Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Artist of The Bodyguard soundtrack album

it says here that the artist of the said album is Whitney Houston, but the whole album is from various artist not just by Whiteney Houston. The bulk of the songs are from her but cannot be classify her as the sole artist in the album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.70.36 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The album is credited to Whitney Houston in the RIAA database and the RIAA counts certification of the album as part of Whitney Houston's overall tally. While the "various artists" could be added onto the listing of the album, the album is still considered to be, primarily, a Whitney Houston album and the various sales and certifications of the album are credited to her and to her alone as far.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

The section "Certification records in the U.S." cites the RIAA as a source, however, the RIAA only certifies sales and does not define categories and has not recognized such records except for the top selling album. This section combines verified facts, i.e. certification levels, with other original research and POV to arrive at the information presented. Although some categories are common sense and often used in other music awards, i.e. male/female, solo/group, others could be subject to debate and appear to be fan POV. Some of the categories are uniquely defined in a way that they appear to have been created simply to allow a certain album on the list (female R&B debut, post-grunge group). Unless these supposed "records" can be verified by a reliable source, this section should be removed. Piriczki (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking over the section a few days ago and I was thinking along the same lines. Since Thriller has been certified 29x Platinum, common sense also dictates that it's also the best selling album by a solo artist. However, the RIAA doesn't have a list on any section of its website that lists any of that information and the RIAA website is where the vast majority of the information in the article itself has been taken from. Some of these Certification records do seem to be POV, maybe the entire section in and of itself if you think about it.Odin's Beard (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreaming of You by Selena

If Dreaming of You by Selena is known to have been certified as 29x as per the text of the article, why isn;t it in the list? --174.131.155.12 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dreaming of You got certified 29x Platinum as a latin album. A platinum certification for a latin album equals around 200,000 copies (i think). This would give about 5-6 million copies only. 203.101.45.224 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Album Images

I was thinking of adding the album covers on the section, is it possible to add that, something similar like with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees article Talladega87 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Double Albums

Ok so this wikipage lists the "Best selling albums" in the USA. Why would double LPs be on the list if they are not actually amongst the best selling albums of all time? For example. Shania Twains "Up!" album has only sold 5.8 million copies in the USA but since it's a double LP it is certified as 11x Platinum. There are many other examples of double albums that appear on this list even though they do not qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D bovair1988 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed Songs in the Key of Life - Stevie Wonder to 5 million sold because, being more than 100 minutes and having been a double CD as well as a double LP, we can presume it's counted twice. Is there not any list from the RIAA of which albums they've counted twice? It's a sad testament to that organization's incompetence that this issue is even problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.252.55 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumours vs. The Beatles

Both of these albums claim to be the tenth best selling album in the United States on their individual pages, though one of them actually has to be #9. Is there a way to determine which one has actually sold more? MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. As both were released long before Nielsen SoundScan started tracking sales, actual sales of both albums since 1991 may be low. In any case, you could always do a Google Books search to see if you can find any publication, magazine or book with precise sales figures.--209.45.28.1 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Christmas album

According to Yahoo Music Chart Watch, Elvis Christmas album has sold 12 million albums, that's more than many of the album listed on the page. There were a few versions of the same album, according to the RIAA site, one was certified 9x platinum, another 3x platinum, therefore a combined number of 12x platinum. Should it be listed here? Hzh (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

best-selling vs certificated

This list seems to be list of certifications rather than actual sales. For example, The Beatles compilations 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 have the thing right in their articles. 17× Platinum & 8.5 million sales and 15× Platinum & 7.5 million sales, respectively. So it should be the 8.5 and 7.5 figures in the article, which are the actual sales. They have both 2 LPs or CDs, but are one album each. 82.141.74.33 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Beatles 1 album

where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.136.149 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Name

