What?! My sources and reciepts are not reliable, and Gothenburg is?!!! WTF is Gotheburg? These are reliable receipts. There is even interview with her managers and executives. Explain me how that's not reliable. If you had really bothered to see the article, you would have seen. lmao... And the sales are far from inflated. Funhouse sold more than 5 million only from US, UK, AUS and DE. I'm Not Dead sold 6 million WW. I remember when Wikipedia used Mediatraffic's receipts. I don't know why Wikipedia allows haters to edit this site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavcheekof (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen have sold 300 million records but have been changed to 200 million they have had a stated 300 million world sales for ages since I first looked at this page about 3 years ago and on the Queen Wikipedia page, its obvious that it's been changed by someone who want's them lower down the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateuptonfan (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand certifications i posted are reliable and the RIANZ staff sent me by e-mail. You can easily check this by send them an e-mail too.

I was wondering if this source [1] is reliable? You can replace this with the current sales? FraDany (talk) 19:01, 08 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No editor has to go through e-mailing and getting answers from RIANZ for verification purposes. The file itself MUST have some sort of verifiable indication that it is from a music association, in this case RIANZ. In order for us to use received files from music associations, files must have at least the logo of the association, see this for example from Music Canada (CRIA). The use of your file, will raise questions by editors, not to mention that it will open doors for other unreliable files which can easily be put together by anyone on their own computers. Your other source by Times of Oman is reliable, but the 140 million album sales should be supported by 20% certified album sales alone, which is 28 million certified album units. Cher has only 25.8 million, which is enough for 129 million album sales. But at the List of best-selling music artists, we go with those claimed sales that are the closest to artists' certified sales, in Cher's case, it's 100 million. --Harout72 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey man, madonna should be behind michael jackson as she has sold less records than him. it doesn't go alphabetically by the images and then non-alphabetically in regards to the numbers. the beatles come first, then elvis, then michael, then madonna in both the images and records, to show who is ahead of who. MJKingofMusic (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are placed by the amount of certified sales not by the amount of claimed sales, there is a hidden note for that when you click the edit button.--Harout72 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the certified sales of michael are not correct, the industry is biased over michael, they don't want to give him credit for what he has accomplished. many record companies have said that michael is indeed the best selling artist of all time. the figures of elvis and the Beatles are very unpredictable. the format of the certificated sales has changed from when they where around. MJKingofMusic (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Jackson's certified sales are correct or not, we are to go with what we have. And currently his certified sales are a bit lower than Madonna's; therefore, her image is placed before Jackson's. As soon as Jackson's true certified sales become available, we'll change the places of the images.--Harout72 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links on Lady Gaga's entry on the list of bestselling musicians don't add up to the amount claimed on her entry. Looking at her discography, it's pretty much impossible that she could have sold that much in such a short amount of time, even if the links did support the claim (and they don't). Can you edit her entry on the list (she probably shouldn't even be on it. Not yet, at least).

First, please sign after your questions/comments, so I will know who you are. Second, newer discussions go at the bottom of each talk-page. Lady Gaga's certified sales currently are over 45 million units, that is albums, singles combined from the music markets that cover good 90% of the global sales. See this file that I've put together for Lady Gaga's certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't even think to notice that. But yes, I did see it. So thank you for providing me with new info I had not known about on that site. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to your attention a user Guyburns (talk) who used wikipedia as a reference of certfied sales into artists such as Michael Jackson, David Bowie, ACDC etc, when doing so is flawed. To use a single and album example: Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" has tiny certified sales, yet is in the Guinness Book of records as having sold over 50 million... Queen's greatest hits is the best selling album in the UK, yet in certifications its about 7th. Be grateful if you could clear this up with him. Xavier 21 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that Guyburns should not use wikipedia as a source, I must say that I consider certified sales more reliable than figures claimed by Guinness Book. Guinness has had no way of verifying the figures given to them by record companies in the past; in other words, there was no such thing in the past as Nielsen Soundscan trough which one could verify sales figures. And trust me, record companies are known for inflating sales figures whether it's 50 million for "White Christmas" or 100 million for "Thriller". Anyways, I see that most of Guyburns' edits have been reverted by editors who frequently edit those pages.--Harout72 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Billboard, P!nk has sold 40 million albums and 70 million singles worldwide (a combined total of 110 million) and should be on the list of best-selling music artists (link for verification: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/publishing/publishing-briefs-pink-re-ups-with-emi-universal-1006648552.story)

The List of best-selling music artists has a requirement for certain percentage of certified sales, which you can find at the second box from top at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. That said, P!nk has 28.4 million in certified units (albums, singles, videos). Since she's begun charting in 2000, and per our list's requirements, she needs to have her claimed figures supported by 50% certified sales. Pink's 28.4 in certified sales can only support a sales figure of up to 56.9 million. For some 110 million claim, she'd need 55 million in certified sales, which she may not have for quite a long time.--Harout72 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72. I noticed this edit and I was wondering how that source verifies the change was in September 2002, when the source is certifications made in April 2003. Can you please clarify this? Best regard. --Muhandes (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Kelly Clarkson's A Moment Like This was released in September, 2002, but it was certified by CRIA (present Music Canada) in April 2003. I went over all of them on here, and according to all certifications of Physical Singles that have been certified after 2003, it suggests that the levels of Physical Singles were lowered in September 2003. I understand that it's not a source that directly supports the September, 2002, but it's all I could source it with for now. I've been trying to locate a source that is more definitive, but so far haven't found any. Perhaps, we could insert a Note explaining this.--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a footnote will be appropriate. As it stands now, a reader following the source will be baffled. --Muhandes (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted a Footnote explaining the purpose of the source.--Harout72 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight improvement, I think it is clearer this way. Feel free to revert if you prefer your way. --Muhandes (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is an Indie Singer, because he has got versions of an Indie singer: Paolo Nutini with "New Shoes" and Ellie Goulding with "Not Following" and "Who'd want to find love" — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomualdoJavi (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to speak to you about my edit to this page. I was not "edit warring", I spent ages going through all the databases and adding up figures to get around 20 million. I did not repost 15 million and then make up some more. I miscalculated with some the first time and went to more databases to make up the current number. I wasn't aware that the threshold was 21.6%, I though it was 15% first time which is why i went back and did more calculations and looked at more databases.

Hi Harout, I know you know a lot about album and single sales and wanted to ask a question about a source. I recently saw an article on Music Week from 1997 about the Spice Girls worldwide sales through their first year. The sales correspond with other information available for markets like the UK, US, Canada or Spain, but they also have sales that I heven't seen before for other countries such as Chile, South Africa, Malaysia, India, Italy and Colombia, which generally don't publish sales, so my question is: do you think Music Week is reliable for the Spice Girls' sales in these markets? I want to add the info on the Spice album article. Thank in advance for your answer. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are reliable for UK sales, each week they provide the numbers, and the sales of the singles in the UK match the information available from other sources. The albums are not exactly the same as the article is from July 1997 so the sales are not the same as they were in 1998 or 1999 or even now, for example Spice was only at 3 million copies sold in the US in the article, now is over 7 according to Billboard, I will try to scan the article so you can see it for yourself, it has information from North America, Europe, Oceania and Japan that can be compared to the certification sources, but the other countries from Latin America, Asia and South Africa are not going to be that easy. If you also have all the certifications of the group, that could be very useful. Also there is an add in a Billboard magazine from November 1997, obviously paid by Virgin Records or EMI, for the launch of Spiceworld and they show the sales of Spice and the certification it got from other countries, I am thinking this is based on the shipments the label did to those countries, because I know for a fact that several of those countries have its own edition of the album, here for example in South America, there are editions from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru. Here is the Billboard source [2], I will try to upload the scans to show you the Music Week article. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Harout, your file is great, thank you for that. As promised here are the scans of the article, I believe that most of the sales match the certifications posted on the Billboard ad of Spiceworld: [3] [4] I don't know, but the figures don't seem to be really inflated to me, what do you think? Frcm1988 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scans are mine!!! I actually have that magazine with me so I can put a complete reference with all the parameters: publisher, date, author, page numbers, isbn, etc. I don't think the article is available online, but I can use the physical magazine, if people want to see the article, they will have to search in a library I guess. Also there is this article from August with some of the same info, altought some of the numbers were updated apparently, like the UK, Japan and Spain, but the article is from The Mirror, so I don't know how reliable is it. [5] Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fuller was the group's manager, so the numbers were most likely provided by Virgin Records. I think the sales column should probably be removed eventually, since the info is not really clear which ones are sales, and which represent shipments and they are also likely to be vandalized, you think I should only cite the Billboard ad? since is actually based on certifications and is from November, 4 months later than the Music Week article? Also thank you for updating the certifications. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That every time they say Nickelback on records they are talking about albums only. Because their album Dark Horse sold 5 million digital singles. Their albums All The Right Reasons sold over 12 million digital singles. Also, they have sold 52 million videos. I would also like to point out that your source doesn't look very reliable. So we don't know how many records these guys sold for sure, bbut we only know one thing they have sold over 50 million albums which it already makes it 50 million records we just have to count the singles, videos, etc Thanks for your time. talk 8:21 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but they were listed on this article as selling 370 million forever, and now all of a sudden they are way below all of these other artists. What is the deal with that? --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I see. That might not necesarily be the case here, but I see what you mean. I assume that this is a new policy thing? --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if the policy is a year old, how come ABBA were listed as selling 370 million until about two and a half months ago (August)? Just a question. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being disruptive, I'm just taking stuff that is not true, because the link which is the source bring you nowhere. Disruptive Editing is if I take all Linkin Park's certified sales even though a lot of them have a reliable source and a source. NOT like the US one which brings you nowhere. Unless if you try and bring up a "real source" please stop. msg me —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm.... I like the way your thinking and yes RIAA is a reliable source ONLY when is used right. But when you put the link to Linkin Park US sales it brings you nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Harout72, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Harout72/Sandbox 2.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout. Hope you're doing great. I need a little help and I was wondering if you can kindly fill this out for me:

