), Video/DVD and Album sales. Beemer03 (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this file for detailed certified sales of Justin Bieber, whatever you see on that file is also included on the list. Let me know if anything is missing. Also, note that the certifications that include four artists are not included.--Harout72 (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Lady gaga

She have new certification for A star is born in uk and for Always remember us this way in Australia. Why they are not in the list. And she got higher certified number than claimed sales.

She got in month of july new certification for songs from A star is born in Australia

Aye, according to their wikipedia page these musicians have sold more 75 units.

So, I don't know where their sources are but Enrique Iglesias has sold 180 units Ellie Goulding had sold 15 million albums and 102 million singles also Ricky Martin has sold more than 70 million records worldwide but the exact number is not given.

Lil Wayne

There is something wrong with Lil Wayne section. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's fixed now.--Harout72 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me why Frank Sinatra was removed??

Frank Sinatra has sold 150 million units according to CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/11/the-business-of-frank-sinatra.html Mr Kris 420 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The required percentage of certified sales for all artists who have begun charting before 1973, has been raised from 20% to 30%. It was done because based on IFPI available data, the US market alone has generated and generates more than 30% of global sales annually. You can find the detailed percentage requirement at the top of this talk page, in one of the yellow boxes. All that said, Frank Sinatra needs to have 45 million certified units to be on the list. He so far has 39.2 million certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Kris 420: Maybe you can find a low claim for Sinatra be included in the list, between 75-100 million worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Harout, Don't you feel it's not fair to use the same percentage for artists who began charting way before the establishment of RIAA?·— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think 30% for all that have begun charting before 1973 is very generous. As for Frank Sinatra, while his overall charting may have begun in the second half of 1940s, his main success has taken place when the RIAA already was certifying. Also Sinatra has continued charting well throughout the 1960s.--Harout72 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

72% of Sinatra's available certifications are from the USA. And the market share of the USA can be 60% to 80% in the 40s comparing to the IFPI market share of 2002. And I think it's not fair to use the 30% for the artists from both eras.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the US may have generated some 50-60% of the global sales back in 1940s and 1950s and even 1960s, that's exactly why his certified sales should be at least 45 million units for a claimed figure as high as 150 million. If the US has generated 60% of the global sales up to 1970, that translates into 90 million units for a claim as high as 150 million. So again, requiring only 45 million certified units for the global sales since 1950s up to now for a claim as high as 150 million, isn't unfair.--Harout72 (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sinatra began charting in 1939. It means he lost certification for almost two decades on the world's biggest market. He still has around 40 Million available certifications, which are equal to 26% of his claimed sales. Considering the market share of the USA back in the '40s and 50's, it's not fair to compare him with other artists who almost got covered in all of their certifications in the USA.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Hey Harout, hope you doing well, apparently according to my calculations, Phil Collins has a total certified sales of 43.4 million units in the US and 3.875 million units in Canada and this is all based from the database. Moh8213 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's very possible that I've missed a thing or two, it wouldn't be the first time. Would you mind going over my file and see what's missing?--Harout72 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've just checked it and it says "This folder is empty" lol Moh8213 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

