Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:13, 19 August 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of best-selling music artists article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 10 days

List of best-selling music artists is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 27, 2005 Articles for deletion No consensus November 13, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept September 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 23, 2011 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 4, 2012 Peer review Reviewed May 28, 2012 Featured list candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured list candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pop music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

edit It is essential to provide reliable sources when editing this article. For examples, see the references section. Unsourced or unreliably sourced additions will be removed immediately. The list is frequently edited in good faith to update the certified sales figures; however, claimed sales figures need to be supported by reliable sources, preferably from news organizations. Artists with claimed sales figures below 75 million may not be added to the list. Whilst we encourage editors to be bold, it is highly recommended to discuss changes on this talk page before editing. Below you can get an understanding as to when certifications for songs are added to the total certified sales of the listed artists. One lead artist and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of part). Two lead artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as both will have almost equal amount of part). Two lead artists and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Both lead artists will play a significant part in a song and the part of the featured artist also should be significant enough). One lead artist and two featured artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of the lead artist and to the total of both featured artists as almost all should have equal amount of part). The year next to markets below indicates how far back the certification systems go in each country. The percentages stand for the global market share based on a 2007 IFPI report. USA: RIAA (1958) (31.6%) Japan: RIAJ (Physical certifications since (1989)(16.5%) UK: BPI (1973) (10.6%) Germany: BVMI (1975) (8.4%) France: SNEP, Infodisc (albums), Infodisc (singles) (1973) (5.8%) Australia: ARIA (1990) (2.23%) Canada: Music Canada (1975) (2.22) Italy: FIMI (2009) (1.95%) The Netherlands: NVPI (1978) (1.52%) Spain: PROMUSICAE (1979) (1.48%) Austria: IFPI (1990) (1.10%) Mexico: AMPROFON (1999) (1.08%) Brazil: PMB (1990) (0.97%) Belgium: Ultratop (1995) (0.91%) Norway: (Archived certification-database) (1993) (0.86%) Switzerland: Schweizer Hitparade (1989) (0.84%) Sweden: IFPI (Archived certification-database), Sverige Topplistan (Chart-database) (1987) (0.81%) Denmark: Hitlisten (Chart-database), IFPI Denmark (2001) (0.67%) Ireland: IRMA (2005) (0.52%) Poland: ZPAV (1995) (0.51%) Finland: IFPI (1971) (0.49%) Argentina: Capif (1980) (0.48%) New Zealand: Recorded Music NZ (1978) (0.37%)

Beatles's 600m (inflated)

Harout. I begin to think that their 600m claim sales look too much and inflated. I will remove their 600m claim and let them just have only 500m claim for their sales. Thanks Politsi (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I still want to wait and see what RIAA's certifications for their singles in digital format will bring in. The RIAA hasn't issued any certs for their singles in digital format, and they would not necessarily be entirely streaming generated, they'd be retroactively issued certs. Besides, the 600 million figure is the one that's supported by reliable sources at the moment, the 500 million is supported by Daily Express, which is a tabloid. Are there reliable sources for the 500 million also?--Harout72 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I put Daily Express only for temporary, at least it's a newspaper not a pop culture or a humour magazine. Once I found the better one, I will replace it immediately. Let's see if a newspaper like Times or Herald come with 500m Sales of The Beatles and there is no progress in their certified Sales. We should not used their 600m in the list. Politsi (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Surely if you think the Beatles are inflated, which I do as well by about 50 million, you must think Elvis is inflated as well, TruthGuardians (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I was analyzing a little bit and I also consider that those sales figures of the Beatles and Elvis are inflated, I think that this should be objectively reevaluated. AteneaZ3 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @Politsi. I think the list would be improved and more accurate if The Beatles' claimed sales were "only" 500M. However, how this change affects the list as a whole has to be taken into account. The Beatles' certified sales are 289.5M right now; however, Elvis Presley's current certified sales are 230.8M. There is a difference of almost 60M certified sales between the two music acts, so it would not be coherent if both had the same highest claimed sales figure of 500M. I admit that it may be a good idea to remove The Beatles' 600M figure, but then Presley's 500M figure would have to be removed as well, and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures.

That would certainly be the right way to improve this list and achieve a more equal treatment for the artists. Otherwise there will always be more inflated figures for Rock music "classic" artists than for Pop music artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. For example, it is not proper that, taking into account that Elton John's certified sales are 206.9M and Presley's are 230.8M (which represents a difference of 23.9M), the highest claimed sales figure is 300M for John and 500M for Presley. 200M is a too big difference, and this also affects Madonna. Aside from that, I would also like to share this reference, which I think can be used to support The Beatles' 500M claimed sales figure. Salvabl (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern but we must use a source that free for read by everyone. Your source isn't free. Politsi (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Politsi, that is incorrect. Sources can be paywalled (and/or unavailable online). See WP:PAYWALL. JSFarman (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it would be better to have another open access reference, but in this case maybe it could be used as a secondary reference since there is already an open access reference that supports the 500M figure right now (we have to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages has many articles referencing books that are not always freely accessible to the users). Apart from that, there is also the option for the reference to contain links to both the archived version and the original, providing readers an open access to the content. Salvabl (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait until another free reliable source available to support their 500m. For now, let the Beatles standing with 600m sales.Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on leaving it the way it is for now. If we take into account that Presley's claimed sales are 500M, then it is necessary to keep The Beatles' 600M figure, because there is a difference of almost 60M certified sales between the two music acts, which is more than enough for The Beatles' claimed sales to be 100M higher. Salvabl (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

General credibility of this article

The claims of the sales figures listed here are based on inaccurate and non-verifiable pseudo-sources. How can it be that when it comes to "record sales", albums, singles and downloads of individual tracks are lumped together? How can it be possible that an artist like Rihanna, whose alleged figures of 250 million listed here mainly refer to the downloads of individual tracks, is rated higher here than an artist like the Bee Gees, whose sales figures of 120 million listed here have been primarily albums? An album has more tracks, more music, costs more money, etc. and therefore, is worthier in terms of music selling than a single and of course a single download.

Again: Formats with different values must not be added up and listed one to one, because different formats have different values and don't belong together at all! Therefore, I recommend the following source:

CSPC: The best selling artists of all-time as of 2021 - ChartMasters

There, the different formats (physical, download albums, singles, streams) are rated appropriately and an equivalent album sales figure is determined. This also invalidates utopian legends, such as that Elvis Presley allegedly sold 1 or even 1.8 billion (Of what actually?). Hence, Rihanna has sold 33 million studio albums, 1 million other albums, 4 million physical singles, 258 million digital singles and 33 million streams, totaling 103 million equivalent album sales, making her the 47th best-selling artist at the moment, while the Bee Gees with 161 million equivalent album sales are ranked on the 19th at the moment. Please consider this source instead of falling for any newspaper ads or management ducks.

Thanks.

