Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Double albums

Sales of double albums are counted twice in the list. This methodology brings some problems:

1. Saturday Night Fever was released in 1977 as a double vynil album, but it occupies only one CD. The same happens to Frampton Comes Alive. Shouldn't we count the number of albums sold instead of the number of discs, to avoid these problems? By the way, I think RIAA counts them as single disc albums...

2. Saturday Night Fever, Frampton Comes Alive, HIStory, Billy Joel's Greatest Hits 1 & 2, Physical Graffiti and The Beatles (White Album) alums are listed as double albums. But there are some double albums -- which are still double albums after their release as a CD -- listed as single albums (such as The Wall, The Beatles 1962-1966 and 1967-1970). This puts them in notable disadvantadge; for example, The Wall would be counted as a 40-million seller (as much as Saturday Night Fever) if its sales were counted twice. Wouldn't it be simpler to count the album sales instead of disc sales?

- Pink Floyds "Wall" is counted as a double album, at least on the RIAA list. It's RIAA certification jumped from 11 million to 22 million as soon as the RIAA changed their rules for double albums! I do, however, agree that double albums should be counted as one album, unless it's a boxed set that contains two (or more) diffrent albums, although, even then, maybe they should be counted as 1 sale too.

-- Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is not counted as a double album in Wikipedia's list. It is certified 23x platinum in US for sales of 11.5 million albums nationwide, so RIAA counts it as a double album. Notice that this number refers to sales inside US territory. But RIAA counts "Saturday Night Fever" as a one-disc album (certified 15x platinum for sales of 15 million copies), although it was originally released as a double album. The same happens to "Frampton Comes Alive", which sold 6 million copies in US and is certified 6x platinum.

As Wikipedia's article lists worldwide sales and Pink Floyd's "The Wall" worldwide sales are over 20 million double albums (some sources say 27 million), it should be listed as a 40 million+ seller, according to the methodology adopted. As far as I am concerned, "Saturday Night Fever" sold some 40 million albums worldwide (15 million in US alone), so it would be a 80 million seller if two discs are counted for each album... anyway, as the article lists only 40 million+ sellers, it wouldn't change a thing for "Saturday Night Fever". But "The Wall" is clearly in disadvantage.

This page uses sources. You can't have a bit of one source (RIAA claims) and a bit of the other (Floyds world wide claims). The highest avalible source here for the wall states 20 million plus. As no source claims more than that, then only the highest one can be used, no "look at the this other source, so push that one up".

-- There is nothing wrong with the sources. They appear to be correct. By the way, RIAA certifies albums for US sales only. Although RIAA numbers are reliable, they cannot be used as a source for a page which lists worldwide album sales, as the US market represent part of the global market (for example, RIAA certifies "Saturday Night Fever" for 15 million copies sold in US, but worldwide numbers are above 40 million).

All I'm saying is that "The Wall", which has sold over 20 million copies according to the page source, is a double album. But it is listed as a one-disc album (the absence of the asterisk denotes that). As this page counts the number of discs sold and not the number of albums, "The Wall" is in clear disadvantage in comparison to other double albums. Let me give an example.

The Wall has shipped 23 million copies is the US RIAA only counted it once for each shipment as its under 100 minutes!!! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

---

---

sorry to take up so much space but theres too many arguments about it not only on here but on the pink floyd page as well.if it were 20 minutes longer it would be 46 times platinum

The source for Michael Jackson's HIStory (http://www.mjinf.co.uk/HIStory/HIStory.htm) informs that this album sold at least 16 million copies worldwide (official source). According to the methodology used by the site, its sales are doubled (16 million albums sold x 2 = 32 million discs sold), so HIStory is listed as a 30 million+ seller.

The same should happen to "The Wall". Its source (http://www.mjni.com/news/details.aspx?ArticleNo=508) says the album sold 20 million+ copies worldwide. So, 20 million albums x 2 discs per album = 40 million discs sold. Therefore, "The Wall" should be listed as a 40 million+ seller.

Or History should be moved down, in line with source!

Thriller

Thriller has NOT sold 104 million copies. That's bullshit and everybody knows it. There is no source that can confirm 104 million. Michael's camp might say it but they are biased and not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.233.141 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller sold 51 million as of about 1993, a long, long time ago. To date it has sold up to 60 million. In 1997, SME confirmed sales of 54 million for Thriller. In 2002, Michael said Thriller is closing in on 60 million. In 2004, on mjjsource.com they claimed sales of 59 million. The Guiness figure is dated and has not been updated for ages. Guiness needs to catch up, and regarding movie budgets, highest grossing films, highest selling albums and singles etc. they are falling behind and haven't got it right for years. Street walker 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Quote source that will be beneficial and will help us too.

I have removed the personal comment which was given in reply that had no stuff to talk logically than to spill mud. That person was using AOL IP and hadn't even signed or or cared to make an login. Please maintain a decency and this is not place to solve personal issues or hatred against some artist. In good faith, Vivek 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As of june 2006, Italic textBack in Black Italic textOfficially became the best selling album of any kind of all time. Please update this on your page --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.90.38 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006

Source? for back in black is best selling album of all time

Actually, Thriller has only sold 47 million copies. The article is wrong.

The official MJ site [1] (under bio) says 44 million.

The official Michael Jackson website must be wrong because the Guinness World Records says Thriller has sold 104 million. 59.100.23.16 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that de offical Michael Jackson wemsite are more importat that Guiness Record...

104!!!! with 28 million sales in the US and 3,6 in the UK covering roughly 50% of the Worldmarket....how can the album sell over well over 70 million in the other 50%???

People are getting confused over this issue. How much Thriller has actually sold isn't Wikipedia's concern. Wikipedia does not decide what is true and what is not. The article clearly explains that claims are allowed and Guinness World Records is claiming that Thriller sold 104 million copies. If you want to go on fact-checking errands, take it up with Guinness, not with Wikipedia. Personally, I agree with you. Thriller has definitely not sold over 100 million copies. It has, however, sold at least 60 million copies and is by far the greatest selling album of all time (really...by far...at least 20 or so million copies ahead of its next competitor). The US and Britain do not cover half of the world market. The US is about 30% and Britain is about 6% I think. Japan is a much bigger player than Britain actually.UberCryxic 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not Wik. responsibility but surely we have a discussion page to debate the validity of these claims(we can all create a website with all kinds of claims - but one would be better of buying a harry potter book if you like fiction) I have not seen the claim but surely some one at GWR has dozed off. In 2000 US had 38%, Uk 7.7% of the world market http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/worldsales2000.pdf in 2004 US had 36% Uk 10% http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/worldsales2004.pdf 46% is roughly half the World's market - Japan is a bigger market then Uk but mainly domestic Rep. Thriller sold significantly less In Japan then in the UK (i have read that between 1,5 and 2.5 million have been shipped)) so including Japan (an additional 15%) takes us to 61% and the claim of 104 gets even less plausible

Well yeah I think we're all agreed that Thriller did not sell 104 million. But again, saying that doesn't mean anything in the context of Wikipedia. The only thing that matters according to the already prescribed standards is that Guinness and the World Music Awards made the claim. That's it. It stops right there. I don't know why people want to have endless conversations on this. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a place for personal theories and conjenctures. We could have eternal debates on what Thriller sold, but at the end of the day, by current standard, the only thing that matters is that someone out there with a reputation is claiming that it sold 104 million (or more).UberCryxic 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be a platform for idiotic claims, and this way it services no purpose just to listing claims like 104 for thriller based on hidden agenda's and fansites that miss every sense of realism is a joke I There is more value in the tabbloits in respect of accuracy then this. one word comes to mind - Bollocks !