OK I re-uploaded it here, I had the 3x Plat. missing for Digital format of "In the Air Tonight", I only had gold.--Harout72 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For Canada, the missing certifications were Platinum for "Dance Into the Night" and 2x Platinum for "Serious Hits...Live". But that brings the total there to 3.675 million. Am I missing something else?--Harout72 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The single Easy Lover by Philip Bailey & Phil Collins is certified Gold (1,000,000) in the US and Platinum (100,000) in Canada in 1985. Moh8213 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And also apparently according to the RIAA database, there's two No Jacket Required video longform, the 1st one which is No Jacket Required EP listed as Gold (50,000) in 1985 and the other one is No Jacket Required listed as Platinum (100,000) in 1989. In your file only the No Jacket Required EP is included with 100,000 units. Moh8213 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the same one. There seems to be only No Jacket Required EP, in the Video table. Whoever at the RIAA has posted the Platinum, seems to have forgotten to type EP, therefore, it appears as a certification for a separate video release.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh cool, also it's listed as Various Artists for some reason, the soundtrack album Tarzan was certified 2× Platinum (200,000) in Canada in 2002, listed in your file only as Platinum. Moh8213 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, good catch, I added it.--Harout72 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also (again lol) seems like there's a typo on the German certs. The album Hello, I Must Be Going is certified 2× Platinum (1,000,000) in 1994 tho in your file it's listed 750,000 (3× Gold). Moh8213 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it, let me know if you spot anything .--Harout72 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the album Dance into the Light was certified 2× Platinum (100,000) in Switzerland in 1996, ...But Seriously also certified 2× Platinum (200,000) in the Netherlands in 1990, and seems like there is a typo in the Argentinean certs, the album Serious Hits... Live! certified 5× Platinum (300,000) in Argentina. Also certs level for NZ singles in 2007 were (7,500) for Gold and (15,000) for Platinum so I guess there should be a correction for the In the Air Tonight and the album Both Sides certified Platinum (15,000) in 1994, listed in your file only as Gold. Moh8213 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than that so far, I didn't find anything missing or uncorrected. Moh8213 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh shot, almost forgot, his DVD Finally... The First Farewell Tour was certified 3× Platinum (45,000) in Australia in 2009, listed in your file as Platinum. Moh8213 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Switzerland: The album Dance Into the Light is certified only Platinum. I've seen other duplicated titles like that in their database. That's just an error on their part.
• Netherlands: I've seen the album But Seriously having duplicated Platinum in NVPI's database. I don't know what to make of it since it doesn't have the 2x in front of it. It's possible it was certified Gold in 1989. In any case, it's safe to leave it at Platinum.
• Argentina: Yes that should be 300,000 units as it was released in 1990. I've treated that as the 2003 DVD release.
• New Zealand: The certification levels for singles released before 1989 were 10,000/20,000.
• Australia: The 3x Plat. wasn't posted in 2009 for DVD Finally... The First Farewell Tour. God know what else ARIA didn't have on their previous posts.--Harout72 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Lmao! Well I guess that's it for now. Also a very random question, from all the artists on this list, which of them you listen to the most? Moh8213 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd have to force myself to listen to the recordings of most artists on the list. But Phil Collins has some good stuff, some of Robbie Williams and George Michael's stuff are excellent, Madonna too. Let me know if you want to help out with double checking my other files :). Good job.--Harout72 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey bro, the song Another Day in Paradise was certified Platinum (50,000) in Sweden in 1990 and here's the source. What do u think? Moh8213 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no certification for that song here. It's also strange that the screenshot shows it's been certified in 1990, yet the download format. Where is the original screenshot coming from? Also it's not clear whether it's certified Platinum, I can see the Gold.--Harout72 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, at least this is something I'm assured of. The album Tarzan is certified Gold in • Austria (25,000) • Germany (250,000) • Belgium (25,000) Moh8213 (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Just found out that the album was also certified Gold (50,000) in the Netherlands in 2007 Moh8213 (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I added them, but The Netherlands seems to have Platinum for it certified in 2008, Gold in 2007.--Harout72 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Good find ;) Moh8213 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey dude, found this ARIA chart history that was released on February 2020, and it shows that the song A Groovy Kind of Love was certified Gold in 1989, what do you think? Moh8213 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is the original posted? There is no Gold for it on their Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010.--Harout72 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

180.211.185.47 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There are wrong information about celine dions album sales,her album sold worldwide is about 242 million. So I wants to correct that. Please Consider that.Thank You.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for Queen to be Moved Up to 300 Million Sales

The document that Harout72 has given out that details Queen's Certified Sales is currently outdated in terms of UK sales. I have detailed a list of potential updates to Harout's original document that I hope can be of some use. All these updates have been cited from the BPI website and cross-checked with Harout's doc. Keep in mind that a majority of the new awards given by the BPI are from sales of the 2011 re-releases.

Link to the document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uqb6bf-1rLJqASKXfMj7bHoMFkwLi4S_zelT3iJV35I/edit?usp=sharing

The certified sales for Queen listed on the Wikipedia page are 166.7 million worldwide. Since the date of retrieval for these sales numbers (7 September 2019), Queen have sold 6,750,000 records in the UK. This would put Queen at 173,450,000 certified sales, once again opening up the conversation about putting Queen in the >250 million category. I'd like to have another conversation about potentially moving Queen up, considering the quality of sources presenting Queen's sales figures as over 300 million worldwide.

In case anyone wants to look at some of the sources I'm referring to, I have a spreadsheet listing the sources I've found in my research. I would also be open to the idea of placing Queen as having 250 million in sales figures, but I have yet to find a solid source for that figure. I hope these resources provide some help.

--ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your document you have provided doesn't match what I have. Here is the Queen's file.--Harout72 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I must have been using an outdated document. Sorry for the mix up.--ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

This isn't related to Phil, but the single Smile by Scarface feat. 2Pac & Johnny P was certified Gold by the RIAA in 1997. Moh8213 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I added it.--Harout72 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's a mistake, Shakur's total certified sales was 58.6 million and u decreased it to 57.1? Moh8213 (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Post Malone

Harout, today I see a news source from Africa (Ng Opera News) / https://ng.opera.news/ng/en/entertainment/e9637fa21a84c57dc65ff79a78503bb9 I'm not sure this is reliable for the list or not. Inside that website, it was said that Post Malone has sold 40m albums and 60m singles. What do you think about this?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

He seems to have 125 million certified units coming from the US alone. But most of his certifications are heavily streaming generated. I'll go over his available worldwide certified sales in the next two weeks. If his overall certified sales are close to 200 million, we can use that source temporarily to put him on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Harout, How your searching so far? Still on going?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I finished going over his certified today, his available certified sales are 168.3 million. We'll wait for him to get to 175 million at the least, then we'll put him up on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, he's so close to be in the list. I believe he Will be here within a few months. Politsi (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

It seems that album The Getaway was certified Gold in France, that raises the total to 1.470 million. Moh8213 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I added it.--Harout72 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RHCP' total German certified sales based from the BVMI database is 3.150 million, I think it'd be great if you can check it. Moh8213 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I had the Gold for "The Getaway" missing. It's added now.--Harout72 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, also regarding the German certification, their 2002 album By the Way was certified 2× Platinum (600,000) and then later 5× Gold (750,000) in 2019, but strangely, they removed both of em and kept the 3× Gold (450,000) that was certified in 2004. Luckily there's a screenshot of the BVMI database in 2019 that shows both of the certifications and here it is. What do u think about it? Moh8213 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually have 5x Gold (750,000) for By the Way on my file. I must have updated my file according to their 2019 post also. I wonder why it's been removed. I'm gonna keep it on my file since we have that archived image as evidence. This is what I have on file.--Harout72 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've checked it and here are the stuff that needs correction:

• Germany: Californication correct certified figure is (750,000) as it was released in June of 1999.
• Brazil: Both Californication and By the Way are certified 2× Platinum (500,000) and (250,000)
• Mexico: there's a typo in ur file for Californication it's Platinum for (150,000). Moh8213 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Brazil has two different spellings in the database. Red Hot Chili Peppers and Red Hot Chilli Peppers, the second one with two L. As for Mexico, it's supposed to be 150,000 units. That was the level of their Platinum between January 1999 to June 30, 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Queen - Live Around the World Certified Sales

Using the most recent version of Harout's Queen certified sales document, I noticed that there's an album missing from the UK Certified Sales section. Queen + Adam Lambert's Live Around the World live album was certified silver on 25 December 2020. Am I mistaken or has Live Around the World not been included as of yet? The 60k sales probably won't make a significant difference either way, but I figured I should mention it. ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 5:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No it wasn't added, now it's added. It was most likely posted by BPI retroactively.--Harout72 (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

I have witnessed that RIAA included master tone certifications for Mariah Carey's songs, We Belong Together 1 MILLION, Don't Forget About US 500,000, Shake it Off 500,000 AND Touch my Body 1,000,000. That would be an additional 3 million in total certified sales for Mariah!

Can they be added? fidelovkurt 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have all of the 6 million units of Mastertone on my file that RIAA has for for Mariah, and they're also included in the list.--Harout72 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Harout, Why Mariah carey's total certified units dropped to 182 million from 183.5? At what time can we add the higher claim of 220 million in total claimed sales? fidelovkurt 17:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is that edit that affected some 13 artists. I provided explainantion in the edit summary, if you;re still unclear about it, let me know. The upgrade for 220 million for Mariah can be done when she's between 185 and 190 with her certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Cher's single 'Believe'

Hi Harout, as per my recent comment, I think you made a mistake with the calculation, the BPI database clearly states the release of the single as 1998 (you can see it when you click on the first bullet point on the graph here: https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/785-885-1). The single is released post 1994 so there's no reason why they should certify it as a separate release, besides the re-release would have the Silver->Gold->Platinum->Multi Platinum trajectory but it doesn't. Look into it, even though I wish you're right, it's the info in their database that created the confusion. Thanks.--Uncleangelo (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The re-issue isn't a physical one, it's a digital, from 14-11-2004. The digital release has a separate certifications (4x Platinum), while the original physical one released on 19-10-1998 has 2x Platinum. All of the certifications that BPI issues for singles these days are for digital formats. The certifications for digital formats are not posted by BPI (or even RIAA), unless the digital format's certifications surpass the level of the original physical ones. In the case of "Believe", BPI posted the 3x Platinum for the digital format only after the certification level surpassed the 2x Platinum that the physical had received on 08-01-1999. You can see the issued certifications when you type in Cher and select singles. Scroll down to see all of the earlier certifications for "Believe".--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