Phil Collins' Portuguese certs

Hey Harout, Ik you've lowered Phil Collins' Portuguese certified sales because of his 2004 album Love Songs: A Compilation... Old and New, that album received 2× Platinum (80,000) in week 50 of 2004 which roughly translates to Dec. 6, 2004–Dec. 12, 2004, a mere 5 months before AFP lowered their cert thresholds in May, 2005, so it's pretty clear that the 2× Platinum of 80,000 units for Phil Collins' album are legitimate. Moh8213 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I have Love Songs: A Compilation... Old and New at 2x Platinum (80,000) on my file, and we also have 2x Platinum for But Seriously for 80,000 units. Do we have anything else?--Harout72 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please show such source of the Genesis certified sales? Schorsch.landmann (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Lmao! Another failed attempt of me outsmarting someone else, anyway looks like you didn't notice it but in the same source it says his album Serious Hits... Live! was certified Platinum (40,000). Also just found out that his DVD which goes by the same name was certified Platinum (8,000) in 2011. Moh8213 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, you're right, I totally missed that Platinum.--Harout72 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Her RIAA certifications have been updated so an estimated 77 million sales should be added to her current tally to make it 143 million. That would drive her to 189 million sales. I believe there are credible papers that have listed her career sales between 170-200 million records. 190.80.50.79 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This list is related in someway to artist' articles. Beyoncé discography has now the figure of 200 million with one source supporting it. Should be effective? A huge part of her catalogue was re-certified by RIAA in recent days, which includes her works in the streaming era; pretty sure part of her retroactively certs for 2000s works have it in large quantities as well. Idk it brought my attention that jump. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The 200 million was also added here by someone, which is an unreliable source, therefore, I reverted it. Some of her RIAA's certs are retroactive but also helped by streaming. Her records sales are most likely now around 150 million based on the amount of the current certified sales, but definitely not 200 million.--Harout72 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 200 million claimed sales is still too high for her. Loibird90 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Harout, there is 160m claims sales for Beyonce https://www.independent.ie/life/how-beyonce-conquered-sportswear-34625172.html can we use it?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, we sure can use that source as her certified sales clearly suggest that her record sales is in that neighborhood. I upgraded her claimed figure. Thanks for that source. Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If anything, the 200 million figure is actually still too low, and to suggest she has only sold 160 million records worldwide would just be inaccurate given the recent update to her certifications in Canada and the US doubling her previous total in both. And while streaming units may play apart in these new certifications, majority of them have not been updated since the early to mid 2000s, so it isn't unrealistic to assume pure sales attribute to majority of those amounts. Her record sales were reported as 118 million back in 2010. StatsFreak (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Hamlin, John (September 12, 2010). "How Gradual Success Helped Beyoncé". CBS. Retrieved January 10, 2013.

It's because of streaming that her certified sales in the US and even in Canada went up that much. Her true sales should be right around the 160 million mark.--Harout72 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

StatsFreak If you have any sources for Beyonce’s claimed sales being between 160M to 200M, please provide them here. A figure like 180M I would personally prefer, considering the 200M claimed sales of Taylor Swift who have 238 M total available certifications.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If Beyoncé's current certified sales do not support a 200 million claim based some of her recent certifications are streaming supported, then Taylor Swift should be dropped for consistency of rules. Taylor first charted in 2006 (9 years after Beyoncé) and a majority of her sales are heavily supported by streaming. She should be in the 150-180 million sales claim since her certs are higher than Beyoncé's updated numbers by only 15.4 million. TJ 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC) TJ 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Streaming figures make things harder than ever. In varying degrees, affects artists of past generations as well; others more than others. Some of her albums sales seems are closer to Adele, which dominated physical sales in almost all markets; but seems is not bad idea reconsidering lowering Taylor's sales, like Beyoncé. Much like Drake, Rihanna, or nearly all acts since 2000s, have heavily streaming figures in large scales, when actual copies sold are lower as suggests third-party measurement firms like OCC or Nielsen (both markets who makes the different of millions in this game). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

True, but Taylor is much stronger in streams than Beyoncé. Her claimed sales should be listed as 175 million as referenced by this previously used source (https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/taylor-made-%E2%80%9880s-sounds).

In 2021, according to Power 99 Radio, Taylor was reportedly the second most streamed artist in the US with only 1.9 billion streams less than Drake’s 8.6 billion streams.

• https://www.power991fm.com/2022/01/13/taylor-swift-accounts-for-1-of-every-50-u-s-album-sales-how-she-drake-bts-more-dominate-music/

Variety reported Taylor’s 1989 album was supported by 220 million streams its first-week of release in the US.  

• https://variety.com/2020/music/news/taylor-swift-evermore-sells-million-first-week-1234867490/

The first-week sales for Red (Taylor’s Version) were supported by 303 million streams as reported by the NY Times.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/22/arts/music/taylor-swift-red-taylors-version-billboard-chart.html

By comparison, the NY Times reported Beyoncé’s Lemonade’s first-week sales were supported by 115 million streams in the US.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/arts/music/beyonce-lemonade-chart-sales.html

The NY Times also reported her Renaissance album’s first-week sales were supported by 179 million streams.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/arts/music/beyonce-renaissance-billboard-chart.html#:~:text=The%20Charts-,Beyonc%C3%A9's%20'Renaissance'%20Dominates%20the%20Album%20and%20Singles%20Charts,top%20of%20the%20Hot%20100

Let’s be consistent with our definitions for listed claimed sales based on certified units supported by streaming. If Beyoncé’s 222.7 million units supports 160 million in claimed sales, then Taylor’s 238.1 million units should support 175 million in claimed sales.

