Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 49

Whitney Houston

Harout. I Will remove her 170m claim because she's already at 152m in certified sales. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's remove the 170 million when she's closer to 160 million with her certified sales. After all, her recent certs on singles must be streaming generated.--Harout72 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please give me your file on Whitney?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Here you are.--Harout72 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The total digital certifications of Whitney from the USA is 29.5 million. If we deduct them from her total certifications, it will be still at 123.1 M, and it's around 62% for her 200M claimed sales which I think is good enough for an artist who got her first certification in 1985.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiholic, make sure you make your comments clear before you decide to remove sales figures. You said nothing about 170 million, your comment is about 200 million and it's already in the list. If you were referring to 170 million, then why should there be 40 million units of gap? BTW, UK and Denmark both have large number of certifications for Houston that are Streaming generated.--Harout72 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment was about why the sales claim of 170M is no longer required for Whitney. The discussion was also about that. The total available certification of whitney from Denmark is 515K and certainly her UK certification since 2014 will not be crossing 10M. If you check her streaming trends you can see that her worldwide digital certification from all are not streaming dominant, but digital download. Oddly, Whitney's contemporaries, like Madonna, has a gap of 94M records between her certfied sales and claimed sales. Considering all these facts the 40M gap is not a big one, at all.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All certifications on singles issued after 2017 are heavily streaming generated, in all of the western world. The 40 million gap would immediately become 70 million gap if the 170 million claim is removed prematurely. For that reason, it should remain in place until the gap becomes smaller. Madonna doesn't have any streaming generated certs in US, in fact, Madonna's US record company hasn't re-certified her catalogue since 2012, so Madonna isn't a good comparison. But AC/DC is in Whitney's section, and their gap is relatively small between their certified sales and the lower claimed figure, but also would leave a huge 65 million units of gap if the 150 million figure is removed prematurely.--Harout72 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Whitney Houston’s digital certifications are certainly not heavily generated by streams. If you have any doubt, please have a look at her stats on popular streaming websites, such as Youtube and Spotify. There are two reasons that Whitney is being compared to Madonna; the first is that both are from the same era, and the second is that Madonna had a gap of over 146.7M units between her claimed sales and certified sales when this page began using her 300M claim. I would also like to point out that you already replied to Politsi, saying that it was okay to remove her 170M claim once her certified sales had reached 160M, which is 7.4M away from her current claimed sales. Could you please provide me with an adequate explanation on how having 7.4M more claimed sales would justify the removal of her 170M claims?— TheWikiholic (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You should provide sources for her digital sales that Whitney's digital certifications are not mainly Streaming generated. I already explained above why Madonna should not be compared to Whitney in this situation. If you can produce reliable sources for Whitney's digital sales and they are at least 75% Digital Download based, and not Streaming generated, then by all means I'd agree to remove the 170 million.--Harout72 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Since this is an independently verified list here are a few links to her most popular streaming websites such as Youtube and Spotify. If you go to her other streaming sites as well and convert all of her streams into EAS it won't amount to your claims. Websites like Chartmasters, which is not considered a reliable source here, have her streaming sales equivalent to 4.9Million. Also, I would like to see the source that you are referring to that says 75% of Whitney's digital sales are streaming generated.— TheWikiholic (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not supposed to convert the streams into downloads. Those you're pointing out are streaming based numbers not downloads. Let me know if you have reliable sources such as this that separately show the sales of Whitney's downloads for her songs. As I stated above all certifications issued after 2017 (even earlier) are heavily streaming based. Examples: Maroon 5's "Memories", certified 3x Platinum in 2020, only 264,000 downloads. Post Malone's "Circles", certified 4x Platinum in 2020, only 281,000 downloads.--Harout72 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't convert Whitney's streams into download. What I did was show what her total streams are and converted them into EAS. For example, Whitney has 4.7B views on Youtube, and if you take the entire 4.7B views as premium views, her total EAS generated from youtube would be around 3M. Have a look at Chartmaster’s figure of her digital single sales numbers, which is around 34M. Certifications are issued after 2017 are heavily streamed based. I agree with that, but only if the records are released since 2017. You are not supposed to apply the same metrics for an artist from the 20th century unless something huge happened to them to have a boost to the artists streaming, such as the death of an artist for example, or Queen’s biopic, which is responsible for their Spike. All of her recent certifications are digital downloads + streaming generated sales combined retrospectively. It is not fair to give any artist from the 20th century the same treatment as Maroon 5 or Post Malone.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no digital sales in the 20th century, it doesn't matter whether an artist is from 20th or 21st century, all digital certifications issued after 2017 are streaming based, whether the digital format of a single was released in 2017 or 2010. Whitney doesn't have certifications issued on her digital singles before 2019, it's the streaming that helped her digital certs to reach Gold/Platinum levels, not downloads. Again, let me know if you have reliable sources for Whitney's digital downloads.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Whitney Houston is an artist from the 20th century and none of her certified materials were released after 2017. You just compared her recent certification with two songs by two artists from this century and released in 2019. You didn’t feel any differences between these two?? Whitney having certifications issued on her digital singles before doesn't mean all of her certifications are heavily streaming generated. There is no evidence of this at all, anywhere. If her streaming numbers are as large as you pretend they are, then surely it should be reflected in her Spotify and Youtube channels. It’s not. Unless you are able to provide a source specifically saying that her recent certification is 75% streaming generated as you claim, I will remove her 170M claims again. If you revert it again I will start an RFC on this and inform related wikiprojects because rules need to be followed here.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If the 21st century artists were treated the same way on the list, then, their claimed figures would get upgraded at the same rate as their certification grow. I'm not even going to keep circling around the same thing over and over. I already explained in detail and also provided sources that all these RIAA certifications issued for Whitney's digital singles are mainly streaming generated. In fact, you will find yourself at AN/I if you keep disrupting both this talk page and also the main page.--Harout72 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think when Whitney reach 158 on her certified sales. Then we should remove her 170m claim. Politsi (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Politsi, According to Harout 75% of Whitney's recent digital certifications are streaming generated. Whitney has 29.5M digital certification in the USA. If the whole 29.5M digital certifications are streaming generated she would have at least 44.2 Billion streams on her streaming sites. But her streaming numbers don't cross the 10 Billion mark if you combine all of her streams from all of her streaming sites. I’m left pondering the question as to where Harout got the figure of 75%?. If we combine her total streams manually by going to each of her streaming sites or using the figure on chartmasters, we can see that Harout claim is a WP:OR and 70% to 80% of Whitney's certified sales are due to digital download. Pinging Apoxyomenus and 88marcus for their opinion.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Streaming data is collected from many platforms, not two, not three, not four. There is no way for an ordinary person who has no access to these detailed data where streaming data is being generated. None of Whitney's singles even made the top 10 digital sales when she passed away in 2012, none of her singles made the top 10 digital charts in 2013 either, and normally sales of all kinds spike up during the year artists pass away. Bluesatellite's and Binksternet's opinions could also be used here.--Harout72 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between 153m or 158m or 160m. As long as there is no source specifically supporting the 75% claim being made, I don't see any issues with the removal of Whitney's 170M claims. Sony has retrospectively certified her digital sales which has cumulated since digital download has begun. Furthermore, Chartmasters have tools to go to each streaming site’s database and there, 4.9m can be calculated. I also don’t see how the statement, “There is no way for an ordinary person…” supports or not support the topic at hand. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians should go over the discussion above carefully. Nowhere in the discussion above there is a mention by me that 75% or let alone 80% of the certs are streaming generated. I said, if there are sources available that show that 75% of Houston's digital certs are digital download based, and not streaming generated, then by all means the I'd agree to remove the 170 million. My suggestion in this edit amounts to 35% digital download and 65% streaming on all digital certs combined. And those percentages are a fact for all digital certs these days or even four years ago.--Harout72 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Whitney doesn’t have that many streams to suggest what you are claiming though. Record companies certify the digital sales retrospectively. For example, Michael Jackson was the first artist to download over a million singles in a single week in 2009 by selling 2.6 million digital downloads and the following week another million. Jackson’s songs were downloaded prior to that as well, albeit, not at 2009’s rate. All of this was certified in 2018. Whitney’s recent certifications also happen in a similar way. Furthermore, Chartmasters have tracked Houston’s streams from all of her platforms and combined it as 4.9 by using tools available to us all.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait until Whitney reach 158m on her certified sales then we can remove her 170m claim. I mean, look at the Eagles, that band already on the chart since 1972 and they have nearly 152m on their certified sales. While Whitney hit the music chart since 1984 with 152m also. I don't like to see Whitney's position above The Eagles with only a little bit better in certified sales. She should have at least 158m to beat The Eagles on the list. Politsi (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Side note: a minimum of 23 million certifications by the Eagles are provably questionable and more than likely should not exist. Think that’s important to point out.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@TruthGuardians, "a minimum of 23 million certifications by the Eagles are provably questionable and more than likely should not exist"? How'd you figure that? The same way you figured that Michael Jackson was going to have similar number of certs between December 1, 2021 and now, which never actually materialized"? As for the number of Whitney's streams, The 4.9 million EAS at Chartmasters stands for Equivalent Album Sales which is based off of Audio streams (1/1500) and Video streams (1/11750). That means the number of Album streams have been divided by 1500 and Video streams by 11750 to land at 4.9 million equivalent real units, and that's a huge number of streams. When the 4.9 million is back converted, half of it by 1500 and the other half by 11750, it translates to 3.675 billion and 28.787 billion respectively. Retroactively certified digital singles by the RIAA are only "I Will Always Love You" and "I Wanna Dance with Somebody" in 2019. Even those two are not entirely download based. The rest of the digital singles have for the first time been certified in 2019, because that's when they've reached Gold/Platinum levels with the help of streams.--Harout72 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Your tone here seems to be a little hostile. For no reason. But okay. Billboard was among 3-5 other publications to report about the Eagles, at best certifications through the year. Look no further than here (https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/eagles-vs-michael-jackson-questions-linger-best-selling-album-all-time-8503903/). So clearly this isn’t just NOR like what you are proposing here in this Whitney Houston case. As far as Jackson’s certifications are concerned, they are still underway. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but MJ certifications from It was 234.3M on 1/1/2021 to 246M as of today, the most earned by a legacy artist. Ever asked yourself why are a lot of MJ old records getting certified as of late around the world? Well, it’s because I sent a long list of records that need to be recertified worldwide equaled to about 20M units to one of Sonys executive and he replied he will do the best to get it done, and said that he expects the number to be a lot larger and they have already been working with Brazil to specifically to certify MJ’s albums that they expect to be a HUGE increase in certifications for Jackson. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I said where I stood on this Whitney Houston matter. Will you please explain how the whole scenario will suddenly change once Whitney reaches 160m? That hasn’t been made clear. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What you mean how the scenario will change? Some 7-8 million in additional certified units doesn't seem like a lot to you? You don't think that the gap will be much smaller between the certified sales and the 200 million, when the 170 million is removed? Especially considering that we have streaming generated certs included in the 152 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Politsi, I wonder what difference it would make once Whitney adds another 5.3M certified sales to her total? If you check Eagles' available certification you can see that more than 84% of their total available certifications are from the USA. You should also note their hiatus from 1980 to 1994. Their best-selling album had only certified 12-time platinum in 1990 and it has certified 26-time platinum since 1990. Similarly, their Hotel California certified 9-time platinum in 1990. It was certified 17 times platinum since then. Even if there are multiple reliable sources questioning these certifications like this, the fact is most of their RIAA certifications happened after the 90s. I hope I didn’t lose you there.