But does that mean the physical sales are not included into the digital format's certification? What are other similar cases that this has happened? Also, when you click on both links of the single (one dated 30.10.1998 and the latest one dated 14.11.2004) it takes you the the page with same info and same graph... Another thing is the OCC article from 2018 stating the song has 1.84 million total sales, and just shy of 20 million streams which would equal to 2,04 sales, logically it reached 2,4 million now selling some 100k yearly... Here's the link of the article: https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/official-charts-flashback-1998-cher-believe__20834/ --Uncleangelo (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, no the physical sales should not be included in the digital certifications, not to my knowledge. Similar cases would basically be any single that BPI has once issued a certification for the physical, today any certification for the same single would be strictly for the digital sales. The graphs for physical and digital should be separate ones, BPI's employees sometimes post all certifications on one graph and more experienced employees post them on two different graphs, like they have done it for "Uptown Girl", Physical, Digital. The 1.84 million is for the physical sales they're referring to, which would translate to 3x Platinum for physical alone, but BPI never certified the physical for higher levels than 2x Platinum. The 20 million streams would basically be for recent 4 to 5 years of digital sales data. The 3x Platinum "Believe" has received for its digital format was in August of 2014, that's before streaming became largely popular. Don't let the graphs confuse you, BPI employees sometimes never even include the dates of the certifications for physical sales, like on Livin' on a Prayer. When you click on the physical certification, it takes to the page where it shows the certifications for digital only.--Harout72 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