~~ TJ 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree to lower down Swift's position. And if there is no any other opinion. Let's lower Taylor Swift's position to 175m Sales. I'm the one who found that source also. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It was on Feb 8, 2019 the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege. We have Kanye West, another artist with 160m claimed sales, who charted three years before Taylor Swift but is yet to have 14.1M more than she. What are we going to do with his claims? TheWikiholic (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I see it. That was kind of hasty upgrade/inclusion. Judging third-party reports, seems there is a slightly difference of artists in the streaming era. Some of them actually sold large physical units (actual copies sold) compared to others but only in terms of the era. Taylor seems to be in the middle, as some of her format albums actually sold millions in the States but many of them lesser compared to the certifications. West seems to be part of the more oriented streaming-certs rather than physical; looking at his albums discography, for example Ye was certified Gold in Sep-2021 by the RIAA, when it actually sold 85,000 units in its first-week (June) and kept descending in the format. The same pattern is present in Drake, Rihanna and many others. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Politsi I support your lowering Swift to 175 million sales claim. @TheWikiholic In response to your question for Kanye West, at 251.2 million in certified units I would recommend claimed sales of 175 million for him too. ~~ TJ 05:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic I can't believe it, you're still remember when I raise her claim. If you feel disagree with my action regarding with Swift's 200m, why don't you tell something?. So far, only Harout and me who consistently handle the list. I'm surprise that you guys watching this list in silent. I still waiting for Harout response, but I supposed putting Swift with only 170m. Is the best idea. Politsi (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Certifications issued after 2016 are in some cases more than 75% streaming generated. However, those certifications issued before 2016 are more than 75% Download generated. The year 2016 was a major transitory year, certifications switching from being Download generated to Streaming generated. Taylor Swift has 99 million certified units for her singles issued by the RIAA until end of 2015, those are heavily Download generated. Her album 1989 was certified 3x Platinum by the RIAA in November 2014, just a month after its release, and had sold 3.6 million units by the end of 2014. That's not an album that reached 3x Platinum that year based on Streaming. Her 2014 single "Shake It Off", was certified in November of 2014 by the RIAA at 4x Platinum, had sold 3.4 million units by end of 2014. That is also not a certified sales generated by Streaming. Those are just two examples. Also, when Politsi added the 200 million claimed figure for Swift, her certified sales was only 201 million, the 175 million was also kept. Now her certified sales are 238 million. I would support adding the 175 million back next to the 200 million. As for Beyonce, her recent certifications are heavily Streaming generated, she has only 35 million units certified for singles before 2016. Yes some of her certifications are retroactively certified, but mainly helped by Streaming to reach the current certification levels.--Harout72 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The above statement is making generalizations about Beyoncé's updated sales records without providing any real assessment on which of her 70+ new certifications are retroactive or what percentage is actually based on streaming. For example, 26% of Lemonade's first-week sales were streaming generated. Her sales were 653,000 with 485,000 pure sales supported by 115 million streams. For her latest album Renaissance only 31% were streaming generated. Her sales were 275,000 with 190,000 pure sales supported by 179 million streams. It was over 10 years many of her records to be re-certified retroactively, and if her streaming numbers have barely increased from 2016 to 2022 it is clear Beyoncé is not an artist where over 75% of her sales are streaming generated. We need a fair and detailed assessment for Beyoncé's updated sales. We can at least be collaborative and provide access to resources or links to tools so that other users willing to do so can conduct a fair assessment and verification of Beyoncé's updated records. ~~ TJ 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the same table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment. Politsi (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The point is the same argument for Taylor applies for Beyoncé in that Taylor's physical sales offset her streaming. Harout is suggesting that Beyoncé's new sales numbers are heavily streaming supported and they are not. Therefore, if they are not, then Beyoncé has more than enough certified units to support sales much higher than 160 million sales claim. ~~ TJ 14:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Beyonce's record company actively certified her records up to 2016. Had they completely not certified anything up to this point, it would be understandable that these recent certs could be over 50% Download based. The only way to know if these recent certs are mainly Download based, is to find corresponding digital sales figures for those that have recently been re-certified or certified for the first time.--Harout72 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

For example Single Ladies had 6.1 digital downloads in 2010 , but was certified 4x platinum. ~~ TJ 15:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

They actively certified newer releases such as her 2013 and 2016 releases. For example, her older releases prior to the Beyoncé (album) were not re-certified despite continued sales increases such as with Single Ladies and Halo. Many of her older records make up the bulk of her re-certification. ~~ TJ 15:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't open your source above, but that's the same as this. That 6.1 million for "Single Ladies" is a Worldwide sales figure, not for the US only.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Another example Irreplaceable had 3.1 million sales in 2012, but was 2x platinum certified. This was all 10 years ago. ~~ TJ 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, but Single Ladies had 5 million US sales 10 years ago in 2012, but still had not been re-certified past 4x platinum. ~~ TJ 15:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but it's now certified 9x Platinum, surely Streaming played a major factor in getting it to 9x Plat.--Harout72 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against streaming's influence, but doesn't make up 75% of the new certifications. As discussed, Beyoncé is not a strong streaming artist like Taylor, Rihanna, Ariana Grande, or Drake. Based on the sample analysis, she hardly cracks the 30% margin for streaming influence. Her records are historically under certified and she is a consistent, but slow seller. ~~ TJ 16:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift most definitely cannot be placed in the same category as Drake or Ariana Grande. If Taylor Swift's sales were streaming generated, she wouldn't have been able to shift over 1 million units of her 2019 album "Lover" in pure sales within a period of 4 months. Or her 2020 album "Folklore", which sold over 1.2 million copies in just 5 months.--Harout72 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's record label has certified albums equal to 14.5m units since 2016. And it doesn't include the album that was released since in 2016. A vast majority of these are the result of the RIAA's album equivalent sales policy. It means these certifications include the streaming and downloads of tracks that are already covered on Taylor's 99M single certifications. We have discussed that a few months ago. So it would be better to remove Taylor Swift's 200M claims. If you guys have any issues to remove that I can do it. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The intention of my statement was that Taylor is a strong streaming artist like Rihanna, Ariana, and Drake. This is a fact as she is the second most streamed artist in the US for 2021. The statement had no synthesis to her sales claims as I had moved on from that discussion. My statement focused solely Taylor being a strong streaming artist. Circling back to my other, and separate, statements. Based on the sample analysis, Beyoncé hardly cracks the 30% margin for streaming influence. Her records are historically under certified and she is a consistent, but slow seller. She is deserving of claimed sales higher than 160 million. ~~ TJ 02:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift doesn't even make it in the top 10 of the most streamed artists of 2021. But she definitely is the 2nd best artists in Physical sales, after Adele for 2021.--Harout72 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor was the top female streamed artist on Spotify in 2021. She was second to Drake in the US and second globally in 2021.

For the third time, I am circling back to my main point. Based on the sample analysis, Beyoncé hardly cracks the 30% margin for streaming influence. Her records are historically under certified and she is a consistent, but slow seller. She is deserving of claimed sales higher than 160 million. ~~ TJ 06:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift also remains very strong artist in selling physical copies according to Nielsen Soundscan. The number of her Downloads are also higher than many others. As for the 30% margin you're referring to, if Beyonce's total certified sales (222 million) is at that level because it contains 30% streaming, then deducting 30% from 222 million, brings the total certified sales to 155 million. That's in line with the 160 million claimed figure Beyonce is listed with.--Harout72 (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already been discussed and established that as an artist charted in 2002, Beyoncé requires 75.7% of certified units to support her claimed sales.