The argument that Thriller has sold 104 million copies has no reliable sources behind its links. The first is a qoute from Jackson himself who is certainly NOT the most reliable person on the matter. While the other is a link to a photograph with the claim above the top, no names, no sources, no supporting statistics. This MUST be reviewed otherwise this article is giving misleading information. I have several authentic sources (including Rolling Stone and MTV) stating that Thriller has sold around 50/55 million copies. If no reliable links are presented then the article will be moved to the 50 million area (Apex156 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

excuse me guiness world records is THE most reliable source, its not going to change , get over it. Realist2 09:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC) (un)realsit...DID you have math at school?

My understanding of the World Music Award Chopard Diamond Award that MJ received is that it's for the artist's total album sales of more than 100 million. That doesn't mean that Thriller alone sold over 100 million.Yeeericm 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a ridiculously tenuous argument. Everyone not living in fairy land realizes that when ONE source says something and EVERY other source says something else, that the ONE ridiculous source is wrong. Guinness also gave him an award for "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time", so he must be that, too, right? Because Guinness's criteria for "success" must be flawless. Guinness is usually a reliable source. However, there are a lot of OTHER reliable sources, and none of them give the "104" figure. Cling to your imaginary past, Jackson fans. It's like for every new trouble that the man goes through, you just add another 10 million imaginary record sales to Thriller to make yourselves feel better. Someone needs to change that sales figure back down to something reasonable, and give 20 reliable sources all supporting it; then put in a note about the "104" figure. It should be noted just as evidence of how delusional some people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.140.151 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The link used here to "Back Up" the assertion for sales figures of 100 million (by Guiness) states that MJ was the First Artist to Earn More Than 100 MILLION DOLLARS in a year; it says nothing about 100 Million ALBUM SALES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zettel 9016 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(...His own people put the figure at 105m.)no wonder where they all get this from. Once again, someones just changing it back to 104 while backing it up with some fan-based magazines !As for me and many people out there the most reliable source is BBC and Guiness( btw, on BBC's website they clearly stated that they got it from Guiness while those so called sources there's no other sources that can back it up !) i just leave to a moderator to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 sources all of which come from sources that are accepted as reliable, thats all the page requires. That sais i will add something to the lead of the article that lets people know there are lower claims out their. Realist2 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Eagles Greatest Hits

The Eagles: Their Greatest Hits cannot possibly be the 3rd best-selling albums of all-time. That album is only sold in the US. The album that is sold outside of the US is "The Very Best of the Eagles". It's got a different title, different cover, different track list. It's not the same album, so you can't add the sales of Very Best Of to Their Greatest Hits. This needs to be looked into.

On the contrary, Their Greatest Hits was available on vinyl in the seventies in Europe, and a cursory trip through a secondhand record shop will show you there are plenty about! It's since been repackaged on CD several times. The Very Best Of was a CD only release, I believe. Tom s252 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Something is missing

What about Madonna's True Blue, Like a Virgin and The Immaculate Collection?

I added thoses albums. I can't believe all her albums were completely ignored from this list. As well as the albums you mentioned, Ray of Light sold enough to be in the top 50.

crap

This page is baloney. All it does is repete over the top sales claims made by fans and record companies. The Backstreet Boys debut album selling as much as the beatles top selller? their second one selling more than any beatles album?? what a load of nonsence!

Just because someone outsold the Beatles doesn't make it crap. The Beatles were the biggest selling act at one stage (1960s) but since then there have been loads of artist who have outsold them. All the figures on the page are official. Live with it, your beloved white Beatles aren't the biggest thing in the world anymore.

Incorrect. The Beatles albums sold on vinyl, tape and cd, not to mention 8 track. The Backstreet Boys , who only sold at one scoop of the pot, are nowhere near them. These sales figures are not "official" they are reported sales by the record companies. They are given for publisty purposes, hence all the confliting research. It's you who needs to live with it. Furthermore, The Beatles are not my favorite act of all-time, but they are much bigger than the backstreet boys, shania twain and anyone else on this list when factual information (i.e actual sales charts, sales of backcatlogue reports, etc) is looked at rather than figures that are just given. Also, i find it hard to belive Led Zeppelin sold over tiwce as many albums (as their figures suggest here) in the 1990s, than they did in thr '70's and '80s combined. Complete fabrication. If you think more people own a copy of "millienum" than "sgt. pepper" and a lot of other albums by people like the beatles and elvis presley, then you're the one who is not living with the truth. Also why mention they were white?, that's not relevant. This list is a load of baloney and is a hot contender for the worst article on wikipedia.

What's with this guy ha?? why doesn't he like this article?? just because the Backstreet Boys album "Millennium" sold more then any Beatles album, Man! BSB is not the only artist to sell more then any Beatles Album, there are a tons of artists like AC/DC, Eagles, Bee Gees, Whitney Houston, Meat Loaf, Michael Jackson, Shania Twain, Celine Dion etc. who have sold more then the Beatles. Ya it is true that the Beatles were the Kings of the 60s or the 70s. But what about Micheal Jackson? he is the king of Pop of all time. He has sold more then any Beatles album, So doesn't that make him better then the Beatles. And what about AC/DC they also sold more then any Beatles album. So does that makes the Beatles just a crap?? Get real man, BSB once ruled the world in the late 90s and in the early 2000s, They hold the record for fastest selling album worldwide. Like the Beatles they also have millions of female fans worldwide. The are only group who have that since the Beatles. You have to start live with the truth. BSB's "Millennium" has sold more then the Beatles "Sgt. Pepper". Both of these albums are fine classic and will be remembered forever. Both were nominated for Album of the year at the Grammy's. So stop being angry with this article. I added this list to this site and it's offical by RIAA not by the artists websites.--50cent4 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

50 cent 4 talk for yourself, not for everyone else too. You don't own wikipedia, neither do you rule the world.