Led Zeppelin have been awarded 5 Diamond albums (one of which has sold 23 million units, means two Diamonds but I'm considering it 1 in the total), as well as 14 Multi-Platinum albums, 4 Platinum albums and 1 Gold album in the United States, while in the UK they have 5 Multi-Platinum albums, 6 Platinum albums, 1 Gold albums and 4 Silver album.

Thanks in advance. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it. You might also want to refer to their detailed certifications that I've put together here.--Harout72 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch man. Really appreciated. Scieberking (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's nothing.--Harout72 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The source I used for the Italian chart positions for Eros Ramazzotti is the IT-Charts page (http://it-charts.150m.com) which contrary to what you're saying is used multiple times on wikipedia. As that page is one of the few Internet sites that lists the correct chart positions before 2000 (from either Musica e dischi (M&D) or FIMI (Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana), the two official Italian charts - depending on when the title was released), the IT-Charts page is used on several Wikipedia sites as a reliable source. For instance it's the source for the listing of Italian #1 singles before 2000 on FIMI site. Same thing for the Italian site for charts in Italy before 2000 [6]. A quick search on wikipedia reveals that there are several more pages (mainly discographies or album entries for Italian artists) where IT-Charts is used as an accepted source. It may be a page with fan made/collected chart data, but it's the only available source and should therefore be accepted.

The chart information on that site (especially on the chart histories such as the one for Eros Ramazzotti) is taken from the following chart books - (in addition to FIMI charts from 1995 on) - Artisti in classifica (Album) 1970-1996 – Musica & Dischi (1997) by John Joseph Spinetoli, Artisti in classifica (Singoli) 1960-1999 – Musica & Dischi (2000) by John Joseph Spinetoli and Musica & Dischi - Borsadisco 45 (Four Volume set with all weekly M&D Charts). For more information about these books see here (in Italian, though...)

The chart positions currently listed on Eros Ramazzotti discography are incorrect, they are not from the official charts. In Italy several charts has been published at the same time, sometimes causing confusion. Up to 1995 Musica e dischi was the official chart, but was replaced by the chart published by FIMI in 1995. On the site italiancharts.com the FIMI charts since 2000 are archived. As unfortunately the charts prior to that are hard to obtain, many people use the site Hit Parade Italia as source for Italian charts before 2000. There's just one problem with that site, it's not an official source. The chart positions listed there do not match with either M&D or FIMI charts, as the charts on Hit Parade are a combination of all the published Italian charts collected into one chart. For the albums chart it seems fine and for most parts equals the official Album Charts in Italy, but for the Singles chart positions it can create huge differences. For example the Ramazzotti single "Ci parliamo da grandi" never made the Top 10 on the official Italian Singles chart (FIMI) but on Hit Parade Italia it reached #4. And "Linda e il mare", the iTunes bonus track for Ali e radici, reached #35 on Hit Parade Italia due to charting high on iTunes chart, which sales are already included in The Offfcial Download Chart compiled by FIMI and Nielsen, which means it charted way higher on Hit Parade that it actually should have had.

Translated from Italian to English the Introduction page on Hit Parade Italia:

Weekly Top Singles Chart

In Italy, the first weekly singles sales charts dates back to 1959 and was published by the now defunct magazine "Il Musichiere". Since then, over the years, there have been several charts, some more official and reliable than others.

Our chart rankings are obtained by reprocessing all the data available from the chart publications of the time and are constantly refined as they recover their data purification of errors and inconsistencies.

Despite the mentioned above the public opinion seems to be that the Hit Parade Italia chart can't be considered as official or reliable. On the Italian wikipedia entry for Hit Parade it says that:

The site "www.hitparadeitalia.it" has attempted to bring order to chaos in the history of the music charts in Italy, posting weekly charts of every decade, but without a clear criteria or citing sources, probably due to limits on copyright issues, it consequently has no official status or authority.

Note also that on WP:Badcharts the Italian Singles at αCharts.us is considered as a so-called Deprecated chart, because of being a chart with dubious methodology. That chart (especially the source) should therefore be avoided. See also WP:GOODCHARTS and scroll down to Italy to see what sources should be used for the Italian charts. There's no mention for the period before 2000, but after that year only the FIMI chart should be used.

_______________________________________

Kai81 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of best-selling music artists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heavy metal and Swing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been updating Rammstein's cartifications and in this German article (Liste der Plattenverkäufe von Rammstein) it is mentioned, that some of their albums have been certified in Russia. This is the source.

http://2m-online.ru/gold_n_platinum/

But as you see it can't be viewed by anyone. Is there any chance to get a link to the certifications that anyone can use? Would be great if you had a solution for this problem.

Ich901 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Ich901[reply]

No, unfortunately I've been trying to check some certification myself for other artists, but no luck really. That site has been switched off for two months already, I think it's going though a massive update, at least I'd like to believe so.--Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay when you see it was public two months ago, I think it will be opened again...Ich901 (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Ich901[reply]

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FIMI page only lists the Top 10 positions for singles, but the complete Top 100 is available for use in the Italian music industry and some of the record companies (Sony Music Italy and Universal Music Italia) do publish weekly their artists' Top 100 chart positions on their own official Facebook pages. On Sony Music Italy's Facebook page one can find the chart positions for Eros Ramazzotti's below Top 10 positions those weeks he's been on the charts. What i don't know/remember how far back their publications (titled: "Le classifiche della settimana") of their artists in the charts goes.

What I do know is that "Il tempo tra di noi" did reach #29 on the week for "28/12/2007 al 03/01/2008 (Settimana 1)" and "Ci parliamo da grandi" #21 on the chart for "18/04/2008 al 24/04/2008 (Settimana 17)". I have in my own archive collected a fair amount of the weekly charts that i have received as copies of the original FIMI chart listings, but they are not available anywhere online and i'm pretty sure that i'm not allowed to publish them without the permission from FIMI (which may somewhat hard to obtain...). There's a FIMI chart book "Classifichi FIMI Artisti" that includes the FIMI chart positions 1995-2010, but I'm not sure if it includes both album & singles entries or if it only includes the album entries. I'm trying to find that book as that would be the best source for the Italian charts since 1995.

Kai81 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear, you are so wrong...

FIMI (Sales charts) VS Italiancharts.com: Hung Median (Combination of Sales and Airplay) - if you thought this was the case then there might be a lot of things you've reverted or edited incorrectly here...