Surely this article needs to be moved to something like List of albums with the highest RIAA certifications? The RIAA certification article itself states that Certification is not automatic; for an award to be made, the record label must request certification and pay a fee to have the sales of the recording audited. Thus it is not only possible but in fact very probable that there are high-selling albums that have not been certified as such by the RIAA! Also, and I'll need to find the exact link, but the RIAA refuse to verify anything before the early 70's, meaning that all sales that they WILL verify are "From that point on". An analogy would be the RIAA only verifying sales of "Thriller" from c1990 onwards! Thus this article may indeed be the Albums with the highest RIAA certifications, but that in no way shape or form means that it is necessarily the List of best-selling albums in the United States. 41.132.116.62 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bridge Over Troubled Water

hello,

according to Fire and Rain: The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, James Taylor, CSNY, and the by David Browne, Bridge Over Troubled Water was the best-selling album in the United States, superseding Abbey Road. So, it must have sold more records than Abbey Road, despite its 8xPlatinum. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sales vs. Certifications

The certifications may say one thing but lots of the albums listed are double albums meaning that their actual sales are divided by the amount of discs.

Garth Brook's Double Live = 20x Platinum but actually sold 10 million (quite obvious, its in the title)

Billy Joel's greatest hits = 23 x Platinum but was a double album so actually 11.5 million sold

The Beatles' White Album = 19x Platinum and therefore should not even be listed with 9.5 million sold

The Beatles' 1962–1966 = 17x Platinum and should not be listed either with 7.5 million

Bruce Springsteen Live/1975-85 = 13x Platinum and was a triple album so its sales are actually 13 million divided by 3

The Rolling Stones' Hot Rocks should not be listed (double album)

Shania Twain's Up! was a double album and should not be listed

The Forest Gump soundtrack should not be listed

Life After Death should not be listed

Tupac's Greatest Hits should not be listed and neither should Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness

The Led Zeppelin Box set should be no where near this list as it was a quad-album

If this list goes by units sold then there needs to be serious rearrangements made

(SuperCell3000 (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

I completely agree.

However, we must first make sure that there are no "certification sticklers". If there are, we have to come to an agreement with them.--Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Carpenters- The Singles 1979-1983

I believe this to be Karen & Richard Carpenter's most popular album/ compilation . I have already added this to the list under 10 million records so hope it doesn't bug people. Data was taken in 2003 from Carpenters dedicated fan forum on A&M Records here's the link - http://www.amcorner.com/forum/threads/carpenters-record-sales.1263 . I am not sure how much this has increased in just over ten years, maybe has increased by 150000 each year, so that brings it to 7.5 million by 2013. It has been certified 7X platinum so i know 7 million is reasonable. I hope this is a worthy inclusion to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.240.215 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All albums on this list must meet the minimum standard of being certified Diamond (10× Platinum) by the RIAA. This album has been removed as it has only been certified 7× Platinum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.169 (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

elton john /lion king soundtrack

To Whom it may concern

              Why is it that every other artist who has recorded a soundtrack for a film who either share the album with mmany other artists e.g. beegees on saturday night fever or whitney houston who managers to write only one song on the Bodyguard soundtrack and get the sales and credit for it yet Elton John sings and writes the only songs with tim rice on the Lion King soundtrack which has sold over 10 million in the U.S.and thus close to 15 million around the world and yet does not receive any sales or credit for is work.101.98.105.182 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

                                              regards tony

Adding "Countdown to extinction"

When I have the time, I will be Adding "Countdown to extinction" by "Megadeth" to the "Less than 10 million copies" category, as it has sold 2 million copies, as proven on its Wikipedia page, under the "certification" section; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countdown_to_Extinction

 Invisible Touch by Genesis has sold over 6 million copies in the U.S. so it should be on the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.108.143 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 

If anyone feels this should be taken down for whatever reason, please notify me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkiss111 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sales figures

Where do the shipments (sales) column figures come from? The RIAA has its own methodology, but since there is some discrepancy between the two columns, how have shipments (sales) been calculated? Has the Eagles Greatest Hits really sold only 18.6 million in the US, when the RIAA claims 29 million? Dark Side of the Moon having 20 million in sales but only certified for 15 million by the RIAA? Et cetera? Nielsen SoundScan alone cannot be the source since it has no data prior to 1991. PJtP (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tina Turner