But those singles were released before 1994, meaning that they were certified before 1994 based on physical sales at the time, and will get the digital certifications based on downloads and streaming after 1994, with 2004 as their re-release date. Singles released after 1994 will get certified based on the total sales amount comprised of physical + downloads + streaming sales. It doesn't seem logical that they would issue 2 different certifications for a single released in 1998 (post the 1994 tracking sales era), and seems that the 2004 date is most likely an error? It would mean that Believe sold 3.6 million copies and if true it would be a known fact by now. But anyway, if you do feel you are correct can you please update the certification info on the single's main wiki page too? Thanks again...--Uncleangelo (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with 1994. What difference does it make whether a Physical single was released in 1993 or 1998? Physical singles were largely released and sold in most markets until mid 2000s. There were no Digital downloads until early 2000s to mid 2000s in most markets. If the release date of the digital for "Believe" is 2004, all digital sales would obviously be based on that, not whether the physical one was released before 1994 or after. The first Digital singles were made available in the UK in the year 2004. Another example with two separate graphs, one for Physical and another for Digital is for the song "Oops!... I Did It Again (song)" from 2000. The Physical was certified Gold in June 2000, while the Digital one was certified Platinum in 2018. Again, the Platinum wasn't posted by BPI until the sales level of the Digital surpassed the level of the Physical's certification. On singles pages, having the highest certification is sufficient enough I think, the details such as what I'm looking at for this list, can be left out. It seems "Believe" has the highest level of certification posted there for BPI.--Harout72 (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I mention 1994 because it is clear to understand why singles released before that year are listed twice in their database and have certifications for physical and digital release, such as ABBA's Gimme, Gimme ,Gimme. I thought that after 1994 when tracking sales was available and more accurate, that ALL the sales (physical, digital and streams) of records released since then are lumped together towards one certification award. But you're saying that even if the single is released in, for example, 2001, and sold an x amount of physical copies, if the award in BPI's database shows that the single was released in 2004, only sales since 2004 are counted in its certification? That is, you're saying that Oops, I Did it Again sold 1 million copies in the UK (Gold for physical and Platinum for digital+streaming) and that Believe sold 3.6 million (2X Platinum for physical and 4x Platinum for digital release)? Hope you don't mind all these questions but this is completly new information for me. Thanks. --Uncleangelo (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, certification levels we have for singles, do not necessarily reflect the exact sales amount. In the past, certifications were based on shipped units in most markets, now they're based on Digital downloads and streams. In the past before streams, if you wanted to get an idea as to where the sales stood for physical singles, then certifications illustrated a reliable sales data. Today, it's difficult to rely on certifications for sales data due to streams being counted towards certifications. But 1 million for "Oops!... I Did It Again" and 3.6 million for "Believe" would be the idea. Yes, the certifications for the sales of digital, would start from the date the digital format was made available.--Harout72 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The 4x Platinum means 2.4 million sales, not 3.6 million. The recent OCC article clearly states what it has sold. The certifications by the BPI refer to sales after 1994, not just digital, but digital, physical and streaming so Believe is at 2.4 million. You're wrong in saying certifications are based just on digital downloads/streams, it's a combination of those and physical. StephenN17 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the examples I provided above which have separate certifications including the certifications for "Oops!... I Did It Again" should be ignored. BPI had certified the physical "Believe" 2x Platinum in January 1999 for 1.2 million units, that's only 3 months after its release. And the 3x Platinum by BPI was issued in August 2014 for 1,800,000 units. Do you really think it took 15 years for the third Platinum? If it'd sold 1,200,000 million in just 3 months, it surely didn't take 15 years for it to sell another 600,000 units, which according to you is physical and digital. The 1.84 million is either a physical sales or purely Digital downloads stated by OCC. The 3x Platinum which "Believe" received in August 2014, is purely Digital downloads, as streaming wasn't all that popular. The very recent 4x Platinum issued in 2021 is based on Digital downloads + Streaming, but not physical.--Harout72 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No you're wrong, yes it took until 2014 to reach 3x Platinum as digital sales only started around 2006 and Cher never had strong digital sales. The physical sales of Believe were 1.67 million then it finally reached 3x Platinum due to slow digital sales. The reason it is at 2.4 million now is due to the streaming sales that have been added. When the last update came through a couple of years ago it was at just over 2 million so the actual sales are 2.4 million. StephenN17 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying Digital sales for "Believe" started in 2006, when the the Digital format was made in 2004 doesn't help our discussion. Similarly, saying the Digital sales for "Believe" were too slow without providing reliable sales data for the single's digital sales for each year between 2004 and 2014 (when the 3x Platinum was issued), also doesn't help our discussion. The certification issued for 2x Platinum in 1999, and the certifications issued in 2014 and 2021 are two separate certifications, just like in the example for "Oops!... I Did It Again".--Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I said around 2006, and it was in late 2004, shoot me now! How can you be an editor on a chart page but have no clue what you are talking about. Believe has sold 2.4 million, so keep talking rubbish saying it's sold 3.6 million. That would make it the 3rd best selling single ever in the UK which isn't true. StephenN17 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my point, with that way of counting certs there would be so many million selling singles, and I've never seen any articles or even fans posting that Britney's 'Oops' sold 1 million copies, let alone that 'Believe' sold more than 3 million. @Harout72 where did you read that higher certifications aren't posted by BPI until the sales level of the digital surpasses the level of the physical certification? That is most likely not the case, and if you've used this system for all artists on the list, then their UK totals are all wrong and should be recalculated, of course, only for singles released after 1994 as their certifications are comprised of both physical and digital sales. BPI puts 2004 for new certifications as a way to indicate that digital sales are included, not to discard physical sales amassed prior 2004. Uncleangelo (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So according to you two "Believe" has sold not more than 600,000 in Physical and Digital formats between 1999 and 2014, correct? Instead of claiming that the calculations for the UK are wrong for all artists, Uncleangelo, provide a reliable source that supports the 600,000 in both formats during that time. Having reached 2x Platinum in a matter of just three months, doesn't look like the physical sales stopped there. StephenN17 failed to provide any kind of digital sales data for "Believe" to support his claims about slow digital sales. I could be wrong or you could be wrong. In the meantime, here is another example, Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone" reached Gold status in only 2 months when it was released in August 1995. The digital format of that song reached Platinum in August of 2018. So according to you two, it took 23 years for "You Are Not Alone" to sell additional 200,000 units in Physical and Digital plus Streaming formats combined to reach Platinum, when it'd sold 400,000 units in 2 months in 1995?--Harout72 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You say Believe reached 2x Platinum in 3 months and it doesn't look like the sales stopped there, well they didn't. Believe sold 1.67 million in physical sales (CD, Cassette). Then downloads began in '2004' and later streaming. The additional sales of around 730k have come from downloads and streaming. I dont get how hard this is for you to understand. Yoy keep saying show you proof, you show us proof that what you are saying is correct! StephenN17 (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tell me I'm not wasting my time talking to a child here. I already showed you multiple examples including Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone" and others above, which clearly show that the early certifications and recent certifications are most likely for separate formats. Why don't you provide a source for 730,000 units in digital sales? Tell me you didn't just subtract 1.67 million from 4x Platinum (2.4 million) to get that number.