FIMI's Top Digital Download is these days the official Italian chart as no physical singles are no longer commercially available in Italy. The FIMI Singles Chart (Physical Single Sales) was replaced January 2008 with the Download chart. On italiancharts.com they have all the official FIMI charts since 2000 listed, which means that for the period 2000-2007 the charts are for the FIMI Singles chart and from January 2008 forward FIMI Top Digital Downloads. On FIMI's official you can theses days only search for the Top Digital Download Charts, but all those charts that are dated before January 2008 are for what was then the Download Chart, which was not the official chart but rather an alternative to the main chart - like in UK before the Download chart was before the digital sales became eligible on the Official UK Chart.. To summarize the Top Digital Download Chart became the Offcial Italian FIMI chart on January 1, 2008 and not a day earlier.

From FIMI wikipage:

Starting from 1995, the Federation of the Italian Music Industry also provides the Italian official albums chart. In 1997, FIMI also became the provider of the Italian official singles chart. Due to the decrease of CD singles sales in Italy, FIMI replaced its physical singles chart with a digital downloads chart—based on legal Internet and mobile downloads—on 1 January 2008.'

This explains the different chart positions for that Rihanna single, it was #2 on the Physical sales chart and #5 on download chart. If you look on italiancharts.com the first charts in january 2008, there are some songs that disappear completely and some new chart very high in their first week (such as 2008's first #1 by Ligabue) - that was the first all-digital sales chart.

You can compare any singles chart on FIMI and italiancharts.com that are dated after January 1, 2008 and they match one to one.

The main problem with the Italian Singles Chart on acharts.us is that it claims to be sourced from FIMI, which is not the case. Furthermore it seems to be using the Musica & Dischi (M&D) chart as its source, which was the official chart until FIMI began to publish its own in 1995 (albums) and 1997 (singles). M&D chart lost its status as official chart with the arrival of FIMI and is considered second rate to FIMI mainly due to its compiling methods (I won't get deeper into that, otherwise this would be a way to long answer - as it is already way too long...). On some occasions it also seems to be using the information from hitparadeitalia which IS a Sales and Airplay combined chart, and not official either.

I've been following and making an archive of most european charts for over 10 years so, with the risk of sounding harsh, I know i'm right on this one.

So, is the chart provided by Musica & Dischi (M&D) based on Airplay and Digital Downloads? Why does it have different positions?

Well, to begin with FIMI and M&D charts are both sales charts. The main difference is that FIMI charts are based on actual sales that are being measured by an external research company, which means that the sales for any song available legally are being monitored - all official releases that are being available in Italy by a record company are associated with FIMI (or with the case of albums the Import releases in legal record stores are also being monitored). M&D charts are compiled based on the information they receive from the retailers.

The FIMI charts are considered more reliable and true than Musica e Dischi Charts, as FIMI charts are, as mentioned, compiled by an external certification company (Nielsen 1995-2009, GfK 2010- ) like in most other countries these days. M&D charts were compiled by themselves based on information that they receive mainly from retailers and distributors. As that information don't actually reflect the true sales, but rather the sales they are being told it leaves a lot of room for chart manipulation and "playing" with chart statistics. Therefore the compiling methods and its objectivity have sometimes been questioned. Before 1997 (when FIMI began to publish thir own Singles Chrt) most charts around the world were compiled by the industry itself, therefore for the time before 1997 M&D charts is the "true" chart. These days, however, the industry (like FIMI in Italy) has considered it necessary to rely on an external certifying body to have more reliable charts that reflect the true sales. In the case of FIMI they can be said to be in charge of compiling the charts, but GfK (previously Nielsen) will conduct the activity for them. When Nielsen processed the chart information it was based on the actual sales of the discs, the moment when the disc is actually being sold to customer from the store. Nielsen based their listings on the "sell out" information when the disc leaves the store and is actually being sold, as some older charts (and most often certification awards are so called "sell in" information, that is when the disc leaves the distributor or record company to be sold at the retailer). In Nielsen's case the sales data is being recorded/collected each time a disc is sold and in the store and "scanned": the data is then automatically reported to Nielsen.

These days with much of the sales being in digital format some things must have chaged. M&D charts were published for everyone to see up to 2010, after that even Top 10 positions of M&D chart are being released only for paid subscribers, at least officially, so how much difference the singles charts have today is hard to tell. One reason there still might be differences in the "download" era is the FIMI charts are being published in such a way that the GfK collects the data from Monday to Sunday and is being released the next Thursday (Nielsen had at some point the timeline from Friday to Saturday), and the information collecting period can differ between the charts. If a title is released on say Wednesday it can have two completely different chart positions as the sales week can be spread differently on the different charts.

Kai81 (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could say that the difference within the positions published by FIMI and Musica & Dischi is the fact that the latter doesn't rely on Nielsen Soundscan or the German based research company, GfK International, but it relies on Shipment method and also Sales submitted non-electronically by retailers. But the amount of stores that are being accounted may also differ, according to FIMI/GfK chart methodology they covered up to 3400 retailers, as M&D some years ago had about 600 (as M&D in the late 60's/early 70's at best up to 4000 retailers).

On FIMI's Offical site it's for every weekly chart listed the date the chart data is collected from - for example the latest chárt week: Classifica settimanale WK 50 (dal 12/12/2011 al 18/12/2011). M&D collected its data on a period Saturday-Friday, at least up to 2006, an archived chart listing can be found here.

This article explains the differences of methodology of collecting chartdata used by FIMI/Nielsen and M&D. The article is in Italian language, try using googletranslator or something similat to get in english, you'll get the most of it that way - it's a very interesting article (especially if you're into chart curiosities). It also mentions the data collecting period used by Nielsen.

About FIMI/GfK chart methodology can be read more here, although as everything else on FIMI's site it's in Italian. There are plenty more articles and news about chart regulations, certifications and such on that FIMI page, it just takes time to find them - and they are unfortunately in Italian.

Most of the information is things i've picked up during years of research and interest in Music Charts, read in music/chart related articles and books, so there's probably more articles to be found also, possibly in Italian, those came to mind at this point.

Kai81 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harout! Since you're really good at certifications, don't you have any interest to develop that list, like List of best-selling music artists? Many album sales seem inflated to me **just asking anyway :)** Bluesatellite (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources

1. 1 http://www.thestreet.com/story/11366583/1/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand-footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012.html

1. 2 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand--footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012-136740033.html

--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from inserting artists with unreliable sources and incorrect certified sales. At the List of best-selling music artists, we are to use highly reliable sources, preferably news services such as CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post etc.. As for Bet.com for R. Kelly, not only is it unreliable but it doesn't contain a sales figure. I have gone over R. Kelly's certified sales (which you can find here) and I'd like to inform you that your posted certified sales for every single market is incorrect. R. Kelly's total for U.S. market is 43.5 million including albums, singles, videos and duo collaborations. Please discuss your certified sales in details before editing the list.--Harout72 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Black Entertainment Television is surely a reliable source. It is one of the country's biggest networks. And the link clearly states "150 million". I will add R. Kelly to the list again. If I make any formal mistakes, I'd be thankful if one corrected them, instead of just deleting everything. Malcolmo (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally R. Kelly has more than just 43.5 certifications, because some of his collaborations are not credited in the RIAA database, including hit songs like Go Getta or Satisfy You. And frankly it comes off somewhat racist, if you deny the reliabilty of the biggest African American television network. Malcolmo (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come for Black Eyed Peas' stats, MTV.co.uk is regarded reliable enough and BET.com is not? Malcolmo (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello Harout72, I am Kim Sanders, the same Kim Sanders who is the artist described on this page. My user name is 'Cooiegirl3000'. I am only correcting the information on my page as some of the press references to my personal life is incorrect. Plus I wish to ensure that the English grammar is correct which, it has not been. Please DO NOT edit this page without proper and accurate information. Thank you..