Harout, you are not supposed to take half of her streaming-generated figures based on video streams. This is not a good idea for someone who claims her recent certifications are heavily stream generated. For example, Whitney has 4.7B views on Youtube and when you apply the 1/11750 ratio on her total views, the EAS would be roughly around 420k and besides that RIAA treats premium streams and freemium streams differently as well. Considering this, she will need more video streams to prove your claims. And Whitney doesn't have that many streams even if we combine all of her streaming from all of her platforms. The digital singles having been certified in 2019 doesn't mean they have reached Gold/platinum levels only by then with the help of streams. If that was the case all of these singles should have been appeared in various singles charts prior to the certification year.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article says "The RIAA told Billboard that the certification was approved by its auditor, Gelfand Rennert & Feldman". The bottom line is it's gone through the auditing process and it's been certified. The 4.9 million with conversion ratios of 1/1500 and 1/11750 at Chartmasters are for Albums streams and Video streams. The streams of her singles are not posted there, the ratio that's used for singles is 1/150, and it's clearly not there. Thus, the number of her streams are much higher.--Harout72 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that 7-8m certfication will be most likely be streaming generated, so I don't think it’ll make a big diffeeences. By the way, Doesn’t Whitney still have 60% certification even if we take out the entire 29.5M digital certification from USA? Isn’t that enough to remove the 170m?TruthGuardians (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The article didn't say it didn't audit. The article is asking whether the album really sold 20m units since 91 or not. If yes, then why is it not tracked by SoundScan or not reflected in any other album chart during this time span? When we apply 1/150 ratio, all of her streams should be from the USA to support your claim. As far as my knowledge RIAA only takes the numbers from the USA. Are you saying all of her streams are generated from the USA?. Truthguardians, I already informed Harout that even if we take out the whole 29.5M digital sales, she will still have 123.2M. And if we take out the 5.6M of her UK digital sales and 515K of her Denmark sales it will be at 117M. Which is over 58% for her 200M claims. And if we convert all her streaming-generated certification into actual sales, it will add another 5 million, thus bringing her total certification to 122M. This is good enough for an artist who first charted in 1984 and got her first certification in 1985.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And why would we remove the 170 million if the deduction of the streaming generated certs would create a gap of some 70 million units between the certified sales and the 200 million? Just because the 200 million would still be supported by the available certified sales, it doesn't mean the lower claimed should be and/or are ready to be removed. Based on your theory, all lower claimed figures should be and ready to be removed, including The Beatles' and Madonna's, because their higher claimed figures are too supported by their certified sales. The percentages of minimum qualifications are designed to enter the list. To upgrade the claimed figures or to remove lower claimed figures, there must be significant growth in certified sales, and in this case the growth is based on streaming generated certifications. If it wasn't for streaming, the 170 million could've been removed when her certified sales were at 140 million. For clarity purposes, the Definitions on the main page informs readers/editors when the lower claims should be removed.--Harout72 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout72, as you can see, I disagree with what you have added to the "Definitions" section of the list. I believe that, apart from the fact that there was no common consensus to add such a statement to the section, this even goes against previous agreements resulting from extensive discussions. One example: last June we reached a common consensus, after a complex discussion, that Elvis Presley's claimed sales will be increased to 600M when his certified sales reach 280M. Considering what you have now added to the "Definitions" section, it would be impossible. Salvabl (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You can simply go over the discussions that have taken place between myself and Politsi and other editors over a period of years at this talk page and also in the archives, and you will see that my added statements do not introduce anything new. That's the way we have upgraded sales figures, that's the way we have removed lower claimed figures.--Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As I have answered you before, there is a substantial difference between how things are usually done and adding it textually to the "Definitions" section of the list, which will have to be referred to in the future. Furthermore, this matter was being discussed herein and you have added your statement without the discussion resulting in an end or a common consensus. Apart from that, when Michael Jackson's 300M claimed sales figure was removed and the 400M figure was added, his certified sales, while increasing, still didn't come too close to 300 million. Salvabl (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's the way the list has always been operated for years, and adding an extension to the existent paragraph for clarity purpose, doesn't require a new discussion. As you may noticed this discussion involves certified sales that are streaming generated. MJ had collected a lot of physical sales since his death, therefore, the two are different. As I stated above in this discussion, Whitney's 170 million could have also been removed when she was at 140 million with her certified sales, if it wasn't for the streaming based certs.--Harout72 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

True. But in that case Jackson's 400M claimed sales figure was added because his certified sales (even without taking into account the streaming-based sales) were enough according to the List's percentages, not because the gap between the available certified sales and the lower claimed sales figure (in that case, 300M) was rather small. I think that what you added may be appropriate for most of the artists and bands on the List, but the higher the certified sales the higher the claimed sales figures; therefore, for Madonna, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Elton John it is not appropriate. I believe that it should be added to the "Definitions" section that when certain conditions are met (release year of first chartered record & enough-high certified sales figure), as in the case of the artists previously mentioned, only the List's percentages should be applied. And please, do not misunderstand my revert of your statement. I believe that you have added it with good and contributory intentions, and I consider that you are the best suited to make additions to the "Definitions" section or any other part of the List, considering your daily work in it. I just believe that what we are doing right now is the best way to carry out this type of actions, bringing ideas and different views that help to improve the List, through an proper discussion. Salvabl (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we were going to include MJ's 400 million when he reached some 220 million with his certified sales, that was I believe around 2016, but after 2017, all certs issued for digital singles were more than 50% streaming generated, therefore, we postponed it. So essentially, those added statements apply to all. I personally, do not mind having discussions on the talk page, but my added statements hopefully will inform editors better as to how the list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, the gap between Madonna's cert sales and lower claimed sales were 121.7 M and the gap between certified sales and highest claimed sales were 146.7 M. Madonna only had 51% certified sales to support her 300M claimed sales. The thing is every time you insisted on the 60% available certification or higher for artists that began charting in the 1980’s you never touched Madonna. So I don’t mind Whitney having a 70M gap between her claimed sales and available certifications. What’s good for the geese is good for the gander. The list has 116 artists and out of this only 12 artists has the lowest claims. So I don't mind removing the lowest claimed sales as well. I also would like to know why Eminem and Taylor Swift doesn't have the lowest claims? The total available certification of Eminem is 247.5m and he has 107.5m digital singles certification in the USA. Considering it is heavily streaming generated if we remove the digital certification from Eminem's tally it will be only at 140M. Mariah Carey, the artist who is placed just below, started charting 9 years before Eminem will still have 145.8M available certificationS, even if we remove her digital certifications from the USA. Similarly, 134M out 235.4M of Taylor Swift’s claims is digital certification from the USA. Without that her total available certifications will only be at 101.4. Are you really saying the 220M claimed sales of Eminem and 200M of Taylor swift are make any sense at all? If this isn't WP:SYSTAMATICBIAS what else is?

Harout, you are not supposed to add a definition that supports your claims during a discussion. Even though you update this page, it doesn’t mean you own this page. You need to follow the due process and obtain a consensus from the wiki community to add something like this.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikiholic, you might want to start paying attention to your repeated accusations and your disruptive behavior, which you've been demonstrating here for years now. You don't actually need to disrupt the main page to get reported. There is a difference between owning the page and being the main editor. The fact of the matter is that the statements I added are completely in line with the way this list has operated for years. I repeat for the seventh time, since the statements I added do not represent anything new, they do not require consensus of any kind. Those statements should have been added long time ago, it would helped this discussion to be less lengthy. As for Madonna, her certified sales hasn't been lower than 157 million for 10 years. We didn't nearly have any of the guidelines back then we have today. I have told you that also, but since you are a disruptive individual, you keep bringing up questions that have already been covered multiple times. For your information, both Eminem and Taylor Swift are listed with much higher certified sales than their claimed figures.--Harout72 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Apoxyomenus: Numbers and gap speaks. And as far I can see in Houston's case, I start to define that her discography is "short" (in terms of releases: albums/singles). Despite this, she sold a considerable amount of records. Those sales, however were concentrated in the 1980s and 1990s in both USA and overseas (and always, mostly in her native country). In the rest of her career for next decades, she was most of the times under her average both USA and mostly outside (with some exceptions). Overall, Houston could easily be in a "mid-category" of those artists with most of their sales in the USA (her USA-sales are the double of her abroad figures, after, during or before her death; and/or she didn't match her USA sales with those abroad).