who ever wrote this comment about me, F*** U--50cent4 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

grow up, stop acting like a baby, you always cry and whimper when someone disagrees with you and try to make people look stupid (like your hard man act here is trying to do), but it fails, it stops a dollar short of 100 cents, however, who ever wrote the comment was bang on the money!! --Mr.Sloan 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The RIAA get their figures from, the record companies. Secondly this is not an RIAA list anyway, not that it makes any diffrence. "Millineum" has not outsold "Sgt Pepper". The Backstreet Boys success in North America was not repeated in most of the rest of the world. They didn't "rule the world" as you put it, Britney Spears, Eminem and Nsync all outsold them at points and i don't see such ludicrous claims made for their albums, Britney's "Baby, One More Time" sold as many as all the BSB albums in North America and was much more successful in Europe. This list is fabricated and no matter how much you cry and whimper like a injured little doggie, or preach about these figures like some heavy Christian does about the bible, you can't alter the facts. Also, The sales for AC/DC's album are far streched, many more albums have been more successfull, regradless of the sales claims. And for the record, the fastest selling album of all-time belongs to the Beatles 1, not the Backstreet Boys, and while he may have the biggest selling album ever, Michael Jackson is not the overall number 1 singer. Elvis Presley has far outsold him.

I don't like this line: "Estimates are thus often made by fan sites". There are obviously problems and inadequacies in the RIAA's counting techniques, but to say that fans can do a better job is preposterous. --Madchester 16:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC's Back in Black album has gone "only" double platinum in Germany in 1999 and is only certified Gold in the UK (2 huge markets). I am sure it has had considerable backsales but even if those account to 1 or 2 million in the Uk (which I doubt) you do not get to an additional accumulation of some 21 milion outside the US. Unless every Australian owns a copy there is no way it has sold 42 million!

Actually pretty much every Australian does own a copy of Back in Black.

NO - actually IT SOLD LESS THEN 1 MILLION down under! so 19 million of them do not own a copy!

It depends how well the reasearch is done. It is possible (probably rare, however) a fan site can do a better job than the RIAA. UrbanCowboyGB 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RIAA covers US only and is based on shipment to retailers - i have looked at RIAA archives on thewebsite and nowhere can i find a list covering the world. I anyone has got that list can it be posted (not from the MJ fan website)?

Despite these references - there is no way back in black sold these numbers. 42 million means 19 million outside US and Canada! Sold about 900K in Australia, 1 million in Germany it was not on the UK best selling album list so has not sold 1.623.000 overthere it is certified Gold (may have sold 1 million). ...you do not sell 19 million in the rest of europe if your not HUGE is UK, France, Japan and Germany B in B gets to 30 million or so!

The Backstreet Boys are far bigger acts than Nsync has ever been at any part of the world, and if you add worldwide sales they are also far bigger acts than Eminem, and are near ties with mrs. Spears. Infact The Backstreet boys BEGAN releasing albums in Europe, so how could nsync, and Spears be far more successful in this part of the world? I actually live in Europe, and they were no where near the phenomenon the BSB was back in the late 90's and early 00's.

Millennium has outsold any Nsync or Spears album by a mile, infact so has Backstreet's Back. Perhaps check the Backstreet Boys article for info on their phenomenal ticket, album and endorsements sales.

Not true. A look at the sales charts world-wide shows the backstreet boys sold nowhere near what they claim, certainly not as much as Britney Spears has. Just because the Backstreet Boys began releasing albums in Europe, doesn't mean they were more successful there than Spears has been, it just means they didn't get a record deal in their homeland at that time. Many bands were making records before the backtreet boys, doesn't mean we can use a similar argument that says "that means they must have all sold more than them". Spears has had a lot more chart success across Europe, as well as the U-S-A. Furthermore, Britney Spears is still selling out tours now, still having more endorsements today than the Backstreet Boys ever did, whereas the Backstreet Boys are now on the list of "Has-Been Boy Bands" and hardly anyone in Europe, The USA or anywhere else buys their records anymore! .. oh and guess what, I live in Europe too, so stop trying to tell me Europe went gaga for the BSB back in the day.. because I was there...

This is not you personal diary that you may write whatever you feel like. So better stop making personal comments and if you don't even have courage to undersign then better don't edit WikiPedia. In good faith, Vivek 02:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It annoys me when people are like the above poster. These are TALK PAGES, not ARTICLES so therefore it is ok to discuss point of view here, that's what this page is for to FIND OUT what is real and what isn't so the ARTCLES are written correctly. I hope you understand and can see the big difrence between the two. Also new editors will not know about the signing, so rather than ASSUME they do, tell them in a normal, nice way, not try and make out they are "scared" too (talk about personal comments and putting what you like here eh?) --- what's this "courage" comment? We are not in the WWE or pro boxers, we don't need to turn this into a Rick Flair VS Hulk Hogan event. Thank you! 74.65.39.59 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what you guys fail to forget is like in the 1960's with the Beatles, the 1990's were the same with the Backstreet Boys. Every girl bought those albums for the same reasons that girls bought Baetles albums, because they wanted to marry the members of the groups. I know the Beatles also had a male audience, but their are more people in the world today than their were in 1967 when Sgt. Pepper's came out. We also must remember that a lot of the Beatles album sales came from singles and EP's, which are no where near as popular as they were in the 60's. AOR became popular in the 70's and we have never looked back. I love the Beatles and I love Sgt. Pepper, but I remember in Middle and High school (i'm only 21...when BSB was everywhere, it was nuts. It is completely feasable to say that BSB sold more than the Beatles. They were also huge around the world also. And remember we are talking about the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America), which means they cover American album sales. In America albums like Led Zeppelin IV and Back In Black have had more staying power than any Beatles album as those albums have stuck with the newer metal fans. Hence those albums have sold just as well today as they did in the 1970's. I mean Dark Side Of The Moon is still on the Billboard charts today and it was released in 1973. Bands like Floyd, Zeppelin, & AC/DC are just more popular over here than the Beatles. That is the main reason the Beatles are so far down on the list. Along with that and that little girls in this country love their teen idols. As for Shania, country is HUGE in the Southern part of the USA and is growing to the North. Kenny Chesney just sold out Madison Square Garden (something not even though possible 5-10 years ago). So country sales are also going to be skyrocketing within the next few years as country moves more and more mainstream. Now according to the RIAA's website these are the top 20 selling albums of all time.