~~ TJ 14:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Per the article's definition, artists of Beyoncé's generation require their claimed sales to be supported by over 75% of certified units. Based on the 30% streaming deduction, 155 million certified sales supports 77.5% of 200 million sales claims. Beyoncé meets the requirement for claimed sales higher than 160 million and is deserving. ~~ TJ 13:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think putting Taylor around 180m-190m would be more likely. It's still too early to assume she sold 200 million pure records (her certified and claimed sales being just close to each other), considering how streaming really boosted her sales in the past few years. Loibird90 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to support Loibird90. The favorable thing for Taylor, as its assumed by the data available of 3rd party measurement firms, she has amassed millions of physical units, in the States eg. But this is mostly speaking above the average of the streaming-era, nor compared to a record from the album era, eg. This seems to apply to her fast-selling records, as after few months/weeks in the market, a platinum-equivalent album doesn't seem to double it sales, or keep selling like a record in the album era. For example, the most closest to be actual Diamond-seller albums in the states of the past decade, was Adele's record, as shows the decade-report of Nielsen. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Stumbled across this, so I might give my take on it, It's crazy how Taylor Swift being compared to other artists such as Drake, Ariana Grande etc..., it's obvious that Taylor Swift is much popular (at least in terms of sales) than Beyonce in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and even Japan. In fact, out of all the artists who debuted in the past 16 years, she's the only one who sold the highest amount of albums in the US, Knowles is definitely a much better seller in Europe than Swift, but in terms of single sales I'd say both of 'em are almost similar, though Swift edges out Knowles in singles sales (especially in digital). But I gotta say Swift also has significant streaming generated singles. In fact, she has more streaming generated singles than Knowles. Chartmasters did an analysis on both artists and here's link for both artists: Taylor Swift, Beyoncé. Ik the excuse train will come regarding the reliability of Chartmasters but I gotta say the numbers they brought are pretty interesting.

With that being said I guess there's only two options left:

1) reduce Taylor Swift to 175 million records (so that it'd match Beyoncé's sales) or

2) increase Beyoncé to 200 million (so that it'd match Taylor's sales). I think an Rfc would really help in this situation. Moh8213 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift has 133M Digital singles in the US. Even if we take 80% of these certifications as the argument here, she would be only around 106.4M certifications. We should also keep in mind that 1M song download will never equal 1M physical unit.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears Harout is adamant about Taylor Swift retaining her 200 million sales claim. Beyoncé has enough certified sales after the discussed 30% streaming reduction. She has 155 million of 222 million certified units to support 77.5% of 200 million. This meets her requirement of 75.7% support of certified units. The below source from CBS will support her 200 million sales claim.

https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/protester-follows-beyonce-on-tour-claims-shes-possessed-by-demons/ ~~ TJ 01:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We're not using the source with word "nearly". It's not clear enough to justify the Sales. I support Harout's explanation and let Swift's position in 200m club. Politsi (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

So are we saying that 80% of Taylor Swift's digital certifications are download generated and that one song download is equivalent to one physical sale? TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Michael Bolton

Hi. I would like to ask how many certified sales does it take for Michael Bolton to be listed under 75 million sales claim? Thank you. Loibird90 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

He needs to have 40.1 million certified units as he's begun charting in 1983. His available certified sales are 38.4 million so far. What's the source that puts him with 75 million records? Post it here, once he's at 40.1 million with his certified sales, I'll put him up on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources for I found for the 75 million claim:

• https://www.musichall.org/events/Grammy-Award-Winner-Michael-Bolton • https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2019030170324/michael-bolton-talks-challenges-faced-aspiring-singer/%3fviewas=amp • https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/5649700/michael-bolton-age-net-worth/amp/ Loibird90 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are the other sources I also found:

https://deadline.com/2017/08/michael-bolton-honest-trailers-andy-signore-emmys-interview-news-1202151880/amp/

https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2022/05/michael-bolton-is-back-in-the-spotlight-as-a-contestant-on-nbcs-american-song-contest.html%3foutputType=amp/amp/ Loibird90 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Beyoncé's Canadian certifications

Between 11/11/2022 and 8/9/2022, Beyoncé's solo catalogue was given a massive certification update by Music Canada. I believe the database was just updated with the plaques from November. I think this warrants an update to the outdated 3M figure. I estimated the total sales to be at around 6.580 million, but I could be mistaken.

https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=%20Beyonce Everm4e (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The total for Canada is 5.405 million certified units, not 6.580 million. Some of the certifications are certified with older certification levels (Platinum being 40,000 units).--Harout72 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I should point out that her albums were re-certified as well, most likely with the corresponding certification levels. IASF is 5× Platinum from 3×, 4 is 2× Platinum from Gold, B'Day is 2× Platinum from 1x, BEYONCÉ is 3× Platinum from 1×, and lastly Dangerously In Love is 3× Platinum. Everm4e (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I actually found more retroactively posted certs by Music Canada, so the total is 6.975 million units. Harout72 (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Harout. Based on Beyonce's discussion above. Let's put Taylor Swift with 170m claim. https://abc.com/shows/new-years-rockin-eve/news/performers/taylor-swift-world-premiere-music-video-out-of-the-woods-on-new-years-rockin-eve-with-ryan-seacreast-2016-151222 she can get back her 200m claim sales when she reach 350m in her certified Sales. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You can add that next to the 200 million, just like we had the 175 million and 200 million listed together before. I also provided explanation above, in case you want to read it. Harout72 (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental Article Issues

So, I've been extensively digging into the archived discussions regarding the standards used on this list, specifically the standards of percentage and the verifiability of sales from artists before 1958.

The entire "Definitions" and "Standards" sections on this article probably shouldn't exist. It strikes me as both inelegant and obtuse to clutter the body of the article with information that really ought to be kept to talk pages. Really, I can't help but feel that the section's existence is representative of a broader problem with this article's clarity and readability.

I'm also extremely concerned because of the initial caveat in this section - that 15 artists who would otherwise be eligible for this list are excluded on a technicality.

Surely there is some methodology we can use that attempts to list a range of possible sales numbers for artists whose records are difficult to verify by modern standards. In particular, I cannot understand how one justifies the exclusions of Crosby (whose potential range of 200-300 million records could put him at the top of this list) and Sinatra, who has an estimated 150 million records sold according to the header of his article.

What is the argument for accepting only music recording certification system numbers? Of course these systems are incredibly useful, reliable sources, but outright refusing to accept sources other than these that meet WP:RS standards sets a different standard than agreed upon wiki guidelines. For artists who were active before the advent of these certification systems, it is not only acceptable, but necessary to use other reliable sources that attest to sales numbers.

I was incorrect about this being the only type of citation being accepted. However, the percentage threshold mentioned elsewhere seems to be a recurring issue and I still would like to have a discussion on it. --Pacack (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To use Crosby as an example, his 1960 "First Citizen of Record Industry" award for selling 200 million units establishes an absolute minimum range for how many records he had sold 60 years ago. Here's a newspaper article we can use as a source. What reason is there not to accept a reliable source from the Desert Sun Newspaper for sales data like this?

To top this off, these issues were brought up by users User:ChrisTheDude and User:Bencherlite a full decade ago when this article failed to become a featured list candidate. It seems like certain issues haven't been fixed, and I'm concerned about these necessary changes not being made after all this time. Pacack (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The list has many issues and it has been discussed multiple times in the past. The main concerns are as follows:

1) This list has a WP:OWNERSHIP issues.