As Madonna has been always cited as a bad example of "discriminated gap or inflated figures", it can be used either to illustrate this perspective as well, and also because was cited both were 80's artists. Not my opinion, because her gap/numbers also speaks: Madonna's abroad certifications exceeds her USA figures, both provided by scanned figures in this page or by third-party sources: [sic]: "Madonna's visibility and numbers overseas (her sales abroad are more than double her domestic sales) are hard to overlook" (The Madonna Connection, 1993; 2019) or "Madonna's overseas sales are 2/2 times her domestic sales" (Michael Parkin; Macroeconomics; Page 65, 1993). She as any other artist, decreased her "ratio" in the next decades, but kept selling and accumulating certifications/sales in millions.

Following comparisons, fellows such as Michael Jackson until recently (2021 or 2022) matched Madonna's abroad certifications (even after his death and with streaming figures) or newer artists such as Rihanna (single-sales oriented artists) haven't yet those sales (although are closer). And back with Houston, Madonna's abroad certs, are closer to Houston's USA certs (as of 2022).

Tracking Houston's case, I tend to support Harout's point of view who have tracking her market/sales/context (as with all artists in the list) but are visible if we take a look. But I recognize both part could be wrong/right as streaming generated certs are also ambiguous. A matter that nowadays are in game in terms of millions. I'm neutral if we keep the 170M figure or we remove them. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Harout72, I don't think user TheWikiholic's behavior is disruptive at all. However, you say that "You don't actually need to disrupt the main page to get reported", which I think is out of place considering the user's message. You, already in the past, in other discussions we have had, have also made similar accusations of possible disruptive behavior. Does any exposition of other ideas and points of view that you do not support automatically constitute disruptive behavior? Wikipedia should be a democratic place where all users can express their points of view. Fortunately, those discussions had a positive ending, and important changes were made by reaching consensus among the different parties (on more complex matters than this one). I am absolutely certain that a positive conclusion is equally possible this time. For that reason, let's put all of the above aside, and focus on the following: just because something has usually been done in a certain way does not necessarily mean that it cannot be done in another way in the future (or in a specific case). And it is different to want to unilaterally add that procedure textually to the "Definitions" section while that matter was being discussed on the Talk page, since this section is a conditioning element for the management of the list in the future. On the other hand, you have added lines like "The lower claimed figures of artists (that have one lower, one higher claimed figures), are removed when the gap between the available certified sales and the lower claimed figure is rather small. Thus, the removal of the lower claimed figure shouldn't create a big gap between the available certified sales and already listed higher claimed figure", supporting such addition by saying that "it does not include anything new other than the way the list has always been operated". Well, it is not true, and the recent case of the modification of Jackson's claimed sales figures are an example that such lines do not even reflect a “tradition” of the List’s management, but that you have added them, probably with the best possible intention (I don't doubt that for a moment), but without it being entirely appropriate. This is not meant to be a problem, but an opportunity to enlarge this discussion and thereby address it, not discarding your statement per se, but in this case, to make some modification, seeking to improve it, through discussion. I think the attitude of the user Apoxyomenus is excellent, as he/she has expressed his/her point of view about Whitney Houston's sales analyzing market/sales/context, or Madonna's globality, and finally stated his/her choice about keeping or removing Houston's 170M estimated sales figure. Proceeding in a similar way, and making use of this message to address one specific thing, I oppose the phrases "The lower claimed figures of artists (that have one lower, one higher claimed figures), are removed when the gap between the available certified sales and the lower claimed figure is rather small. Thus, the removal of the lower claimed figure shouldn't create a big gap between the available certified sales and already listed higher claimed figure" contained in the text you have added to the "Definitions" section of the List. Salvabl (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course you're going to oppose those statements, because with those statements in place no inflated Michael Jackson claimed figure will ever have a chance to enter the list in the future. Michael Jackson's recent case you're referring to was addressed by me in this edit. I've explained enough, and god knows how well and patently I've covered everything. All parties involved in removing the statements which were added to avoid the use of inflated sales figures (that includes the removal of Whitney Houston's 170 million) will be reverted and taken to AN/I. Enough is enough, I'll let the administrators decide how to deal with you three.--Harout72 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that you do not have an attitude in favor of discussing these matters, instead you want to make prevail your point of view and what you have added without any consensus. You are doing the same thing you have done in the past: threatening to take to AN/I the parties involved in any action that you do not support. This happened in the past, and we did not modify absolutely nothing without prior extensive discussion and common consensus. In fact, you were the one who implemented the changes that we had agreed to make to the list at that time. On the other hand, you say that I am against those phrases that you have added because it would prevent the addition of inflated sales figures for Jackson. In any case this would affect more to other artists like Madonna or Elton John, as Jackson's claimed sales figures are 350M and 400M. In fact, if you look in the archive of this Talk page you will see that in the past I found it totally plausible to remove Jackson's 400M claimed sales figure and at the same time remove Presley's 500M claimed sales figure (but that is another matter that has already been discussed in the past). Anyway, regardless of how those phrases you have added may affect the inflated or not inflated claimed sales figures of Jackson, Madonna, Elton John or any other artist.. what you have to understand is that you have added those conditions to the "Definitions" section unilaterally, without any prior consensus. And now that it is being discussed herein, your attitude continues to be that of wanting to impose your modifications, while you only label as having disruptive behavior anyone who does not support them. That is not the right way to change the "Definitions" section of this List, which is probably one of the most important (or perhaps the most important) music-related articles in Wikipedia. So please, I make an appeal to have a democratic and constructive atmosphere in this discussion. Salvabl (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, your same old arguments are the reason why I had to repeat my argument over and over. If you feel I'm the one who’s disrupting the talk page I'm requesting that you follow the proper channels to report me. Spoiler alert: I’m not, but the outcome could be devastating for other reasons. Let’s allow an uninvolved user with a fresh set of eyes to assist with determining the real culprit responsible for disrupting, among breaking other Wikipedia rules and policies. What you added in the definition during the middle of a discussion is something you are not supposed to do. After that edit, you asked me to check the definition to prove your arguments. This is why I had to remind you that you have ownership issues with this page. The page has been like this since at least 2015 If remember correctly, Madonna has only reached 180M last year to have 60% for her 300M claims. I remember reading one of your old comments that said 50M streaming-generated certifications of today barely convert to 20M actual certifications. I don't know how you come up with that conclusion. Even if we take your theory at face value, please tell me what will be the actual sales if you convert the digital sales of Whitney's 29.5M, Eminem's 107.5M, Mariah's 39.5M, and Taylor Swift's 134M. Is it still your theory that 220M of Eminem and 200M of Taylor Swift is still not an inflated figure? — TheWikiholic (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, before I take any actions against you, I need to clarify if you're accusing me of what I believe you are. Is it my understanding that you believe my actions at the List of best-selling music artists demonstrate that I am biased towards white artists and biased against black artists? Is it your belief that I am discriminating against the black artists, and I am in favor of white artists? I will wait for your answer.--Harout72 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, there is a difference between having a non-constructive attitude in the discussion and the last message. The user TheWikiholic has mentioned names like Whitney, Eminem, Mariah or Taylor Swift. Who has ever talked about the skin color of these artists? This discussion is becoming disgusting. It is you who have made changes to the "Definitions" section, which you have added unilaterally, and despite the fact that it is you who is maintaining a non-constructive behavior towards the discussion, you are again threatening to take action against those users who do not support your unilateral non-consensual actions. Please, let's change the atmosphere of this discussion, and discuss with a positive attitude as we did in the past. I still believe it is possible. Salvabl (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Disgusting? This is now way beyond that. Skin color doesn't have to be mentioned in what he's trying to say. He's accusing me of being biased towards Eminem, Taylor Swift, Madonna and biased against Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston. This is not coincidental. In previous discussions, he's accused me of giving privileges to The Beatles and Elvis Presley over Michael Jackson. Everything he says, points out to the fact that's what he's claiming about me.--Harout72 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think user TheWikiholic's behavior is disruptive either. I find their concerns fair, enlightening, and thought provoking. When coming across random posts on various social media platforms, this Wikipedia page in particular, is always dismissed as biased on top of other reasons. I defended this article one time before and I was being called a racist and a sympathizer of sorts. But that’s getting a little off topic, I believe that a consensus isn’t going to be reached on this topic and instead of reporting each other for no reason, as I don’t think it will end as anyone think it will, I think we should take this discussion to the next level. We can get a vote going which will get others involved that will look at the available sources, or lack there of, to vote on a topic they won’t know anything about or pretend to, or we can reach a compromise.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message TruthGuardians. I totally agree with you. I think that of course we can reach a compromise. However, in order to do so, and to be able to reorient this discussion, it is first necessary to start from the status quo prior to the non-consensual unilateral modification of the "Definitions" section of the List. In fact, beyond the extensive discussion about Whitney Houston's sales, it has been the addition of such text what has caused this discussion to take a direction it should never have taken. For that reason, and although (partly in deference to Harout's work) I was proposing modifications in order to maintain part of his text, I consider it necessary that the "Definitions" section of the list be restored to its previous status quo, because it is the easiest way for this discussion to be redirected in a more positive direction, and it is also the most fair considering the one-sidedness in the modification of the "Definitions" section. From that point on, everything can be discussed and all kinds of ideas can be proposed, including modifications that may condition the management of the list in the future, but always with a reasonable democratic consensus, taking into account the users' points of view and the relevance of this List. I firmly believe that, despite what has happened in the last few days, ALL users present here can contribute to the positive development of this discussion. Salvabl (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That text should have been added to the guidelines long time ago as I pointed out above. It was a mistake, in fact, that I had not added it many months ago, even years ago as the added statements are completely inline with the way the list has been operated for years, not months. This discussion isn't this long because of any text that was added, it is long because all three of you refuse to get the point, you have behaved the same way in all previous discussions also. However, this particular discussion was driven to a very nasty direction by TheWikiholic, which became very apparent towards the end especially. I have yet to hear what he has to say. This is way beyond disruption.--Harout72 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Questioning the page’s contradiction for uniformity is not disruptive editing. You say that it’s because those that disagree with you can’t see your point of view, that’s not true. I totally see your point of view. It just doesn’t add up to me. There are quite a few unanswered questions above, and your explanation or reasoning does not answer the questions. It’s been highlighted here that some artist aren’t treated like the others, under the same rules for this page. And that’s the truth. The continuity here is broken. And surely the editors here aren’t the only people that have noticed that as stated above. We can’t have a set of rules for one artist that should apply to another artist, but doesn’t for some reason. I’m not critiquing your personal work that you’ve dedicated to this page. Maybe you don’t realize this, maybe you haven’t seen this, but it is now being pointed out. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Right now, you are claiming that we refuse to get the point, when that is exactly what you're doing right now. You claim that the text you have added should have been added a long time ago as it is inline with the way the List has been operated for a long time. However, I gave you as an example the removal of Jackson's 300M claimed sales figure. It is an objective fact that such a change was not inline with the text unillaterally added by you without consensus. On the other hand, let me tell you that I am doing my best to maintain a constructive atmosphere in this discussion, offering alternatives, suggestions for changes and continuous invitations to dialogue. But none of that is compatible with a substantial change made unilaterally without any consensus, while the matter was being discussed in the Talk page. Salvabl (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your example for Michael Jackson, the removal of the the 300 million, was explained by me in this edit and also this. Be kind enough to read my comments.--Harout72 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you explained it. And I answered you (see here), explaining that such removal and the addition of the 400M claimed sales figure was a consequence of the application of the List's percentages, not because the gap between the available certified sales and the lower claimed sales figure (in that case, 300M) was rather small. Earlier I also gave as an example that it would then be impossible to add the 600M claimed sales figure to Presley, as we agreed in June 2021 that the 600M figure will be added to him when his certified sales reach 280M. Therefore, the text you have added is not appropriate (at least not entirely). In that same messageI made a proposal since I believe that what you added may be appropriate for most of the artists and bands on the List, but not for those that meet certain conditions; proposing that to those artists (e.g. Madonna, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley or Elton John) only the List's percentages be applied. Salvabl (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, the discussion is getting long because you are not ready to accept the point of view of other editors and you see the editor with prejudice. You give too much time to attacking other editors, instead of concentrating on the topic.