Tina Turner's Private Dancer has sold more the 6 million records in the US and should included on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. This list should only be for albums that have verifiably sold ten million or more copies, a diamond certification by RIAA standards. PJtP (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This list is completely screwed up

Putting aside the usual issues of fans wanting their favorites to show up on these kinds of lists, merited or not, the sales rankings are based on a multiplicity of sources, at times conflicting. Problematic as their methodologies are, it would be better to simply use the single source of RIAA certifications to rank sales. When a different, more accurate, and reliable methodology appears for counting sales - like SoundScan combined with record companies divulging their actual sales figures pre-SoundScan - then that can replace the RIAA as the authority. Until then, using the RIAA is best. PJtP (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis

In its present form this article represents an obvious and egregious violation of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. Combining figures from Nielsen Soundscan, which measures retail sales, and RIAA certifications, which measure wholesale sales, is comparing apples and oranges. This synthesis also demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge of what these measurements represent. Soundscan tracks retail sales from many, but not all, outlets, and in its early years only represented a sampling of outlets. Additionally, the various figures cited are taken from sources dated years apart. As for the RIAA, certifications for older albums released years before the platinum and multi-platinum levels were introduced may not account for all wholesale sales as of the certification date. Double counting is also possible where wholesale sales of certain units are counted in a certification and then the same units are counted again in subsequent retail sales the following year, or years. I suggest this article be returned to its former version where the list precisely reflected the top 100 albums as published by the RIAA. Piriczki (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can somebody please revert the page to how it was before it was vandalized? The only relevant update is the addition of CCR. Everything past that is basically vandalism. It's been completely demolished in the past two days by two random accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortheagesuser (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 Already done --Mαuri^’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 04:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

biggie smalls

he isnt here,his life after death album got diamond,shouldn't it be here?

biggie smalls also has the nickname The Notorious B.I.G, which actually is on the list with album life afted death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.134.89.26 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Presently this article cites the Recording Industry Association of America's top 100 albums list plus 70 other sources, most of which reference select sales figures from Nielsen SoundScan at different points in time. Soundscan retail sales figures, where available, are then combined with RIAA wholesale sales using Wikipedia editors' methodology to create a unique list which is not published by either the RIAA or Soundscan, only on Wikipedia. Does this use of sources represent a violation of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material, combining material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? Piriczki (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Apparently my earlier comment was deleted, which possibly generated this thread of comments in the first place. I am going to replace it here, regardless of whether the discussion is closed as my original comment pre-dates the opening of this discussion. Again, since Soundscan data only goes back to 1991, and is only available via paid subscription, it is better to use the RIAA data only as it is more readily available, covers a longer history, and avoids the charge of original research altogether.PJtP (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ORIGINAL COMMENT:

This list is completely screwed up. Putting aside the usual issues of fans wanting their favorites to show up on these kinds of lists, merited or not, the sales rankings are based on a multiplicity of sources, at times conflicting. Problematic as their methodologies are, it would be better to simply use the single source of RIAA certifications to rank sales. When a different, more accurate, and reliable methodology appears for counting sales - like SoundScan combined with record companies divulging their actual sales figures pre-SoundScan - then that can replace the RIAA as the authority. Until then, using the RIAA is best. PJtP (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think I'll be weighing in on this question, because I'm struggling more with the question of why this article even exists. Regarding the odd methodology, its basic premise seems sound -- to try to "fine tune" the sales data by combining RIAA data up through 1990 with (presumably) more accurate data collected by another source after 1990. But Piricki raises valid points about the "apples and oranges" nature of the two sets of data, as well as possible inaccuracies (perhaps substantial) with respect to albums that have significant sales both pre- and post-1990. And add to that the ad hoc collection of the more-recent data, which causes many of the totals to be stale and in need of updating. But even with these flaws, the "fine tuned" sales estimates are not terribly different than the RIAA estimates. The real reason why the ordering of this list is so very different than the RIAA's ordering lies in the treatment of multi-disc packages, for which the RIAA effectively multiplies the number of packages sold to reflect the number of "units" in each package. But my reading of the RIAA rules (found here) tells me that this rule is applied only when the package contains more than 100 minutes of music. If I'm misinterpreting the rule, I'll be happy to be set straight. But if the rule really says what it appears to say, then most of the adjustments being made in this table are in error and need to be undone. And after that is done, the ordering on the list will not look very different than the RIAA's list. And this brings me back to my original question -- what's the point of having this article if all it effectively does is duplicate the RIAA list? NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding multi-disc packages, it should be noted that until 1975 certifications were based on the dollar amount of wholesale sales, not units. Due to rising prices which made Gold status easier to achieve, the additional requirement of 500,000 units was added. This presented a disadvantage to higher priced product, such as double albums. One could say that the changes to certification requirements in 1992 and 1997 rectified that situation. Piriczki (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As an editor that has taken pride in finding sources to clarify how many copies an album has actually sold, rather than shipped, I admit that there is no way of knowing how many copies an album sold prior to 1991. By using a template that other editors used before me, which is adding the RIAA's certification up to 1991, and then Soundscan figures beginning in 1991, the "actual" sales figures and RIAA certification generally don't differ that much. To NewYorkActuary's comments about double albums, the "100 minute" rule only began to apply in the CD era. Albums in the vinyl era counted as double if their length exceeded 80 minutes, which is generally how much music one CD can contain. For example, Pink Floyd's The Wall is 81 minutes, and Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life is 85 minutes, but both count as a double album because they were released in the vinyl era. An 81 or 85 minute album released today would only be a single album. I agree with you that this page serves no purpose if it simply parrots the RIAA's list of best-selling albums, but I would hope that we can all agree that the RIAA's method of counting double albums as two shipments, and certifying albums based on shipments, rather than sales, is ridiculous. I believe that using RIAA certifications and Soundscan figures are the best way to determine how many copies an album sold, not just shipped. StyrofoamChicken (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• It is original research. This is going beyond the information compilation or simple math outlined by WP:ORNOT. It takes editor's personal knowledge of RIAA and Soundscan procedures as well as judgement calls about how to calibrate them. Rhoark (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of best-selling albums in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725044833/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblDiamond
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231425/https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-ed-sheerans-transatlantic-1-202342797.html to https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/chart-watch-ed-sheerans-transatlantic-1-202342797.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

2Pac - All Eyez On Me sold more then 10.000.000 and went Diamond

http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2014/08/tupacs-eyez-goes-diamond/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasia (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Page is now massively inaccurate

Following the change to match the albums to their raw certs by user:Bluesatellite, this list is now even more inaccurate than it was previously. At least the combination of the original certs pre-Soundscan with official SS sales and the working list of club sales gave a somewhat honest estimate of the higher selling records. Consider reverting it or changing this page to "highest certified albums in USA." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc8755 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Certification is not sales. Please familiar yourself with RIAA certifications. An album could sell one million, but it will never get platinum unless the label pay the RIAA to audit the album's "shipment" (again, not "sales") before coming into certification. So combining certification and sales is a WP:SYNTH violation. It's not Wikipedia job to "estimate", we report what reliable sources state. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, changing this list to represent raw sales as certs makes it less accurate, obviously because certifications can miss sales (The Dark Side of the Moon), overestimate sales (Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975)) and now take into account equivalents which are not album sales (Thriller). No credible source uses certificates alongside pre and post-SS numbers and club sales to accurately estimate raw album sales, so now we're left with a defunct list. Instead we get inflated record label estimates and outdated or often unsourced ones from publications. It would be more accurate the change this page to "highest certified albums in USA."Mc8755 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point. Besides we have already had List of best-selling albums in the United States of the Nielsen SoundScan era to cover all the "sales" from SS. Let's see, if no rejection from other users, we can move it List of highest-certified albums in the United States. FYI, I was the one who moved List of best-selling music artists in the United States. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

goodbye yellow brick road

WHY IS GYBR NOT ON THE BEST SELLERS LIST AT THE FEWER THAN 10 MILLION MARK. CLEARLY IT SHOULD BE AT 16 MILLION JUST LIKE ANY OF THE OTHER DOUBLE ALBUMS THAT GET DOUBLE CERTIFIED11:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)11:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)11:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.98.222 (talk)