Kim Sanders

'Cookiegirl3000'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiegirl3000 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

hello Harout72.

the sources regarding my private life is filled with speculation...even if it's a so called 'valid source'.. (please check the wikipedia of Christopher von Deylen and you won't see anything added under his private section regarding a relationship with me (Kim Sanders). I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am the real Kim Sanders....and since this page is concerning me, I wish to ensure that the information listed here is correct. It was I that placed the correct information regarding my history to begin with and to make sure that the language/grammar is also correct. Therefore, I would ask that you please refrain from re-adding the private life section... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiegirl3000 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: 'Reverted 1 edit by Hippo75 (talk): You can't see the hidden message for images: Seven images only of the top certified artists'. But I displayed the images of the 7 music artists who have sold the biggest quantity of records (between 120 million and 149 million records) and I displayed them ordered by record sales. Indeed, I let a '8th artist' but only in COMMENT (between tags '< ! - -' and '- - >', do you really know them?). Hippo75 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you putting No.86 for Sorry for Party Rocking, even though it's 76, and No.86 is I'm in Miami Bitch for the UK! -- $pongeP@ppy (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how is it redundant? I removed false information and added legitimate info. Krystaleen (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement that you inserted in this edit "All In My Head was originally recorded only by the Backstreet Boys for their 2009 album This Is Us, but it didn't make the cut" is not supported by the source provided after that statement. Your next statement too, "and as of 2012 several Asian dates have been added", is unsupported; therefore, it seems redundant to include. Also, you might want to leave a brief explanation in edit summaries when editing.--Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For now I'd just remove the roles because there's no such things in the BSB. Also, thanks for the reminder about the summary, I'll keep that in mind. Krystaleen (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Eiffel 65-Europop.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of best-selling music artists (page 2), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of best-selling music artists. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. According to policy, non-free files cannot be used in user sandboxes. You have this non-free file in this sandbox of yours. I suggest you remove it.--Rockfang (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Harout72 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher

Honestly, the only interest that I have on Cher's page, is keep her records sales from being inflated as she barely has sold 100 million records (albums, singles, videos) based on her certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Lordelliott (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulleted list item

How's that an unreliable source to you then? -- $pongeP@ppy (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fan made chart data. Nothing official.--Harout72 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources, admit it. They gave the information I explained on the page. How is it unreliable? --XHugoTheNerd (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[[File:— Preceding unsigned comment added by XHugoTheNerd (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC) ]][reply]

Your source here is a fan made page, which is completely unreliable. If you can't separate reliable sources from unreliable ones, I suggest that you post your source at WP:RS/N, where some knowledgeable folks will tell you whether or not your source(s) are reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video displayed 37 million records sold, did you not see? --XHugoTheNerd (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are very new to wikipedia, you should familiarize yourself with a whole line of wikipedia policies before you continue to edit pages. A good starting point for you would be: 1. WP:RS, and while you're there, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. 2. WP:Verifiablity. 3. Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Harout72 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering if you know where I could find Sweden's Platinum and multiplatinum certifications from before 1999. I know about this document, but it seems to have some formatting issues that make it impossible to view anything higher than a Gold certification.

Given that before 1996 the certification requirement for Platinum albums was 100,000 copies, finding the Swedish Platinum certifications from 1987-1998 would be very useful for many of the certification tables I am compiling here.

Please tell me if you know where I can find those certifications.