The List is based on the claimed sales, and the year of the first charted record of an artist. If two artists match these two criteria, then there should be some kind of uniformity for these two. Both Madonna and Whitney have their first certification in 1984 and 1985 respectively. Madonna got her 300M claims even though she is 26.7M short of 60% of her 300M. The Gap between her available certification is still 119M while the gap of Whitney's higher claimed sales and Available certification without digital sales will be only around 70M. My question is why do you have no problem with the 119M gap of Madonna, but you do with the 70M of Whitney?

Secondly, Mariah Carey first charted record was in 1990 Eminem was in 1999, and Taylor Swift in 2006. The total available certification of these three artists without their digital certifications are 145.8, 140M,  101.3M respectively. Even if Mariah Carey charted 9 years prior to Eminem and still has 5.8M more certification isn't enough for her to be over Eminem? When you claim the 29.5M digital singles of Whitney are heavily streaming generated, why don't you feel the same for the 107.5M digital sales of Eminem and 134m of Taylor Swift? Have you ever calculated their total claimed sales by using your own 50M digitals sales=20m Actual sales theory? Besides that, I don't see any lower claims for these two artists as well. See these types of uniformity give me a serious feeling that this page has some kind of [[Racial bias on Wikipedia|racial] bias knowingly or unknowingly. I'm really sorry to say this.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

After spending almost half an hour reading your messages, I feel this list needs some fixes. I also feel that the text of the requirements should be removed, as I don't see the sense in some conditions it establishes. I feel TheWikiholic is right and that there may be racial bias in the list. But facts are facts and Withney Houston's certifications are enough to remove the 170 million figure. Vacamiera (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Vacamiera. I agree that Whitney Houston's certified sales are high enough to be able to remove the 170M claimed sales figure. I understand the concerns of the users regarding any possible kind nature of bias in this List. As TruthGuardians stated earlier, there are readers who have found this list lacking in impartiality. I believe that this list contains figures of certain artists that are not the most appropriate (in some cases by excess, and in others by defect). However, I do not think that talking about the skin color of the artists leads the discussion to a positive direction. We should start working and focus on discussing the figures that need to be addressed, of any artist on this list (regardless of their physical qualities, or of any other type). Salvabl (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have made the following change in the statements that were added, now they would read: "Gold/Platinum certifications issued after 2016, especially on singles, are in some cases more than 50% streaming generated. It should be noted that 20th century artists can also have significant amount of streaming based certifications, therefore, consideration should be taken when changing or upgrading their claimed figures also when their certifications are affected by streaming". I believe we should at least have that much information about certs generated by streams.--Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, I see Whitney's 170m has been removed by someone. So we remove it now?. Politsi (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I only saw it hours after it was removed, after I had submitted two edits myself. 7-8 million additional RIAA certs could've given us 2 maybe even 3 million in real sales especially if albums were certified also. But whatever, I'm just gonna let it be.--Harout72 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

We’re here if you need us, Harout. The page should still continue to run as it has, with your newly added rules.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, thank you very much for the modification of the "Definitions" section that you made yesterday. Now it can be said that the added text is inline with how the list has been operated since long ago, while provides valuable information for the reader at the same time. I believe that the fact that our discussion ended up at ANI should serve as a reminder to us in the future that this List, this encyclopedia, requires us to understand each other, despite the differences in our points of view. We have done it before and we will do it again in the future. Regarding the removal of Whitney Houston's 170M figure, I believe that, although I myself have stated my opinion in favor of such removal, a message stating whether or not there really has been enough common consensus to carry out such action is always necessary (as has been done in the past). Although in this case it was a user who had not previously participated in the discussion who removed it, I agree with you to let it be. This discussion, although at times it has taken a non-constructive direction, I think it is finally having an ending with more unity among users who have usually had different points of view on some matters (TruthGuardians's previous message itself shows this). Anyway, I think it is necessary (and I want) that this discussion comes to an end; and that in the future we will have new and positive discussions in which to participate. Salvabl (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding guys. While my actions at times may seem as though I own the page or something other, I won't mention it now :), at the end of the day I'm hoping that everyone can see that my only desire here is to maintain the quality and preserve the accuracy of what I have built with other editors.--Harout72 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, the List may not be perfect. What is perfect in this world? But there are things that need to be recognized: Your daily work on this list is admirable, and no one has helped to improve the List as much as you have done for years. Salvabl (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nana Mouskouri

Shouldn't Nana Mouskouri be mentioned here somewhere with around 350 million albums sold? 109.193.151.59 (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Depeche Mode is missing. They have sold more than 100 million records worldwide. Sources: German link Billboard

(sources from their article):

Sony Music (in German) Official UK Charts

Best Regards--2A0C:D242:3803:2500:6D11:1C5E:5292:2FF9 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Whitney Houston certifications

I'm glad this dispute got settled, plus it's good that Harout shared the file cuz apparently, there are missing certs for Houston in which they are:

• Argentina: The album The Bodyguard listed as "El Guardaespaldas" in Spanish, is certified 4× Platinum (240,000) in 1993. Also it seems like the DVD for Whitney: The Greatest Hits has been certified Platinum (8,000), tho I'm not sure.

• Brazil: The correct figure for the single I Wanna Dance with Somebody is 30,000, not 20,000.

• Denmark: The album Whitney Houston certified Gold (50,000) in 1986. (Source from the Billboard magazine (page 67) that was issued on August 9, 1986). Also, the album The Bodyguard is certified 2× Platinum (160,000) in 1993. (Source from the Billboard magazine (page 54) that was issued on September 11, 1993).

• France: The single When You Believe is certified Gold (250,000) in 1998. (There's also this source, if you don't trust the current SNEP database).

• Italy: The album Whitney Houston is certified Platinum (200,000) in 1987, also the album Whitney is certified Gold (100,000) in 1987.

• Japan: The album Whitney Houston is certified Platinum (200,000) in 1986.

• Mexico: The single I Will Always Love You is certified Gold (30,000) in 2012.

• New Zealand: The album Whitney Houston is certified Platinum (15,000) in 1985. Her total NZ certifications will be 107,500. (Tho I'm pretty sure the album is certified as 2x Platinum (or even higher) on the NZ chartbook).

• Switzerland: The album Whitney Houston certified Platinum (50,000) in 1986, (source from the Billboard magazine (page 67) that was issued on August 9, 1986), also the single Higher Love is certified Platinum (20,000) in 2019.

• United Kingdom: The album The Ultimate Collection is certified 6× Platinum (1,800,000) in 2020. (Listed in ur file as 5× Plat.)

• United States: The certification for All the Man That I Need should be separated since the Gold cert. is the physical one and the Plat. Is the digital one. Also, isn't the correct figure for the Platinum certification of the physical single of I Wanna Dance with Somebody is 2,000,000? Since the Gold (1,000,000) already certified in 1987? Moh8213 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Argentina: What's the source for the DVD?
• Denmark: Gold/Platinum certs should only be added if those claims are made by certifying bodies. In the first source, Billboard has received all that from the Vice president of the marketing. Second source is also not from the certifying body of Denmark, it's from the record company. I believe this has been discussed before that certs must come directly from certifying bodies, even when they appear in magazines.
• Italy: Again the same problem as in the case of Denmark. The certs must come directly from the certifying bodies. In 1987 Music & Media has Italy's Platinum and Gold certs posted (see page 44), all provided by Italy's certifying body, Whitney Houston album isn't there, actually Whitney album isn't there either. Also, the level for Platinum was 200,000 units, not 250,000 as stated in that issue.
• Japan: What page it's on? 67? Japan didn't even have a certification system until 1989.
• Switzerland: The cert for Whitney Houston is the same source as for Denmark. The 1987 December issue of Music & Media also doesn't have that cert for Switzerland.
• US: RIAA seems to have certified the standard version of "All the Man That I Need" retroactively. The format is for the Standard. As for your second question on RIAA, when RIAA re-certifies older certs, it applies the most recent level. RIAA dropped the levels for singles starting 1989.