2) The requirements and the methodology are user-generated without having any supporting sources

3) The list has a systematic bias against black artists. Multiple editors have raised all of these concerns multiple times as you can see here 1, 2, 3 If this discussion gathers more attention, I can explain more. Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate specifically on point 2? I've read the links you've given and am inclined to agree that the current percentage thresholds are unworkable and need to be revisited or removed entirely. What reason is there for having a threshold to begin with? Why not simply list the claimed and certified sales and allow the discrepancies to speak for themselves? Pacack (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly other issues on top of everything mentioned here like WP:NOR. However, I think it may be best just to ping admins that have in the past have been involved with this article or some or these complaints in the last. Perhaps they may also like to comment or have some input on how to reach a resolution. Levivich Black Kite Girth Summit Praxidicae Salvabl Rhododendrites GoodDay TruthGuardians (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not overly tuned in on music pages. Best to let others figure this out. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor comment: I think WP:NOR wouldn't apply as a whole starting from the sense that list shows two figures for some artists. At the end all figures, per se aren't of the opinion/synthesis of users: They came from media. Also there is not a truth: nor even yours, nor even from them. Your truth could be also WP:NOR. Simply: music sales are a complex thing, with varying degrees in each individual in so many regards. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The methodology for record sales on Misplaced Pages is 100% WP:NOR. If it wasn’t then show me the source that I have been looking for for years that proves the methodology… I’ll continue to wait. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't per se. Brings light and figures are attached to media reports. As far as I remember, doesn't exist a methodology outside or accurate, nor even Chartmasters is. Streaming-era makes things harder as ever. Perhaps, grouping artists by era could help, lumping those from 20th and 21st centuries. Or in the current version but having pre-1950s artists, like Crosby. Take in consideration media reports could vary enormously, Crosby for example, has sales reported from 150/200/250/300/400/500/ to 1 billion + as far as I remember. And in terms of certifications at the end, suggests that Drake or Rihanna are the highest-selling individuals ever. Then, there are others artists as well, with huge claimed sales figures (literally, hundres of millions) and without a justified piece of certifications amount to support it, nor even retroactively. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the complexities of the matter at hand here, really, but I still don't think we can be the ones to decide what claims are or are not supported by the evidence. That's the entire purpose of using outside reliable sources. We should simply report A. what artists themselves claim their sales to be, and B. what sales are certified. No threshold tying one to the other for inclusion on the list other than the 75 million+ units sold baseline that we use as a cutoff.

Regarding Crosby in particular, he's particularly difficult to get an accurate number on, but my understanding from the reading and research I've done is that the 200m number comes from 1960, and the 500 billion number comes from his son's memoir, I believe. (Sourcing potentially from some original source that we need to find and use instead, if we can.) This is further complicated by the fact that he's not just an early artist, but one that was popular in literally every music market on the planet, so records from the US alone do not capture his full numbers. (There are references on his page to his popularity from the Americas to Africa and India.)

Again, while I am sympathetic to the inclination to want to verify that the claimed sales aren't totally ridiculous, I think the best course of action is to let the sources speak for themselves. If the claimed and certified sales have a significant discrepancy, we can list that clearly in a separate column and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about that discrepancy. --Pacack (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help here. Hopefully by getting admins to look at the page we can find a resolution. (Frankly, I'm stumped how to go about restructuring it effectively, as I've never taken on anything but fairly minor edits in the past, and the issues seem bad enough that something systematic has to be changed.) Pacack (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem. But I could say don't center your view in just one point, as there is other truths and boomerang effects in regards the above view. At the end, every point could be biased, and every point could have WP:NOR. At this is because music sales are a complex thing. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you guys talking about, but for sure this list using the world's greatest news organization and Newspaper of record. They are BBC News, Irish Independent, Reuters, ABC News, The Daily Telegraph, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, CNN, Bloomberg News, many of the world's greatest newspaper. So you guys better put some respect to this list. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Just responding to the ping above. Most of the people pinged there aren't actually admins, but that doesn't really matter because admins don't have a particular role in resolving content disputes - editors of this page will need to determine how this page should work, in-line with the relevant policies and guidelines. I don't know how the entries on this list have been selected, but one approach you might want to consider is deciding upon a single metric, and then making it clear in the lead (and potentially renaming to make it clear in the title) that that is what has been done. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Entries on this list have been screened based on a minimum percentage threshold of certified units that was determined several years ago.

Before 1973 requires 30% in certified units, 1973–1990 requires 30-70% in certified units, 1990–2000 requires 70-77% in certified units, and 2000–present requires 77-80% in certified units.

My perspective is that these thresholds are arbitrary and constitute original research in violation of WP:NOS, and that they are particularly unworkable for older artists that were active before sales certification systems were established. The counterargument (if I understand correctly) is that these thresholds are necessary to prevent artificial inflation of sales numbers by artists. Pacack (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You get it. It’s such a relief to see other admins who understand how the page is, versus what the page should be. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To be very clear, I'm not an admin by any stretch of the imagination. I've only done minor edits, which was part of my reason for trying to get this conversation started. I want to get more experienced editors involved that can help us resolve this. Pacack (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The main points being brought up are

A. The methodology by which artists are added to this list (percentage of certified sales) is based on user-generated standards (30% for early artists and 75% for later) and as such probably violates WP:NOR. We should simplify the process enough that there is no need for a "definitions" section. (My recommendation would be to remove the percentage threshold for inclusion and simply allow the discrepancy between claimed and certified sales to speak for itself. Alternatively, we could remove this requirement specifically for artists that were first active before a given year.)

B. The sources used currently are, of course, very high quality sources, and I don't dispute that. However, the certification systems used extensively in this article didn't exist yet for several old artists that are notable enough to be on this list. We shouldn't expect to have sources that can verify 30% of sales for an artist like Crosby (I'm just using him because he's the easiest example, ) when much of his career was before certification systems themselves existed. If the best available sources for the time indicate a number of records sold, we should use that number. This is especially true if editors elsewhere on Misplaced Pages have relied on these sources in other articles. If they're reliable sources for those articles, they should be reliable enough for our purposes here too. Pacack (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The current requirements does not allow artists from Motown like Diana Ross/Supremes and The Jackson 5. Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today. It also completely ignore an artist like Frank Sinatra who began charting in 1939. Certifications as we know are not automatic. The feud between Motown and RIAA is the reason why Motown artists are missing millions of certifications. They should be included. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think all of these are important points. If I'm understanding you correctly, there was some sort of feud (legal?) between motown artists and certification organizations? Could you elaborate/source that so I can read about it? I'm admittedly not aware of the issue there.