Thank you.--Mauri96 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does have a formatting issue, but it's possible to figure out which of the records have received Platinum or multi-Platinum certifications. I personally open the 1987-1998 on two separate browsers. On browser one, I keep it at the beginning of the file, and on the second browser I keep it scrolled down to the end of it, where the titles and Gold awards end, where only Platinum awards begin to appear on the left side of the screen. The blanks spots on the first browser are the Platinum/multi-Platinum awards. And on the second browser, the blank ones are the Gold awards. For example, if I want to find out what Whitney Houston has received for her Whitney 1, I know that the first blank spot on the first browser belongs to album "Whispering Jack" by Fornham John, when looked at the second browser. Then we have six Gold awards after the first blank spot (on the first browser), then two blank spots again, the first of which belongs to the album "Whitney 1", 2x Platinum, when looked at the second browser. It's a bit challenging but doable. Unfortunately, that file is all we have to go by. Hopefully the formatting will get corrected one day.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whence the number 19.4 million? This file write only larger numbers, for examples: Polish Sales: 50,000 - Fever Album. But, this album was the best sold in this country. Other albums were bought, but in smaller quantities - this source does not include. This source is not reliable (and incomplete) for the full number of records sold.
2. This "the second box from top" is OR (see: Wikipedia:Original research), this box is nonsense and breaks the rules of Wikipedia.
3. Quotation: "The list requires certain percentages of certified sales depending on charting date"? - next nonsense. Article shows the "amount" of records sold, not percentages. Sources also write about the quantity and not a percentage. If you want to rely on percentages - please create a second table. I have not seen on Wikipedia so blatantly violated the rules of Original Research.
4. My calculations say that Kylie sold about 72 million records (2012), including new album. 68 million is old data, but there are too many sources for 68 million - so Wikipedia can accept only the number 68 million (for my and your disadvantage).
5. Exist hundreds sources for more than "68 million" (see google - shows 100,000 to 200,000 of results). I adding only 10 reliable sources to article. Hundreds sources is wrong? Next nonsense. Under the rules of Wikipedia - the number of "68 million" has enough sources and meets rules of Wikipedia. Sorry. Your own opinions and standards leave in the home :-) Subtropical-man (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 19.4 million is the sum of all available certified units. The file is not provided to pass as a reliable source, but the sources indicated at the bottom of each country are. The original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles. That said, all certifications are supported by reliable sources. Finally, it is the way the List of best-selling music artists has been operated for over a year. That was based on consensus of number of editors, see here.--Harout72 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up - you rely on incomplete sources - admit it? Ok. You have eggs. However, this consensus is against the rules of Wikipedia. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sources? What does that mean? If you consider RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie, SNEP, ARIA, Music Canada incomplete sources, perhaps, you should overlook your knowledge.--Harout72 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Incomplete sources? What does that mean?" Think a little. Example - how many CDs sold Kylie in Poland? Your source writing it? No!! Your source write only about Fever Album (50,000). Only 50,000 for all albums of Kylie sales in Poland? This is a scam and manipulation. This source is not reliable (and incomplete) for the full number of records sold.
2. Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus some users. Your pseudo-consensus (and your box) violated the rules of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a little knowledge about record certifications, you would not say think a little. I repeat, the file contains all reliable sources at the bottom of each music market, follow the sources and see the certifications for yourself. The album Fever is the only album that has been certified in Poland, see here. For Poland's certification-award-levels, refer to this page and this page. Lastly, I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies.--Harout72 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God :-D Please see this link and source [7]. Name "Złote CD" ("Złote płyty") is not all certification sales. This is only status of "gold CD" ("gold record") i.e >50,000 sales in this country. It does not cover all certifical records sold. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gold status in Poland for 2001 foreign releases required 50,000 units. I never said it covers all units sold. Albums/singles/videos must reach a certain number of units sold to get certified Gold or Platinum. ZPAV has been certifying records since 1995, and in 17 years, Minogue has reached a Gold status only once; therefore, we see only Fever having been certified. Anyways, Poland has never had a large music market, or even a medium sized market; therefore, I would not concentrate too much on Polish market when looking at Minogue's record sales. The certifications coming from large music markets and medium markets, do not add up to anything to suggest that Minugue has sold anywhere near 68 million or even 60 million records.--Harout72 (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Whole Central and Eastern Europe was communist, agencies for record companies were formed only in the mid 90 (example ZPAV in Poland), they do not cover earlier years. For example: Kylie recording from 1987 and other (many singers did albums before), and what? You subtract data of half of the continent?
2. Change the name of the article, if only include gold, silver, platinum records - if article does not cover all records you need to change the name of the article (example on List music artists with highest number of albums sold with gold, silver and platinum status) or similarly. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue to fill my page with ignorant questions, you might want to familiarize yourself with the sizes of music markets. A good starting point for someone like you would be this page Global music industry market share data, and make sure to follow the sources provided, so won't accuse anyone of manipulating. That said, Eastern Europe has never produced notable record sales. The most important music markets have had certification-system since the 50s and the 70s.--Harout72 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Eastern Europe has never produced notable record sales" - and what? These data is POV, these data are descriptive, these data do not provide accurate data = this data is incomplete and not reliable according to rules of Wikipedia.
2. Please, change the name of the article, if only include gold, silver, platinum records. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I g7'd the nomination because I accidentally made a 2nd nomination, not realizing the content had been MFD'd already. So I'm G7ing the nomination itself, not the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted my edit in the Scooter article and wrote "Provide a source that Micheal Simon is no longer with Scooter". I checked my edit and Simon was clearly listed in the current lineup, nothing was written about him not being in the band anymore. I don't wish to start an edit war so I'll just let it be, but I thought it would look better to separate current and past members. Niera (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have paid closer attention, my mistake. Your edit has been restored.--Harout72 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harout, I've been noticing all of the recent work you've been doing to the above article, and just wanted to let you know I started on this a looooong time ago and posted what I have for her singles and albums What do you think? Should the U.S. Dance and R&B charts be omitted? I want to get this done already and promoted to FA. — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 15:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the U.S. R&B and Dance Charts should be excluded, not because we should have 10 columns for peaks, but because those charts have nothing to do with sales as all others in the tables do. But seems to me that discography may need some more additional work on sources for peaks especially.--Harout72 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I originally included them because a majority of her singles have charted on them but two additional International charts would work. User:Tombo671 has made a significant number of edits regarding the peaks, not me, and I told the user that a source would be needed for them but they have yet to act on that. This is my original submission, and all peaks were correct to my knowledge. — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 15:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be verifying the French peaks today as neither infodisc nor lescharts have positions for earlier albums. I will try and verify the rest of the markets as I go.--Harout72 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please add back the U.S. Dance and U.S. R&B/Hip-Hop peak chart position columns in the Janet Jackson singles section. Wikipedia's guidelines for discographies suggests considering the "relative success of the artist on that chart" as a good rule of thumb to go by when selecting charts, not sales success as you had suggested. Janet is currently ranked as the #2 artist (tied with Rihanna) for having 19 number-one singles on the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, and is ranked as the #5 artist for having 16 number-one hits on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart. Janet's singles had significantly more success on those two charts than some of the other charts that are represented in the singles section. I suggest removing the French and German charts, as none of Janet's singles ever topped those charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treblebass2000 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do those guidelines say remove sales charts of other markets and instead insert Dance Club Songs chart, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart? Because it clearly states that we are to have 10 columns for peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the sarcastic/condescending response? I'm simply suggesting that, per the guidelines, "relative success" should be based on quantity of chart-topping hits on each chart, not sales. Check the discographies of other artists that dominate the US Dance/R&B charts (Madonna for Dance, Aretha Franklin/Stevie Wonder for R&B) and you'll see that their singles discographies include these charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.39.167 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relative success of an artists, as far as charts go, is determined by sales charts. When there are enough sales charts available (which are the only significant charts) from various markets to fill out all of the 10 columns, then the U.S. Dance chart should be left out. The latter should only be included if there are available columns left. Such isn't the case with Janet Jackson's discography.--Harout72 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Success on the Billboard charts is based on a combination of sales and airplay. The U.S. is Janet's base market and her singles have always fared better domestically than in many of the minor international markets that you choose to keep listed. It makes more sense to highlight her singles success on the U.S. charts than on the minor international markets. Are you purposely trying to downplay her success on the U.S. charts? If sales truly trumps airplay and other factors, as you suggest, why aren't you on a crusade to modify the singles discographies of the other artists that I mentioned (Madonna, Franklin, Wonder) to fit your criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.39.167 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Janet's success in U.S. cannot be portrayed by having Hot 100 peaks only? After all that is the chart system that decides one's success in U.S., isn't it? That said, the U.S. Dance chart has nothing to do with sales. As for the R&B chart, it only highlights the success among the R&B artists, while other smaller sized markets in the table such as New Zealand and Ireland have 13 Top-10s and eight Top-10s respectively. The rest of the markets in the table aren't small sized music markets. By the way, I don't edit Madonna's page, or those others that you mentioned above. But I do edit many other discography pages and I assure you that none of those that I edit includes neither peaks for U.S. Dance chart nor R&B, even if there are some available, because official singles charts is all that we should have, unless there are columns available to include those charts.--Harout72 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Janet has more #1 hits on the U.S. Dance (19) and R&B (16) charts than she does on the Top 100 (10). That's why I suggest including those two charts in lieu of some of the minor international countries that, frankly, nobody cares about and add little relevance to her reputation as the most successful dance/R&B artist of our time.Treblebass2000 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to you her chart performance for other markets adds a little significance to her success, but to many others and for informational purposes, it is more important to highlight the success she's experienced both in the U.S. and abroad. By the way, in the lead of her discography, we already have the number of hits she's had on R&B charts and Dance chart.--Harout72 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you sent me i might have added the wrong link(apologies if that's true) , here it is. http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Janet+feat.+Q-Tip+and+Joni+Mitchell&titel=Got+%27Til+It%27s+Gone&cat=s it clearly says the positions right there. Also while we are at it, Do you think it's a good idea to split her discography? it's certainly big enough. Tombo671 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a US Dance Chart cannot be placed on Kylie's discography because it's not a sales chart, then why do Madonna, Cher, and a lot of other artists have a US Dance Chart on their page????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gay4RKO (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point is, if those users can put a US Dance Chart on their charts why can't i on Kylie's? What makes me so different from any other user? What makes Kylie's discography so different from the others? Wiki lets people publish things as long as there are references to prove the edits right. Kylie's 2010 singles chart only has 8 columns. I want to add a Spain and US Dance Chart because those are places where her last singles have actually done well therefore they'll help make her 2010 chart look better. Now can you do me a favor and put those charts in her discography because every time i try someone deletes my edits when i clearly give proper references and it offends me that my edits are always taken down when they shouldn't be yet i see fake facts all over Wiki yet those aren't taken down??? Can you just please add a Spain and US Chart to Kylie's 2010 chart. Okay, thank you.

Well, thank you for adding the Spain chart to the 2010 chart. I truly do appreciate it. However, i would really like for the U.S. Chart to be added in place of the Italian chart. I mean it is her most successful chart of this new decade. But i do understand why you say it should not be added. But at the extent, i think it's only fair if you took down Madonna's U.S. Dance Chart and replaced it with another chart like Spain or something. I mean why is it permitted for Madonna to have that chart when Kylie cannot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gay4RKO (talk • contribs) 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you opine on this this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Since I've noticed on the list of best-selling music artists talk page that you're interested in Eric Clapton's record sales, I put this document together as a future help for when you research all his certifications for inclusion in the best-selling artists list.

Cheers! --Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll take it under consideration. But the reliability of the site for Australia seems questionable, it seems to have been compiled by a blogger.--Harout72 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits without even checking them. I am Portuguese speaker and created this page in Wikipedia Lusophone, please check Anexo:Lista de certificações recebidas por Beyoncé Knowles all certifications have reference. Silencio faz bem (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know mademan.com, but i take that sources from an wikipedia page.. Sorry.. But for one not reliable sources you are canccelled all page edited?Music&Co (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right around this matters that it concerns the sources that can be inserted, the fact is that in it wipedia-italia those sources more quoted times are considered more reliable. Evidently every nation holds reliable different sources according to where they have been produced! HiMusic&Co (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats up buddy! Long time :) I see you've already encountered the issue on the list, so maybe you can give your two cents here and help shed some light. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back :) I was under the impression that you quit wikipedia.--Harout72 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well I never officially quit, just took an very extended absence :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you stay, 'cause we need people who understand inflated figures when they see them :).--Harout72 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to support the cause anytime! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you do me a small favor? You have Mariah listed at 8.9 million for Japan. Care to list (no sources needed) just where (what singles/albums) the numbers come from? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You probably know all of them except for two. I recently discovered that "Christmas for Lovers" has sold Million units in "Chaku-Uta (R)" format. It also has gone Platinum (250,000 units) in "Chaku-Uta Full (R)" format (it's on the same page). I'll provide you with my usual detailed list just in case. Since I'm not a fan, I'm not sure if Google messes up the translation of "All I Want for Christmas Is You", or Mariah really has a song called "Christmas for Lovers".--Harout72 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :) Your not a fan!? Gasp! :P Lol, yeah its a mistake, it is "AIWFCIY". I would like to correct a few things :) First off, you have MTV Unplugged listed at 1,500,000 million, but its certified 3x platinum and has sales of over 2,731,000 copies (sources are on her albums discography page). Also, can we list Emotions as a million seller in Japan as well, since the Sony Music Japan list the album as a Million seller.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan yet lol.