Here is the updated version of the file, let me know if there is anything else. Good job.--Harout72 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the rule of only adding certs from certifying bodies, but I truly believe that those certs can definitely be an exception, especially given the fact that they're from the 1980s, hence, making it very unlikely that they will ever resurface in today's certification databases, and considering that they come from Billboard (a highly regarded music magazine), I think it's a pretty reliable source to use them too. Plus, I don't see it a problem since you're already using a Billboard magazine (issued in 2000) as a source for Julio Iglesias certs. As for Switzerland, Switzerland wasn't even featured at the December 1986 issue of Music & Media, and since the album was certified in 1986, it doesn't make sense for the cert to appear at the Dec. '87 issue. As for RIAA, if you check the certification of the song I Wanna Dance with Somebody in RIAA database, first Gold certification was received in July 28, 1987, when certification levels were Gold=1,000,000 and Platinum=2,000,000 then almost two years it received a Platinum certification in February 13, 1989, (when certs level were lowered to Gold=500,000 and Platinum=1,000,000 and that was the last time the single was certified until it was digitally certified in 2019. My point is that since single already recieved the Gold cert before the Jan 1989 cert level change, it doesn't make any sense to apply the newly lowered levels on that single. Moh8213 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The rule for certifications, has been in place for many years now. And it shouldn't matter actually when they were released. I understand that they might never appear in today's databases especially if not re-certified. All singles that have received Gold certification by the RIAA between 1958 and 1989 automatically received Platinum certification. Julio Iglasias' article is a very detailed article and if you read it through, it is mentioned that his albums had been certified Gold and Platinum by the certifying bodies including the RIAA. I mentioned the 1987 Music & Media December issue for Switzerland, in case if the album had received two times platinum, we'd see it there. I'll make an exception for the Billboard article only because the certifications mentioned for Belgium, Norway, Holland also appear in 1986 Music & Media December issue. So it is highly possible that the certs posted at the end of the article are in fact provided by certifying bodies. But the plaques should be left out. Let me know if I covered everything.--Harout72 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Rihanna

Rihanna didn’t sell so many records, give us a break. She barely could sell a few million copies of her albums. Albums and singles sales should separated. 2001:B07:ADD:D42A:300D:7228:3272:DD2B (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Missy and Biggie

Hello, wondering if Missy Elliott and The Notorious BIG qualify to the list. How many records have they sold?

Btw, there are sources reporting that Shakira has sold 80 million records. Are her units enough? --132.191.0.206 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Eminem

Now giving that his label have re-certified his catalogue in the US, is it possible to move him to the 250m club with at least 250m in claimed sales? Moh8213 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While the recent certs (especially on singles) by the RIAA should be 25-50% streaming generated, if there is a reliable source for 250 million, we could move Eminem into the 250 million section by also keeping the 220 million claim. But I would not suggest to use higher claims than 250 million for him.--Harout72 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not so sure that he’s even entered the 250 million club yet, even with the recent certification updates. Prior to this, I only could see Eminem at about 200,000,000 total claimed sales(being generous). With the additional Drop of Certifications today, I’m personally at 215,000,000 max. So his 220 claim here I feel is more than generous.TruthGuardians (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnny Hallyday

Hi ! In this article, Johnny Hallyday is noted to have sold 80 million albums, while on his page , he is said to have sold more than 110 million. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? The source on his page looks more recent (2018, vs 2017 for the one here), but even the success of his posthumous albums doesn’t explain a discrepancy of 30 million… Nephanth (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

New Eminem certifications

Being publicly reported all over the place but his team just got millions of certifications added and this list likely needs some updating 73.128.107.230 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Double dipping?

I’m attempting to figure out if certifications are being counted twice nowadays. For example, One Dance by Drake certified 8 times platinum by RIAA mostly due to streaming. Do you think it was included for the album’s certifications Views along with the other singles from that album, while calculating its Album equivalent sales? If so, isn't that considered counting the same streams twice, or am I tripping or misunderstanding something here?TruthGuardians (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually the certifications for singles are based on the streams of singles, not the same song that's on the album also. As for albums, each track on the album should get 1500 streams in order for the entire album to equal to one downloaded album. In case you're interested to know: Drake's View was certified 4x Plat. in 2016, the sales for it were 1.5 million. The song "One Dance" was also certified 4x Platinum in 2016, the sales for it stood at 2.096 million in 2016.--Harout72 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for The clarification. I felt like I was on a mental decline trying to figure it out. I was just making it a little bit more difficult than it actually was.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, So are you saying that when we calculate the EAS it doesn’t separately count the streams of singles? Precisely the streamings of all the tracks from an album except singles? It appears that this rolling stone article says otherwise. In this article, the columnist, Tim Ingham, observed the figure of Drakes Scorpion and found that 63% of the albums streams on Spotify came from just three songs off the 25 track albums. Additionally, only six songs accounted for 82% of the album's total streams, meaning that only a quarter of the songs determines the overall success of the album in terms of album-equivalent unit. From the above article, what I understand is once a single has 150M streams in USA RIAA certified it platinum. The same single turns 1.5B streams in the USA the RIAA certified the album in which the single included certify for platinum for its album-equivalent units. It doesn’t need other tracks from the same album to perform as well. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Is that your understanding of the RollingStones article as well?.—÷ TheWikiholic (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

According to RIAA: "tracks sold that are included in a permanent digital full album sale do not count towards digital single sales".--Harout72 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with the RIAA source as it relates to physical sales, but how does that relate to the streaming of the tracks as per, the RollingStones article above?— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The RIAA speaks about digital sales, it clearly states that.--Harout72 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As of December 2019, Scorpion has certified five-time platinum and has sold 5,055,000 Album equivalent units in the USA with over 379k being pure sales. As of 20 Feb 2022, the album has generated 7.88B streams on Spotify and 2.08B views on Youtube. Which will be equal to 6.64m Album equivalent units. Both of these figures will be much less when we go back to 2019 and take off the streaming numbers from the outside USA. If we remove the streaming numbers of singles from the above, I see no way the album certifies five-time platinum in the USA in 2019, even if we take figures from Apple music and other streaming sites.

This is why I still don't feel the tracks sold don't mean the streaming-generated sales. And when it comes to the UK, 8 out of 25 songs from the Scorpion album are certified at least silver by BPI. Do you think BPI counts the streaming of tracks that are included in a permanent digital full album sale do not count towards digital single certification?— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so I have reached out to RIAA and received a response from a certification specialist. This was her reply to me: “We’re always happy to help all the RIAA standards are on our website and they’re very explicit and clear —you can count single sales and streams in the United States towards a single award and you can also count TEA’s and album sales towards an album award since 2016. We’re very explicit about it on our website.” I think this is quite clear.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was saying above. Harout what is your take on this?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The RIAA is very clear on their site "tracks sold that are included in a permanent digital full album sale do not count towards digital single sales". While there is no scan provided above for the e-mail, that's exactly what their response is also, singles streams/sales count towards singles certifications, albums streams/sales count towards albums certifications. In other words, the streams/sales of album tracks do not count towards singles certifications. --Harout72 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I can provide a scan now if you explain how. I’ve not done so. Please explain how I can do this while keeping my personal identifiable information concealed. Thanks. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I provide scans of e-mails or other documents when needed on mediafire. One way to do it is to print out the e-mail first, cross out your personal info, scan it and upload it on mediafire. Or just save the screenshot of the e-mail, do the necessary editing, save it, and upload it on mediafire.--Harout72 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so if I did this right, I just created 2 links that I am going to post here first is my previous response to her, second is her response to that. We are engaged in other conversations about other things as well but I’m just providing that part of our conversation: https://www.mediafire.com/file/ynkfx48cbzqk9ue/43AFAEFA-7931-4B4B-9AA5-400EA8AFDC25.jpeg/file and https://www.mediafire.com/file/2ucnuioopcgzcke/88507917-3EA6-4A49-9631-26026C50A05E.jpeg/file TruthGuardians (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be only one reply by Liz Kennedy, in both, correct? The one you quoted above? Did she reply to your question about whether albums certifications include streams/sales of singles also? That reply doesn't seem to on either of the scans.--Harout72 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I do have other responses from her where she said SEA and TEA (both acronyms that I learned from her) were both counted towards album certification, but there’s a lot of other detail in the email that will make it too heavily redacted as we are talking about third party, her colleagues, other artists, and my personal details as well. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Harout72 When they say album streams count towards album streams it means they count streams of all the tracks for an album. That's why they specified "you can also count TEA's and album sales towards an album award since 2016". It means they count streams of singles+non singles. Literally when a single hits 150M streams in the USA the song is eligible for platinum certification by RIAA and if the same song hit 1.5B streams in the USA, the album associated with that song will be eligible for the platinum certification.