1. The Eagles - Their Greatesy Hits 1971-1975 - 29 Mil 2. Michael Jackson - Thriller - 27 Mil 3. Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV - 23 Mil 3. Pink Floyd - The Wall - 23 Mil 5. AC/DC - Back In Black - 21 Mil 5. Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Vol. I & II - 21 Mil 7. Garth Brooks - Double Live - 20 Mil 7. Shania Twain - Come On Over - 20 Mil 9. The Beatles - The White Album - 19 Mil 9. Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 19 Mil 11. Boston - Boston - 17 Mil 11. Whitney Houston - The Bodyguard - 17 Mil 13. The Beatles - 1967-1970 - 16 Mil 13. Garth Brooks - No Fences - 16 Mil 13. The Eagles - Hotel California - 16 Mil 13. Hootie & The Blowfish - Cracked Rear View - 16 Mil 13. Elton John - Greatest Hits - 16 Mil 13. Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti - 16 Mil 13. Alanis Morissette - Jagged Little Pill - 16 Mil 20. The Beatles - 1962-1966 - 15 Mil 20. The Bee Gees - Saturday Night Fever - 15 Mil 20. Guns N' Roses - Appetite For Destruction - 15 Mil 20. Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon - 15 Mil 20. Santana - Supernatural - 15 Mil 20. Bruce Springsteen - Born In The U.S.A. - 15 Mil

It is not feasible to claim the backstreet boys outsold the beatles. There may have been "less people in the worlds population" when "Sgt. Pepper" was issued but Sgt. Pepper didn't stop selling a few years after it's release like the back street boys albums have, the album continued selling over the decades, meaning that it's sales have grown as the market has grown and it is still selling today, unlike the albums issued by the backstreet boys, which are hardly considered classics. The back street boys success is more comparable to that of new kids on the block, the bay city rollers and milli vanilli than the decades long success of the beatles. 74.65.39.59 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is irelavent if the backstreet boys albums are classics or not, that is not what this article is about, its about sales nothing more nothing less. this article doesnt suggest anything about artistic creativity it is purely about sales! trust me lots of people buy terrible albums all the time good or not. no1 is saying that millunium is better than sgt pepper were just saying it sold as well. No the backstrret boys did not outsell the likes of the beatles because they only had 2 huge albums where as the beatles had say 5. the point is that the two big albums they had sold very well and you just have to accept it be they talented or not, .Realist2 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The point was that Sgt. Pepper has certainly outsold any Backstreet Boys album. The album was not just a huge hit in it's time like a Backstreet Boys album, it is a disc that has continued to sell very well for decades, by the group who has sold the most albums ever. It has easily outsold anything the Backstreet Boys have ever done. Sgt. Pepper sold to four markets - the one in the 60s when the album was a huge hit of its day, then to later fans after that, then again to all those fans who already had it on record when CD's were issued and then again to yet another generation of Beatles fans that began buying music after the CD boom! With all those sales and the size of The Beatles fan base it would be pretty difficult for an album that was only hot for 1 or 2 years to a limited audience to sell more. Ask any record retailer which album they sold more copies of over the years, if you think the backstreet boys would be the most common answer, you’ll probably be very surprised…… 74.65.39.59 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point. The Beatles has more than 5 big albums, they had more than ten. 74.65.39.59 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

My problem is that for some artists the data is taken from fansites mainly and even a post on a talk page. That can hardly be counted as evidence! Especially the talk page! Come on, I can post whatever I want on a forum, that does not constitute evidence...

Recommendation

Follow the format used in List of best-selling music artists. The article groups articles by units sold (250 million +, 100 million + , etc.) This way it gives more room for any margin of error. --Madchester 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to align it with the List of best-selling music artists format. Please fill in each entry with the appopriate sources. Thanks --Madchester 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UT--161.74.11.24 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)C)

I don't like it and I don't understand it. The reason the best-selling music artists list was chnaged to this format is because there was too many disputes about how many records each artist has sold and what the order should be. However, with this list, all the sales figures are official and there hasn't been any major disputes about the order of the albums. The older style was much better than this one. It had image, a consise list, it looked better and everything. Street walker 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the previous layout was less asthetically pleasing; it was simply a long list with excessive wiki-linking. But more importantly, that list lacked references and simply used some umbrella statement "Sales figures listed here are disputed depending on which source you believe" to justify the positions listed. That's just not acceptable, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. According to the Manual of Style: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting." The current layout facilitates the inclusion of proper citations and references, which is the most important thing in improving the article. --Madchester 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Madchester, margin of error? This are exactly the kind of pages that encourage vandalism. I have no idea what your point is. But the other list was much easier to read, much easier to digest and find info and most importantly, less controversial looking. I bet you this page will end up being like List of best-selling music artists , 'one of the most vandalized pages on wikipedia' (& very boring looking). I think this page should be reverted to the other format. I agree with Streetwalker. Any views from others? --161.74.11.24 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, according to the manual of style, layout and presentation are secondary to clear unbiased writing. The List of best-selling music artists was in much worse shape a few months ago when it was simply a Top 150 or 200 list ranking total album sales. [2], [3], etc. The current format actually holds editors accountable for their entries, by ensuring that they provide sources.--Madchester 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please someone to put the first format or I'll do it myself this one is inappropriate. This is albums sales not artists sales, there's no place for such disputes. Also please remove "Album claimed to have sold..." just because ALBUM sales could confirmed thanks to certifications (diamond, platinium, gold,...) in each country so error estimation is weak. Readerweb 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Madchester, citing refrences it not an excuse or a good enough excuse totally change the format. The 1st format can accomodate references. C'mon, look at that page yourself! --161.74.11.24 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The list is good in the new way and the sales for these individual albums are no more "official" than the sales totals that are made up from them for each artist. This list is just as questionable and open to debate as any sales list, be is single albums or artists totals. --165.54.11.21 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC

This page was made by me and I did a very well job but then the page got ruined and then again it's right back to the way it was. it's the way it should be. Thanks to everyone who agree to keep the page my way. It's looks way better. The page should always be this way. Thank You --50cent4 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

May I plese refer you to this: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Note the warning that 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it'. At the moment this article is poor because it is unsourced. The changing to a 'grouped' format would help IF sources are conflicitng or can only provide vague figures - as with the List of best-selling music artists. I would support the current format IF a reliable body could be quoted for all of these claims, or for each one individually. However, you should remember that people have the right - and will - change pages once you have created them Robdurbar 11:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, based on your behaviour in removing text from the talk page, I think I'll revert the main article to the 'goruped' format too Robdurbar 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although, I wonder if there might be a compromise here. Howe about grouping the albums, and then including an 'estimate sales figure' within this. For example:

Albums claimed to have sold 40 million or more units

Artist	Album	Year of release	Genre	Estiamted Sales Figure	Source
AC/DC	Back In Black	1980	Hard rock	42 million
Bee Gees	Saturday Night Fever*	1973	Soundtrack, Disco	40 million
Eagles	Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)	1976	Country rock	41 million
Michael Jackson	Thriller	1982	R&B, pop	60 million	MJ stats site

They could then be sorted alphabetically - as above - or by sales figure, within the groupings. Thoughts? Robdurbar 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This could work but the page will look just like the best selling music artists page. I don't know man. My edits are being removed everytime so...--50cent4 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert the main article to the 'old' format. untill I hear others thoughts this new format won't be excepted.--50cent4 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this could work too. any thoughts??