• The levels for Short-form albums were Gold=250,000, Platinum=500,000 until September 1996. Since MTV Unplugged has been certified in 1994, it's only been certified for 1,500,000 units. But since it's sold 2,731,000 units and even more by now, the chances are that RIAA will re-certify it. RIAA applies newer-levels when re-certifying older albums/singles. So once RIAA re-certifies it for 2x Platinum (2,000,000) or even 3x Platinum, I'll be sure to update it.
• Let's just use RIAJ's site to support the Japanese certifications, we wanna we consistent :). I'm surprised that the Million-Seller database doesn't have that listed, perhaps, RIAJ hasn't certified it.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Yeah, its weird. I always thought it was regular 3x platinum since that reflects the sales. I know it pisses me off, so many Carey albums are multi-million sellers in Japan and they don't list them! :( You remember those Billboard pages I showed you, literally like over 20+ million sales in the country alone. I agree though, we'll keep it simple :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and wonder if you could offer some advice? I note the Pet Shop Boys article claims total worldwide sales of 100m records. The cited source is a 2008 press release by Warner Music Germany. This is double the number reported by the BBC in a recent interview. Applying the Wikipedia percentage calculation to certified album sales, this smaller figure seems more realistic and concurs with Pet Shop Boys' entry on the list of the world's biggest selling music artists. I strongly suspect the figure of 100m is inflated but I'm unsure how to proceed. I suppose it could be possible, if highly improbable, that Pet Shop Boys have sold a further 50m singles and videos worldwide but somehow it seems unlikely. What would you advise? Pyrophylaciorum (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I normally look at artists' available certified units, which help me determine whether or not the claimed figure is realistic or simply inflated for promotional purposes (the latter is more practiced by record companies). In the case of Pet Shop Boys, the 100 million claim is definitely inflated. Their available certified units stand at 13.5 million. In fact, 13.5 million certified units are not even high enough to suggest that PSB may have sold 50 million. But if I were to choose between 50 million and 100 million, I'd go with the 50 million. In my honest opinion, their actual sales figure should lie in the neighborhood of 30 million units. Their U.S. certified sales are extremely low which is a big part why their overall certified sales are only 13.5 million units. The U.S. market, in most cases, covers 30% of artists' sales. Unless of course it's someone like Robbie Williams whose home market has generated more than 35% of his sales.--Harout72 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have amended the article to reflect the (admittedly very generous) figure of 50 million, citing the BBC report. No doubt I'll have an angry hoard of PSB fans demanding my neck! Pyrophylaciorum (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to post a brief explanation at the talk-page of the article (if you haven't done yet) explaining that it was changed due to the 100 million being inflated. That way others can engage in a discussion rather than hitting the Revert button.--Harout72 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. I have added a brief note. Pyrophylaciorum (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy. Someone posted this source and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Any ideas?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It seems like a Japanese source that lists weekly charts for albums, singles, downloads and so forth. Where'd you come across it? It may be being put together by a music enthusiast:) Not sure if it's a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, where all these random sites come from; IPs lol :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout,

I am currently working on a translation of your "List of best selling music artists" into German, de:Benutzer:Ich901/Arbeitsblatt. Unfortunately three templates used in the list don't work there. ("Ntsh", "Hidden" and "Notes") Do you know how to import the templates into German Wikipedia or how to achieve the same effects with different methods? I hope you are not angry with me copying your work.

Greetings --Ich901 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine I don't mind. I'm honestly not familiar with what needs to be done on German wiki to achieve the same layout. Perhaps you could ask someone on the German wiki who's created similar lists. It seems like the German wiki doesn't have a page for Template:Hidden.--Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a request page for templates. I have asked there, but yet no answer. I guess someone has to create a template page in German Wikipedia, before I can use it. Thanks anyway. --Ich901 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, could you please send me a link to all the lists you have compiled about the artists certifications, also those from artists who haven't made it on the list yet? I would like two continue the lists when I find something. Plus I could answer questions when someone aks me something about a certain artists certifications. That would be great, if you don't mind. Greetings --Ich901 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have most of my files uploaded on Mediafire, but the uploaded files become visible on a single page only for me when I'm logged in. In order for me to provide you with all of them I have to re-upload them one by one to make sure it's the updated version (because I update my files every day), and then provide you with the links to all of them one by one. Let's be realistic, I couldn't possibly go over hundreds of files. If you'd like you can go over artists' certified sales, and when you have a question about one or two, I will upload my files on Mediafire, so you can compare yours with those.--Harout72 (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about packing all files in an archive with "winrar" and upload the archive one time on mediatraffic or send it via e-mail? --Ich901 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Norton Antivirus prevents the WinRAR from being downloaded. E-mailing hundreds of files in one or two shots is impossible. I'd have to attach the files. I think the best thing for you to do is copy the figures from List of best-selling music artists, and whenever you need detailed certifications of one or two artists, ask me on here, and I will upload the recent/updated version of my files.--Harout72 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will do that. But if you want, I can send you an WinRar exe file via e-mail. It's is just 1.4 MB. --Ich901 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2 Unlimited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha hey buddy, I know the "best-selling" list is your forte, but I was wondering if you could take a few minutes and give The Emancipation of Mimi a thorough FAC review. I'm struggling to get reviewers, so I'm trying to find a few pals that would be completely honest and 3rd party. No guilt if you aren't comfortable :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your article's looking great :). Reviewing it would require all day as you seem to have covered every single detail about that album, I'm not sure if I could find enough time to go over it very carefully. I'll keep an eye on it, if you still can't find reviewers within the next week or two, I might take a look at it once I find some free time.--Harout72 (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man :) Much appreciated!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you today. Some Rihanna performance was shown on the X Factor, and they introduced her as having sold "over 180 million records". Thought you'd have a nice laugh with me ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what's next? I'm pretty sure that figure is being fed by her stupid record company. I was under the impression that record companies were kind of turning away from overblowing sales claims, I guess not.--Harout72 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a little bit worried by your use of "40 million lies" to describe her record sales with Sonny. As if I put this on the article with bad faith. But whatever. I am not a "sales expert" as you seem to be. I searched for Sonny & Cher record sales and I found this source. I thought it was a good source, so I put this on the article. I don't know what makes it a "self-published" source, and I'd like you to explain me. Lordelliott (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The Vanity Fair source refers to her top-forty and top-ten hits with Sonny, not to the sales figure actually. I can't put a source in the middle of the sentence. Lordelliott (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just found this Time/CNN source: http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/12/time/Bellafante.html. Lordelliott (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sorry. As you can see, English is not my first language. Lordelliott (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for the explanation. Lordelliott (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snap!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I would greatly appreciate your opinion on a Lana Del Rey matter over here. Thanks! :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by this edit. Do you think the Scottish National Party won independence recently?—Kww(talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that it says 2012 Top 40 Scottish singles Archive at the top. I wasn't aware that Scottish chart appearance is quite similar to that of the UK. I know that they are part of the UK, so why the separate chart?--Harout72 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charts are really intended to inform marketing decisions. I can only assume that Scotland is a sufficiently distinct market that people have to make distinct decisions about how to sell things there.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cher albums discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a scanner, but I can give you the peaks, the number of weeks on the chart and the peak date for each single.