For instance, Michael Jackson's Thriller album was certified two times platinum in 2016 after RIAA added streams and audio downloads to album certifications. As of today, Thriller has around 6B streams from Youtube and Spotify. There are 9 tracks on Thriller and 7 out of 9 are released as singles. The views of both songs Lady In My Life and Baby Be Mine haven’t reached 10M even when combine today, so we can assume that if we go back to 2016 and remove the streaming of singles, the album would never certify based on the streaming of these two tracks. Similarly, in the UK and Germany, they count the streaming of singles for both single certifications and album certifications but give a certain percentage of weightage for the top two successful singles before calculating the EAS.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

According to RIAA: 1,500 on-demand audio and/or video streams from the album count as 1 Unit for certification purposes. Also according to RIAA: In order to count for certification purposes only, physical and digital sales of the complete album must be sold at a) an average wholesale value of $2 or more per unit or b) a suggested retail value of $6 or more per unit.--Harout72 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Harout, isn't this the same thing I was saying above?. If you go below on your given pdf file you can see that RIAA further says "Single-track downloads and streams, including those from singles released prior to the album release must appear on some digital version of the album (eg. Standard, deluxe, explicit clean, etc.)". Are you still saying that streams of singles don't count for the certification of album certifications?— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the RIAA's "Units are defined as follows:", albums do not get certified purely based on the streams of singles, the certifications for albums are largely based on streams directly from album tracks/videos. Also digital sales of the complete album must be sold at a) an average wholesale value of $2 or more per unit or b) a suggested retail value of $6 or more per unit. But the certifications for singles do not include streams from album tracks according to RIAA.--Harout72 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Liz’s exact words to me were “Yes, TEA and SEA are included in the tally and albums associated with singles are counted towards certification.” If there is still any confusion about what the website says, I would recommend you guys reach out to Liz as well. She did a phenomenal job at answering all of my questions and clear up all gray areas. Best time to contact her is Monday through Friday, 8am-noon EST for a possible immediate same day response.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Albums get certified based on the streams/views of album tracks/videos, and most of the views/streams are generated by the singles from that album. Please refer to the Rollingstone article that I gave a few days back for a reference. Thriller album's 2016 certification is also a perfect example of it. More than 95% of total streams/views from that album were generated by 7 singles from it. This wholesale value and retail value are calculated on the basis of total premium streams and freemium views. I have no issues with that. "But the certifications for singles do not include streams from album tracks according to RIAA". I never made that claim. What I said is the certification for the album includes streams of singles. RIAA rep has confirmed that to email to truthguardian and they are explicit on their website and third-party sources like Rollingstone also reported it. It means when we say one artist has 80m single certification and 20M album certification in the USA, it can be concluded that they have 100m total certification in the USA but the 20M album certification in the USA includes the streams of singles that are already certified and included in their 80m certification.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Billy Joel

Harout. He has more than 134m in certified sales. What do you think if I raise his claim to 160m by using this source https://ew.com/movies/piano-man-with-no-piano-man-billy-joel-biopic/. Thanks Politsi (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The 160 million would be ok for Billy Joel, since it's only 10 million units higher from his current claimed figure, but that source isn't really the kind of reliable source we normally use. If another more reliable source publishes it, then yes let's.--Harout72 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about this one? https://www.canadianpost.news/they-prepare-biographical-film-about-the-beginnings-of-billy-joel/ This source is reliable or not?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems similar to the fist one above reliability wise. They both would be ok for temporarily use, but since we have a reliable source supporting his current claim, we should replace that with a similar reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

U2

Hey Harout, long time no see. Could u send me U2's file? Moh8213 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, here it is, U2's file.--Harout72 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stones

Why aren't rolling stones at the top of this list? They've sold over 250 million records. 2A00:23C6:AB83:3701:5D5E:58DD:79EF:ED4 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

The Police's Synchronicty album was certified platinum for the sales of 500,000 in Italy in 1983 by the Associazione dei Fonografici Italiani (AFI), before it was know as The Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana (FIMI), links to support the claims. 2601:346:E80:A380:D50:EF45:A2AF:35EC (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless certs are directly provided by the certifying bodies, we can't use them. I personally can't locate anything in those sources that speaks about certs.--Harout72 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Depeche Mode is missing. They have sold more than 100 million records worldwide. Sources: German link Billboard

(sources from their article):

Sony Music (in German) Official UK Charts

Best Regards--2A0C:D242:3804:8A00:1F:B044:2077:9423 (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you have a lot of guts to try for a 3rd time, looks like I've to settle this once and for all. Depeche Mode admittedly do have sold lots of records, though most of the music markets that they've sold are pretty small markets, therefore, their total certified sales can't support the 100 million records claim, let alone 75 million. And so, here's a detailed response for ur request. Try for a 4th time and u might get urself blocked from editing in Wikipedia. Moh8213 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

They have around 27,7 million certified units, more than e.g. Johnny Hallyday. They also are on the German list. You can also look at their discography site on Wikipedia.--2A0C:D242:3804:8A00:7582:DE81:921:7B6D (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Depeche Mode would need their claimed figures supported by 48.8% certified sales as they've begun charting in 1981, that would be 48.8 million certified units needed for a claim as high as 100 million. Their available certified sales so far are 28 million. For 75 million claim, they'd need to have 36.6 million certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

But why there's such a difference (37,9%) to Kiss, who founded 7 years ago? 2A0C:D242:3804:8A00:9CD4:7C01:7E6:5E12 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's because more music markets instituted certification systems after 1975, therefore, the requirement for certified sales grows especially after 1975. You should go over the Definitions on the main page where you can find more information on all that (see the footnotes on the main page).--Harout72 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Since Mariah is now at 220m, what level of new certifications should be acquired to make her among the 250 million group ? @Fidelove @Harout? any answer?

What do you think about this Harout? There is a reliable source to support Carey's 250m claim. When she able to get that claim?. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Before 250 million figure, there might be 230 or 240 million. Whatever the next claimed figure's going to be, her certified sales shouldn't be more than 10 million apart since certs today are largely based on streaming.--Harout72 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

U2 certs

Hey Harout, hope you're doing well, I've been busy lately so I couldn't check U2's certs, but now since I've got time now I've analysed the file and here's what I've found:

UK (Singles):

• Miss Sarajevo: Silver (200,000)

Germany (DVDs):

• Rattle and Rum: 2× Platinum (100,000)
• Elevation 2001: Gold (25,000)
• Vertigo: Platinum (50,000)

Netherlands (Albums):

• No Line on the Horizon: 2× Platinum (120,000)
• Songs of Innocence: Platinum (40,000)

(DVDs):

• Vertigo: Gold (40,000)

(Singles):

• Ordinary Love: 2× Platinum (40,000)
• The Miracle: Platinum (30,000)
• Every Breaking Wave: Platinum (30,000)

(Btw u forgot to include Sunday Bloody Sunday (100,000) to the total sales)

Argentina (Albums):

• How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb: 3× Platinum (120,000)
• Vertigo 2005 - Live from Chicago: Gold (20,000)
• No Line in the Horizon: Gold (20,000)

Brazil: It seems like there is a miscalculation on the Brazilian certs (specifically on DVDs), after I've recalculated them along with albums & singles, the total sales came to 1,800,000 certified sales.

New Zealand (Albums):

• Achtung Baby: 5× Platinum (75,000)
• All That You Can't Leave Behind: 3× Platinum (45,000)

Denmark (Albums):

• The Joshua Tree: Platinum (80,000)

(Source via Music & Media magazine p.11, issued on May 21, 1988)

• Rattle and Rum: Gold (50,000)

(Source via Music & Media magazine p. 7, issued on March 4, 1989)

Norway (albums):

• The Joshua Tree: Gold (25,000)
• Rattle and Rum: Gold (25,000)
• Achtung Baby: Platinum (50,000)

(Source via M&M magazine p. 4, issued on August 28, 1993)

• Zooropa: Gold (25,000)

Portugal (albums):

• The Best of 1980-1990: 5× Platinum (200,000)
• How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb: 3× Platinum (120,000)

(Since the album was released in 2004, the correct figure for the 3× Plat. is 120,000) Moh8213 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Denmark: I left both out as the certs seem to be coming from record the labels, not IFPI Denmark.
• Norway: The same problem as in the case of Denmark.
• Portugal: I'm not sure about the reliability of the source for The Best of 1980-1990, so I left that out. As for How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, see this discussion I had with Muhandes. I discovered that AFP applies their most recent cert level to albums regardless of release date.

I've added/corrected everything else. Also, I mistakenly had added 2x Platinum for Best of 1990-2000 for the Netherlands as it's duplicated in NVPI's database. Here is the updated version of the file, let me know if I've missed anything else. Good job!.--Harout72 (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Great, though I still believe that those M&M sources are reliable enough to be included on this list. Take a look at this magazine from March 4, 1989 for example, on p. 7, it says that Sonet executives from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland recently gathered at U2's office in Dublin to present to present gold albums from each territory for "Rattle and Rum" out of those 4 countries only 2 (Sweden & Finland) have certification databases that can go back to the 1980s, and if you check their databases, you'll find the gold certifications for Rattle and Rum; therefore, making it highly possible that those other certs for Denmark & Norway are legit. As for Portugal, this is where I found the cert for The Best of 1980-1990 go down and you'll find a section in first row where it says "Álbuns mais vendidos em Portugal", click on that and there you'll find those certs, and in the bottom of those certs, there is sentence that says Fonte. AFP. Which translates to Source. AFP. and so I think that source is reliable too to use on this list. Moh8213 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Danish and Norwegian certs could be legit, could be not, the fact of the matter is that those are directly being provided by the label, not the certifying bodies, therefore, they should be left out. I've noticed that the labels have access to ordering cert plaques prematurely without the records having gone through the auditing process. For this reason, I'd like to stick to the general rules we have. As for Portugal, Janus seems to be a scientific journal, so most likely we're ok with using the certs on there for U2 and Bryan Adams also, since those are provided by the AFP.--Harout72 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess it's all said and done, though one small thing regarding Brazilian certs is that you've listed both U2 Go Home: Live from Slane Castle, Ireland and Vertigo 2005: Live from Chicago Diamonds with 500,000 units each, when in reality; according to Pro-Música Brasil, the Diamond certifications for DVDs until 2005 where 100,000 units, same things goes to PopMart: Live from Mexico City and Elevation 2001: Live from Boston both of 'em listed as Gold with 50,000 units while it's correct figure in 25,000 units, and The Best of 1990-2000 Video is 50,000 units not 125,000. Taking all this into account, the total certified sales along with albums and singles is 1,800,000 units. One thing I'm not sure is that while the Vertigo DVD was released in 2005, it was certified Diamond in 2006, when the cert level was changed, idk if they certify records based on release date or not but yeah other than that, there's nothing else missing. Moh8213 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting those cert levels for Brazil? The certification levels for Brazil are here. Brazil's certs are based on release dates. Harout72 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

From here, seems like they're the same website but mine's from 2010, now one of them is telling the truth and the other is lying, and tbh I'd put my money on the 2010 site cuz it looks more logical to me. Moh8213 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the older version mistakenly lists the same levels it does for national videos for releases before January 1, 2006. I brought this up at Template talk:Certification Table Entry.--Harout72 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2022

Tobiasvikholt (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Queen is also one of the best selling bands ever. They have sold from 170million to 300 million albums. Sorce: https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen

 Already done Queen is already on the list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Change Madonna’s record sales from 300 million to 335 million.

