Wikipedia

Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 42

< Talk:List of best-selling music artists
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Canadianerk in topic Canadian Certified Units in 2021
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Christina Aguilera

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, @Harout72: Maybe some certified units from Aguilera's work are wrong, as seem below. Could you correct them? I'm not sure if the units are based on the date they were certified or if the article method is based on current certification levels even for previously certified songs and albums.

Nyvak (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to this file for Christina Aguilera. If anything is missing let me know. For Italy, you apply the levels based on certification dates. For Germany, you apply the levels based on release dates.--Harout72 (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Carlos Santana 100 million Records Sold Zorekx (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about certifications

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Harout, thanks for the comprehensive reply, I wanted to ask about the Japanese streaming certification that started in April of 2020, is it possible to convert the streams to downloads? Moh8213 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Japan doesn't yet combine Streaming and Digital downloads, therefore,their separate awards for Streaming cannot be included. If in the future they combine Streaming and Digital like Denmark did, then that will be different. Japanese and South Korean certifying bodies are the only ones if I'm not mistaken that keep Streaming and Digital separate from each other. I wish all did that, the Gold and Platinum program wouldn't lose its value because of Streaming.--Harout72 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, also wanted to bring up regarding the citation for the Italian certification system, it says that the online database started in 2009 but certifications existed since the 1990s yet there's few sources listed in this list from Music & Media that shows that Italy was certifying records since the 1980s, don't you think that should be corrected? Moh8213 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes we can change the 1990s to 1980s. The reason I felt comfortable with keeping Italy's certification system's starting era at 1990s is because FIMI has existed only since mid 1990s. Italy, in fact, has certified records even in the 1970s but I'm not sure who the certifying body was back then. But in the 1980s based on Music & Media, the certifying body was AFI it seems, we can go with that, no problem.--Harout72 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Imagine Dragons

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Their US and UK certifications alone are enough to put them on the list.

US - 89.500.000
Radioactive 14X PLATINUM 14.000.000
Believer DIAMOND 10.000.000
Demons DIAMOND 10.000.000
Thunder 9X PLATINUM 9.000.000
It's Time 6X PLATINUM 6.000.000
Natural 4X PLATINUM 4.000.000
Whatever It Takes 4X PLATINUM 4.000.000
On Top of the World 4X PLATINUM 4.000.000
Sucker For Pain 3X PLATINUM 3.000.000
I Bet My Life 2X PLATINUM 2.000.000
Bad Liar PLATINUM 1.000.000
Warriors PLATINUM 1.000.000
Shots PLATINUM 1.000.000
Bleeding Out PLATINUM 1.000.000
Amsterdam PLATINUM 1.000.000
Next To Me GOLD 500.000
Rise Up GOLD 500.000
Walking The Wire GOLD 500.000
Battle Cry GOLD 500.000
Monster GOLD 500.000
Dream GOLD 500.000
Friction GOLD 500.000
Polaroid GOLD 500.000
I'm So Sorry GOLD 500.000
Gold GOLD 500.000
Roots GOLD 500.000
Hear Me GOLD 500.000
Tiptoe GOLD 500.000
Night Visions 7X PLATINUM 7.000.000
Evolve 3X PLATINUM 3.000.000
Smoke + Mirrors PLATINUM 1.000.000
Origins PLATINUM 1.000.000
UK - 10.400.000
Radioactive 3X PLATINUM 1.800.000
Demons 2X PLATINUM 1.200.000
Believer 2X PLATINUM 1.200.000
Thunder 2X PLATINUM 1.200.000
Sucker For Pain PLATINUM 600.000
On Top of the World PLATINUM 600.000
It's Time PLATINUM 600.000
Whatever It Takes GOLD 400.000
Natural GOLD 400.000
Warriors GOLD 400.000
I Bet My Life SILVER 200.000
Shots SILVER 200.000
Born To Be Yours SILVER 200.000
Bad Liar SILVER 200.000
Bleeding Out SILVER 200.000
Night Visions 2X PLATINUM 600.000
Smoke + Mirrors GOLD 100.000
Evolve GOLD 100.000
Origins GOLD 100.000
Continued Silence EP GOLD 100.000

- GustavoCza (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there an actual reliable source that speaks of Imagine Dragon's records sales? You had not provided any source for their records sales in your edits.You also have to bare in mind that the recent few years of certifications are all Steaming generated. Meaning, even if Imagine Dragons have a reliable source that claims they've sold 75 million records, their certified sales should be as high as 125-130 million in order for us to consider to put them on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Update!!!!!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cher is now update to 200 Millions Seller. Can anyone edit this pls? Alex Paing (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Alex Paing (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cher is now official update to 200 Million Seller Artist. Can Anyone edit that?

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lady gaga certification

There are many missing certification for Lady gaga in Australia. And she just gained new certification in Poland: Is that alright - gold

Rain on me - 3x platinum

I'll never love again - 3x platinum

Always remember us this way- 4x platinum

Shallow - 2x Diamond

Stupid love - platinum

Queen's RIAA Video Sales

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

According to this 2019 article posted by the RIAJ for the 33rd Japan Gold Disc Award, Queen have sold 94,338 videos as of 2019. So RIAA has 90,000 certified video sales for Queen, but they aren't listed in the RIAJ database? I'm curious as to if these 94,000 videos could be countable on the certified sales doc that Harout72 has set up, and what these 94,000 sales could be from. I'm starting to think more and more that RIAJ database is a bit unreliable. ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The Gold certification level for Videos in Japan is 100,000 units. Meaning, unless a Video reaches and passes the 100,000 units there, the RIAJ won't certify it and naturally won't be in their database. The 94,000 units that you're seeing in the article you linked, is the sales figures for all Queen's videos combined. But I'm not sure why the album sales are so low in that article. Queen's certified album sales stand at 2.250 million.--Harout72 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I begin to think that we should put Queen with 300m claim and 200m claim at the 250m club. It feels weird to see their 167m certified sales only against 200m claim while their music career since 1973.Politsi (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm biased towards letting Queen into the 250m club, but I think it's fair to consider that one of Queen's largest markets (Japan) did not have certified record sales until after the release of 13 of Queen's 15 studio albums. That could partially explain why their certified sales in Japan are comparatively quite low. But that's just heresay on my end.
If anyone is up to discuss the legitimacy of Queen being given a 300m claim and a 200 m claim, I'm up for it. I think [little spreadsheet] I've compiled of sources claiming 300 million sales would help in that discussion. 167 million certified sales (56% of 300 million) is well within the margins provided for artists who charted before or during 1973. Compare this to artists like Kiss (28.4 million certified of a 75 million claim, 38%) and Donna Summer (31.2 million certified of a 100 million claim, 31%). Queen's 300 million claim would fall about in-line with Aerosmith's 150 million claim (87.1 million certified sales, 58%). Comparing Queen to other best-selling artists with chart debuts in 1973-1974 helps justify Queen's 300 million claim, especially considering the number of reliable sources providing such a sales claim.
I'm all ears. ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 14:12, 04 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if Japan has been one of their biggest markets. Can't argue. But the main reason why Queen's upgrade has been decided to be done when their certified sales are at least around 175-180 million is because their recent four years of certifications are largely streaming generated. The other artists that you mentioned including Aerosmith haven't had their certified sales grow based on streaming in the the recent few years as we've see that with Queen. That said, Queen's certified sales were 128 million before the release of Bohemian Rhapsody, it has grown by some 30% since then mainly due to streaming, not pure sales. But their 300 million will be implemented as soon as they're at 175-180 million with their certified sales. Too bad the 250 million stated in this source sounds more like about Freddie Mercury's records sales than Queen's. Otherwise we could use it now. As for Kiss and Donna Summer, they're basically on the list due to the 30% requirement, those are the lowest figures we've found for them, otherwise Donna Summer could easily be downgraded and Kiss removed if there were lower claimed figures for them.--Harout72 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I think I understand where you're coming from now. 175-180 million units should be achievable in the next 5 or so years, so it's a matter of waiting at this point. Streaming definitely dominates over Queen's physical sales since the release of Bohemian Rhapsody. It's a shame that the RIAA didn't create certifications until 1989, else Queen would likely be well above 170 million certified at this point. Sorry for being a thorn in your side with all my ramblings about Queen, I really do sound pushy now that I read over my messages.
As to Japanese interest in the band, here's a decent article from Nippon covering the band's impact (and the box office performance of the movie in Japan). If you can cut out the fluff, it's a good read. ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 04:03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where is iron maiden on this list? They are well past 100 million physical sales worldwide. 2001:56A:76B9:D500:309F:8C21:4A13:5F8 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Uniformity

Latest comment: 2 years ago76 comments8 people in discussion
  • Beatles 1962 48%
  • Elvis Presley 1954 46%
  • MJ 1971 61%
  • Elton John 1969 65%
  • Madonna 1982 60%
  • Led Zepplin 1969 47%
  • Pink Floyd 1967 49%
  • Queen 1973 83%
  • Eagles 1972 76%
  • Whitney 1984 73%
  • Celine Dion 1981 68%
  • Billy Joel 1971 80%
  • U2 1980 75%
  • Barbara Streisand 1963 66%
  • Bruce Springsteen 1973 79%