1. Michael Jackson - Thriller - 60 million (1982) #

It could work--202.168.255.2 15:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and i do understand the differences between the 2 pages; the idea with the compromise is that we have a figure, and we show that its open to interpretation Robdurbar 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Tommy James with Crimson & Clover, Crystal Blue Persuation and a whole slue of others? He sold 100 million records and he doesn't even appear on any of the lists??! wtf?

Like I said before, there is some albums missing on the list. Even RIAA says they couldn't get all the albums sales. They managed to get about 200 albums worldwide sales. I put the top 100 on the list. The rest is over 100. Thank You--50cent4 10:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 50 cent 4 but your non stop claims your list was dead on is not true and that's why the format was changed, and any reverts will continue to be put back to the newer format. You even admit yourself that the list is missing albums and it cannot be used as a definitive list, only a list of claims, like the newer format illustrates.

I believe we should go back to indicated sales per album versus this group listing. Sales claims should be substantiated and not taken from fan sites! Info from official bands/artists sites, certification authorities, record companies and official press releases only. I also think we should not be restricted to the top 100 only!

No, indicated sales per album figures by official sites, certification authorities, record companies, and press releases are no more accurate than a lot of fan sites, hence this group listing here and on the best selling music artists article. If they were more accurate then there would be no debate. The group listing is the best and really only way to do such a list!!

Claims by fansites are driven by emotions rather than facts and should therefore not be used. If your claiming that official sites, certification authorities, record companies, and press releases are not accurate (and i am not saying that those are always a 100% accurate - neither is the verdic of a jury for that matter) then we may aswell forget about the whole issue. Whoever has got the most vived imagination can claim their favorite has got best selling album and we all tag along!

Yeah, and official web sites and record companies far fetch the figures for publicity. As for press releases they are written by people who have the same emotions for singers and bands they like, just as people who make fan sites, it's no different.

That leaves official certication levels only. But based on your though process than the whole list has no value what so ever, as no source can substanciate it.

I guess you guys can do better then me. Thank You --50cent4 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Boston

Boston (album) - according to that, it has 17+ million copies, yet here it is listed in the 20+ million copies. Either it should be moved down to 15+ million, or the correct information should be put in the album article. Andymc 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen

I removed this 'The sales of the two Queen Greatest Hits albums include sales of a multiple-cd box set that contain both albums, each sale of this set adds 1 sale to both albums' these are complilation albums in their own right and are not accounted for within these sales GH 1 + 2 has gone Plat in US, 4xplat in New Zealand etc. Platinum Collection has gone 3 million in europe early 2005. PC has sold 1,4 million in the UK alone. If added then GH would be well above 30 million and GHII be above 20 million. For the record sales level GHII sales level does inc the US canadian sales of classic queen as this was considered that regions version of GHII

Those figures you gave do not add up to 30 million as you claim, most sources state that the 25 million sales is for the sales of both greatest hits albums combined, so no way has Greatest Hits One sold 30 million without the sales of the boxed sets.

I have removed that line again, not because I believe it to be untrue, from personal research I have done, but because their are claims online that the album sold that many and until such a time I can collect all my research and archive it and put it forward, this list will remain based on various claims, not the facts, so therefore I have reverted the article.

Queen's official website 'queenonline.com' (QOL) issued a 'Greatest Video Hits 1 - Official Press Release on **Fri 20 Sep 02**' stating 'Compiled directly from the band’s phenomenally successful Greatest Hits 1 album, which has to date sold in excess of 25 million copies worldwide'.

Queen Greatest hits 1 sold over 18 millions copies in only 13 countries (without counting the sales of Platinium collection and Greatest hits 1 and Greatest hits 2 as box set), which aren´t updated in some cases.

 Some sales:

 UK: 5100 k
 USA: 8700 K
 Korea: 530 k
 Australia: 910 k http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-albums-2003.htm
 Brazil: 250 k

RIIA??

RIIA never released a official data of the best selling worldwide albums, that was one of RIIA's member who gave a fan some of the informations about the worldwide sales of the albums. It list got on the internet and everyone begun to think that it's the official dat of the best selling albums of all time. so do not try to copy that list just find links and put those albums back where they belongs. Thank You --50cent4 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

50cent4 it was you who put that so called list on in te first place and yelled at us al whe we took it off, so I can't understand waht you are saying!

It doesn't matter --50cent4 11:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it dosen't,so why keep going on about it? ...

Especially since the "RIIA" doesn't exist....

Dire Straits

Have moved Brothers in Arms to the 25 million and more section as the source itself states it's sold 25m. --Dandelions 17:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Immaculate Collection sales

In this article, it says that Madonna's The Immaculate Collection album has sold at least 25 million WW, but the source says just 23 million.

I don't know if there's a source for that, but I think I know where the problem you see with the Immaculate Collection comes from. It had sold 23m in 2000 according to WB, it has been selling steadily (and quite a lot!) since, popping in and out of charts worldwide, going Diamond in the US and going for its 11 plat (so there are 2m in the uS alone to add for sure), ever since (it was back in the top 40 in the UK a couple of weeks ago, and it still is top 100, bound torebound up soon). Sure a source stating more (as it's sold between 500K and 1m a year since)is easily found.

Here it is, mazon, who INVARIABLY match their data with the IFPI (to the point that they are more reliable than specialised magazines like Rolling Stone, see the 2005 end-of-year chart published by Amazon 3 weeks in advance of the IFPI, basically ,atching the IFPI with very, very tiny exceptions, alwayd within the 100K!) says'26 million copies' for the Immaculate Collection [4]. Not as official as the IFPI, but certainly much more reliable than the fansites and even forum posts used for an awful lot of other artists on this list. At least Amazon (where the information is accredited in this review) has a a very good record of sales tracking (actually, amongst the non-official sourcesnd by Official I accept only reord companies, the IFPI andhe Guinness Book of Records) it has BY FAR the BEST record.

yes, Amazon are reliable for the simple fact that they are the biggest global retailer of records, and soource their data, not from the iFPI, but directly from the record companies , where the IFPI themselves get the data, because of the nature of their business, they need to know how many copies of an album are in circulation, new and used.

Raphael

"Ayer, Hoy, Siempre" has sold more than 50 millions copies. He won the 'Uranium disc' and Raphael himself talk about that in his auto-biography. Please, check the facts and do not delete it.

Patience...

The 4 major distributors of music in the world are currently finalizing the accounting records of almost 150 different major labels absorbed by these companies in the last ten years. Given time, they will release more accurate sales data from major music markets for all of their biggest sellers.

At the very least, we'll have the RIAA+IFPI+CRIA+ARIA+RIAJ numbers finalized very soon.

Pink Floyd - The Wall

How the hell can the wall sell 21 million copies in the US alone and out sell dark side of the moon in the US and still not make at least the 40 mil mark. I agvree its a double album but there should be some consistency in this list.