According to Guinness world records. Madonna’s record sales stand at 335 million. This is a more recent and more valid source than the current sources supporting the current figure on Madonna’s record sales.

To increase the validity of this article, this should be updated. Hughie2000 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You should go over the Definitions on the main page to understand how this list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually despite those 335 million records on Guiness Records (a number that is there for quite a few years) Madonna album sales alone were 75 million in US plus another 200 million in the rest of the world for a total 275 million albums worldwide as 2009 already. For her total records you need to add here the singles, maxi-singles and digital songs (estimated to be over 200 million by many other sources). Here is the link:https://books.google.gr/books?id=EX4yD1pJCxUC&pg=RA11-PA62&lpg=RA11-PA62&dq=warner+madonna+billboard+75+million+records&source=bl&ots=lj1TASkRAE&sig=ACfU3U2NnMOmAyAEwwQefA6uH-1QJNM4tA&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUyOfozcj1AhWRQvEDHWiFCP0Q6AF6BAgiEAM#v=onepage&q=warner%20madonna%20billboard%2075%20million%20records&f=false

Guiness Records were reporting Madonna 300 million records for many years until 2014 they decided to add to it her digital song sales that were over 35 million at the time (and over 50 million by now) but they didn't even updated Madonna numbers verifying again with her label.

Madonna record sales are being reported to be over 300 million records since the year 2000 and she sold way over 100 million albums, singles and digital songs since. Hopefully new reports by Warner Records happen in 2022 year since is Madonna 40 carreer anniversary you can update this list that is full of mistakes.

Not sure why on this article some artists only have Album sales numbers and others have physicial singles too and even others have digital songs too. Shouldn't there be some kind of division here? Selling 1 digital song it's not the same as selling 1 album (that for chart purposes even is equivaleted to 10 digital songs or vice-versa). For example, Rihanna despite bing the best selling digital songs artist only sold 35 million albums (that's even half the number of albums Adele sold). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.94.23.209 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the list

Why is the list arranged by claimed sales? It should strictly be arranged by certified sales, not claims. As noted with the Depeche Mode section above, the claims can be much higher than the certified units. I do want to change this. The Top 5 would remain largely unaffected but it does cause problems down the bottom. skelter (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually it should NOT be about certified sales as artist with more albums that sold almost enough for a new certification but not quite did those amounts (like Elvis Presley) despite not being certified and could be beloow other artists. Also as Record Labels need to pay to ask for certifications in most world countries this would untruthly put some artists ahead of others when they sold less. Do you really believe that albums released in the 60's, 70's or 80's didn't sell more later? Because most of them never got a new certification (and some records are even in need for 2 or 3 new certifications in dozens of countries). Some albums released before Soundscan in US already sold over 2 million copies since they were last certified by RIAA and that's why claimed sales exist. If only certified sales are used the list will NEVER be real.

There should be 2 or 3 lists here as we can't compare 1 Album with 1 Single or 1 digital song - it's not the same, even for chart purposes 10 digital songs = 1 album.

Even physical singles have at least 2 songs and most even have 4 or more (and cost as much as 4 digital songs or sometimes even more) being totally fake to compare them as 1 record on the same list.

Artists like Drake sold a lot digital songs but less than 45 million albums each - yet he appears on the list side by side with artists that sold over 150 or 200 million Albums. The same goes for artists like Rihanna, Katy Perry or Lady Gaga that sold less than 35 million albums so far worldwide. Yet Adele sold over 70 million albums and where is she?

I propose to create 3 lists: albums, singles and digital songs. The "RECORDS" category now doesn't make much sense. Before where 3x or 4 x physical singles and 2 x 12" singles(cd-maxi-single) would be more or less the same as 1 album it was less problematic but now when 10 x Digital Songs are the same as 1 album and are still considered "1 RECORD" it makes much less sense to use "Records" as it only distorts reality completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.94.23.209 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Michael Jackson, best-selling solo artist

Michael Jackson is the most certified solo artist from the pre-streaming era, this should be highlighted in the article. Very disingenuous to reference Elvis as the best selling solo artist by unverifiable ‘claimed sales’ figures while ignoring the elephant in the room that is Michael Jackson. Drake and his streaming numbers should not even be in the lede. 109.38.157.229 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Green day should be on this list. They used to be at 75m, but they were removed for some reason. They should be added to the 85m list, as they have sold more than 85,000,000 worldwide.

They've been active 1987-Present.

Ref: https://greenday.fm/charts/album-sales/

Also seen on Rock and Roll HoF page, billboard, and many others. This is easily verified. 47.197.33.241 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Green day will enter the list with 75 million claimed figure once their certified sales reach 54.6 million units as they've begun charting in 1994. So far their available worldwide certified sales are 51.8 million.--Harout72 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

add Green Day to the list as they have sold 85 million albums according to all these sources 2601:346:E80:A380:2415:5DD1:3805:95C6 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that this is very likely the same editor who inflated certification and sales of the Police since they shared the same block of IP addresses - [1]. Hzh (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Green Day right above this.--Harout72 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

They might be the same person. Hzh (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly yes.--Harout72 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Queen's "Bicycle Race" Certified Platinum by RIAA

Just noticed that "Bicycle Race" was certified Platinum by the RIAA. For some reason it was certified gold and platinum on the same day, May 23rd. My guess is their record was outdated. This should bring Queen up to 170.5 million certified worldwide.

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=queen&col=certification_date&ord=desc#search_section

ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk • contribs)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Queen should be moved to the 250 Million and more section. Numerous online articles refer to their sales as above 300 Million records including:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonthompson/2018/12/10/queens-bohemian-rhapsody-is-officially-the-worlds-most-streamed-song/?sh=3e674498c1f0 https://metalshout.com/all-queen-albums-in-order-according-to-sales/ https://www.escapistmagazine.com/brian-may-says-queen-rock-band-may-happen/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-queen-stamps-idUKKBN23U1ZW https://fresco.vc/5-business-lessons-from-the-music-of-queen/ 67.197.92.38 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The 300 million is still way high based on their available certified sales, their certs from recent years are mainly streaming generated. Once Queen's certified sales are close to 190 million, we'll go ahead and add the 300 million next to the 200 million by also moving them up into the top section. I don't think it'll take that long for all that to happen.--Harout72 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Previously in a discussion we had (as seen in Archive 40), you suggested Queen should reach 175-180 million certified before they're moved up to 300 million sales. Is there a specific reason for the jump to 190 million in this thread? I understand their sales are largely streaming based nowadays, but the goal seems to change a bit from thread to thread.

ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

At the time of that discussion, the certified sales for Queen were 166 million and I suggested that another 20 million units of growth would be needed to move forward with the 300 million, correct? So that's the same as being close to 190 million. What change are you seeing in the goal? Harout72 (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, my bad for not doing my research. I accidentally used Politsi's suggestion of 175-180 million certified, whereas you suggested 180-185 million. I'll try and get my facts in order next time.

ChimChamIt'sAScam05 (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Coldplay

Hey Harout, could you send me Coldplay's file? Moh8213 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, here it is.--Harout72 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Australia

• Something Just Like This: 12× Platinum (840,000)

(Listed in ur file as 11× Platinum)

Canada

• Coldplay Live 2003: 8× Platinum (80,000)

(Listed in ur file as Platinum)

• Coldplay Live 2012: 4× Platinum (40,000)

(Listed in ur file as Gold)

Japan

• Since 2020, Japan has started certifying singles based on streaming, and the song "Something Just Like This" has been certified Gold (50,000,000) , isn't it possible to convert those streams to digital sales just like Sweden or Norway?

Mexico

• Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends: Gold (40,000)

(Note: the certification for this album is separate as the other one is for the Pre-loaded album) Also the correct figure for the pre-loaded album is 1,200,000 not 1,120,000.

• Coldplay Live 2012: Gold (30,000)

New Zealand

• Princess of China: Gold (7,500)

Sweden

• The correct figure for the Something Just Like This is 720,000 since it was certified when the certifying body changed the singles certification from digital to streaming, though I could be wrong.

Switzerland

• The correct figure for Parachutes is 25,000 as the album was released in 2000.

Portugal

• Mylo Xyloto: 2× Platinum (30,000)
• Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends: 2× Platinum (40,000)

(The Viva la Vida album was actually certified 2× Platinum in 2012 but there isn't any archived chart from 2012, fortunately though, the album re-entered the chart again in 2019 where you can still see the 2× Platinum cert.)

• Ghost Stories: Gold (7,500) Moh8213 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Japan: RIAJ keeps Physical, Digital, Streaming awards separate. Streaming there isn't combined with Digital.

Mexico: Check the source of Gold for Live 2012. It doesn't seem to work.

Sweden: IFPI Sweden applies certs based on release dates.