Harout, I think it’s important that this list projects uniformity. I feel as though the uniformity may be missing when it comes to artists that chart in the same era versus their claimed sales. Why do some artists who have charted in the same era have different claimed sales, even though they have a higher percentage of available certification in accordance with IFPIs market share to support their claimed sales? This entire list I thought was based on IFPI’s market share. If that’s the case, why isn’t it reflected here? Might I suggest adding a rule to apply a certain percentage for artists chating in the same era, or a decade, or 5-year span, or something like that?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You're forgetting that we are using claimed figures that are available and/or published. You don't expect us to make up sales figures when there are no sources supporting them, do you? Also, we do have a rule, I'm not sure if you're aware of that. The details are posted at the top of this page, see the second yellow box from the top. Additional percentile needs to be added based on the year each artist has begun charting.--Harout72 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of the rule but I'm not uniformly seeing its implementation. For instance, Celine Dion has charted in 1981 and has 136.1 Million available certifications, which is equal to 68% of her 200M claimed sales. Whereas Madonna who began charted in 1982, just 1 year later, has 180.1M Available certifications which is equal to 60% of her 300 Million claims. Here is a Forbes article that says she has sold 220 Million worldwide. There are similar articles with a higher claimed sales for other artists like Queen, Bruce Springsteen, and Whitney Houston.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Celine Dion may have begun charting in Canada in 1981, but remained pretty much unknown to the world until 1990, whereas Madonna's international success began as soon as she released her first album in 1983. Your Forbes article speaks of 220 million albums, not records. You said you're aware of the rules, I assume you're aware that articles should speak of records (albums, singles. videos) and not just albums. As for Queen, it's been discussed in the past as to when the 300 million records will be implemented for them. You can open up a separate discussion thread for each artist you have in mind. The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white. There are things that should be considered when upgrading the figures.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Media is often known to report record sales as album sales. Here is a source for her 220m claims. Charting one year and peaking in the same decade won't be the case for most artists. The album sales will probably be most inconsistent with its certifications as well. Let’s use the same example with Elvis. The total available certifications of Elvis Presley from the USA is 199.150M. My question is how much of these certifications happened in the 50s and '60s?. Per this page, 27 million out of his 199.1M certifications are for the records released since the 2000s. Don't you think the 40% minimum requirement in these situations is a bit lower for him?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikiholic, I have to admit that this discussion is making me crazy. I hate math and this discussion has forced me to do some. If there was a Nielsen SoundScan in every country back then selling records, at least in biggest markets, this discussion would not exist. Correct me if I am wrong here, or if I appear to be grasping for straws. In regards to Elvis and according to this page, 39.5million available certifications from the USA are for the records released between 1978 and 1999, correct? 76.5 million for the records released between 1968 to 1977, correct? If these things are correct, then perhaps there is too much consideration being applied here and Elvis should be increased to 50% or higher, and that would mean the same would apply to the Beatles too?
I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation. Now does this mean that rules should change from artist to artist? It shouldn’t mean that. The same rules should apply from artist to artist based on the sources available.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I Think the page that I mentioned above is not accurate. My apologies for citing that page. But I couldn't find much difference between these numbers even when searching the database of most of the available certification bodies. At least 21.1M units of available certifications for Elvis Presley's total available certifications (228.6M) are for the records released since 2000, and 23.6M available certifications are for the records released between 1980 to 2000. Precisely at least 44.7M out of 228.6 M total available certifications are for the records released since 1980. And this figure doesn't include most of the sales of his singles released/reissued during this time span. Harout has said Celine is an artist of the 90’s and she should have at least 67% available certification for much higher claimed sales. My question is how can we use the 40% Minimum requirement for Elvis Presley, while 44.7M units of his available certifications are for records released between the 80’s to 2020s?. If we calculate the total certification for the records released since 1970, I guess logic tells us that will definitely cross 100M very easily.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
TheWikiholic, the minimum requirement for artists that have begun charting before 1973 is 30%, and Presley has that. Presley's 118.5 million US certified units of his entire 199.1 million US certified sales are for releases between 1954 and 1973, that's 23.7% of his 500 million claimed figure. I have no idea what you're trying to do with your calculations. The rules we have are complicated enough for most people.--Harout72 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Harout, how is having 118.5M available certification from 1954 to 1973 gives Elvis the minimum requirement of 30%, while the remaining 110.1M certifications are from 1974 to 2021?. Only 13.5 (10 Million albums 3.5 million singles) out of this 118.5 million certified between 1954 to 1973. It's barely 3% of his claimed 500 Million. You read that right, only three percent. There is one more instance of this article's lack of uniformity. It was in 2010 Madonna's claimed sales lifted as 300 Million. Her available certification was 153.3 back then. It was 51.1% of her 300 Million claimed sales. It took 11 years for her available certification to reach 60%. You allowed her to use the 300M claimed sales for 11 years until she reached that point. Why? A few weeks ago you removed Frank Sinatra, an artist who began charting in 1939 from the list by saying he needs 5.8 Million more certifications to meet the minimum requirement of 30% for 150m claimed sales. Why do some artists get 11 years of privilege and consideration to be on the list and others do not? There is no uniformity here and I’m only pointing out the facts to fix this, not to accuse you of POV, or for any other motive for that matter.— TheWikiholic (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiholic, if I were you I'd read everything multiple times before asking multiple whys and hows. Is the minimum requirement 30% for artists that have begun charting before 1973, yes it is. Is Presley's 500 million claim supported by 30% or more certified sales. Well, let's see, he has 228.6 million certified units, that in fact is 45.7% of the 500 million. 1) Since you believe that Presley has sold only 13.5 million singles/albums between 1954 and 1973 based on your research, and you believe that he should be removed from the list entirely, so Michael Jackson (your favorite artist) possibly can take the 2nd place on the list. 2) since we have rules and requirements which you're not happy about and you obviously believe that I'm here manipulating and preventing the list from improving, for those reasons I think I deserve to be reported to ANI. I certainly would report anyone who's as unfair as I am.--Harout72 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought wikiholic’s last sentence made his intentions clear, but perhaps I’ve missed something. Wikiholic, do you think Elvis should be removed from this list completely? Have you stated that before? I’v been following along and I’m still unclear on a few things. I’d like to know how was a consensus reached to use the 30% figure for artist pre-1973? What supporting evidence(if there isn’t any, I’ll settle for logic) based on? What about artists charting between 1973–1990, why are they required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units? I know that Elvis’ certifications, or any artist pre-1991 for that matter in the US certainly don’t represent an artists possible sales for that time, but Elvis really wasn’t selling that well in the 60’s when compared to the 50’s and then again later in the 70’s. In the 60’s he had flop record after flop record. According to RIAA he really was only certified in his biggest market with 10 million sales from 1974 onwards. I haven’t seen it asked here yet, Why is a higher percentage required for Michael Jackson when he in fact began charting in 1971? These are only clarifying questions, to help me better understand what’s going on here. I’m not requesting anything but knowledge.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Michael Jackson did not received any certifications until Off the Wall era in 1979. He indeed began charting in 1971, but all his releases prior to 1979 were non-factor saleswise. His first album was certified gold by RIAA in 2013. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but to my understanding, this is about charting, not certifications as far as when to consider an artist’s percentage. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, those albums have certainly been certified now(some of them), but then? No. But again, I thought this was just about charting. There are many artist who charted in 60s like Barbara Streisand and Elton John and artist who have charted in early 70s like Queen, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen who also not given the 30% figure. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
TruthGuardians, the supporting evidence is that the US has generated at least 30% of the global sales before 1973, the numbers are coming from the IFPI. The definitions on the main page also clearly explain as to why the required percentage for certified sales goes up in the 1980s and 1980s: The more recent the artist, the higher the required percentage of certified units; this is because more music markets instituted certification systems after the 1980s and 1990s.--Harout72 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't the figure 20% up to two months ago? Can you please show the IFPI data that specifically says that the US generated at least 30% global sales in 1973? I’ve been searching for it, but not come across it. Thanks, Harout.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's focus on this: if we take as true what Harout72 has said, that the US generates at least 30% of global sales (before 1973, after that the percentage has decreased). But even if we set a fixed percentage of 30% for the whole time span, then Michael Jackson, whose certified sales in the USA are 150.3 million, his 100% of worldwide sales should be 150.3/0.3=501M. The main point here is not about increasing Michael Jackson's sales (I personally find them high enough). However, the Elvis Presley’s 500M estimated sales are straight up unrealistic resulting from news sources that have been taking inflated figures for decades. It is something that has simply been constantly repeated.

And please, it's not about whether someone is a Presley fan or a Jackson fan, it's about improving this list by being more objective. A week ago, I was advocating that the flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan can no longer be called just the "Flag of Afghanistan" and that does not mean that I am Taliban. Let's stop labeling each other.

In this reference, which was published after Elvis’ death (but at least it is prior to the exaggerations that the Internet has contributed to on many occasions) it is said that Elvis Presley sold 260M records during his lifetime, and in this reference from 1997 (also prior to the omnipresence of the Internet) it is said that he sold 100M records after his death. That makes a total of 360M records sold up to 1997. After that, it is simply impossible that Presley has sold 140M records from 1997 to the present day. I think that, taking into account his certified sales since 1997, and applying a percentage relation of certified and estimated sales similar to that applied to an artist who started his activity since 1997, we could set Elvis Presley's total estimated sales figure at 400M (being even generous, but at least bringing much more realism to the list). In addition, in this way, the figure would be equal to that of Michael Jackson, in order to avoid additional conflicts. Both with the same estimated sales figure. I think this is something that should be corrected once and for all as clearly the Presley issue undermine realism to this list, which, on the other hand, is really accurate regarding the position of the vast majority of the artists that it contains. Salvabl (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Harout, I've read everything multiple times and that's exactly why I'm constantly asking questions. According to RIAA (not me) Elvis Presly only had 13.5M units of certification (not sales) from 1954 to 1973. This means that the remaining 215.1 M available certifications are received after 1973, correct? So how is it possible to give the 30% minimum requirement for an artist who had only certified 3% of his total certification within this period? The 30% minimum requirement, if you choose to still use that, should be only applicable to the 13.5M certification which happened between 1954 to 1973, not to his total available certifications after 1973.
Truthguardian, I don't think that there is a source that specifically says the US generated at least 30% global sales in 1973. The 30% minimum requirement came from the IFPI Market share of 2002. According to IFPI, the US generated 30% global sales in 2002. There is no other earlier data of market shares available, hence why we are using the data from 2002. Two months ago we have been using the IFPI market share of 2010. According to it, the US generated 20% global sales so the minimum requirement was 20%. How is the list going to be realistic when we use the same data of market shares from 2002 for artists from 1958-1973?. I'm sure that the US generated at least 60% global market share in the 60s. This is exactly why 88% of Elvis Presley's total available certifications are from the USA. Moreover, Elvis Presley is a US-oriented artist, which is why he certified 185.65M units since 1974 while only having 17.7M units certifications in the UK.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
That’s it! You’ve managed to put into perspective one of the things that was a missing piece for me. So, let’s give pre-1972 artist a 30% figure. Fine. But shouldn’t that only apply to the years prior to 1972 only and not afterwards for the obvious reason why they to apply to artists after that? And would this same logic apply to the Beatles too? What is that math if we were to calculate the claimed sales as being discussed here? TruthGuardians (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree. You are exhaustively analyzing the issue, and no doubt this is going to contribute to a more realistic list. The thing to keep in mind is that the more things that are wrong show up, the more it becomes clear that Elvis' estimated sales are too high and unrealistic. Of course, it may affect other artists, but certainly the one who has benefited the most (which is unfair to other artists) from these inaccuracies is Elvis Presley. Having said that, a first step that could at least lead to a more correct positioning of Elvis Presley on the list than the current one would be to set the Elvis Presley's estimated sales at 400M adding the news sources I mentioned above, since the 500M estimate should be treated as unrealistic in the same way as the Elvis' 600M or the Jackson's 750M. Then the list will certainly gain realism and accuracy. Salvabl (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you're forgetting that there is a certification fee that record companies need to pay to the certifying bodies to get their products certified. The certifications aren't automatically popping up in the certification databases once the albums/singles/videos reach the Gold and Platinum certification levels. RIAA charges $350 to record companies that are members, non-members are charged $450. For that reason, you should not set RIAA's database based on certification dates when trying to determine how many albums/singles Presley has sold before 1973 for example. You need to go with release dates, which will bring up all the albums/singles that have been released before 1973. You need to find out whether those records have sold enough to reach the required certification levels. Pay close attention specifically to the year 1992 for Presley's certifications in RIAA's database, there is a huge number of 1950s, 1960s, 1970s albums/singles that have been certified that year. That's because the certification fees were submitted in 1992 for all those albums/singles, not because Presley wasn't selling those records in the 50s, 60s, 70s and all of sudden everything started selling in early 1990s. As for the 30%, it applies to the certified sales collected throughout their career, not to those records released before 1973.

As for why Presley's UK certifications are only 17.7 million, it isn't that low because only the US was generating sales in the 50s,60s, but because the UK didn't have a certification system, just like most of the countries. Therefore, albums/singles were selling in other parts of the globe without getting certified.

The 30% requirement for certified sales set before 1973 is the least we should have based on IFPI data between 2002 and 2017. Based on those 15 years of data, the average music sales the US market has generated on a global level has always been over 30% or slightly below 30%. Again those who are not familiar with any of this, the US was the only market that had a certification system before 1973. Suggesting that the 30% should apply to those records only that were released before 1973, that approach isn't applicable as the claimed figures we're dealing with are modern day publications for artists' entire careers.