• 02(20) MODERN TALKING - YOU'RE MY HEART,YOU'RE MY SOUL 29/07/1985
• 02(25) MODERN TALKING - YOU CAN WIN IF YOU WANT 23/09/1985
• 01(27) MODERN TALKING - CHERI CHERI LADY 13/01/1986
• 01(29) MODERN TALKING - BROTHER LOUIE 09/06/1986
• 02(19) MODERN TALKING - ATLANTIS IS CALLING 13/10/1986
• 01(25) MODERN TALKING - GERONIMO'S CADDILAC 15/12/1986
• 09(14) MODERN TALKING - LONELY TEARS IN CHINATOWN 23/02/1987
• 03(22) MODERN TALKING - JET AIRLINER 29/06/1987
• 25(09) MODERN TALKING - DON'T WORRY 23/11/1987
• 04(16) MODERN TALKING - IN 100 YEARS 28/12/1987

CanadaOlympic989 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Response is here. Your choice. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harout72. I comment that because Shakira should not be listed. Moreover, Sony reported only 60 million copies. Thanks for the compression, best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the decision, and yes, I disagree with it, but you aren't going to be able to overturn it at DRV. It's within admin discretion. Since I participated, it would be doubly wrong for me to try to override it.

Your best bet is to have an RFC, advertised at the various music Wikiproject and guideline talk pages, about setting the minimum threshold for the article. It's clear to me that you have to have a minimum, and it's clear to me that 50M is too low.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical point, you mentioned a 450 citation limit. Where is that documented? With that, I just might be able to persuade MBisanz to decide differently.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, what a SACD is, please use Wikipedia: Super Audio CD --DrSeehas (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself a rather level-headed editor, but I am already just about tired of dealing with people at the "List of best-selling musical artists" article. You much have incredible patience and motivation. Best of luck with your work there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm more patient than you, but thanks :). I simply try to ignore those who don't get it after my explanation. It helps, lot of them just go away and never come back.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lana Del Rey discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made this clearer. Searching for "Lou Bega" only brings up the single platinum certification, but searching for "Bega, Lou" brings up the double-platinum one. I've altered the note in the ref so that this will appear in future searches. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, estimated Harout!. I have opened a discussion here. I hope you can pass. If you do not want or do not have time, do not worry. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the Gold US certification as it was certified in 1972 by RIAA, but under its original name "Cher", you can check for yourself.

Certified on April 13, 1972 (label KAPP) BUT the RIAA database lists it as being released on November 03, 1987 which is when Cher's first Geffen album named "Cher" was released.

They also state that the single GYPSYS, TRAMPS & THIEVES was released on December 31, 1969 when in fact it was released in September of 1971.

The album sold over 1 million copies in the US and it's not certified Platinum, as many Cher's and Sonny and Cher's records aren't.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleangelo (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a source supporting the June 16, 2000 release date—take a better look at Not That Kind#Release history, this is the reference (where it says "Date de sortie"). There are other three dates preceding July 10, 2000, and according to Template:Infobox album#Released, the earliest known release date is the one that should be specified; the same applies to discographies. Besides, there is no need to cite release dates in discography pages when the album article itself already has a source. SnapSnap 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout 72 , You wrote me (cause of an edit on the list of best selling acts) that we are looking for sources that have claimed figues that are closest to the certificated sales figures as possible . So why than Led Zeppelin has between 200 and 300 million claimed when their certificated are about 130 ? Rony1992 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Led Zeppelin's sources which claim 200 million, you'll see that they both claim Albums, not Records (Singles, Albums, Videos). So as far as I am concerned the 300 million claim for Led Zeppelin is the closest claimed figure to their certified sales. Of course I personally would prefer seeing both 200 million claims be for Records, not just Albums. Also note that Elton John has two claimed figures, one 250 million, and the other 200 million, both of which claim Records. In fact, the 200 million is the closest, but the 250 million isn't that inflated, therefore, it's ok for us to keep.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but many sources speak of elton john 250 million albums for example here this is quite to date : http://english.astroawani.com/news/show/elton-john-to-release-new-album-in-september-8550 and elton is often listed with 300 million sales .and the 250 mio are the minimume there is today .Rony1992 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the List of best-selling music artists we have two relatively new sources, both claim 250 million Records, that is Singles, Albums, Videos.--Harout72 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but those sources are from the wikipedia claimed sales which say records instead of albums. Like this 1 week ago and all the recent say albums: http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/musicworld/elton-john-performs-in-paraguay_129504.htm and the teöegraph says 250 mio albums and 100 million singles like here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/5197203/Sir-Elton-John-adds-an-extra-date-to-his-tour.html and this is quite a reliable newspaper. Rony1992 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the lead of List of best-selling music artists again, it clearly says Note that this list uses claimed figures that are closer to artists' available certified sales. In other words, inflated claimed figures that will meet the required certified sales amount but are unrealistically high from available certified sales, will not be used. And in the case of Elton John, the 250 million Records is it. The claims made by Telegraph are simply inflated figures based on his available certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand the 350 mio may seem high but though 99 % say at least 250 mio . so the 200 mio is very low . There are nearly no sources for that to date. So 250 mio would be the lowest most used one in reliable sources in any language. Im sorry for replying so often but I just want to conrtibute a little bit so understand im not trying to put someone higher than he is but there are some facts that I think should be considered for the article not just for elton but also for queen and other artists in the list . Queen is often claimed between 150 mio and 300 I think . Rony1992 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 200 million doesn't seem low at all since Elton John's available certified sales are only 155 million. If he had some 180 or 190 million in certified sales, then yes, the 200 million would be low. Bear in mind that the certified sales are excellent way of knowing where the actual sales stand for the artist in question. Sources almost always claim what's given to them by artists' record companies. And the record companies in their turn almost always inflate sales figures for promotional purposes. Most people find inflated figures more attractive, and sometimes it helps to boost sales by a small scale, it's a marketing strategy.--Harout72 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come Pink Floyd is able to have an estimated 250 million record sales when Mariah Carey has 9 million certified units more than Pink Floyd? And Pink Floyd's lead in their article is totally misleading. 250 million albums sold? Records would sound fair enough. Mazic (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Pink Floyd have begun charting way back in 1967, and lot of the music markets still didn't have certification system until good 1980s, 1990s, which caused lot of their records (albums, singles) go uncertified, which is not the case with artists having begun in 1990s. Also, note that we use the two claimed figures that are closest to artists' certified sales. If you have sales figures like 150 million or 175 million for Pink Floyd coming from a reliable source, feel free to provide it. That way we can remove the 250 million and keep the 200 million and the lower available figure. As for their wikipedia page, I don't edit that page. But you're right, the term records is more logical.--Harout72 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could also argue that Mariah Carey has many under certified albums and singles in Asian or South American countries where the music industry in those areas didn't hit big till the late 80's or the 90's;(Excluding Japan and a few South American countries) where the 90's was Mariah Carey's heyday. She has at least 15-20 million records sold in Japan alone, the certifications provided in the list of best selling music artists are outdated and under certified. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singpore, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. are not even included. I'm pretty sure she has at least 1 million record sales in each country, especially in South Korea that could be 3-5million. She and Whitney are the only foreign acts to have a million seller album in South Korea And in my fair estimation her catalog sales increases at least 500,000-1 million records every year, largely thanks to her Christmas endeavors. But I should rather discuss it on her talk page. As for Pink Floyd, my artist of concern is Mariah Carey not them. But I have two sources claiming 175-200 million record sales for them. (source 1, source 2) Source 2 says 175 million albums but I'm pretty sure the logical term would be records. I'll just leave it up to you if you're going to change it or not. Thanks anyways. Have a good day. Mazic (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singpore, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. are extremely small music markets and never generate notable sales. One single European market like Germany or UK generates more sales than the 95% of the countries in Asia (with an exception of Japan) and South America (with an exception of Brazil, Mexico, Argentina) combined. See Global music industry market share data. In other words, had Mariah Carey really sold anywhere near 250 million records, her certified sales would have been over 150 million units. As for Pink Floys, your second source is reliable but it's from seven years ago and uses the term Albums. Let me know if you come across a new reliable source that states 175 million Records.--Harout72 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I noticed your remarks concerning history past present and future by m. Jackson,,,,i placed a source on the "best selling album page",,,is this enough do I need more, I would appreciate any help ,,,,thanks,,,,--65.8.189.173 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harout. As always, sorry for my English irregular. I have a question. In a Wikipedia (no here), a user has questioned the veracity of Infordisc.fr. As I see used in List of best-selling music artists and You know a lot of these matters I wanted to ask that if is verifiable or not? and Why?. I do not know if unrelated to IFPI or SNEP. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. Infodisc is not a highly reliable source and it is not operated by SNEP. The only reason I use it at the List of best-selling music artists, is because 99% of the certification-awards issued after 1994 are verifiable through SNEP, only a few cannot be found at the site of SNEP. However, at the database for albums, infodisc sometimes has incorrect figures posted next to awards. For example, if you go to the certifications of The Beatles, you'll see that it says 700,000 units for a Platinum-award of 1962-1966 (Rouge). The highest, the initial French level for Platinum-album has been 400,000 units, never 700,000 units. So be careful there. The certification-awards seem to be correct though, as I've compared almost all that are issued after 1994, so I believe that those issued before 1994 are correct as well. With some cautiousness, it will be ok to use the Infodisc as a source.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear discography guru, there seems to be a problem with Lana Del Rey discography. I would appreciate your comment on the talk page here: Talk:Lana Del Rey discography#What has happened to this article?. Merci. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, why we should delete ABBA's 100m-claim. this is weird for me? they only have 55m in certification, therefore 100m is logical for them. we removed Bee Gees from 200m-list to 120m and why we are not doing the same thing with ABBA? are you scared with that newbie (HarrySwed) argue? (i'm sorry to saying that).