Portugal: AFP applies their most recent cert levels to albums regardless of release date. So it's 30,000 (2x Plat.) for Viva La Vida. The rest of what you have found looks good.--Harout72 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the inconvenience. Here you go. I guess other than that so far everything's going on track, tho I think it's worth mentioning that Coldplay & BTS' single My Universe has recently been certified Platinum (70,000) in Australia back in April. Moh8213 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Harout, I don't know if you've updated this but the song Something Just Like This has recently been certified 13x Platinum (910,000) in Australia. Moh8213 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it.--Harout72 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of artists into the list

Hey Harout, hope you're doing well, do you think it's possible for David Guetta and Enrique Iglesias to be included with claimed sales of at least 75 million? According to my calculation I did few months ago, David Guetta has certified sales of over 20 million in the UK, 15 million in the US, 8 million in Germany, 5 million in France and so on, and I'm sure Guetta has sold well in other small markets too. I didn't go over Iglesias certified sales but I assume he has sold well enough for him to be included into the list, what's your thoughts on it? Moh8213 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• David Guetta: Yes he has 68.6 million certified units, so he can enter the list with 75 million claimed figure if there is such a figure.
• Enrique Iglesias: He needs to have 55 million certified units for a claimed figure of 75 million. So far his available certified units are 48 million.--Harout72 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Bee Gees career sales

Hey Harout. I saw some figures for their career sales at 200 million by reliable sources. How many certified sales do they need for their claimed sales to increase? Thank you. Loibird90 (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Celine Dion Record Sales

Please Celine's figures are up to 250 million confirmed by multiple reliable sources, she also sold 50 million albums only in Europe, so how is she at only 200 million? Moonlight Entm (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the Definitions on the main page where it says 1)This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used. 2)The claimed figures are upgraded only when there is a significant progress in artists' certified units. In other words, the available certified units for each artist should get relatively closer to already listed claimed figure in order for higher figures to replace the listed ones.--Harout72 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

First off the certified units are not even updated, you can see any celine dion record sales analysis and the figure is up to even more than 250m, that was the first published and most reliable source of Celine Dion sales, it was reported by their label, inflated sales are really the one that losts of artists have here like Rihanna, when its clear that Celine Dion is the second best-selling female artist of all time after Madonna, it's a fact, there's no sense in putting Mariah or Whitney above her cause its well known that she's best seller out of the 3. Moonlight Entm (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The certified sales for Celine Dion are actually up to date. Just because reliable sources or record labels claim such inflated figures as the 250 million is, it doesn't Celine Dion's her records (albums, singles, videos) have sold that much combined. I have her detailed certified sales which you can go over here. And based on her available certified sales, the 200 million figure at the moment is the highest number we can work with.--Harout72 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The certified sales for Celine Dion are not up to date. She is eligible for 100m (26m songs+72M albums+around 2M DVDs) units in the US alone. Her certified sales are currently at 61.5m units in the US. If her catalog was certified properly, her total certified sales would be around 175M units. But as long as this list is based on the available certification, Celine’s 250m figure would be still inflated. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You're so hypocritical to your statement, then why you removed Ariana's 90 million claim who has certified more than 130 million and 90 comes closer to that claim. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

First I suggest you to remain civil, second your source The Gamer isn't a reliable source for us to replace a more reliable one with that. As for the new artists like Ariana Grande, you should refer to the Definitions where it clearly states The certified units of the newer artists may sometimes be higher than their listed claimed figures. This is because Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and almost all other certifying bodies count streaming towards Gold and Platinum thresholds required for Digital Single Award certification. However replacing current 85 million with 90 million would be ok if there is a reliable source, since the difference is only 5 million.--Harout72 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Literally a whole other editors have been calling me that dumb and bitch, and i've never seen an editor telling them to remain civil. The gamer is a reliable source, its a game news operated by korea naver, Ariana got her own fornite concert so it was mostly to a press release, so it can be consider 95% reliable. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also Ariana Grande "85 million" claim came from her usa certified sales, she has sold 85.5 million copies in the united states and there you go here calling it "worlwide" everywhere in wikipedia, 85 million was made up by an user and since then a lot sources started putting in articles cause they got from here, so unless a label report then we can put it here or in her wikipedia. Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"85 million was made up by an user" and that user is ME. Do you have any problem with that?. You shoud be grateful I make Ariana Grande join the list. She will never be on the list, if not because of me. Politsi (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Gamer may be a reliable source for games, it's certainly not for records sales. As for her US sales, her US certified sales are 87 million, which is streaming generated, meaning she may or may not have sold 50 million records (albums, singles) in the US. Harout72 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen > U2

The picture of Bruce should be put above the U2 one, as the chart says RealSonny (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the list based on certified sales, instead of claimed sales?

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Gaga's 124m figure is outdated. Here is a source for 170m which her certs easily support:

https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/lady-gaga-became-singer-after-multiple-failed-acting-auditions/19231/ SpearsRR (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I really doubt Rihanna's sales

It can't be true. Faked. 46.251.91.133 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Green Day

Harout. Any update from Green Day?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, they're still at 51.7 million with their certified sales, they need 54.6 million to get back on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Iron Maiden sales are up to 100 million!!!

So about Iron Maiden? They sold 100 million plus!!! With total sales up to 200 millions!!! Number of the Beast alone sold 20 millions!!! 94.62.4.8 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Question... On Kylie album discovraphy page... It noted her having aprox 80 million sales...why does this not allow her to reflect on this list. 105.186.102.119 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, many sources (for example www.nfsa.gov.au) say, that Kylie sold over 80 million records worldwide, so - Kylie Minogue classified to the list in the article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue's available certified sales are only 25.8 million, that clearly suggests that her true sales are not any higher than 50 million. The 80 million is way too inflated for her to be listed on this list.--Harout72 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72:, of course - in the case of most of music artists, number of total sales is lower than certified sales. On the list there are a few music artists with certified sales between 25 and 30 million. For example, Aretha Franklin with 26.6 million certified sales there is on list, Kylie Minogue has a similar number. I think it's time to put Kylie Minogue on the list. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between Aretha Franklin and Kylie Minogue. Artetha Franklin has begun charting in 1961, whereas Minogue began charting in 1987. In 1961, the USA was the only market with a certification system, for that reason Franklin's record sales have gone uncertified in UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and all others. In 1987, most markets had a certification system. Kylie Monigue should have similar number of certified units as Enya, who's also begun charting in 1987 and is on the list with 75 million records and has 51 million certified units. Harout72 (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

please include Juan Gabriel, he sold 150million copies according to the Grammys and CNN https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2018/08/28/la-carrera-musical-de-juan-gabriel-en-numeros/ 2806:2F0:51E0:C0AB:CDE7:3A5A:D676:704E (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid Juan Gabriel has very low certified sales, therefore, cannot be listed here on this list.--Harout72 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Eminem is over 250 mi

If you sum up physical and digital sales certified only in US and UK he surpasses 220 mi and gets a place in the first group, no doubt. Gabrielfmachado (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Then please find a reliable source from a news organization or a broadsheet newspaper that able to support Eminem's 250m claim. Bring it here. Politsi (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

In the occasion of Superbowl halftime show <https://eminem.news/pepsi-app.html> they appointed him as having over 520 mi sales (having 130 mi album sales plus 389 mi digital singles). Being 227 mi only in US as <https://deadline.com/2022/03/eminem-breaks-record-most-gold-platinum-singles-riaa-1234973487/> says and RIAA can confirm here <https://www.riaa.com/with-73-5-million-new-certifications-eminem-becomes-the-most-certified-artist-for-singles-in-riaa-gold-platinum-program-history/>, thus around the globe he's clearly got more sales, maybe over 400 mi if inflated. 2804:D4B:7717:600:6C70:42D2:D07C:8EA1 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Eminem attained high sales before the streaming era, but many of his newer certifications are heavily influenced by streaming. Much like artists such as Rihanna (242M units in USA alone), Drake (316M units in USA alone) or Taylor Swift (189M units in USA alone), which millions (or dozens) of these certified units aren't actual copies sold. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Michael Bublé

Do you happen to known what are Michael Bublé's certified units? Outlets like The Irish Times have reported sales of over 75 million records. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

His available certified sales are 46.6 million. For 75 million claim, he'd need 58 million certified units as he's begun charting in 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Rihanna?!

How come this mediocre singer ended up in the top-selling artists list? 46.251.84.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the claim of 250 million is absolutely fake! In this article, albums, singles and downloads of single tracks are lumped together. Rihanna has primarily sold downloads and therefore, someone claims that a download of a single track (about one dollar) is as worthy as an album (about ten dollars). That's absolute nonsense. In reality, Rihanna has sold 33 million studio albums, 1 million other albums, 4 million physical singles, 258 million digital singles and 33 million streams, which make 103 million equivalent album sales and put her in 47th place at the moment among the best-selling artists of all time.

Rihanna's certified sales

Can someone explain Rihanna's "Total certified unit sales" which supposedly is at 334.8 million (which would make her the best-selling music artist of all time by certified unit sales)?

I checked the U.S. sales numbers according to the provided source and the numbers seem completely off compared to what is claimed in this article. But maybe I'm missing something? Adriano 7 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You're not checking it correctly. If you only looked here, then that RIAA page lists the total number of certifications for the songs Rihanna is the main artist on. It doesn't list the certifications for the songs which Rihanna is a featured artist on. In fact, it doesn't even list the certifications of Mastertone format. Refer to this file for her detailed worldwide certified sales. Harout72 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Please make it right drake is not number one in sales that goes to Eminem by far so please change where it says drake is number one 38.34.83.22 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

P!nk's career sales

A Billboard article published in 2019 reported that P!nk has already sold 135 million records worldwide. Is her current standings enough to raise her claimed sales now?

Link: https://www.billboard.com/pro/pink-legend-live-award-2019/ Loibird90 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

For that kind of a figure, she's need 103.9 million certified units, since she's begun charting in 2000.--Harout72 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you :) Loibird90 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Please change the error it says drake is the 2nd yet Eminem has sold over 100 million more records than drake so how can drake be the 2nd to Elvis when Eminem is proven to have sold more than drake 38.34.83.22 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_discography This shows drake has sold 170 million records

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem_albums_discography And this shows that Eminem has 220 million which is way more than drake so drake is NOT 2nd 38.34.83.22 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this claim presented in the article at all. It does state that Drake is the highest-selling individual artist based on certified units, which is true if you refer to the table entries for Drake and Eminem – Drake has a higher certified unit count than Eminem, or any other artist for that matter. Eminem does have a higher claimed sales count, but that's not what the statement addresses. There's also no comparison between Drake and Elvis – those two statements are measuring performance in different units. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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: [2], [3]. And this just in... The Immaculate Collection has now been certified 13 times platinum in the UK: [[4]]. Israell (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)