@Salvabl, you're suggesting 400 million claimed figure, remember that we cannot just make up sales figures as we desire, they need to be available to us.--Harout72 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you say. I had proposed setting Presley's estimated sales at 400M so that the figure would be the same as Michael Jackson's. Anyway, we have to keep in mind that, for example, Jackson's 350M estimated sales come from news sources from 12 years ago, and that these are figures that were asserted years earlier. Many references to the estimated sales of other artists and bands on this list were also published even decades ago. Consequently, I tend to agree with you that we cannot create our own estimated sales figure, but what we can do is a mathematical sum (mathematical sums are also done to get the total number of certified sales). With the two references I mentioned above (1; 2), it can be established the estimated sales of Elvis Presley at 360M, and the figure would be supported by news sources. If anyone has a problem (although I really can't understand it) with Michael Jackson having a higher estimated sales figure than Presley (although on the other hand Jackson also has the 350M figure, which indicates that he may have higher or lower sales than Presley) we could even remove the Jackson's 400M estimated sales figure, leaving only the 350M figure, and the 360M estimated sales figure for Elvis. Whatever the case, the priority is to remove Presley's unrealistic 500M figure. It is simply an exaggeration so often repeated that it has been covered in news sources. If we decided to add Presley's 400M estimated sales to this list, we can be sure that within 1 year news sources would appear endorsing that figure. We have to fix this situation as soon as possible, because if in the future Michael Jackson's certified sales were to increase further (who knows if there might still be unreleased songs to release new albums...) and reached 260M or 280M, and on the other hand, news sources kept repeating estimated sales figures of 350M (which is the highest figure Jackson had on this list until very recently; figure that, on the other hand, seems realistic, it only seems really low compared to Presley's 500M), then his estimated sales could never be increased because news sources would be handling more modest (and realistic) figures and not inflated (and unrealistic) as has happened with Presley's estimated worldwide sales. This would not be a problem regarding Jackson, it would be realistic. The problem would be if we keep the 500M figure for Elvis. We have the opportunity to bring more realism to this complex and very necessary list. Salvabl (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
We can't combine two outdated sources to get 360 million, that's not how it works here. The second source you're proposing is from 1997, while first speaks of records sales up to his death. Presley has collected tens of millions in certified units after 1997. Just 23 million in the US and 11 million in the UK. That's for the releases after 1997. He's collected many more millions combined from other parts of the world. So if we had a recently published reliable source that claimed 450 million for Presley, I'd agree to add that next to his 500 million. But your suggestion cannot be done here. And the 500 million isn't far fetched for Presley.--Harout72 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Harout, There are certifying bodies that certify records automatically. for example, BPI certifies records automatically if the records were released in 1994 and later. They are working now to automatically certify the records released pre-1994 as well. As for the payment for the certifications, I hope you remember the latest 600k+ certification of Jackson's three singles in the UK which happened last week? They didn't charge me a single penny. All I had to do is to send a few emails to BPI. So I just want to say don't exaggerate these things as media do for Elvis’ claimed sales. I set RIAA's database for the certification as a case study for two reasons: One, it is the largest market in the world and for Elvis Presley. There is no other market that Elvis performs as well. Not even close. Second, the RIAA is the first industry to certify albums and have an online database. RIAA charges $350-$450 for all artists. Elvis getting a large number of certifications in 1992 is because his estate paid the certification fee in 1992, according to you and what you’re implying. My question is if there are 13.5M Elvis records certified before 1973 and much more between 1974 to 1992, were these certifications automatic? Didn't they pay a certification fee for these records to get certified? Moreover, a number of the Elvis records certified in 1992 were previously certified in the 70s and 80s, so there is no need to go by the release date. That’s not logical. Please don't make such lame arguments. You are saying the 30% minimum requirement applies to certified sales collected throughout an artist's career not just for the certification collected for a specified period, in this case, 13.5M for Elvis Presley. So my question is why do you make arguments such as Celine Dion is an artist of the 90s and Frank Sinatra sold throughout the 90s till his death and can't be considered an artist of the 40s as well?. If an artist certifies 5 million records in the 50s and certifies another 25 M records in the 90s will you still call him the artist of 50s and give him 100m claimed sales?
Elvis Presley's 17.7 million UK certification is low. 185.65M out of 199.1M of Elvis Presley's total available certifications is coming from 1974. Britain had certification systems since 1973 if he was so big there, he wasn’t, it would have been reflected there as well. This proves Elvis Presley is a US-oriented artist like Garth Brooks. How is the least 30% requirement for certified sales set before 1973 based on IFPI data between 2002 and 2017 apply to then? The data of IFPI says the US generated a 20% market share as of 2010. It was 30% eight years earlier in 2002. Based on those 15 years of data it's very clear that the US-occupied 60 to 80 percentage of the global market share in 1950.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no. I have to say that the 30% application beyond 1972, especially for new release material after that year, ain't sitting right with me. Especially with Nielsen SoundScan from 1991 and beyond capable of tracking sales virtually in real time. If Elvis sales in the 90’s should count as the same as is sales in the 50’s and 60’s, the Jackson’s “Got to Be There” should experience the same treatment as certifications for that album took place a few years ago. Chartmasters’ figures are starting to make more and more sense to me now. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@TheWikiholic, Don't make such lame arguments? Really? Not only you're being disruptive for refusing to get the point but you're also being uncivil. BPI's certifications have only been automatic in the recent few years. All certifications before regardless of market included a fee. As I explained in detail above you need to set the RIAA's website based on release date, the certification were not automatic. The certification fees are submitted by record companies. Celine Dion's case has been explained by me, so has Frank Sinatra's. I also explained why UK's certified sales is low. Stop circling around the same thing over and over. Presley's estimated records sales up to his death were 260 million. Where do you think he sold all those records? In the US only? Wrong, all over the globe. Presley was most definitely not US oriented artist. He has certifications coming from everywhere, and most definitely cannot be compared to Garth Brooks who's success is US oriented. Presley's 500 million isn't anymore exaggerated than Michael Jackson's 400 million, so stop wasting your energies. Unless, you can come forward with a lower claimed figure for Presley, published recently by a reliable source (which by the way, would only be added next to his 500 million, without removing the 500 million), it's pointless to continue this discussion.
Finally, while I won't participate in this futile discussion anymore, the parties involved in removing the 500 million to make Michael Jackson look a better artist, will be reverted and taken to ANI for disrupting the list and edit warring if the latter occurs also.--Harout72 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Harout, Wikiholic is not being disruptive, he’s asking legitimate questions. The only circling taking place are you refusing to source your responses. The 30% obviously does not Apple to the 50’s and 60’s it’s obvious it’s for the 21st century. You have to source for that. You have yet to make sense about why this should apply to post 1973 sales. It shouldn’t. If it should, you should be able to source that, you can’t. Elvis’s claims aren’t inflated, they’re just wrong, they are higher than the math would lead to if counted accurately, and so are the Beatles. The only thing making sense here is what every other editor have said. Any reliable sources you are finding with sales figures are sourcing Wikipedia, this page probably, and this page is wrong! That means the articles are wrong! This feels all too intentional and systematic. Fancypants786 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I just emailed IFPI, and a representative there just told me that the 32% in global market shares listed on their website for the United States is in fact for today’s shares, not the shares from the 1950’s-1960’s. The representative said that they will get back to me next week after performing more research and seeing, but off hand, they believe the market shares for those two decades were 51% or higher for the United States as the market was a lot smaller then, with only the UK as any real competition sharing the market with US. More to come on this later. This has seriously taken a wild turn. More to come on this later I guess.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Harout72 I think we have to remain respectful among all of us. Debates are always enriching. You have said that the user TheWikiholic is being destructive. If we look at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, it reads that “Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.” Well, there are several users here who are providing good ideas, and are analyzing the present issues of this list, and it is you who is continuously opposing it. Let's be clear, I'm not claiming you're being disruptive, but I don't think you're right to accuse any of them of being so.
Focusing on the Presley issue, the reference I previously provided states that Presley sold 260M records in his lifetime. I have provided that reference because I consider plausible its addition to the list, but I equally consider that it is an inflated figure (one of the least inflated) as already in 1977. Here you can find another reference from 1972 stating that Elvis had sold 200M records. Does that mean he sold 60M in the last 5 years of his life when his popularity was lower than ever before in his career?? On the other hand, you have stated that “Presley was most definitely not US oriented artist” and you had to select a Country music icon like Garth Brooks to try to reduce the Elvis Presley's US-orientation. That's like if in the Basque Country you compare the degree of Basque orientation of any Basque singer to a Bertsolaritza singer.
Last June you stated "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." That's just your opinion, and to me (I say this with all due respect) it seems like a completely unrealistic exaggeration. You set the figure for "certified sales that there should had been" at 50M simply because since the UK market represents about 10% of worldwide sales, only then you can attempt to justify the 500M estimated worldwide sales. Honestly, the difference between 17.3M and 50M is too great. In addition, in the past, the British market represented a significantly higher percentage than it does today. I'm from Spain, I'm from a provincial capital, but in the 60s and 70s if you weren't living in Madrid or Barcelona you couldn't even find a Beatles vinyl anywhere. That is why the 500M figure is another inflated Elvis Presley's sales figure, which the press has continued in repeating. You are now defending it by saying that “the 500 million isn't far fetched for Presley.” while later you suggest that Presley's 500M and Jackson's 400M are both exaggerated. I consider that you are contradicting yourself. You are the greatest contributor to this list (it's not a compliment, it's a fact) and I think you really must know that the 500M estimated sales figure is unrealistic.
Anyway, everything indicates (you have said it) that you do not want to continue with this discussion (which you have qualified as "futile", when on the contrary it is probably one of the most important music-related discussions that are taking place on Wikipedia). You are of course free to stop participating in this discussion, but we are also free to continue it. I think you are exploiting the defining characteristics of this list to avoid changes that you do not support. However, the list does not restrict the possibility of an estimated sales figure supported by two references (this is entirely plausible for an encyclopedic text), nor does it state how old or recent such references must be in order to achieve greater objectivity. As I said in my previous message, some references come from decades ago, and if it is possible to replace them with more recent references it is because the corresponding figures are replicated in the news sources. And the reason for such repetition is its presence in this list. This case is special and requires specific attention. That is why, if we do not remove Presley's estimated sales figure of 500M, the same will be happening with the news sources. Whether we set his estimated sales at 360M or 400M, we will be bringing greater realism and accuracy to the list.
Finally, I would like to say that Wikipedia should be, first and above all, a democratic place. And I think that phrases like "so stop wasting your energies" constitute, at least from my point of view, a contempt to other users. We are Wikipedia users and we can decide this change, as it does not contradict or alter what the list is by definition. In your last paragraph you state that some parties could be taken to ANI for disrupting the list and edit warring. You would be the one who would be incurring in edit warring if you revert the changes that we can reach agreement on here.
I firmly believe that from this discussion we can open a door to further changes resulting from future corrections of the list's current issues that users are exposing, and therefore I consider that the decision to remove Presley's 500M estimated sales is a good first step to provide more objectivity and realism to this list. Taking into account all that has been previously exposed, I propose that users state whether they support this change to set Presley's estimated sales at 360M by providing the above references (The Guardian & The Irish Times), keeping Michael Jackson's estimated 350M sales figure, in order for his sales range to make it possible to alternatively regard both musicians as "the best-selling solo music artist". Salvabl (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What is all this nonsense? The stats cannot be uniform because the methodology was never uniform—not ever. TheWikiholic appears to be looking to give Michael Jackson an injudicious boost. Don't try to insist on uniformity where it makes no sense. Let Harout72 carry on with this thankless work (thank you Harout72 and Politsi and all the steadfast caretakers) which none of you would wish on your worst enemy. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Jackson’s number or claimed sales won’t change as a result of this. It will remain the same. However, it does appear as though the Beatles and Elvis will result in lower claimed figures. If that raises jackson a spot, then it happened and happened rightfully so. I’m still waiting on the representative from IFPI to get back with me, he seems to be under the impression that market shares averaged about 51% in US in 50’s, and 49% starting mid-60’s for an overall average of about 50% market share. The representative have already made clear that the 32(30)% is only used to represent market share as it has averaged over last 2 decades.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It is too easy to label something as nonsense and then talk about the impossible-to-achieve uniformity in the methodology to defend leaving things as they are now. You have thanked Harout72 for his work (I think it is great that users thank each other for their contributions). I have labeled him as the greatest contributor to this list (and I take this opportunity to extend my gratitude also to Politsi and any other user who has contributed to the present list). He is the greatest contributor to this list, but he is not its owner. There are also other users, and they also have the right to decide on changes. The user TheWikiholic is not trying to injudicious boost Michael Jackson's estimated sales in any way, as neither am I, since, as I said before, 400M seems to me a high enough sales figure and in no moment I have proposed to increase it. This is not about boosting Jackson. What I have proposed is the removal of Presley's 500M estimated sales figure, as I firmly believe that it is the only way we can provide the list greater realism and objectivity. Salvabl (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Who ever so chooses to drop out the discussion does not prevent a consensus from being reached on property that belongs to Wikipedia and no single author. I will continue to debate, dropout, or reach a consensus as I deem fit. I encourage other editors to do the same. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Salavabi explained it very well. Even if Harout is the leading contributor to this page he is not the owner of this page. If Harout doesn't want to continue with this discussion which he qualified as "futile", he is free to stop participating in this discussion, but we are also free to continue it. If we reach a consensus it will be implemented here. Like Salvabi has said using the phrases like "so stop wasting your energies" constitute, definitely, contempt to other users, and his comments related to disruptive editing and warning to revert the edits by other editors is kinda threatening. This list is a Wikipedia page, not a personal blog belonging to Harout. So we will have to follow the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia.
@Binkersternet you just said it. the methodology that has been used here was never uniform even though the artist has charted in the same year. And it should be uniform and I was pointed out along with other issues. Instead of giving Michael Jackson an injudicious boost, as Harout gave to Madonna one of his favorite artists in 2010 by lifting the claimed sales to 300 Million, even though Her available certification was 153.3 Million that is 51.1% of her 300 Million claimed sales. He allowed her to use the 300M claimed sales for 11 long years. Similarly, he let Elvis Presley use the 600M claimed sales without using a single source mentioning his 600M claimed sales from 2009 and allowed to stay till June 2021 and allowed to circular report this figure. And what is this Binksternet? Aren't you the same editor who tried to reduce the claimed sales of Whitney Houston to make Madonna look much better?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, stop your nonsensical rhetoric once and for all. For your information I don't have a favorite artist, your accusations about me giving a boost to Madonna in 2010 when the page had not gone through any significant developments is yet another one of your disruptive behaviors. Yes, wikipedia has guidelines and they will quickly be broken by the parties involved when reliable sources are removed and replaced by hocus pocus consensus generated figures. Binksternet is right, the list cannot be 100% uniform as there aren't reliable sources for every additional 10 million claim. Some claimed figures are lower/higher than others for the artists that have begun charting in the same era.