That's because Pink Floyd is a double album. The RIAA counts sales of double albums twice, so it is 23X platinum in the US. In reality it has probably sold around 11.5 million copies in the US, which is still ahead of Dark Side of the Moon in the US. However, in terms of an international scale, DSotM has far outsold The Wall outside of the United States.--68.9.189.176 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DSOTM is close to 20 million in the US the album needs to be re certified. the 30 million claim on the wall must be unit sales this album has not sold 20 outside the US.

Destructive Editing

Somebody went through and removed many of the artists and links that a lot of persons efforts went into adding. Here is the old list from another source: [[5]] 60.234.242.196 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fake RIAA List

Many are using the fake list, as reported on the Michael Jackson site [6], and spread across the net as being gospel. RIAA only deal with units sold in America, and not worldwide. No organisation has put together a combined list. Unless an alternative source can de found, which is not a mirror to this, then suggestion is that the entries on the list that only refer to this should be removed. A comparison between 'that' list and what has been determined via Wikipedia's Users research show how non credible a resource it is.

The list was made by Hanboo. [Refer http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20687&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)]. 60.234.242.196 10:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

www.everydayhit.co.uk

The data supplied is non credible as does not match the official BPI site [7]. Alternative links should be sourced also.

Dookie and American Idiot

I'm not sure about American Idiot, but I know Dookie is always around 15-20 million worldwide, so I think that it should be up there too.

Angelfire as a source?

Could someone please remove any album or musician on the list that uses angelfire as a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.22.34 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Almost a category

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the possibilities the system has. So I really don't know if what I'm about to say makes sense. It seems to me that this article somehow agragates a lot of categories of albums, or, in a way, it's like trying to tag albums with claimed sales. Now, I understand that nobody wants to fill the Wikipedia category pool with such 'narrow' categories (even if they can have hundreds of items) - but doesn't it seem to make sense? If we had a category of all the albums that sold X world-wide, and each album's article would hold the citation for that claimed X of sales, then we wouldn't have to maintain this page - it would maintain itself! What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scraimer (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

TLC's CrazySexyCool DID sell 15 million worldwide

Their are sources that say the album sold 15 million worldwide. T-Boz and Chilli even said (back in 2005 on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson) that the album had sold 14 million at the time. That was back in 1995-1996. The album was certified another Platinum (11x Platinum) in 1999, during the time of Fanmail.72.94.46.100 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Metallica

Didn't Metallica's the black album sell over 20 million.

well thats what it says if you go to the metallica discography.

Backstreet Boys

Within this page as well as the wikipedia ones on their main articles - Backstreet Boys, Backstreet Boys Discography, there has been a lot of recent sales data being posted, which goes against what is stated on most websites and sources. These have been generally been wikipedia clones, and made up forum data. Wikipedia is about providing credible references, and as such all such fake references, or references that go against what the majority of sites say will be reversed. For example, 'Millenium'is quoted on nearly all sites as selling over 30m. A new link has been posted saying 40 million. ([8]). Although this is a correct reference, it is not a reliable reference. Refer: [9] where effort has been made to obtain creditations. This has creditations at 20m. Refer: [10]= 30m in 2000 from the groups publicist, [11]=30m, [12]=BBC - 28m in 2000, [13] = 27m in 1999, [14] = 28m in 2000. [15] = 30m, [16] = 28m. Therefore unless there is evidence to the contrary, the figure should stay at 30m. 60.234.242.196 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Millenium NEVER sold 30 million, because only 28 mill cd's were produced !!!

I also doubt they sold that many. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has them at 13 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfan (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous

hi guys.. I just wanna talk about Dangerous.. the album sold over 32 million copies.. then why it's in the list of the albums with sales 25 million,, that's so weird.. that mistake it should be correct.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoondanceR (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Dangerous sold estimated 29 - 32 Million Albums. So, it's not clear, but the Special Edition sold 1,3 Million, so we can take it in the 30+ list !!! It sold at LEAST 30, but it's rumoured that it has sold 33 mill. !!!

AND Dangerous had sold 1 to 2 million Albums more then Bad, which sold 30 mil. !!!

It's in the 30 million category now. I just had to find an actual and quasi-legitimate source that said that. CNN seems pretty good.UberCryxic 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is under dispute. The links that exist based on actual sales show a different story. I disagree that the CNN link is a good link, and I also disagree that the other reference saying it has sold up to 32m, when the same website gives a full sales breakdown and this shows this sold 4 million less that Bad in the major sales markets. Even 29m is likely to be inflated. I also take exception that the reversals are vandalism. Please remember that wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature, so actual data against rushed news reports, hearsay, opinion, over zealous fan claims, forums, etc etc is a better reference. I open this up for discussion and a dispute, and have called in an Administrator. If they believe that this should be accepted as per the new links, then I will abide by their decision. However until such time, this stays as is. 60.234.242.196 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree on the accuracy of the reports all you want. Frankly, I have already explained the only thing that matters: claims. You are being accused of disruption more than vandalism. There are sources that claims Dangerous has sold over 30 million that are legitimate and that's the only thing that matters.UberCryxic 01:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you can accuse all you like. Accusations are not in the spirit of wikipedia. Disputes are part of the process. Please be civil 60.234.242.196 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the link supplied, it says "Michael's Bad and Dangerous albums have each sold in the region of 29-32 million copies, with Bad probably a million or two ahead of Dangerous." It specifies that Bad is accepted as selling two million ahead of Dangerous. It also gives a breakdown of sales for both albums, on the same site as being 29m and 30m respectively. Contradiction in what it is stating. There is no detail saying why there is a variation, and therefore do not consider it a reliable claim. The second claim/link that has been suggested, states it is a rushed press conference. Again, not a reliable claim. The previous links that were there, gave details on their claim, and both were stating the same details for Dangerous. This was 29m. 60.234.242.196 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The CNN source was not quite a news report. It was a conversation on air. Not that it matters too much, but just wanted to clarify that. It's actually worse that it was a casual on-air conversation because it's less reliable. Anyway, the point about claims still stands. Someone on CNN claimed to a tv audience that Dangerous had sold 30 million copies. That's it. The conversation should end right there. Whether it's reliable or not? Take a good look at this article. Over half the sales figures are vastly unreliable. But I've already explained to you that those kinds of opinions don't matter here. This is not ukmix; we're not here to argue until death over who sold what and when and where. Wikipedia generally has lax policies on this, for aforementioned reasons.UberCryxic 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