--Harout72 (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Proof would be various articles posted by OCC stating the chart sales or total sales that are a sum of physical, digital, and streaming. This is an article from October 2018 which states that 'Believe' achieved 1.84 million total sales and almost 20 million streams, which translates to about 200,000 copies and a total of 2,04 million at the time, and a few years later we got the 4x Platinum certification. Also, an even better example is the article about 'Oops, I Did it Again' posted last year which clearly states the single has sold 737,000 UK chart sales and is "the album’s most-streamed song, with 28.1 million plays, and best-selling song (downloads and CD sales), with 492,000 copies sold" equaling to 737k which matches its Platinum certification. Other chart experts may join in the discussion here as this means a lot of changes should be made to the listed artists' UK totals. Uncleangelo (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you make of my last example on Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone"? Only 200,000 additional units in 23 years based off of Physical, Digital and Streaming seems quite low. I have also contacted BPI regarding this entire topic, hopefully I'll get an answer. If recalculation is decided to be done, it's not going to affect all artists. The recalculation will affect those artists that have the same single certified in the past and later. Also, the 737,000 is pure sales of CD and downloads for "Oops, I Did it Again", with streams, the Platinum being for Digital isn't impossible.--Harout72 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It would affect all listed artists' singles released from 1994-2004 which were re-certified during the last decade or so. 1994 is the key year in UK's chart history as it is when they started tracking sales with most accuracy, hence why the sales were added to the downloads and streams for certifications, as oppose to singles which were released before 1994 and are certified based solely on downloads and streaming sales. They put 2004 for every single which was re-certified and that created the confusion. As for 'You Are Not Alone', or any other single released during physical era, it is common that after several months after the release the sales are non-existent as the product is not available, or that the product was over-shipped so the sales didn't reach the certification level. Maybe it just wasn't MJ's most popular track during the digital age? Anyway, I've been in contact with OCC staff several times and they have explained how it all works, which is why I brought up the issue in the first place. And what's not clear about the 'Oops' article - it says The album’s biggest song is its title track and lead single, with 737,000 UK chart sales... is the album’s most-streamed song, with 28.1 million plays, and best-selling song (downloads and CD sales) with 492,000 copies sold. 492k (CDs and downloads) + 28mill streams = around 250k streaming sales = 737k. That corresponds to the singles Platinum certification of 600k, not to more than 1 million copies as you were counting it. And this is an article from 2020, so it's quite recent.Uncleangelo (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you upload your conversations with BPI here. If I'm going to recalculate then I'm going to do that for all singles that have certifications for two separate release dates, whether released before or after 1994. That is a detail that I think will never be clear to us. But I still cannot make any changes unless we have contradictions like MJ's "You Are Not Alone" out of the way. Also, Celine Dion's "It's All Coming Back to Me Now", BPI certified the 1996 release Silver only 1 month after its release, 18 years later in 2014 BPI issued the Gold for 2007 release. And it took only more 5 years for 2007 release to receive the Platinum. Even with streaming having helped the Platinum, it still creates major doubts that the Gold and Platinum are most likely for Digital format.--Harout72 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was 5 years ago so I can't upload the email here, but basically they pointed me to this article which illustrates how they count sales - they call them, as I mentioned, total sales or chart sales which is a sum of actual sales (physical and downloads) and streaming sales. They said that while they do have data for singles before 1994, the BPI's system automatically certifies records with accumulated sales after 1994, stressing that all the sales are combined. You can see the article I linked, it's quite useful as it shows how much streaming has become prevalent and dominant in the last 5 years as many of those singles have been re-certified due to streams. Anyway, hopefully they will reply to you so you can decide if you need to make the edits :-).Uncleangelo (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that is a helpful article. The certification levels posted by BPI in 2017 match the total sales column on the article. Thanks for that. I'll wait a bit longer for BPI to reply, I might send another e-mail just in case. But it looks like you might be right. If I don't at all get answers from them, in a week or 10 days, I'll move forward with adjusting the numbers of those that need the adjustments.--Harout72 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Uncleangelo, I've been comparing all of the sales figures on OCC source, at least those related to the artists we have, and I've noticed that the singles released before 1994, and the singles released after January 1, 1994 should be treated completely differently. I think you mentioned this somewhere above also. For the singles released after January 1994, only the most recent and highest BPI certification should be taken into account, and the earlier lower certifications should be ignored. However, the most recent and highest BPI certifications alone do not cover all of the sales for pre 1994 singles. Therefore, the earlier certification(s) should be counted also, separately. I'm not sure why this is the case but I went over every single's both certifications and sales figures, and that seems to be the case. BPI doesn't really follow any clear method for separating the certifications of the singles, Pre or Post 1994, they're all random. Some of the certifications are separated, and some are combined on the graphs, whether they're pre 1994 or post 1994 releases. I still haven't received any reply from BPI, but since I'm quite confident about what I discovered, I will implement the reductions in BPI certified sales of the 13 artists/bands that need the adjustment. By the way, would you happen to have a reliable source which speaks about UK having launched the CD sales tracking in 1994? I couldn't find one.--Harout72 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This was the announcement posted on the Music Week's website in 2013, but you need a subscription to access it so you can read it in full here on this charts forum. Also, some charts in the OCC's archive start from 30.01.1994 as you can see on their website. Cheers! Uncleangelo (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That'll do it, thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad we sorted it out and prevented further confusion. By the way, can you share the file you have with Cher's certifications, as it's slightly different to what I have. Thanks again.Uncleangelo (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, here you are with Cher's file.--Harout72 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! A few corrections and things that are missing - the UK total for albums should be 3,940,000; the NZ singles' certifications should be 5000 for both 'The Shoop Shoop Song' and 'Believe', and also 'The Farewell Tour' DVD was certified Platinum (5k) in New Zealand. Also, you're missing the Platinum award for 'Believe' in Portugal (40k), the image is from Julien's Auction of Cher's memorabilia. Thanks! Uncleangelo (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Good catch on the UK's album count, this is what happens when you deal with too many numbers lol. I should have had only one "The Shoop Shoop Song", not sure why it was duplicated on my file. I'm afraid I can't add the Platinum Plaque of that kind to my file, anyways, Portugal's total should be at least 100,000 certified units to go onto the list. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware about the 100k rule... One more important thing, can you re-calculate Cher's total on the list, before Believe's 4x Platinum re-certification she was at 42.3 million and now she's at 42.1 million? The correct amount should be 42.9... You can click the history of the article to double check. Uncleangelo (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, 42.9 million is our total, I deducted the additional 600,000 units that I had for UK's total on my file, buts something else was miscalculated to begin with. It's corrected now.--Harout72 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What about these countries?