Please advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing any personal attack, he/she started the discussion with un-respectable manner. I'm so anger when he/she questionable about the 100m ABBA claim, because i'm not putting that claim from un-know source.

and who the hell he/she is. saying not correct and put sign like this !. i'm so sorry for mad like this Harout Politsi (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i need your advice. If we look at the 200m-list then we clearly see that ABBA has the lowest certification units then the other. I think we should add another claim beside their 200m-claim and 100m claim is just right about them.

We decided to deleted their previous 100m-records claim before and how about with 100m-albums from Billboard (http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1551303/abbas-agnetha-faltskog-drops-comeback-single-album-to-come) and i think this is nothing to do with the previous article. what do you think? thanks Politsi (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i've seen that ABBA 100m-albums claim from Billboard which provided by me has been deleted. why? as i remember that you always asking us to concern the closest claim figures with the available certification units. ABBA only have 54m, is it 100m-albums is more logical than 200m-records? please. i need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i do this not because i hate that silly newbie (Harryswed) but because i really care about the content of this list. ABBA have the same case like Nana Mouskouri, where most of news source always claim them have sold 300m-400m and you are the one who's successfully beaten all inflated claim with the true certification sales.

for ABBA, i really concern that with only 55m-certification units, the don't deserve to get 200m-records claim, then i need your advice. how about this source from Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-stop-stewing-over-the-four-swedes-20100317-qebt.html) and PhilStar (http://www.philstar.com/breaking-news/558217/abba-hollies-genesis-enter-rock-hall-nyc-bash). Both of this source quite prestigious and both were claim ABBA only sold 100m-records.

I choose the source from SMH, because the content more reliable and prestigious. Please Harout, i need your advice (and please dont forget about my question related with The Osmonds claim). Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i hope your anger to Mazic doesnt make you didnt want to answer my question related with Pink Floyd claim... what do you think about this Harout. thanks

Harout, the source for 250m-records of this band from Bloomberg and Times Dispatch looks like old (from 2007) and what do you think about this two sources (http://syvnews.com/entertainment/music/tribute-band-to-play-pink-floyd-hits-at-casino/article_aa19613a-47de-11e2-969b-001a4bcf887a.html) and (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242178/Pink-Floyds-lead-singer-Chris-Dennis-said-regret-leaving-band-RAF-posting.html). Both of this 2012 source, claim the band have sold 250m-records. Politsi (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you erase my comment, i'm very happy with it because after i leave the talk page yesterday. I feel so sorry for that and hopefully someone will erase my previous personal comment, seriously.

But Harout, do you know how i feel? how we feel?. we work so hard to make this list reliable and prestigious. and someone show-up with vanity and blaming our work without asking before. this is something that we should not tolerate.

I believe. You know me so well, i always asking you first if i found some good source and or anything that we should repair in this list. And i just hope the other editor will do the same thing like me. That's why, i always put all question in the general talk page, hopefully the other editor would follow me. Asking you first, and accept all reason from you.

Thanks for remind me and keep in touch with me all the time. I'm very appreciated it. Politsi (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, to be honest. i still hate the source from Reuters and i've feel that the claim figures source for Wonder from Reuters is the most ugly than the other.

I want to replace his 100m-records figure from Reuters with The Jakarta Globe (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/festival-leaves-indonesian-fans-jazzed/502482) but I don't think that an Asian local Newspaper is deserve to be use in the list.

But it looks quite reliable, i need your permission. If you agree, i will replace it soon. What do you think? thanks Politsi (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, this is serious. The site for their claim figures is missing. Alright, if you still feel that 100m-albums claim too much, what if 75m-albums by San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/music/ci_16906619) need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, thanks to fix The Door's site figure from Daily Express. But to be honest, the site still looks ugly to me and is not good to be used as the source for claim figure. If we want to make this list more prestigious, we need to make sure that all source is look properly and beautiful to see.

And after Forbes, I will try to replace all source from Daily Express. What do you think? thanks Politsi (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i need your advice. Is it a student newspaper like The Journal (student newspaper) could be consider as a reliable source? because if yes, then we could use it for 500m-albums claim of The Beatles (http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/10276-famous-beatles-photographs-set-for-release) What do you think? thanks Politsi (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, need your advice. I want to put this source (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/abba/biography) along with 100m-records claim from SMH, but i feel need to asking you first. what do you think? thanks Politsi (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. But i still can not get the point, so that source could be use or not? thanks Politsi (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i read your reply twice, yes i got the point. thanks Politsi (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, i'm sorry to asking this many times but i can not hold myself. Look at his certification sales (70m) and his certification has been spread all over the world. I think this is not fair for him, with only 100m-claims.

I think 130m will be more fair for him (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100509/local/rod-stewart-to-perform-in-malta.306464). need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know of the policy at the List of best-selling music artists, right? We go with claimed sales that are closest to artists' certified sales. When Stewart reaches 80 million in certified sales, then we'll update his claimed figure from the current 100 million to 120. And when he reaches 90 million in certified sales, then we'll use your 130 million. I don't think, however, we'll see that happen anytime soon.--Harout72 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, we have a big problem for her. Her claim figures of her from Euronews are missing, we must immediately find the new for her. Need your help and advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politsi (talk • contribs)

Hi Harout, i'm apologize for asking this in the public talk page but i really need your opinion for this and i hope the other editor also could give their opinion.

So far, we keep this list to make it very reliable and prestigious. Personally, i think the claim sales figures in this list is very important and should be put and match with each biography of those artist in their own article in Wikipedia.

I've been trying to match the claim figure in this list to each artist, but i'm still curious why to several artists (such as Queen, ABBA, Beatles, and Elvis Presley) the editor who's handle their article refuse the claim figure in this list.

For example, I've been put Queen's claim sales from 150m-200m according from the list in their biography. BUT the editor in their article always revert it again to 150m-300m. For me, actually this is weird!.

Harout, please advice. How much important the contain of this list?.

Why the contain of this list not became a mandatory rules for each artist biography?. do we make something like a vandalism? I need your opinion. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may require long discussions to convince those who edit and watch those pages (you mention) that higher sales figures are false based on available certified sales. I personally don't have the time to get engaged in discussions at artists' pages. Remember that over 50% of the artists on the List of best-selling music artists have higher sales figures published at one time or another, but we choose to go lower sales claims due to available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout. Sorry i'm asking about this again but their certification sales almost reach 60m, don't you think that 75m-figures in too low for them? I think we should add them to 80m-list because they deserve it. and come on Harout, that's only 5 million distant.

we could use this source (http://www.thespec.com/whatson-story/2171464-don-t-stop-believing-the-80s-live-on/) thanks Politsi (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 75 million is quite ok for Journey, because they don't seem to have sold that many records outside the U.S., at least not according to their certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i never could beat you on this. hehehe. Politsi (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eros Ramazzotti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)\[reply]

My apologies, you are correct -read the Talk Page, you know what you're doing. Thanks.--Changomo (talk)