@TruthGuardians, how are you at math? Of course what your suggesting is going to affect Michael Jackson.

Once again, removal of reliable sources on the main page and replacing Beatles and Presley's figures with senseless sales figures to specifically make Michael Jackson a better artist on the list will result all of the involved parties reported to ANI.--Harout72 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

But there are no reliable sources that suggest the math should be the way it is. I’ve confirmed half of that already with the page’s main source, IFPI. This discussion was probably going to ANI anyway to be honest, but I am not convinced this falls in your favor, Harout. Also, sales is not what makes an artist better than the other. I would like to think their artistry does. Truth be told, as far as artistry is concerned, Elvis may very well be the weakest link in too 5. Definitely is the weakest link out of the top 3. I don’t know the history between you and wikiholic, but any personal animosity should not affect other editors or the betterment of this article. I look forward to doing just that.TruthGuardians (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Welcome back to the discussion Harout72. Realiable sources? There are many "reliable sources" that claim that Michael Jackson has sold more than 750M records worldwide. However, that figure should not be taken into account because it is exaggerated. However, as of last June Presley had estimated sales of 600M. Is that impartiality? The references I have proposed to add are reliable sources and provide less inflated and less unrealistic figures than the 500M currently listed. This is not about news sources, this is about the figures contained in them. Anyway, you are threatening to report parties involved in possible changes to ANI to try to impose your opinion and prevent changes that you do not support. If a democratic majority of users support the removal of Presley's 500M estimated sales figure.. can't we make that change? You are one person, does your opinion have the same (or more) weight as that of several people? Salvabl (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@TruthGuardians, while you're at it, I suggest you confirm what percent of the global sales the US generated for all of the decades, not just in 50s and 60s, but also in 70s, 80s also 90s. And be prepared to provide a scan for e-mail exchanges. Michael Jackson is most definitely going to be affected. Unless the average percentile for all of the decades combined is determined, the percentage of the global sales the US has generated in the 50s and 60s cannot be applied to releases after those decades. The entire certified sales of artists in question will have to be taken into account as certifications have not been automatic in the US. As for whose favor the ANI report will go in, we'll let the administrators decide.--Harout72 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair deal. I think there is already info on IFPI market shares for top 15 countries from the 80’s-now. And to be fair, it supports the numbers for all artist on Chartmasters. I know chartmasters is not a reliable source here, but I think this is on IFPI’s Wikipedia page, I may have found it elsewhere, but I think it’s fair to ask for the other decades too. I certainly will do that upon their next reply to me. I think ultimately what happens if the information provided turns out to be as expected, I think Beatles remain number one but with only about 425-450 million claimed sales, Jackson will probably nudge out Elvis between 20-40 million more records. Madonna stays put but claims lowered to about 250million, Queen takes Elton John’s place, and I’m still unclear about Rhianna being in the top 10, so I can’t speak on that. I don’t know enough about that scenario. Nonetheless, it is fair I ask about the other decades, so if I get that chance, I certainly will.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So there won't be any misunderstanding between any of us, I want to clarify something here. The percentages for the rest of the markets as we currently have after 1973, will not be ignored, they will also be taken into account for artists that have begun charting after 1973. Also, their non US certified sales will not be ignored, those certified sales will also be taken into account. In other words, we will be raising the requirement percentage for all those that have begun charting before 1973. So the 30% will become roughly 40% for those that have begun charting before 1960, and between 35-40% for those that have begun charting before 1973. Those that have begun charting after 1973 as Madonna for example as you mentioned above, will also be adding the IFPI percentages for markets as we currently have, to the top of whatever US certified sales they'd need. And their entire both US and non US certified sales will also be considered. So again, those that have begun charting after 1973 will be using their non US certified sales also. Roughly, it will look something like this. We're going to have to determine the average US percentage required for certified sales based on whether an artist/band has begun charting before 1973 or 1960.--Harout72 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculous. I've been an active member since 2009, and trust me Binksternet and Harout are among the most neutral editors in music-related articles. Calling them out as Madonna fans is really funny considering their contributions to Madonna articles are pretty minimal. Also, Binksternet was the one who against using the inflated 20 million claim for Madonna's Ray of Light. Anyway, I have said it before and I said it again that we can not take today's certifications in face value anymore since streaming have completely affected the figures. If we look back to 2015, when streaming barely used for charts:[1] Elvis had 208 million certified units, MJ had 174.3 million, Madonna had 165.8 million, and Whitney had 111.2 million. Lately, both MJ and Whitney (Sony Music artists) have a massive certifications update for their past catalogue. Meanwhile Elvis and Madonna have not get the same benefit. Hence, this percentage debate is absolutely non-sense! Wikiholic, TruthGuardian, and Salvabl are only interested to push the agenda that MJ is the best-selling soloist of all time, that's it. They wouldn't really care about this list overall, the way Harout take care of it all these years. The same users also have issues on Honorific nicknames in popular music due to the use of "King of Pop" for other artists, they didn't care for the overall article. Salvabl removed the "best-selling solo artist" claim on Elvis page, when in fact it was coming from Guinness World Records. If the Guinness is so bad, then why don't remove all their records from MJ's articles as well? That being said, I against any reduction for other artists claimed figures to uplift MJ. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I removed the reference to Guinness World Records in Elvis Presley's article was for a matter of uniformity. It is not coherent that in the same line in which it is stated that Presley has sold up to 500M records, a reference to the GWR is added in which it is stated that he has sold 1 billion records. And this is not about boosting Michael Jackson. In any case, such changes would have consequences that would affect all artists and bands on this list, not just Jackson. As I have previously said, I even support removing Jackson's 400M estimated sales and establishing 360M estimated sales figure for Presley if we thus remove Presley's unrealistic and inflated 500M figure. Salvabl (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Harout, ever since you lifted Madonna to the 300M club, there were many claimed sales changes for many artists. The one billion figure for both The Beatles and Elvis Presley have been reduced to 600M and Jacksons' 750M claimes have been reduced to 400M and later 350M and again to 400 M. Queen has been removed from the 250 M clubs in accordance with the existing rules. But you never touched the claimed sales for Madonna, even though certifications were very low for an artist to be where she was placed, and let it remained that way for 11 years. There are many talk page archives showing the now self-claimed neutral editors pushing for the 300M claim for Madonna. If this is not favoritism what is? Truthguardian, I have no issues with Harout. I'm actually impressed by the way he updates the article with the latest certifications. I have expressed this many times in the past. My main concern here is how Harout imposes his views onto other editors when this is not his article! Maintaining the article in no way gives an editor ownership of Wikipedia’s property. The rules are meant to change when they have been found to be incorrect or not working as they should. He alone doesn’t get to decide what’s right or wrong, but he seems to think that.
About these new proposed changes by Harout: I don't think there’s any need to have two different minimum requirements for an artist that began charting before 1960 and 1960-1973 as there was no certifying body that existed besides RIAA. The minimum requirement should be reduced in accordance with the increase in the number of certifying bodies that began to certify records sales. There should be a different minimum requirement for the artist who began charting in the 30s and '40s as they missed certifications in a market where 50% of global music sales were generated.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Lol, because Madonna's label and management is not as desperate as those artists, who put out unbelievably inflated figures everywhere. 750 million claim for MJ vs 300 million claim for Madonna is not even remotely comparable, the former is just too highly inflated. Even the Chartmasters (whose admin is MJDangerous, an MJ stan) have Madonna's record sales at 328 million pure units. Don't try to act like Madonna has receive special treatments in this page. There are sources claiming 350 million and 335 million for her, but we all ignore them. Stop trying to portray people as biased to fulfill your agenda to uplift Jackson as the best-selling solo artist. Enough! Bluesatellite (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I have my concern over why we should take the year of the first charted record instead of the year of the first certified record into consideration while proposing new changes. Binkerset(maybe blue satellite) brought this to my attention earlier in the conversation which got my wheels turning. I see the year for the first charted records as not being taken for face value when we take M. Jackson, Celine Dion, Queens or any other artist. However, I have noticed that the year of first record to be certified being given a great deal of consideration. I also want to clarify my overall position on the list. I believe most artists in the top 10, including MJ, Beatles, and Elvis all have their claimed sales too high. Beatles at 600M, Elvis at 500m, and MJ at 400 million. I think MJ and Elvis are both around the 350 million mark and Beatles at 425 million mark, but per the current rules that we are discussing, I do believe that this list is accurate for the most part. The problem isn’t so much with the list, as it is the rules, but we’re getting there.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@BlueSatellite “Stop trying to portray people as biased to fulfill your agenda to uplift Jackson as the best-selling solo artist.” How can that be possible if I am proposing to leave the Top 3 like this (The Beatles: 500M-600M; Elvis Presley: 360M; Michael Jackson: 350M)?? “Stop trying to portray people as biased“ You are the ones who are labeling as Michael Jackson fans anyone who proposes any change that you don't support. It is argumentum ad hominem. Salvabl (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I’m not seeing the bias either, but personally do believe that those claimed sales you suggest for the Beatles are too high, Salvabl. Are you able to put their figures in an equation like format so that I am able to see how you conclude Beatles remaining so high? Also reading BlueSatelite comments above, I have no idea who is in charge of Chartmasters, but MJDangerous I believe is a chat admin, nothing more, if that to be honset. Also, I see where chartmasters have Madonna at 241 million in sales, not 350. Finally, I’ve never believed that fans of any artist could not be impartial. Sure there exist those that can’t, but also there exist ones with common sense, not so blinded by the celebrity, but live in reality where facts rule.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
You don't even know the different between Album-Equivalents and "records". Please go back to Chartmasters and read their methodology carefully. Bluesatellite (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I actually do. I would also appreciate if you not tell me what I do and do not kno, thanks. I see now you’re referencing the figure that combines Studio Album Sales+OTher LPS Sales+Physical Singles Sales+Digital Single Sales. My apologies for being at work and reading your comment to quickly. I also see MJ at a 442 total and Elvis at 438 total. Also, this list is about 4 years olds, while Madonna and MJ will probably increase a bit more, I’m not seeing any evidence that Elvis will add much to his total.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