Is there a reason why the certifications from countries like Chile, Hungary, South Africa, Portugal and Latvian is not included in the List of best selling artist? Did I miss the response to that somewhere? TruthGuardians (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes that has been discussed in the past. There are number of reasons why the certifications of those countries are not included. First factor is, in order to include the certifications of a country, it needs to have a certification database or a weekly chart where the certifications appear. Second most important factor is knowing the certification levels for all time periods. Most of the certifying bodies have made changes in their certification levels, so we need to know those. Third most important factor is that each country must have at least 100,000 certified units for the said artist/band in order for us to add their certifications to the list. And most of those countries that you mention, are tiny music markets and do not generate enough sales. The 90% of the global sales are generated by those markets whose certifications we include.--Harout72 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks for very prompt reply. I could be wrong, but I thought that Portugal, Latvia, and South Africa meet these two criteria. As far as the artist criteria, I haven’t don’t that much digging yet, but I’m almost certain that at least those three countries meet the criteria. Will do more research. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of those markets has a certification database nor do they post their certification on weekly charts. I wouldn't worry about Latvia as it has never been amongst the top 50 larger markets between 2002 and 2010, I'm sure nothing has changed for them after 2010. Also, their certification levels are not known for all periods.--Harout72 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

What about these two regarding Portugal 1, 2 and this one related to South Africa? TruthGuardians (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

South Africa seems to have certifications posted since 2015 only. The first one for Portugal is just a source for their charts, but no certifications are posted there. At one point Portugal's certifications appeared here, but only for three years it seems. As for this source you posted, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with their certifying body. The name of their certifying body is Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa.--Harout72 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Portugal actually did post certifications on their weekly chart (I think still they doing it if I'm not wrong) tho that chart was only available from 2003-2010, still I'm quite sure there might be few artists on this list who have more than 100,000 units in certified sales. South Africa would've been a pretty good add to this list since it's music market is larger compared to Portugal, tho unlike Portugal, SA never really had a proper certification database nor certifications on weekly chart. What do you think about the Portugal one? Moh8213 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The source for Portugal basically provides five years of chart/certification data, from 2005-2010. The years 2003 and 2004 don't seem to work. I'm not sure if it's worth going over five years of data when Portugal is a small market. I'll take a look when I have time. The market whose certification data I'm interested in is Hungary. Their levels for International artists aren't known for years before 2002, they only have the levels for their domestic artists posted on their site. If someone can contact Mahasz and get the levels for International artists, we can include their certifications. I have contacted multiple times, can't succeed in getting answers from them. The most I got from them was a reply from one of their clueless employees saying the levels are the same for both domestic and international artists, when in fact IFPI has listed two different levels for Hungary between 2005 and 2013. They are probably the same now, but need the international levels for all years before 2005.--Harout72 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

2004 actually works tho it starts in the 10th week. There used to be 2003 but unfortunately no one managed to archive them except week 11 & 15. Irdk about Hungary, they have a certification database tho their music market is smaller compared to Portugal so idk if there are artists who sold 100k+ in Hungary. Moh8213 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hungary's market is definitely smaller that Portugal's but their database goes back to 2000, and if the certification levels for International artists were half the levels of their domestic artists levels, then Bon Jovi alone looks to have some 75,000 units certified just in 2000 when certifications are treated based on release dates. Michael Jackson's Thriller is certified Platinum in 2010, that alone is around 100,000, can be more if treated based on release date. As for Portugal, I'll go over their certification since we have their certification levels.--Harout72 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Harout, just wanted to ask, do you know the threshold for albums that were released in Belgium in 2006? Moh8213 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're missing the certification levels for 2006, in 2007 the albums levels for International artists were 15,000/30,000. And for single they were still 25,000/50,000. In 2005, both album and singles levels were 25,000/50,000.--Harout72 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's strange that 2006 is the only missing year for the Belgian certification level, I've seen the wiki article of the certifying body BEA and according to that article, it's says that the current thresholds for international albums Gold (15,000) and Platinum (30,000) has been in effect at least since April 2007. And it also says that there's an earlier list from the beginning of 2006 list these thresholds for albums as well, but I don't think that list is valid cuz it's from the RIAJ yearbook of 2005. Moh8213 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

RIAJ table for certification levels are produced by IFPI. It says that at the bottom of page 23, so it's reliable. But it's for 2005. I think Belgium lowered their levels in January 2006, I saw that somewhere years ago posted by some not very reliable source. But it could be true.--Harout72 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong, Portugal is still posting the certifications on their weekly chart but they're on a PDF form, one notable certification is of the Weeknd's Blinding Lights being certified 6× Platinum (60,000), what do u think? Moh8213 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it can be very useful. Where is the main source posted? Where did you navigate to that page from?--Harout72 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Here you go, so far it covers the charts from 2018-present, interestingly enough, this is the same source @TruthGuardians shared for the Portuguese cert, tho you thought that it isn't related AFP lol! Moh8213 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we know the Portuguese cert levels for singles? Our page for Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa says since 2016 the levels for singles are 5,000/10,000 but I see no source there. The most recent source for levels that I know for Portugal is from 2013 and they are 10,000/20,000. I don't know how to proceed. For the time being, I'll be working on retrieving the certs of the albums only.--Harout72 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the editor who added the 5,000/10,000 cert level for singles in Sept, 2020, I sent him a message in his talk page but it's been a day and I didn't get any response from him, tho now I don't think it really matters cuz Muhandes just recently provided a source for the 5,000/10,000 cert level. Moh8213 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Whitney Houston and Celine Dion

The 170 million and 175 million claimed numbers of Whitney and Celine are old numbers from the old sources. Can they be deleted? Phạm Huy Thông (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Once the certified sales of both are above 150 million and 155 million respectively, then we can remove those lower sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Celine received gold certification for Ashes in Poland. Loibird90 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Diana Ross

Harout. Need your opinion. Is it possible to bring her get into the list with 75m claim?. Once I've seen that her certified sales reach nearly 20m. This singer is so legendary, it will be good if we had her name in the list. If you think there's a change for her to get inside the list with 75m. I will begin seriously looking reliable source for her. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

She needs 22.5 million certified units, her certified sales stand at 19.1 million.--Harout72 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sting and the Police

Two requests i have, 1. Put the Police in the 80 million sales category as there multiple articles saying so, 2. I believe that Sting as solo artist has sold enough albums to be included in 100 million list, 2001:861:3A01:31C0:A4E3:BB13:EA:F603 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I'm on mobile right now so I can't make the edits, bit I would like to let everyone know I had a good chuckle at AARP doing an interview with Sting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that the IP-editor is a known and prolific vandal with huge number of identities, who falsely inflates certifications and awards in multiple articles. I would be careful of the sources used. Hzh (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources provided above is reliable. And going over the Definitions on the main page would explain as to why the sales figure of The Police should not have an upgrade.--Harout72 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue (80m records)

There are sources claimed Kylie Minogue sold 80m records. Is it possible to include her on the list? Sources: BMG Hollywood Reporter 9News Daily Telegraph – "comes from the sale of more than 80 million albums worldwide." Damian Vo (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue doesn't have enough certified sales to support such a high sales figure. Her worldwide available certified sales are only 25.4 million, she needs 50.3 million certified units for a claimed figure as high as 80 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The gap is huge! Thanks for the swift reply and the useful file as well. Damian Vo (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)