Would a removal of the threshold standard solve these issues? Whether for artists before a certain year where records are sparse or just broadly? --Pacack (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pacack: in the days before streaming, records were certified based on record company shipments rather than sales (as no country in the world was monitoring total sales before 1991). To gain a certification, the label had to ask for it, the certifying body had to audit the record label, and the label also had to be registered. Motown didn't register with RIAA until 1977, which is why they don't have any certifications before this date (obviously well after the label's heyday and the majority of their artists' sales), and in addition, label boss Berry Gordy didn't bother to get many of his records certified... allegedly, the Supremes' biggest-selling single in the USA was "Love Child" with over three million sales, which should be enough for a triple platinum certification, yet it doesn't even have a gold certification. This is why it is especially difficult to get any reliable sales figures for Motown artists. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the threshold standard will solve most of these problems. I would also suggest having a separate column Total Available Sales next to the Total certified units for each and every artist on the list. Furthermore, The total claimed sales should be in line with the Total available sales, rather than the total certified sales. In the Supreme’s case, their song "Love Child" is not certified in the US due to the issue Richard3120 mentioned above, so this list doesn't consider it even though we have a source for the song selling over 2M copies in the US. So using the 2M in the total available sales column will be very useful and a lot less confusing and problematic. Another instance is the Bee Gees which have 74.7m total certified units. This includes the 22.1M certified sales of Saturday Night Fever. We have sources for another 7m units of sales in various other countries that went uncertified for many reasons. So using the figure of 29.1M in the column Total Available Sales will help to reduce the gap between the claimed sales and help to give the readers a more accurate figure. TheWikiholic (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this idea? I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Do you mean we should have three columns for sales, being Total Claimed Sales (what the artist claims their number is), Total Certified Sales (sales certified by Record Certification Organizations), and Total Available Sales (sales verified by reliable sources, whether certification organizations, newspapers, or something else?)

If that is what you mean, then I can see both pros and cons for the idea. The biggest pro is that we can include reliable sources that are not necessarily certification systems, which helps to inform the reader of whether the claimed sales are backed up by reputable sources or not. The biggest con is that the sheer amount of information this requires us to keep track of increases by 50%, which makes it difficult to keep up with everything. We would also have to determine if the minimum 75 million records sold number should be based on claimed sales, certified sales, total available sales, or some combination thereof. If someone claims 75 million records sold, but no sources back that up, do we include the artist on the list or not?

In my mind, maybe the best way to approach this would be to exclude artists that do not meet the 75 million threshold by either the certification or total available sales standard, which would admittedly limit the number of artists covered on this page. Artists that currently claim 75 million sales but don't have that amount in certified sales include Christina Aguilera, Usher, The Black Eyed Peas, Shakira, Tupac, Alabama, R. Kelly, Nirvana, Robbie Williams, Bob Seger, Kenny G, Enya, Bryan Adams, Bob Marley, The Police, Barry Manilow, Kiss, and Aretha Franklin. We would have to either find a reliable source that supports the 75 million claim or remove them from the list. I would consider this an acceptable limitation of this article's scope, but such a change has to have support before we proceed.

Should we start a formal vote on Approval/Disapproval to change the standards here, or should we iron out the details of the Total Available Sales idea a bit more first? Either way, I think we should vote first on whether to remove the certification threshold standard, then depending on the results of that vote move to vote on the addition of a "total available sales data" standard. Pacack (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I agree with @TheWikiholic that removal of the threshold standard would probably resolve this issue as well. Pacack (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pacack, first of all, I want to thank you for starting this discussion, and I also want to thank all the users for the good atmosphere of debate that is going on here right now. I believe that, together, we will reach positive results that will help to improve this list.

Let's see.. establishing as a requirement that a percentage of claimed sales be supported by estimated sales may seem positive (and in part it is), but it is certainly not perfect, considering that "certified sales" is a sum composed of figures from multiple markets/countries, which have established their certification systems in different years (even several decades apart). This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Presley, since the United States was the first country/market to establish its certification system) while this is not the case for other artists with a more global reach, such as Madonna or Michael Jackson, who have many sales that have not been certified due to the inexistence of certification systems in some countries/markets during part of their careers. The requirements based on certified sales have allowed this list not to have a lot of highly inflated claimed sales figures that have been appearing in music literature for a long time (1 billion for The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley, similar figures for Bing Crosby, 400M for ABBA...), but it has resulted in inaccurate positions and figures due to the certification threshold standard. Apart from that, I don't find fair that Sinatra is out of this list due to the fact that when he sold more records there were no certification systems, and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson in this list (and better not to talk about the origin of such claimed sales figures of Presley). I think it should at least be possible to include Sinatra in a separate section. Salvabl (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A RfC could help, but only previously if ideas are condensed and concise. At the end, I honestly think that any possible way of elaborate the list, could carries its own problems. If list keep the 75M figures for example, they're many other artists unlisted with those claims and higher. As a reader for a long-time of Portuguese/French/Spanish Misplaced Pages, I've seen how other artists have their sales increased because of circular reporting (by Misplaced Pages vandalism) and even now have English-source backing those sales. Many of these artists could fit for an inclusion, mainly if the system of certified units is deleted, eg. Perhaps, those issues like Motown certifications or Crosby era (pre-1950s) could be mentioned in this current version, as deserve a more explanatory reason to some readers why these artists aren't included. Or initiate a RfC for their inclusion in another sub-section. The problem with certifications figures will be perpetual, as aren't automatic for some artists, for example: Britney Spears as many of her works have uncertified millions of copies in the States alone, Celine Dion as well, or for example Michael Buble's Christmas album, that took almost one decade to be certified by RIAA, and Nielsen previously confirmed those kind of sales attributed by RIAA. Also, other cases as Salvabl mentioned which includes Madonna or Michael Jackson and so on. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Drafting an RfC

• In the interest of moving this forward, an RfC should be started. I’m not super familiar with the topic but I’m putting forward the following as a draft for discussion:

Should this article list artists by:

• A the total number of claimed sales.
• B the total number of certified sales.
• C both the number of claimed sales and certified sales (without a requirement for inclusion based on figures being supported by a percentage of certified units).
• D number of "available sales" (ie any sales number given in reliable sources).
• E the methodology currently used.

I know this doesn’t account for all issues but it will provide a start. Let me know of any amendments to improve this with a view to launching the RfC in the coming days. And please try to be brief. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

C: btw E option is literally the same as C but yeah, there reason why I choose this option is just simply because it's the better combination, it's seems people have forgot why certifications exist on the 1st place, they exist so that the majority of the artists' sales can be tracked continuously, in this way we can avoid using any sales figures that are inflated. Currently, we have 24 markets that have a certification systems in the list, but keep in mind those 24 countries make up the overwhelming majority of global music sales, so at least we can make sure that we have most of the artists' confirmed sales. My only suggestion is if there's a lot of sources that have claimed sales for certain artists who debuted prior the 1950s, but they don't have enough certs to back up their claimed sales, we can at least make an exception for those artists since they debuted in a time when certifications weren't a thing. Moh8213 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The article currently lists claimed sales based on the total number of certified sales. That is simply A based on B. I oppose this method. Because certifications are not automatic. For example, in the USA, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the official authority for certifying records. RIAA certifies Gold when an album/single has shipped 500k units and platinum when it shipped 1M units. Keep in mind that even if the album/Single meets the record threshold, it's not necessary that the record get certified. To get certified the record label of the album/single need to officially send a request to the RIAA by providing documents showing that the record meets new certification levels. The record label also needs to pay a certain amount as a certification fee to the RIAA for the certification process. Once RIAA gets a formal request from the record label they forward it to an independent agency to research it. Once they confirm it, RIAA awards it Gold and platinum to the respective records. This is usually a time-consuming process. Record labels often never try re-certifying records after the albums/singles promotional periods. Artists also often get royalties based on the certifications units. In other cases like with Madonna, she was never re-certified after she left warner bros and joined Interscope in 2012. Many of her records are under-certified as of today, even though we have multiple reliable sources reporting it. Record labels may intentionally avoid the certification of records since the artist is no longer with them as they do not benefit from their old artists’ certifications. So I oppose this method and suggest we better use the claimed sales (A) based on the total available sales D.—TheWikiholic (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Every system have pro and cons. By the moment I'm 50% and 50% with C and D (Vladimir.copic). C is literally the same of E as Moh8213 pointed out. Updating list and every artist, is a time-consuming. It might will no other editor keep updating cert-figures for all artists, daily/weekly after Harout. D will require perhaps, having a Talk:List of best-selling music artists/The Beatles (or whatever artist listed here) to have a better "control" of each artist' summaries, instead of just putting references that might be difficult in having a quickly summary/verifiability and/or inaccurate summaries. Another point, do you guys think that tracks featuring various artists in a single, should be re-evaluate? this is a common practice nowadays in music industry. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