If we look into the list's history we can see the recent certifications received by Michael Jackson and Madonna, and on the other hand those received by Elvis. It was not my intention to participate in this extended debate, but I think that, now more than ever before, the problematic surrounding the estimated sales of Elvis is being addressed. He has always been a heavily mythicized artist, and that makes it very difficult to find accurate references to add. I agree with Salvabl, I also support swapping the 500 million records sales of Elvis for 360 million records (certainly much more realistic), although I propose that, at the same time, the estimated 600 million records sales of The Beatles be removed.-Awvazquez (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Those that keep proposing replacing Presley's 500 with 360 should stop doing that. The 360 million is a combination of two very old references with the second speaking of Presley's sales until 1997. If the third one existed that illustrated Presley's sales after 1997, then we'd have something to discuss here. But since Presley has accumulated tens of millions of certified units, in fact close to 50 million after 1997, I don't see how the 360 million can keep on being suggested here. By the way, 40% of 500 million is 200 million and Presley has that.

As for the artists that have begun in the 30s, and 40s, we won't need any specified percentages for them as RIAA didn't exist before 1958. We can't verify those early records, that's why the main page states The following is an independently verified list of best-selling music artists (those with claims of 75 million or more record sales) from the second half of the 20th century to the present. However, those that have begun charting in the 50's should have a separate percentage requirements from those who began charting in the 60s. The US market share begins to decline in size on a global level starting 1960s (we'll wait for detailed averages for each decade first, if we can get them at all). The qualifications of the claimed figures should still be determined based on overall available certified sales coming from all markets, not just the US. The claimed figures we have are for global sales which include records that haven't been certified either because the certification fees haven't been submitted or haven't quite sold 500,000 units to reach the Gold level in the US. But mainly is because records have sold sold in other countries before 1973s without sales being captured by certification systems, because nobody other than the US had a certification systems. We're only going to raise the initial/US requirement bar.--Harout72 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to use this reply message to apologize to you if in my previous statements I may have said something rude to you or your work on this list. That was never my intention. I wanted to be firm in my message because I think it is legitimate what I propose, but above all, I appreciate the cordiality and respect between users. I hope you did not feel disrespected because of my statements.
I understand what you say, of course it would be better to have more recent references. But as I said before, there are many estimated sales figures that have their origin decades ago, but since they have frequently been repeated later (one of the reasons for that to have happened is their presence on this list), today we have relatively recent news sources stating them. Nevertheless, in 1972 it was claimed that Presley had sold 200M records. Does that mean he sold 60M in the last 5 years of his life when his popularity was lower than ever before in his career? No. What it means is that even the more modest and older figures were inflated. But there is a difference between a tolerably inflated figure (360M) and an intolerably inflated figure (500M). Additionally, the list does not establish how old or recent the references should be, if we also take into account that the objective is to provide the list with a more realistic and therefore more accurate estimated sales figure.
@TruthGuardians Effectively, The Beatles' estimated sales figures are also exaggerated. However, we must take into account the globality of The Beatles and also that the higher the certified sales, it opens the possibility of higher estimated sales. It is a fact that The Beatles' certified sales (unlike Presley's) are higher than Jackson's. For that reason, and due to the difficulty of finding references including lower estimated sales figures, the Top 3 could be as follows: (The Beatles: 500M; Elvis Presley: 360M; Michael Jackson: 350M) or (The Beatles: 500M; Michael Jackson: 350M-400M; Elvis Presley: 360M;) making it possible for both (Jackson & Presley) to be considered "the best-selling solo music artist". If, in any case, you have ideas that could improve The Beatles' estimated sales figures (other references, use of margins...), please make your proposal. Salvabl (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am one that does not believe that the “reliable sources,” which have been reporting inaccurate figures for decades anyway should be given more weight than the math here. I think that if there was a standard equation to follow, even pre-Certification system, which means we will probably be looking at 2-3 different equations depending on the artist, then we should go with the more logical math side of things. In fact, working together, these sources that present any other numbers that we don’t agree with(like the billion in sales figure) can be considered [Wikipedia:Deprecated sources]. This has been done before as I’ve come across information that bans sources and authors from being used as reliable sources on a subject. The only instance where this cannot be used are for factual claims. Claimed sales figures reported by anyone source are considered factual. Furthermore, there may be a couple of Wikipedia rules that allows us to take this route in putting basic arithmetic above the requirements of a “reliable source”, when every single article out there conflicts with one another (WP:APPLYRS). One rule would be WP:CALC. Just so as long as there is a consensus. This doing this will not be considered OR, again, just as long as there is a consensus. There is also one other rule that due I am unable to find right now, but in short, it basically says that this is a route that can be taken under these similar circumstances, when it’s up to the editors to gain consensus on what an article(s) is unclear about.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Salvabl, Presley's popularity has not declined in the 1970s, where are you getting this? Have you even gone over his US certified sales just to see what's going on? His 1970s albums/singles have generated over 70 million certified units in the US alone. His records (albums/singles/videos) released after 1980 have generated close to 50 million certified units just in the US. These are only certified sales, the actual sales are always more for those artists with such a huge catalogue like his. Presley's sales cannot be lowered, we don't have a lower claimed figure, and I already pointed out that his certified sales very well supports the 500 million by 45.6%. That is not a joke for an artist that has begun charting in the 50s and still has his 500 million supported by that much certified sales. If you guys want to lower Michael Jackson's figure, that's up to you. But The Beatles also have their 600 million covered by 47.5 million certified units. That's in fact quite impressive also for a band that has begun charting in 1960s. We all have to remember that the records were selling everywhere in the developed world without getting certified. In the 60s the US represented only some 50% of the global sales. The rest of the 50% were being generated by other developed markets.--Harout72 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
"His 1970s albums/singles have generated over 70 million certified units in the US alone." That's a whole decade. Besides, Presley died in 1977, and consequently his sales increased. What I said before is that it is impossible for him to have sold 60M records from 1972 to 1977 (until before his death). If he sold +70M records in the US in the whole decade (including the sales boom after his death), most probably his sales outside the US didn't even reach 10M. We just have to take into account that as of today of the 229.1M certified sales worldwide almost 200M are US sales. For that reason, if we take into account estimated sales figures such as the 260M claimed in 1977, then in order to be able to claim that today his estimated sales are 500M it would be necessary for his certified sales after 1977 outside the USA to be higher. Sales in the USA have already been correctly captured. But the reality is that their certified sales outside the USA are only 29.45M (and that includes big markets like UK, Japan, France, Germany...). Madonna "only" has 180.1M certified sales, but almost 94.5M correspond to sales outside the US. Jackson has 93.6M certified sales outside the USA. I will not mention Elton John because he is not American. Madonna and Jackson are American, but they are artists with a proven and indisputably greater global reach than Elvis. But leaving all that aside, 500M estimated sales is too much for Presley's 229.1M certified sales (of which almost 200M are US sales), and also 500M would be too much estimated sales for Jackson (even if his certified sales are 243.9M, 93.6M of them are sales outside the US, and his globality is greater). We have to avoid inflated and unrealistic figures for all the artists and bands on the list, not just Presley. There are probably more cases that need corrections, but Presley's is the most obvious one. Salvabl (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
If Presley's first two decades of records sales were captured by certification systems outside the US, his non US certified sales would have been very different, very high. His first two decades were very successful for Presley. When we have those IFPI averages for all decades, when the bar for US requirements is raised, I can't do it now, I need a clear e-mail with IFPI logo and everything, because that's going to be used as a source. When we have done all that, I propose this, we will take both your sources including the one that speaks of Presley's sales up to 1997, and we can place them right below the 500 million. And next to 360 million, in small fonts we'll state Sales up to 1997. But we won't be removing any other claimed figures for Beatles or Presley. I will, however, be removing Donna Summer, Beach Boys, Linda Ronstatd entirely, as they will not be able to stay on the list with our new 35-40% initial requirement.--Harout72 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think that Elvis certified sales really would have been that much higher. 1) Non-English speaking countries really didn’t take to Elvis. 2) Not only was the world population smaller in the 50’s and 60’s so were the amount of available music markets. 3) Elvis isn’t one of those artist that I’ve ever heard anyone say “I learned the English language because of his music.” I’ve heard that about Madonna and Jackson, which is one of the reasons why they are global powerhouses. I tend to agree with Wikiholic to a degree. Elvis is an English speaking country artist, though he said a US artist, he sort of is, just not to the degree that the likes of Garth Brooks is. His appeal is limited as I think the story of his available certifications in non-English speaking markets tell as Salvabl mentions. Harout, when I get the final response, I’ll pass it along, didn’t expect one over the weekend, and although IFPI is centralized in London, I believe, may not get a reply tomorrow as it’s a holiday in US. We’ll see.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Elvis sold fairly well in Scandinavia, Brazil, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe. He made a special effort in Italy.[2] Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Harout, Elvis wasn't constantly selling throughout the 60’s or 70’s. Even his Wikipedia page says not many of his records performed well from 1967 to 1973. English music or artists in the 50’s and 60’s were not exposed to the global audience like the artists and music from the 80’s and 90’s. As I said earlier, Elvis Presley's 17.7 million UK certification is low when taken into account the larger picture here. 185.65M out of 199.1M of Elvis Presley's total US available certifications is coming out of 1974. 102M out of these 185.6 Million comes from 1992. Britain has had certification systems since 1973. If he was so big there, then there would have been a proportionate increase in his UK certifications as well. Arguments such as his record labels didn't pay a fee can be applied to literally any artist. IFPI’s data shows that the US generated a 20% market share as of 2010. It was 30% eight years earlier in 2002. Based on those 15 years of data it's very clear that the US-occupied 60 to 80 percentage of the global market share in 1950. This is one of the main reasons why artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna have only 50% to 60% of their total available certifications that are from the US. And this is why an artist from the 50’s and 60’s have 70% to 80% of their total available certifications that are from the United States. Does that make sense to you? This is why I'm asking to raise the minimum requirement of the artist from 50’s and 60’s to 50%, the 70’s and 80’s to 60%, and the 90’s must be 70%. Harout, you say there is no need to have separate minimum requirements for artists that charted in the 30’s and 40’s as “RIAA didn't exist before 1958. We can't verify those early records.” We are not verifying their early records here. We are only calculating their claimed sales by verifying their total available certifications. That’s all we can do.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be going very long. I don’t think this is going anywhere. I feel like we must abandon all of these calculations and assumptions based on the market shares and available certification, and just use recent claims covered by multiple independent reliable sources and give the top three artists their 1 billion claimed sales. At this point it will save a lot of time. Fancypants786 (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering the development of different markets, the degree of globalization throughout the 20th century and other cultural factors, I agree with TheWikiholic to raise the minimum requirement of the artists from 50's and 60's to 50%, the 70's and 80's to 60%, and the 90's to 70%. Fancypants786's suggestion to add the 1 billion claimed sales to The Beatles, MJ and Elvis would certainly bring equality of treatment to the Top 3 on the list, but it seems like throwing in the towel on the quest for greater accuracy for the list. Anyway, we could also add the 1 billion claimed sales, keeping (and adding) more reasonable and realistic figures. I'm also in agreement with Harout72's suggestion to add the annotation Sales up to 1997 next to the 360 million records sales of Elvis, although Salvabl is also right about many current claimed sales on the list being decades old. But surely if Elvis Presley's sales were 360 million records in 1997 it is impossible for him to have sold 140 million records from 1997 to 2017 (which is the year of the references claiming that Elvis has sold 500 million records). 140 million records in 20 years is impossible and unrealistic; and therefore the figure of 500 million records is unfair not only to Jackson, who is the artist in the nearest position, but to all the artists on the list.-Awvazquez (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
We're not going to use a requirement of 50% for artists that have begun charting before 1950s, we're going to determine an average percentage for those begun charting in the 1950s and before 1973. Just because an artist has begun charting in 1950s and the US represented some 55% of the global market share, it doesn't mean you take 55% and apply it to their releases in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. The US market share keeps dropping in size further into the 60s (45-50%), 70s (40-45%), 80s (35-40%), 90s (30-35%), 2000 (25-30%). Therefore you add all percentages representing each decade and divide it by as many decades as you're dealing with. And that's the only workable, applicable system we can have. As for Presley's figures, since there isn't a third reference which covers Presley's sales after 1997, and there isn't one source that puts Presley's estimated sales lower than the 500 million. The 500 million cannot be replaced simply with just 360 million, because the reference number two speaks only about sales of up to 1997. And Presley has sold tens of millions of records after that. So our only option is to add the two references representing a total of 360 million with a note next to it "Sales up to 1997". Based on Presley's available certified sales and the 360 million and the 500 million, let the readers decide.--Harout72 (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
For your information, according to Nielson SoundScan, Elvis Presly has sold 19.07M between 1991 to 2002 and 37 million as of 2014.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Also 7,280,000 certified units from BPI for albums released after 1997, and his digital singles there combined stand at 4.6 million. Millions certified units more from Germany, Canada, Australia, and all other markets combined for releases after 1997.--Harout72 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Presley's sales are still big numbers even today (that's a fact), but Madonna's and Michael Jackson's sales since 1997 are much bigger even if we look only at the last 5 years. Presley has had great sales from 1997 to 2017 (and to this day) but he has not sold 140M records during that time period. Are all estimated sales figures really out of date from the moment they appear? Jackson's 350M estimated sales figure appears in a multitude of news sources (those that opted to include realistic figures, and not exaggerated figures such as 750M) in 2009. And as for the 300M figure, it is even older and has been on the list until last June. It's the same with the other artists and bands on the list, but it's not a big deal considering that estimated sales are just that: estimated. They are not exact, and are often upwardly estimated (the 1972 reference is an example of how immediately after Presley's death the estimated sales figure during his lifetime rose to 260M), therefore I don't know if it is really correct to include the 1997 date explicitly, as it could seem like affirming that it is impossible that he has sold less than 360M records at the present time. Because then we could include the date next to other estimated sales figures on the list. However, this case must be handled carefully and the best is if any change is the result of common consensus; and your recent messages clearly show your disposition to reach agreed changes. For that reason, I do not oppose the explicit inclusion of the year 1997, but I think it would be more accurate if it read “Estimated sales as of 1997”, as this reduces the rigidity of the figure (either to think of higher or lower numbers at present). We are clearly heading in the right direction to make the list more accurate. Salvabl (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m seeing progress. With all due respect to the editor, Fancypants, that presented the idea to add a billion to the top 3, please be a little more constructive than that. That’s not happening. We are trying to make this article as fair and realistic as possible. I agree with a little bit of what every editor here have presented. Wikiholic, I agree with your views on Elvis and your minimum requirements throughout the decades. I agree with Harout’s “up to 1997” and annotation suggestions. To be honest, I will concede to what ever the majority does, until more information(sources) is revealed or found. We’ll see how far we can go.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
TruthGaurdians, I have watched you do some amazing work and participate in some very productive discussions, AFD’s, etc. I tend to side with you. And wether you realized this or not, I’ve followed your edits for over a year now. When I made that suggestion, I did so before any of the progress was made above. It felt like it wasn’t going anywhere. Admittedly, I didn’t know much on this topic, which is why I sat in the wings watching. I do feel a little more knowledgeable thanks to this discussion and others and I too felt like this page needed work and some type of uniformity. I’ve since concluded that the Beatles and Elvis claimed sales are too high. Regardless of what sources support their claims, I don’t feel like the numbers do. I jumped in on this conversation when I felt like TheWikiholic was a victim of false accusations of certain editors when his concerns were in fact legitimate and I wanted to see how this discussion ends. TheWikiholic has put into perspective a few things that I do agree with. I agree with their minimum requirement and I agree with their statement when they said, “We are only calculating their claimed sales by verifying their total available certifications.” I never knew that claimed sales of artists were so complex. It’s shameful really. Fancypants786 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the minimum requirements throughout the decades as TheWikiholic suggests, and what has been suggested here on how to treat the issue of Elvis' claimed sales. I think it's correct to include an annotation explaining that the estimated sales figure of 360 million records is from 1997, since in the future other realistic figures could appear covering up to the present time. However, as I see it, the most appropriate annotation would be Estimated sales up to 1997. Other than that, with that annotation added, I think the 500 million claimed sales should be removed from the list since it's inflated. The situation is just that we lack realistic current claimed sales for Elvis, so we could include only the 360 million claimed sales and maybe in the future some news source would publish new figures.-Awvazquez (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I find it ironic that all these users who previously involved in discussion to support the use of 180 million for Janet Jackson despite her minimal certifications (very low percentage to the claim), but now passionately oppose Elvis Presley's sales for being "unrealistic" and "inflated". Any non-involved editors would easily see the agenda. Regards Bluesatellite (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, that was Janet’s page, not this page, supported by countless reliable resources let’s not pretend that Janet isn’t one of the, if not the most, under certified artists in all markets worldwide. A lot of this may have to deal with her old record labels, but none the less, the likes of Rhythm Nation has not been certified since 1992! And it’s a lot worst for the rest of her major chart toppers. In the past, you were pushing for Madonna to have claimed sales of 300M even though she had only 51% available certification to support her claims at the time. Going by that logic, if we consider 50% for Janet as well, the 160million claimed sales all of a sudden becomes more realistic. In fact, it was my run in with you there, that brought me here months ago. So while you found you think it may be “ironic,” let me assure you that it was to be expected.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The model we're going to have is this here, but I cannot move forward with the changes yet as I explained above. We're trying to bring the initial requirement bar up to bring more accuracy to the list not chaos. We cannot set the requirement bar violently high which will automatically damage the list. Wikiholic's suggestion for later years is pretty much what we currently have on the current model (see the second yellow box from the top on this talk page). Also, there is one important factor that everyone should be informed of when suggesting/agreeing with unrealistically high requirements. The US certification levels for singles until 1989 have been unreasonably high with Gold being 1,000,000 units, Platinum at 2,000,000 units. While artists with moderately large catalogue could have shifted 700,000 to 800,000 units on each of their ten singles until 1989, the 7-8 million would go on their resume without being certified. Because RIAA would only certify those Gold at 1 million units. In fact, the reason why RIAA dropped the level for singles in 1989 is because record companies were constantly complaining that the certification levels for singles were set very high, therefore, very few singles were getting certified.--Harout72 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I have never been involved in any discussion supporting 180 million claimed sales for Janet Jackson. I think Janet Jackson, maybe because she is Michael Jackson's sister, has been over-praised; and I find the 180 million claimed sales for Janet Jackson (whose certified sales are only 52.8 million) as unrealistic and inflated as 500 million claimed sales for Elvis Presley.-Awvazquez (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at Janet’s certification with the RIAA alone. You will find that worldwide, she’s extremely under-certified. The “because she was Michael’s sister” argument is just not true. If that was the case then why wasn’t Rebbie, Latoya, Jermaine, Tito, Marlon, Jackie, and Randy as successful as Janet? Shouldn’t they have been since they too were Michael’s siblings? I agree that based on the current available certifications, that may be a little too high, but it’s not unrealistic when you start to deep dive her lack of certifications, and if she was given the same treatment as Madonna was who was allowed to sit at 300million claimed sales with 51% of her certifications matching that figure.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not that it relates to this discussion but just to point out, the 52.8 million certified units (which is what Janet has) is only 29% of the 180 million records. Of course, all artists have certifications, the fees of which have not been submitted, but surely the 70% of artist's records sales do not go uncertified, especially when an artist has begun to chart worldwide in 1986. I think Janet also has a 160 million claimed figure out there, well her certified sales would only be 33% of the 160 million. Madonna's 300 million is currently supported by 60% certified sales. Elvis has his 500 million supported by 45.8%.--Harout72 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
What you say about Janet is accurate based on the current available certifications. What I forgot to mention is if her certifications were up to date, it’s expected 2 albums will be Diamond in the US alone, and some of her singles will prove to be multi platinum. Based on conversation that her fans have had with Nielsen SoundScan and other record sales trackers around the world, Janet is probably under certified by a total of up to 15-30 million records worldwide. As we know, A&M records sold to PolyGram which later sold to Universal. Janet Left A&M records for Virgin records. Ran into relationship issues with Virgin, and the the Super Bowl happened. She later started her own record label, and there’s been a lot of paper trail lost in the process and these companies have been lax on certifying Janet. Janet could ask for a certification herself(https://twitter.com/riaa/status/1227705133192171520?s=21), but I just don’t think she cares about them as much as her hardcore fans.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Yes, pointing out the relation of certified sales to estimated sales is always appropriate in this discussion. However, before focusing on the estimated sales of Janet Jackson or any other artist or band on this list that will need to be discussed, I think that in order not to extend or turn into cyclical this already lengthy discussion, we should close the chapter on Presley's estimated sales so that we could move on to other topics and avoid its possible constant reappearance. I think that afterwards we will be able to have enriching and new discussions regarding the different suggestions that have been made by the users, which can certainly help to improve the list in the future. Having said that, I think we can conclude that there has been enough consensus for the addition of the Elvis Presley's 1997 estimated sales figure of 360M (with The Guardian & The Irish Times as references, and adding the note "Estimated sales up to 1997" next to it), but that there has not been enough consensus to remove the 500M estimated sales figure. I believe it is important to maintain a positive debate atmosphere, and I would like to thank the users for their contributions and ideas. It is necessary that we all (myself included) avoid transforming an enriching discussion into a war (it has not happened here). For that reason, the best changes are always those that result from consensus and concessions in our positions. Although my initial proposal was different, I think the addition of Elvis Presley' 360M estimated sales figure does improve the list, mainly because it adds valuable information to see things with more perspective. It is a contribution, and therefore please Harout72, if it is possible, proceed with its implementation to the list. Salvabl (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No objections from me. And for the record I don’t want to make this about Janet at the moment, but I don’t believe her sales should be bumped to 180 million based on available certs.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Elvis 360 estimation (until 1997)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Maybe you can use the Elvis references like that, I get alittle bit confused by it. [a]

Not working here. But it's like the one used in the certification table of the Christina Aguilera (album)'s article. In the US sales amount of 9,235,000.--88marcus (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Long lives the King". The Irish Times. August 9, 1997. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
  2. ^ "From the archive, 17 August 1977: Elvis Presley dies and the age of Rock is over". The Guardian. August 17, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
99% of the people do not click on the notes, therefore, we don't want them to think that the 360 million is there representing Presley's overall sales. I'll make it shorter Est. sales as of 1997.--Harout72 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right. ;)--88marcus (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Oasis

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Harout, need your help to keep looking at their certified sales. I have a feeling that they should be on the list now. Thanks https://newgelora.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/05/27/noel-gallagher-would-reunite-oasis-for-100-million-pounds-liam-said-hed-do-it-for-free.html Politsi (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK certified sales for Oasis and others had to be re-calculated based on this discussion. Also, the required certified sales for Oasis as well as for others are now affected by the change in certified sales that I made in June of this year. Their certified sales are now 7.28 million units away from qualifying for the list. Oasis now needs to have 54.6 million certified units for 75 million records, their certified sales so far stands at 47.320 million units. Before the change was made for required certified sales, they needed 49.8 million certified units. The 54.6 million units for 75 million claim seems fair for a band that has begun charting in 1994.--Harout72 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You may deduct another 300k from that total they need as Morning Glory went 16x platinum in the UK last weekend that gives it sales of 4,800,000 in the UK not the 4.5m you have stated. Regards 178.167.192.240 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Doors: Original Soundtrack Recording

Hi, The Doors in France 2.200 million not 1.900 million ! scope="row" | France (SNEP)[1] | Platinum | 300,000* |-

  1. ^ "French album certifications – B.O.F. – The Doors (B.O.F.)" (in French). Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique. Retrieved July 18, 2021.

Outkast

Hello Harout do you know how many records has Outkast has sold because I think they are the only ones which have a diamond certified album not on the list

ABBA is now active

ABBA's "year active" category needs updating to reflect their new album, music, and tour.

Duran Duran

Duran Duran I believe is over $100 million sold

Portuguese certs

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to help u regarding the portuguese certs starting with Gaga, idk if it's included in ur file but her debut album The Fame was certified Platinum (20,000) in 2010 Moh8213 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it's on my file.--Harout72 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I found this archived chart from 2003 and it appears to be that Shakira's Laundry Service is certified 4× Platinum (160,000) in Portugal that will approximately (based on my calculation) will bring her total certified sales to 220,000 in Portugal. I'm sure she might have some digitally certified singles from the audiogest chart.

  • Laundry Service: 4× Platinum (160,000)
  • Fijación Oral, Vol. 1: Gold (10,000)
  • Oral Fixation, Vol. 2: Platinum (20,000)
  • Oral Fixation Tour: Gold (10,000)
  • Sale el Sol: Platinum (20,000)

Moh8213 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

My total comes to 244,000 units for Shakira's Portuguese certs. She has no certs on any of her singles.--Harout72 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed Live off the record and Unplugged. Anyways good find. Moh8213 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

But it seems that Sales el Sol is certified Platinum in 2011 so the total is 254,000 :) Moh8213 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sale El Sol has been certified in 2011? I think 2010 is the last year we have on both these sources 1, 2. Is there another source?--Harout72 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok Never mind, there is another archived version for that A&E source.--Harout72 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

According to my calculations, Linkin Park has a total certified sales of 190,000 in Portugal, can u send me their file to see if there's anything missing? Moh8213 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Here it is.--Harout72 (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the Portuguese singles certification based on release date? Cuz In The End was released in 2001 and in the article's certification section it shows that it is certified 2× Platinum with 80,000 units. What do u think? Moh8213 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The 2x Platinum for singles translates to 20,000 units. I'm not sure why the template for "In the End" shows 80,000 units.--Harout72 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Police German Certifications

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add the Police's missing certs since all 5 of the Police's studio albums (Outlandos D'Amoure, Regatta de Blanc, Zenyatta Mondatta,, Ghost in the Machine and Synchronicity) were all certified Gold between 1980 to 1983, they are only counted for 250,000 each at and should be counted as 500,000 each bringing the Police's German sales from 1,775,000 million to 3,025,000 million, bringing the Police's overall sales from 41.8 million to 43 million. as the last edit said "German certification levels in the 1970s and until 1988 were Gold=500,000, Platinum=1,000,000 units."[1] Randyborandy (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.musikindustrie.de/markt-bestseller/gold-/platin-und-diamond-auszeichnung/datenbank/#topSearch
Those you're mentioning are albums, not singles. The levels you're speaking of are for singles only. You should also stop creating accounts repeatedly, you can be blocked again for socking.--Harout72 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Britney Spears 150 million records

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Britney claimed career sales is now at 150 million, how many certified sales does it takes to raise her on the list? Loibird90 (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

She would need 113.4 million certified units for a claim as high as 150 million.--Harout72 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Red Hot Chilli Peppers

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Harout. I see that their certified sales has been reach 73m. Therefore, their 80m claim is too low for them. We must raise their sales claim. Here is the 90m claim for them, need your help to put it up on the list if you're also agree with me https://tribune.com.pk/story/602514/music-review-outside-the-red-hot-chili-peppers Thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes 90 million records are ok for them, even though their recent few years of certifications on singles are mainly streaming generated. Since we're raising their claimed figure by only 10 million, that works.--Harout72 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want update the certifications for Shakira AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kanye West

Latest comment: 2 years ago33 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Harout, can u send me your file for Kanye West, that's obviously if you don't mind, truly appreciate it. Moh8213 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, here it is.--Harout72 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I've checked it, I hope that I'm not missing anything but these are the stuffs that are missing or needs an update:

US Albums:

  • Ye: Gold (500,000)
  • Jesus Is King: Gold (500,000)

Singles:

  • Diamonds From Sierra Leone: Platinum (1,000,000) in 2018.
  • Through the Wire: Platinum (1,000,000)

(Listed in ur file as Gold)

(Listed in ur file as 2× Plat.)

(Listed in ur file as 2× Plat.)

(Listed in ur file as 5× Plat.)

(Listed in ur file as Plat.)

UK Singles:

(Listed in ur file as Silver)

  • Otis: Gold (400,000)

(Listed in ur file as Silver)

  • Flashing Lights: Gold (400,000)

(Listed in ur file as Silver)

(Listed in ur file as Gold)

  • Ghost Town: Silver (200,000)
  • Ultralight Beam: Silver (200,000)

Germany Singles:

Japan

  • Late Registration: Gold (100,000) (certified in September 2005)

New Zealand Albums:

Singles:

Australia Singles:

  • Knock You Down: Gold (35,000)

Italy Singles:

Sweden Albums:

  • Watch the Throne: Gold

Singles:

The reason why I didn't add the figures for the Swedish certs is because GLF don't mention the date of the certification on their database.

Other than that so far I didn't find anything missing or uncorrected, if it wasn't for the four artist rule, there would've been way more certifications. Moh8213 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I left out "Ghost Town" and "Ultra Beam" as they both have more than 3 artists. I also left out "Blessings" as Kanye West is on the extended version it seems. The rest have been added. Good job.--Harout72 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's strange cuz Kid Cudi & 070 Shake aren't credited on Ghost Town on Spotify, only Kanye & PartyNextDoor and nobody's credited on Ultralight Beam but Kanye on Spotify too but whatever. Also can we change the release year of first chart record to 2003? His debut album was released in 2004 but he released few mixtapes and two singles in 2003, it's even mentioned in the Allmusic bio. Moh8213 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this collab album between Kanye & Kid Cudi count? Moh8213 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Only if both perform on all tracks. It doesn't look like Kanye West performs on all tracks. Is he the producer only on the album?--Harout72 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Both of them performs on the tracks, Kanye with Kid Cudi along with additional/co-producers produced the album. You can even check the Themes & Lyics section in the article for proof. Moh8213 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Kid Cudi seems to have performed and produced, while Kanye West has mainly been involved as the producer, that's according to ALlmusic. I also tried to listen to the tracks on YouTube, his voice isn't present, at least that's what I figured.--Harout72 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Bruh you gotta be kidding me, Kanye clearly performed in all songs, Kid Cudi might had performed the most but Kanye still had his parts on the songs. And just for clarification, the only song that he didn't has a verse is the opening song on the album Feel the Love though he did contributed on the song by making gun noises throughout the mid of the song and after that you can clearly hear Kanye saying "Where the chorus?" So I doubt that that's considered a "performance". Overall I think the album (including it's singles) is eligible to be included in Kanye's certified sales, but it'll be unfair if you won't add it. Moh8213 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that Kids See Ghosts is more like a band of its own. The album Kids See Ghosts is not exactly collaboration albums like Watch the Throne which Kanye has collaborated with Jay-Z. Isn't that correct? If that's a band of its own, then why should we include its certifications in Kanye's total? It's the same as saying all certifications by Simon & Garfunkel should also be included in the total of Paul Simon. Or all certifications by The Police should also be included in the total of Sting. I don't think we should treat the album Kids See Ghosts as a collaboration album, because the album is released under that specific band/project the two have created together, Kids See Ghost.--Harout72 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Aight, fair enough, also I wanted to ask u regarding the Swedish certification system. As far as I know, singles that are certified in Sweden are solely based on streaming, for example, Gold (4,000,000) or Platinum (8,000,000) yet you're including them as if they're digital sales (40,000) and (80,000), How's that possible? Moh8213 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