UberCryxic is correct in his assessment that this is a claims topic, but is incorrect in his assessment that that is 'all that matters'. Acceptance of this change and the reasoning behind it (i.e. all claims are valid) undermines the integrity of the list. Allowing such claims, makes the list worthless as any fanatical fan can find the most obscure claim and reference it. As it currently stands, this list is near identical to the list published in 'List of top 10 Lists 2007' with the exception that they have Elton John - Greatest Hits in their top 10. It also undermines the efforts of all editors who have tried to keep the list accurate. The other issue of concern, is that allowing such controversial claims, then filters through into the discography pages (as UberCryxic has already done) where the claim gets represented as actual sales, onto the album page, best seller lists, then migrates across to wikipedia clone sites like answer.com, reference.com, then picked up by websites and news organisations, and then quoted as fact. I agree with current editors that the basis for claims is not on whether they are sourced, but the integrity of data. The last thing this list needs is fanatical fans to destroy the credibility of the list. Finally, should this be accepted, then it does allow such claims from other fanatical fans to be equally valid to be allowed. Don't destroy the list due to the insistance of one User, as this User will be like all other fans, come, leave their mark, leave. They do not care about the integrity of detail - just as long as their pop idol is represented better. They focus on an individual/group, the editors focus on the overall list of artists. 146.171.254.66 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for presuming to know so much about me. Second of all, you should actually be aware that at one point Dangerous was already in the 30 million mark, but I went ahead and removed it (taking it to the 25 million mark) because the accompanying source did not say 30 million. Now I found a source (CNN transcript) that mentions 30 million for Dangerous. In fact, Access Hollywood also mentioned 30 million for Dangerous in their November 2006 special with Michael Jackson. I was actually trying to find one more source. That does not seem like fantacism at all; I behaved in an overly restrained manner. I was well within my rights to just say "Access Hollywood said it so it must be true," but I didn't. Anyway, again I understand that you are trying to be appropriate and encyclopedic, but the hypocrisy here is overwhelming. Look at this site in the List of best-selling music artists. I don't know who made that, but whoever it was clearly knows absolutely nothing about record sales if the figures cited are even dared considered as true. The point is that because of that site Bing Crosby is placed as one of the greatest selling artists of all time in that article. Tell me, you don't think that's an obscure claim from fanatical fans? Sure looks like it. Acceptance of websites like this actually undermines all of these articles, but that's what we have to work with. Instead of worrying about the claims, we should be worried about coming to a new consensus so that we allow only claims that we can find reasonable.UberCryxic 19:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what is being expressed, and what editors have been doing since this list began. Everyone is aware that the list is not perfect, but it is close to what is being said elsewhere on the internet and publications. Don't ruin everyones efforts by stating that all claims count, as they do not. As for 'Dangerous', it is not that he has not sold 30m, it is that the current sources provided do not stand up as being a better source to the previous one. As for the list of best-selling artists, if a better source is found, it can be replaced. At the moment nobody has bothered to track down a better source. Same with Nana Mouskouri. 146.171.254.66 00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with tracking "better sources" is that, for a lot of these albums and artists, there just simply isn't that much interest in sales. That's why these dubious and peculiar claims are made and end up on Wikipedia. Regarding Dangerous....is Access Hollywood a good source? You might say not, but I think it's a much better source than some of the crap I've seen posted for these albums.UberCryxic 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the same example as the reference for 2PAC sales. It is a reference that is in not on the web, and the editors have to accept the honesty of the person who adds it. It is not able to be disputed as easy, unless someone else knows if it was incorrect. 60.234.242.196 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Access Hollywood? The videos for the interview are on Youtube. They mention 100 million for Thriller, 30 million for Bad, and 30 million for Dangerous.UberCryxic 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

correct. As it currently stands, the reference provided is not good, and should be reversed. Please amend to Access Hollywood. 60.234.242.196 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference provided is fine. No need to worry about that. Youtube apparently removed the part of the Access Hollywood special that had talking them about Michael Jackson's past career. Some parts, especially the interviews, are still there, but not all.UberCryxic 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

the reference provided is not fine. Please find another source, or this will be amended back. 60.234.242.196 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I claim that it is based on the standards of this article and others similar to it. I would gladly provide Access Hollywood as a source but Youtube has removed that part of the segment. You mentioned how you had to take someone's word on a source regarding Tupac. Well, take my word on this. Access Hollywood mentioned 30 million for Dangerous. I'm sure there were plenty of other people who saw that piece (the show is watched by 20 to 30 million people in the US every day). This is not something easy to lie on, just in case anyone may want to question the validity of my statements.UberCryxic 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that the current status has a figure linking to a source that says differently. All you have to do is reference Access Hollywood with detail on when it played on TV, ort the name of the show. It is not an accusation of lies, it is trying to get this sorted out so that the reference matches the source. And since you are they only person who knows the source, this cannot be really corrected by anyone else. Or, as above, it needs to be reverted. 60.234.242.196 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how I would reference Access Hollywood without a link. The special aired in early November 2006. There were several episodes. November 1 was one of the dates. I guess that can be used; can you make the reference?UberCryxic 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With reference to the link used [17] stating 30 - 32m sold. The website owner has apologised for this error, and changed it. He states that after 3 years research and an upcoming book, that the figure is 29m as best estimate currently. He has meticulously derived the details from years of research. This link was for another project he started a few years back, and forgot to fix up. I am therefore of the opinion that this should be changed back. Others please discuss 60.234.242.196 08:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was changed back. Access Hollywood then? If not, CNN is the last resort.UberCryxic 14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

HIStory

At the last standing there were NEVER 16 million !!! There were 18 million at the last standing, and it went on selling till today. Experts think it could have sold 21 Million !!!

Experts thought it could've sold 40 million, but it didn't. The source shows how much it sold. Yeah it still continues to sell, but not nearly enough to move it up to the 20 million list this decade. Maybe by the end of the century. Ayumi4u 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

missing 30 million selling albums

Where have the over 30 million selling albums gone???? Did anybody delete them????? sometimes weird things happen in wikipedia.........

The Wall

I just want to resolve something real quickly....Pink Floyd's The Wall, a double-disc album, is currently included in the 30 million category. This is for unit sales (ie. adopting the RIAA standard of one copy counting as two units, hence the 23x Platinum certification), right? I'm almost positive it is (if it's not, ignore what comes next). Well if that's so, then Jackson's HIStory should also be moved to this category, as its sales correspond to 36 million units worldwide. Furthermore, this MSNB article explicitly calls HIStory "the best-selling multiple-disc album of all-time, with 18 million copies sold worldwide." The Wall has sold about 30 million units worldwide, corresponding to 15 million copies. So there's basically two options....either The Wall gets taken down to that category or HIStory gets taken up to 30 million. Another way of putting it is....do you want to make the RIAA standard international or just go by copies sold?UberCryxic 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And just to add another sort of caveat: those who do want to keep The Wall in the 30 million category and HIStory where it is now will have to address the MSNBC article, which blatantly calls HIStory the greatest selling multiple-disc album ever. MSNBC is not a fan site either; in terms of reliability, it's just about one of the best things here.UberCryxic 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've gone ahead and moved HIStory to the 30 million category. I did this for several reasons. First, I checked the Pink Floyd and The Wall articles and they both mention the 23x Platinum RIAA certification as meaning "23 million copies." That actually means 23 million discs and 11.5 million album copies. So under this standard, and also going by the MSNBC article above, it makes sense that HIStory is the greatest selling multiple disc album ever...and deserves to be in the 30 million category.UberCryxic 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently this article has the standard that a sale of a double-disc album counts as one copy. So I've gone ahead and moved both HIStory and The Wall to the 15 million category where they belong.UberCryxic 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable resources and concensus

Two of the most important parts to wikipedia are being ignored, rendering the article a list with content that is non encyclopedic. The first is uses of sources, where 'reliable' sources are published sources from an expert in that field, or from news sources. Using forums, private websites, and other non rliable sources constitutes failure of policy and should be removed. The second issue is wipikedia policy on 'concensus' where if detail/information is published and reported upon and you use a source that differs from this concensus, then it is again against policy and should not be used. Despite the fact that the subheadings state 'claims', the main article title is an aim to produce a list of best selling albums representation. Maggott2000 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

HIStory

I believe that Michael Jacksons history has sold about 20 million worldwide and i have 3 sources that say so. Should i change anything???... has somebody got anything else to say.

plus, janet jacksons album janet. has surely sold over 20 million correct that!!!

--Sparking sparky 10:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Give the sources here please and we can review them. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit to change of format

This was discussed once before, but without concensus. I would like to propose that the overall chart structure be amended. This is to make it be the article it is reporting o be. Rather than having a 'source' column, this would make more sense to be the 'claim' column, with sources tagged beside it. The reason being is that although it lists the artists it does not show the actual claim, so Users need to go to every link to verify. Also with the ability to now sort the columns, Users can then sort by claim if need be.

Maggott2000 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What somebody could ALSO do that would certainly make it look a bit more professional is restructure the damn thing so it's not in alphabetical order by FIRST name...

no we need to maintain what little reliabiity this article has. we would have madonna fans having a field day. no thank you.Realist2 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What in God's name does that comment have to do with the preceding suggestion???

that is speculation. This article would be not less reliable, and has no relevance on Madonna fans Maggott2000 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Hello everyone! I like to see all your guys' hard work on here. It's very interesting.

But there seems to be three Mariah Carey albums missing from the list (I've added some info from other Wikipedia pages and official websites for sales data):

• • Mariah Carey - 17.5m (9xP-US, 7xP-Canada)
  • Merry Christmas - 16m (5xP-US, P-Canada, IFPI-Platinum, 10xP-Japan)
  • Butterfly - 16m (5xP-US, 2xP-Canada, IFPI-Platinum, OZ-2xP, 8xP-Japan)

Anyone know why they're not included?

Dont worry just a mix up! i'll fix that...

--Mysterious Spy 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkin Park

Hybrid Theory sold 24 million copies worldwide

Meteora sold a little over 20 million copies worldwide

They both need to be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretmo17 (talk • contribs) 02:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Meteora has sold 8.1 million worldwide as of August 2007 according to UWC [18] Maggott2000 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Have found reference for Hybrid Theory as selling 24 million so will add Maggott2000 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Albums

As per the Madonna Discography page. The link being specified is much higher and inconsistant with all the others that report sales data, therefore not reliable. Keeping the data as per discography for consistancy of data Maggott2000 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wall, final comment to end all arguments

The RIAA say that since it is 81 (roughly) minutes long, it counts as a single album. That means 23x Platinum = 23 million copies/46 million CDs. NOT 11.5 million copies, 23 million CDs. I think that should sort out all confusion. In debates people appear to have been discussing things as if the RIAA certification is counting each double-album as being worth 2 sales units each. (The Elfoid 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

So, The Wall should be in the category of 30 million. Christo jones 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, what a situation with Pink Floyd's The Wall and The Dark Side Of The Moon? I have 2 questions. 1)RIAA counts The Wall once, isn't it? Or not? I'm not sure in it, can you show me some official information? 2)Dark Side is fifth best selling album ever? Or second? 4mln additional Soundscan American sales are counted or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus89PF (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Multi-disc albums are counted once for each disc within the album if it is over 100 minutes in length. For example, each copy of OutKast's Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (running time of 134:56) and Shania Twain's Up! (145:44), both double albums, were counted twice, meaning each album was certified diamond after only 5 million copies were shipped."

That's what Wikipedia says on the matter. I know it's correct, but I cannot remember where evidence is offhand.

The Wall's sold 30 million copies globally, that's 60 million CDs. I can't find sources for higher than 23 though, so for now we should keep it as 46, yes. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

LOL! at Britney on the list!

• The album has only sold 12 million worldwide, not 15. The source is some lame list made by an obsessed Britney fan on Amazon. Whoever put that there is some crazed Britney fan.96.227.94.146 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

DEALING WITH MULTI-DISC ALBUMS E.G THE WALL, HISTORY AND GREATEST HITS PACKAGES

We cannot rely on UNITS as a sales figure. UNIT SALES vary country to country. The units figures USUALLY used on Wikipedia are RIAA-official US album sales units. Wikipedia's international, we have to either adopt a huge policy on all pages (complicated) to specify what types of units we're dealing with, or just look at raw sales. Present choices:

• One copy of a 2 CD album counts as 1 sale
• One copy of a 3 CD album counts as 2 sales
• The RIAA concept: 2 CDs under 100 minutes total is 1 sale, 2 CDs over 100 minutes total is 2 sales

So are we talking copies, or CDs sold? Rather than debate individual albums (as has happened several times with The Wall and some others), let us just decide it here.

At present, there's 30 million copies, 60 million CDs of The Wall out there.

So has it sold 30+ or 60+? Michael Jackson's HIStory sold 18.5 million copies, 35 million CDs. 15+ or 30+? At present, The Wall has sold 30 million US SALES UNITS, and HIStory 35 million US SALES UNITS. But we don't deal in them.

(The Elfoid (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Enema of the State by blink-182

It sold over 15 million copies. I added it and someone deleted it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.86.28 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) No it didn't. Around 10 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.60.192 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Millennium

All sites say < 40 million, and the given source goes against said concensus, then it is not considered a verifiable resource. Here is from the internet - BBC News [19] 20 million worldwide (21 January 2000), AJ News [20] 30 million, Geocities [21] 30 million, allpop.com (Toronto Sun) [22] 30 million, Interlink Media [23] 40 million, Entertainment Wire [24] 28 million, Backstreet Net [25] 21 MILLION, Amazon.com [26] 20 million, BK [27] 22 million. Note also on the United World Chart list. that it is #55 on the list. not near the top. An alternative listing has it as largest selling album of 1999 with 23 million sold. The concensus is therefore that it has sold 20 - 30 million worldwide. Not the 40 million one band member thinks they sold. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

the list is wrong

Britney's Oops I Did It Again album has sold over 20 million and her Britney album has sold over 15 million..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.67.245 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)