With the upmost respect, I think that most of the questions are redundant. Instead, should be presented as I have it down below:

Should this article list of claimed sales based on

A) the total number of claimed sales

B) the total number of certifies sales

C) both the number of claimed sales and certified side by side

D) number of available sales (ie any sales number given in reliable sources like Billboard or Official Chart Company )

If the above is the list of questions like I think it should be, my answer would also be option "D." My rationale is because as of today only 24 countries have a certified system. Thre was only one in the 1950s and started to increase gradually since the 1970s. However, many artists have lost millions of unit certification because of this since the early 90’s. Furthermore, certifications are not automatic and record labels need to apply for it and also pay a certification fee in the process which create process delays or scenarios where the album is never updated like D'eux by Celine Dion, which was certified diamond in the France, which is equal to 1M units since 1994. As per latest report, the album has sold 4.5M units.| However, due to the current method, we are only permitted to use the 1m units, instead of 4.5m units, essentially robbing Dion of 3.5 million sales. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This RfC will go nowhere, the same people will argue and give the same points as always. And worse, there is still that problem of having a single person with multiple accounts that was not clarified in the last Rfc made here.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The sock puppet investigation actually concluded months ago. It was discovered that there was no sock puppets or single editor with multiple accounts. RFC will resolve this issue. Doing nothing won’t resolve this issue. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear I am looking for feedback on how to frame the RfC and the options to give (I don’t care about your preferences on the outcome at the moment). My understanding is that the current methodology requires claimed sales to be backed up by a certain % of certified sales for an artist to be listed. Option C is intended to just allow both certified and claimed sales to be listed regardless of whether claimed sales are backed up. I’ve amended C above - does this make it clearer? Any better phrasing? Any additional options? Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to get an RfC started. Pacack (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

My vote is on a combination of D and A. I think we should have columns for both "claimed" and "available" sales data, not just one or the other. Instead of relying exclusively on certifications as C would do, we should expand the scope slightly to allow other reliable sources as well. This way, we can add pre-1950s artists and artists which haven't applied for certification.

Some sources will claim numbers that are beyond what any third party can verify, so we do need to include both claimed and available sales.

That said, I should note that D should be used for determining the cutoff point for inclusion on this list, or we'll end up with artists claiming 75 million records sold simply to be included here. This also limits the scope of the article slightly to make it manageable enough to maintain. Pacack (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

My vote is E. So that the page doesn't become a mess like it was before the current methodology, full of absurd sales that make any article look (and be) unreliable. The problems of not giving importance to the verifiability that the certifications provide is that it gives a green card to inflated and unrealistic sales. And what source would be reliable for sales estimates if, outside of IFPI, no one counts worldwide sales? The sources either copy from what the record companies said or from Misplaced Pages itself. If certifications are not to be considered, better delete the article.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I worry you may be misunderstanding what the suggestions here are. No one is suggesting that we don't source from certifications data. It's, frankly, probably always going to be the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Rather, option C is suggesting to remove the current percentage thresholds that determine if an artist meets the qualifications to be on the list, but to still use only certification data for verification. This allows the discrepancies between claimed and certified sales to speak for themselves.

The big advantage of going even further than that, as D suggests, is to allow for either certifications data or other reliably sourced data to be used. This is most useful in the case of artists that were active before the certifications systems we use were established, but also allows us to include artists that haven't applied for certification for whatever reason.

I want to be explicitly clear that no one is suggesting we do away with certifications. That would frankly not make any sense. Pacack (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear THIS IS NOT AN RFC. I am just trying to get people’s opinions on the framing and options for a future RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's how it works, starting in concreting the ideas. Another extreme point, as music editors such as JSFarman addressed in the past (Archive 41) is "have delete the article entirely". It makes sense in many aspects, including the non-static figures with streaming figures/certifications, for example, which is a time-consuming process; judging by the edit history that's almost daily. I'm not seeing another user rather that Harout updating those numbers, and if he is blocked/sanctioned, or being inactive in the sense of the current ANI-thread, it seems will be another "big" problem having outdated figures. I'm just trying to see all sides and shadows about changes, seeing other ideas etc. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

About Harout, that's what I'm predicting. He has every right not to continue updating the certificates on this list, if that RfC elect for claim sales instead of using the current methodology. Who's going to bother updating certificates? I don't think anyone will and in the end the list will turn into what it was in the past: a bunch of inflated sales created by fans and labels.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