They have yet to post the conversion rate on their site, but I think it's 100 streams equal 1 download. That's how I covert their Streaming levels. If I'm not mistaken, they used to have their conversion rate posted somewhere, so I assume it's still the same as before. Norway and Denmark use the 100:1 rate, it's most likely the same for Sweden. But for all singles released after January 1, 2010 until January 1, 2018, the levels are 20,000/40,000.--Harout72 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's great, it'll be dope if u can send me an updated file of Kanye's certs, just to make sure :) Moh8213 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Kanye West's file.--Harout72 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked it and I've just realised that there's a typo in the US total album sales, it's supposed to be 29 million not 25.5 plus it seems that you've included the Kids See Ghosts album by mistake. Moh8213 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to remove it after I realized it shouldn't be added. Thanks. Here is the correct version of the file.--Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I just found out that there's 3 more missing certs for West. The song U Mad by Vic Mensa ft. Kanye West certified Gold, One Man Can Change the World by Big Sean ft. Kanye West & John Legend certified Platinum and Marvin & Chardonnay by Big Sean ft. Kanye West & Roscoe Dash certified Platinum . Moh8213 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you missed the recent cert for the song Drive Slow. Thanks. Moh8213 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I left it out because it seems to have four artists involved. At least that's what it says on the page of the song.--Harout72 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So u consider Tony Williams (who had an uncredited additional vocals in the song) to be the 4th artist in the song? Moh8213 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you should give a context about it cuz I didn't found anything regarding the uncredited artists in this article. Moh8213 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If Tony Williams doesn't have a part in the song, can you in that case correct he article of the song "Drive Slow"? If no one reverts your edit and there are no discussions about it in the near future, I'm willing to add the Gold cert to Kanye's total. Someone must have thought that Tony Williams has part. I can't argue because I've no clue about Hip-hop music in general. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bruh it clearly states in that article that Tony Williams only had an additional vocals in the song which is basically uncredited and it didn't mention that he was featured in the song, and that doesn't make him the 4th artist. For further proof, you can look at the back cover of Kanye's 2005 album Late Registration and tell me if you can find him there. Moh8213 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional vocals means there is actually the 4th artist involved, it doesn't necessarily have to say featured artist. For that reason, the certification for that song should be left out. We're already stretching ourselves out when we're including certifications for songs that have 3 artists, we definitely should not include certs the songs of which have 4 artists.--Harout72 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there gonna be a time where y'all will finally be able to add certifications that has more than 4 artists??? Moh8213 (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Most likely no, this has been discussed before and it's based on consensus. We should remember that the more artists involved, the smaller the part for each becomes. That's why the certs for songs involving 4 artists are being left out.--Harout72 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Aight then, just in curiosity, when will Kanye West enter the 200m club? Moh8213 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

He should at least have 300 million in certified units for us to even discuss that possibility. All his recent 3 to 4 years of certification are streaming generated. In other words, Gold certification by RIAA these days translates to less than 50,000 units in digital downloads.--Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Harout, can I know from where you got the "Pop Rock" genre? Cuz I don't think this genre was mentioned anywhere in the Allmusic site. Moh8213 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It should just be Pop, right? I'm not sure if I've added that by mistake or maybe somebody else has added that later. I almost never check when other editors modify he genre column.--Harout72 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If you check the artist information section of the article, it shows in the genres of Pop Rap and Pop so I guess you got the answer. But one thing that I can assure you is that Kanye isn't known for making Pop Rock music. Moh8213 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Kanye's latest album Donda is certified Gold in New Zealand. Moh8213 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

New UK certification for Céline Dion

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Falling Into You (song) has just been certified Silver (200,000) in the UK yesterday.

Link: https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/2199-1392-1 Loibird90 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you check the history of edits?--Harout72 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Green Day 75 million albums ?.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi i am just wondering why Green Day only need 51.2million certified sales to reach the 75 million albums sold bracket ?. You said Oasis needed to reach 54.5million to reach the same total of 75 million. They both charted for the first time in 1994 so why does Green Day need 3 million less certified sales than Oasis to reach 75 million please ?. Kind Regards 89.204.237.146 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Green Day also need to have 54.6 million certified units for 75 million claim. After the requirements for certified sales were raised a few months ago, some of the artists that need higher certified sales to qualify for the list stayed on the list by mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Harout72 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Robbie Williams

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Harout. How about Robbie Williams? Do we need to put him out of the list?. Because if the Gap only between 1-2 million. I think it's okay to let them still inside the club. Politsi (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

And need your help to check on Post Malone also if he's ready to be here. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Robbie Williams should have his claimed figures supported by 74.2%, which is 55.6 million certified units for 75 million records. He currently has 54.5 million certified units. I suppose we can keep him on the list since he's 1.1 million certified units away and he's already on the list. But if there are objections from others we can remove him too, and put him back when he's at 55.6 million with his certified sales. As for Post Malone, we'll use this source you've found when he's between 170 and 175 million with his certified sales. He's at 169 so far, he might get there soon.--Harout72 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks, Robbie Williams already inside the list and his certified sales spread all over the world, he is not a US focus singer. He deserved to be in this prestigious club. It's only less than 2 million. And I will keep looking for a better source and lower claim for Post Malone. I also keep trying to bring Ariana Grande to the list. Politsi (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No i don't think Robbie williams should be on the list if he needs to sell 1.1million more let him sell them. Does that mean every artist that is 1 million units short are let away with it ?. remove him until he reaches his quota 178.167.184.173 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Only you? Me and Harout72 decided that Robbie Williams still able to be on the list. I'd like to hear other Registered editor opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Since Robbie Williams 1.1 million certified units short, which might take him months to collect, I removed him for the time being until he's at 55.6 million with his certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I bring Robbie Williams to our attention to make sure the best fairness apply to all artists in the list. Although I still feel we should let him be on the list. I support to removed his name until he gets sufficient certified units. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Imagine Dragon (90m)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Harout, I see that this pop rock band have a high certified units in U.S but I'm not sure they have sold at least 75 million worldwide combined of all their music records sales. Today I see a lifestyle publication from Zambia (The Global Zambian Magazine) has released Imagine Dragon's worldwide sales at 90 million https://tgzmag.com/imagine-dragons-unveil-cutthroat-music-video-starring-olivia-munn/ based on their profile https://tgzmag.com/about/ The Global Zambian Magazine is a reliable news organization in Zambia, It is so far the only Zambian publication of its kind that highlights on a broad range of the Zambian lifestyle while encompassing worldwide quality content on a more diverse scale. Therefore, if Imagine Dragon's certified sales total able to cover 90m claim. We should bring them to join the club by using the source from TGZ Magazine, at least for temporary. I remember we're using Popculture.com temporary for Luke Bryan. We could use this source for that band, temporary. What do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Imagine Dragons are a relatively new band, they've begun charting in 2012. Their recent few years of certifications are streaming generated. The worldwide certified sales for them at the moment stand at 117.4 million, but since they're a new band, using the 90 million would be too high considering where their certified sales are. We could include them on the list with a maximum of 75 million claim. For 90 million claimed figure, we should wait for their certified sales be in the neighborhood of 130-140 million, because their actual worldwide sales could not possibly be more than 50-60 million.--Harout72 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay then, let's keep their 90m claim. When they have enough certified sales at least 130m. Then they able to join the club. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oasis 75 million

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

Back in 2009, Oasis was thought to have sold 70 million records and Chartmasters.org estimated their sales in december 2017 at 81 million records. Are they eligible for this list now? Recently, their certifications hit 49,7 million, enough for an act that started to chart in 1993 to be on the list. If you want, I can help with the certifications. Freak of nature-music (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oasis should have their claimed figures supported by 72.8% certified sales. That's 54.6 million certified units for 75 million records. Their current available certified sales are only 47.8 million.--Harout72 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I still had the old requirements in my mind, I guess. We have a slight difference in numbers, but do you guys keep track of certifications to have this list updated? Freak of nature-music (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Harout72 when do you expect oasis to reach the level required to be added to the 75 million list ?.. would you say it will take a couple of years ?. the uk list can be checked on the bpi certs every week. why do you get the other worldwide totals please ?.89.204.225.226 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If your numbers are correct, then it will take a couple of years I guess, depending on their popularity in the next couple of years. I've tried to find certs in all countries, but maybe some aren't official Freak of nature-music (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Certified Units in 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Scanning through the list, it looks like many of the Canadian numbers haven't been updated for over 7 years. For reference, Music Canada's certification guidelines indicate requiring 150 streams to = 1 unit for a single, 1,500 of a single = 1 unit for an album - is this standard high enough to avoid concern over streaming overinflating numbers? Since 2016, certification for download sales has been retired - making it very difficult to check - and figures for physical sales are rolled into the same category. The inclusion of updated Canadian figures could boost several artists into higher categories, hence I'd like some guidance before starting. It seems there's a lot of concern about streaming numbers, so it's hard to parse how to approach this. Thanks - comments/advice on how to handle this, to stay within precedent - would be appreciated. Canadianerk (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The certified sales of all markets are updated whenever the certifying bodies post newly issued certifications. All music markets these days count streaming towards their certifications, Canada isn't the only.--Harout72 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Certainly - to clarify, I was just hoping for some general guidelines for situations like the Imagine Dragons discussion above - where the artist's certified units validate claimed sales but are excluded because of the streaming figures' involvement. Given the 7 years gap, I suspect there are going to be instances where this situation reoccurs because of the sudden introduction of millions of (mostly digital) units to the list. This list doesn't reflect digital in its categorizations, so I was hoping for some general guidance, (so I could make a judgement call while updating the Canadian figures) whether to open a talk section to raise an artist's rank or not. As in, a way to filter whether an artist would have any shot of being raised or not. Given the rise of streaming and rapid decline of purchasing music, it's going to be very difficult to determine what portion of the certified units are actually physical or digital sales - so upon further reflection, I suspect the question isn't answerable given the current digitalized landscape. Apologies for wasting your time, if my suspicion is correct - but just any guidance in addition to existing precedent, would be helpful. So long as this list tracks actual record sales, more specific guidance would be really helpful and save time. Hope this clarifies, and thank you - Canadianerk (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean with 7 years gap, but streaming has only been widely used for some 3-4 years, not 7. The certifications are included regardless whether they're for digital sales or physical. We don't rely on actual sales figures here, never have actually. To get an idea how we approach/handle relatively newer artists, whose recent certified sales on singles (especially) are streaming generated, comparing the difference between the claimed figures and available certified sales of the likes of Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran, The Weeknd could help. There are variety of explanations as to how the list is operated within the section of Definitions. Each artist is discussed on individual basis before adding them to the list or when an upgrade in claimed figures is suggested.--Harout72 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for the confusion - by 7 years, I wasn't referring to streaming specific numbers. I meant it's literally been 7 years, some artists' certified numbers will be jumping by hundreds of thousands to millions of units. I did read the definitions section, I promise! I just took some of the decisions taken in the talk page a bit too literally. I believe I have a fuller grasp on things, thank you for your time - despite the miscommunication. If I come across any artists which might merit reassessment, I will bring it up. Once again, my apologies - thank you for your patience, and I look forward to contributing. Canadianerk (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_42&oldid=1052438512"