One thing is that there is a user, in this case Harout72, who contributes daily to update the certified sales figures, although there are also other users like @Politsi who make frequent contributions to the List; and another thing is to claim that without Harout72 this list would cease to be what it is, and would change completely. Since, if that is so, it confirms that WP:OWNERSHIP exists. Salvabl (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with many of your points and from the other users here. I know we don't have a crystal ball, I'm just seeing the possible cons that would exists. With ownership in a certain amount or totally, I'm not defending Harout, just saying that its also true that (streaming) certifications are a daily thing. This is a corollary, as these figures are more dynamic than a specific album that's time-to-time. Politsi is relatively active in the sense of finding urls, but not sure if he/she will in charge to update those figures daily. Or one of y'll, or whatever other user. I would be happy to assist, but I know my time. The other option would be as TruthGuardians proposed: A) the total number of claimed sales. Certainly also carriers possible circular reporting for some artists. At least, from my point that I know certain artists in Italian/Portuguese/French/Spanish areas, that have these kind of sales report and they would have an automatic inclusion. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in the near future we will have systems providing hourly updated streaming certifications data, and then even with a daily activity of a user like Harout72 it will not be possible to keep the List updated. We also have to keep in mind that it is always possible to add a note indicating the dynamic character of this list (I think it could be necessary in the future). Apart from that, there are several users active in music-related content, who probably until now have hardly contributed to this List, possibly due to Harout72's attitude. I believe that, with the participation of various users, this list can be active and its Talk page can have enriching discussions among the different users, which will increase the available information. Salvabl (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So, the list will change completely, or won't be updated, if Harout isn't invovled? That confirms ownership of this article to me. If losing one editor would completely change the page, that editor owns the page. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, respectfully. Have you read the whole point? Is not about an user per se, its about the time-consuming process of keeping figures (certifications) updated, as judging by edit history, seems that's a daily task. Something so dynamic at the end. I'm aware of the other users' concerns addressed in this thread, and all views have valid points. The point here is discuss this drafted RfC to have perhaps, a solid RfC/arguments. In other words, see all shadows and all sides; comment, provide ideas, give solutions so on. Like Salvabl did. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The link provided below by Moh8213 and Levivich (Special:Permalink/85712560) about an earlier version of this page, seems works to solve many issues. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the wording, however, I think the phrase under D should specifically say "reliably sourced by the official charting organization for the country listed". FrederalBacon (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. In that case, I actually would prefer if D were an option more like C. That is, including claimed sales and sourced available sales data, rather than just the latter. Pacack (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is that the claimed sales be supported by a new column of total available sales, which could bring more figures and valuable information from reliable sources, and could allow artists such as Frank Sinatra to be added to the list. Because, honestly, I don't think it's accurate that a list titled "List of best-selling music artists" includes Barry Manilow or Luke Bryan and not Frank Sinatra. Salvabl (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

After checking the link Pacack provided above about this list being nominated as a featured list, and the points brought by TheWikiholic, TruthGardians and Salvabl, I completely change my mind as I no longer support the current methodology that's being used on this list, while admittedly it was a "great" methodology, it clearly violates WP:NOR, and so it seems that we should abandon this methodology. But if such changes should be made, then it should be made regardless, I assume if the current methodology is removed the list will look something like this. (Btw I'm not being on anyone's sides, I'm just trying to get the point, and the people above brought some pretty valid points). Moh8213 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow, yes, this is much closer to what the page should look like, the revision from 2006(!), with the lead sentence The world's best-selling music artists cannot be listed officially.... I appreciate Vlad's effort to get an RFC started, but I think the proposed RFC format makes assumptions we should not make, such as that there even can be a WP:V-compliant (i.e., not WP:SYNTH) list of world-wide all-time best-selling music artists. My request to anyone: show me three existing WP:RS lists of world-wide all-time best-selling music artists. Does such a thing even exist? If not, perhaps that's a cue that the world's best-selling music artists cannot be listed officially... probably because of the incredible variation in and unreliability of sales data. Levivich 00:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Levivich. If the list must exist (which I can't endorse, given that this is Misplaced Pages and there are no reliable, independent sources for worldwide sales), it should begin with a big fat disclaimer. JSFarman (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

While I could still be convinced to at least attempt tracking sales, I actually find this concept really appealing as well. It should at least be one of the options for the RfC. Pacack (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I recognize now that I re-read everything that this is likely what option A looks like. Pacack (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. I've made some edits to the RfC options above based on this. Some of the requests are slightly too specific for this RfC to be useful and I think broader options will encourage more participation. Thankfully Misplaced Pages decision making works on a consensus-based model and outcomes are not decided by a bare vote. Editor are welcome to make their more nuanced suggestions in the RfC survey and these will be accounted for.

An option for deletion would be well outside of the scope of this discussion and needs to be raised at WP:AfD although I would suggest that editors hold off on that for now.

Thanks again and I will launch the RfC shortly. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Alain de Repentigny (3 September 2016). "Céline Dion établit une nouvelle marque en France". La Presse (in French). Retrieved 3 September 2016.
2. Cite error: The named reference chartsinfrance was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Madonna's record sales

Madonna has revealed on ‘Jimmy Fallon’ that she actually sold over 400 million records and that the 300 million records figure is incorrect. These are claimed sales by the artist herself, and she is not pleased by the 300 million records figure. It's something to consider for any future update. Israell (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Her being not pleased won't make us change the claimed sales to 400 million, still a third-party source is needed to include the 400 million, because we can't take artists/record labels words for granted. Either way, her current certified sales won't support the 400 million claimed sales, so we have to wait until Madonna's record label re-certifies all her records in the anglophone countries + other countries as well and then we'll decide whether the 400 million would be a match for her certified sales. Moh8213 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Same as other cases like Mariah Carey/team citing herself like the best-selling female artist or Michael Jackson quote as saying (verbatim) he sold 140 million of Thriller, sales must be matched with a certain amount of certifications and backed by third-party sources. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but the certification methodology is not 100% NOR and not sources on all of Misplaced Pages. So… TruthGuardians (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

400 million is still far from reach as of the moment for the Queen of Pop (well atleast based on the definition and criteria of this list). Loibird90 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, here are sources regarding Madonna's statement on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon: , . And this just in... The Immaculate Collection has now been certified 13 times platinum in the UK: ]. Israell (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Olivia Newton-John died on 8th August 2022, please update. 109.120.204.123 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Done.--Harout72 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

David Guetta

Harout. Please look at this source https://www.the-sun.com/news/5990600/medusa-festival-collpase-spain-death-news/amp/ this source is the U.S edition from The Sun of UK but I think the contain of U.S edition is more reliable than the UK edition. Is it okay to use this source for temporary until I get the better one? What do you think?. Politsi (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks a bit too clumsy, I think we should wait for something else to come along.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding talk page notice

So, I'm wondering if someone can explain something to me. I'm starting to read more about this talk page and the article, to be better versed in what is going on here. I was reading one of the talk page notices, it's this one:

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

Two lead artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as both will have almost equal amount of part).

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

One lead artist and two featured artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of the lead artist and to the total of both featured artists as almost all should have equal amount of part).

This is a notice informing editors how to apply sales from a multi-artist track, correct? So, because a song with one lead artist and two featured artists should have relatively equal contributions across the song, that the sales should go to each of them, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your points here are absolutely correct. This is exactly how multi-artist tracks should be counted. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So then I don't get the point of the wordy explanation. It's essentially "If an artist is listed on the track, they all, all get the certifications.". All four of those say the exact same thing, just with four different examples. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on listing method of best-selling music artists

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article list best-selling music artists by:

• A the total number of claimed sales.
• B the total number of certified sales.
• C both the number of claimed sales and certified sales (without the requirement for inclusion based on figures being supported by a percentage of certified units used in the current methodology).
• D number of "available sales" (i.e. any sales number given or claimed in reliable sources).
• E the methodology currently used.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors are asked to keep their responses to this RfC as brief as possible to encourage wide participation in this RfC. Please restrict extended comments or responses to the Discussion section

Survey

• C. We should use and present the information we have available, to better help the reader understand what claims are being made on what basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• C But ensure that they are backed with quality sources. Excelse (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Misplaced Pages featured list candidates (contested)
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class biography articles
• List-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• List-Class List articles
• Mid-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• List-Class Pop music articles
• High-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment