http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx Type Pink, on the second page is certification. Here's pic:http://www.zaslike.com/files/xai7zttdxl6oxo07y9si.jpg

And stop changing my edit in the future. I sincerely hope you'll return my previous edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavcheekof (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harout, long time no see. I see you're still keeping very much in touch with the best-selling list, that thing was a nightmare to put together a few years ago, and it's in a much better state now. Glad you're keeping with it, and sorry I couldn't help out any longer, I wouldn't know much about it any more anyhow.

Good luck Veritas Blue (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please post an answer on the talk page about this topic. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, chacking my edit, I have not removed any sources, and as a matter of fact only sorted them so that they appear in chronological order with their supporting information. As can be seen (for example) under the '250 million or more records', regarding Micheal Jackson and 'Total certified units' where currently the Japenese chart references are out of order, appearing as <quote>JPN: 3.6 million[Notes][8][7][38]</quote> with 8 being the "RIAJ Database for The Record" reference, 7 being the "RIAJ certifications" reference.

If my edit has done something besides change the order of the references to where they rightly should be (in chronological order) then please tell me, cause I can not see how my edit has changed anything else. --Lightlowemon (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right, now that I took a closer look at your edit I see that your edit hasn't removed any of the original sources. But the numbers for the sources aren't essential. If you look at the order of the sources, I have placed the The Database for The Record first in most cases, because that database offers certifications starting 1994, while the other database for Gold/Platinum awards begins from July 2003. In any case, I believe the way it is now, with the database of 1994-present going first is better.--Harout72 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not essential, but they conform with the harvard referencing style under which most pages work (to the point wear the AWB automatically does it), I don't feel strong enough to change it back. But in my opinion it looks better sorted. Order wise as far as timeline of references, I can see the validity for the argument. But like I said, I don't feel strongly about it. Thanks for your time, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't screwed up somewhere. --Lightlowemon (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72.

No not interested in an edit war; just providing the correct info.

From my sources etc. (Guinness/Virgin hit single books taking info from the official charts) the two entries were actual seperate releases (i.e. a re-issue) rather than a re-entry as a previous poster mentioned.

Fair enough they maybe the same recording but have had this argument before over just including one chart position. See the Goo Goo Dolls discography entry above ours regarding Iris; the problem being is it peaked at a high of no. 3 many years after it's 1st release but in the end I think we agreed to include all re-issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonclay (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw that you are the main editor of the wiki article list of best selling artists. I think the list is quite good , especially with the certificated sales. But I still would like to say what I consider not right especially on top of the list: There are sources which claim that claim that Madonna has sold 200 million RECORDS like this one from the bbc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15672254 I personally think her claimed sale of 275 does not consider her closest sale number to her certificated sales. Apart form that in the list of certificated sales in Japan she has 4,6 mio , which is not right cause her sales in Japan are about 1,8 mio cause Michael Jackson was the biggest selling international musician in japan after Mariah Carey!SAFRANRENAULT (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Cheers[reply]

For Madonna's detailed certified sales refer to this document I've put together. Use the sources posted below each market on the document as references. For Michael Jackson's detailed certified sales, refer to this document.--Harout72 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout! I need a little help from you. Do you know if the Swedish certifications could be found on ifpi.se? I worked on "Diamonds" and FACed it and according hitlistan.se, it's certified 4x Platinum, however, the website uses bare url and can not be archived :/. Is there another reference/website showing the cert? Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately the archived version of the older database is all that's available at the moment. It covers the certifications issued 1987-2009. By the way, Swedish Digital certifications issued since January 2010 are: Gold=20,000, Platinum=40,000. So the Certification template for Sweden needs to be adjusted, so it reads 4x Platinum=160,000 units.--Harout72 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if you click on the single [Diamonds], you can see that is actually 4 times platinum. I am not sure what to do, how to cite that in the article, so probably the whole Swedish certification must be removed :/. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to remove the Swedish certification. Simply leave a brief instruction within the citation template as to how to retrieve the certifications. Write the following in the title area after your title [to retrieve the certification, click on "<<Urval" on the right side of page, and move lower slider to week 32, 2013].--Harout72 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Done. However, it shows 80,000 instead of 160,000. I can't fixed it, should it have to be fixed externally? Like its code to be edited? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the person who designed the Template:Certification Table Entry, Muhandes needs to make the necessary changes in the coding.--Harout72 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will contact him. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72,

I just checked some of the certificated sales of the artists with 250 mio and more sales. I saw that Elton Johns certificated sales are not correct in argentina and france: In Argentina the article says that Elton has sold 150 k records. But alone his album love songs, which is a compilation album, received 2 times platinum in 1995 , its in the list after bob marley in the list (about the middle)

http://web.archive.org/web/20110820130534/http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=&album=&LanDesde_MM=1&LanDesde_AA=1980&LanHasta_MM=12&LanHasta_AA=2010&Galardon=O&Tipo=1&ACCION2=+Buscar+&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP

This means it alone has sold over 400 000 copies ( cause as it is written under the list compilation albums receive platiunum for 200 000 sold units. I think this should be added

The wiki list claims 4,8 mio certificated sales in France but the french site speaks of about 13.4 mio records in France, ( number 21 in the list): http://www.infodisc.fr/Artiste_Ventes.php

Just wanted to mention that . Thanks!--ACDC1992 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAPIF's (Argentina) levels for compilation albums which were Gold=100,000 units and Platinum=200,000 units were suppressed after January 1, 2001. Those levels, however, were for compilations that included various artists. In other words, regular compilation albums such as Love Songs were treated as a regular album with levels of Gold=30,000, Platinum=60,000. See this Billboard article from 1996, it says Platinum albums are awarded for sales of 60,000 units and at the top of the next column, the Greatest Hits album by Sumo is listed, representing sales of 60,000 units. For Elton John's detailed certified sales refer to this document that I've put together. As for French sales, Infodisc here lists figures for actual sales not certified sales. For certified sales, you need to use this for albums (for certifications issued before 1994), and this for singles (for certifications issued before 1994), for all certifications issued in 1994 or after that year, use SNEP's database.--Harout72 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the list is great . You don't copy the numbers from the site you put them together yourself. Ok I just thought about love songs cause it is mentioned as an compilation album on wiki. But ok now I understand. --ACDC1992 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harout72, I'm contacting you because we need some Armenian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hy.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need assistance with a personal message for the Armenian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained changes? What are you talking about? I did nothing wrong. The discography section needed to be cleaned up and reformatted. Infex (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't replace official charts with insignificant charts like U.S. Dance/Pop charts. Those are not charts based on sales. You can re-add all of the earlier singles without replacing the markets.--Harout72 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, I've noticed that the BPI level has gone up for some artist so why is that? I'm especially interested in Cher's sales which before were 5,7 and now are 6.3? Thanks! Uncleangelo (talk) 16:35, 01 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question, because I just re-checked all of Cher's BPI certifications, they all seem unchanged, while on my file I have changed the Platinum for "Heart of Stone" to 3x Platinum. I'm pretty sure I saw 3x Platinum for "Heart of Stone" the day I was updating all of BPI's certification. This is very strange because I pay a great deal of attention when doing certified sales. Anyways, I'm going to assume that it was a mistake on my part. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll correct this on the list.

Note that the BPI's current/updated database brings up certifications that the older database didn't, and at the same time it doesn't bring up some of the certifications for older releases, which I'd retrieved from the older BPI database.. For example, it brings up certifications for the Bee Gees that the previous database didn't, and at the same time, some of the Bee Gee's earlier certifications aren't supported any longer. The same goes for Elton John's materials.--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying that... Anyway, I have 1 more question, do BPI certify singles higher than 2 x Platinum (i.e 3, 4, etc x Platinum). I ask cause Cher's Believe has sold 1 775 000 copies as of last year and it has surely passed 1 800 000 mark by now which is equivalent to 3x Platinum in the UK? Thanks again!Uncleangelo (talk) 11:35, 02 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course BPI certifies the singles reaching sales of 1.8 million or more. A good example of this is Elton John's "Candle in the Wind", certified 9x Platinum for shipment of 5.4 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but there are many other wrong as well . Madonna has sold about 2 mio more in the uk than mj but not 7 mio more! the official charts company confirms it . BTW . Cliff Richard is the best selling male artist in the uk with 20 mio .--93.197.168.220 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harout, I've seen that you decided to include Run This Town to Rihanna's and Kanye west's certs, but you previously said that singles which have more than two artists shouldn't be counted to neither of them. I asked before because Love Can Build A Bridge (listed as Silver in the BPI databes as sung by Cher, Neneh Cherry and Chrisie Hynde) should be counted towards Cher's certifications. Official Charts Company UK listed it as well among Cher's hits last year... cheers!Uncleangelo (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that specific conversation but I don't think I've explained it clearly, let me try again.

• 1)The certifications of the songs with one lead artist and one featured artist, should be added in the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of part.
• 2)The certifications of the songs with two lead artists and one featured artist, should be added in the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Because both lead artists play a significant part in the song and the part of the featured artist shouldn't be so small.
• 3) The certifications of the songs with one lead artist and more than one featured artists (it's sometimes three and even four featured artists), should only be added in the total of the lead artist, none one of the featured artists should be credited as the parts of both featured artists are naturally going to be small.
• 4) The certifications of the songs with two lead artists and more than one featured artists, should be added in the total of both lead artists but none of the featured artists as multiple featured artists tend to have very small parts in the songs unlike the lead artists.
• 5) The certifications of the songs with more than two lead artists and one or two featured artists, shouldn't be added in the total of any as all will have small parts.

As for "Run This Town", it is very much like the example number two above. If you take a listen to the song, both Jay-Z and Rihanna equally have significant parts and Kanye West acts as a single featured artist. To make it simpler, only one featured artist should be credited for issued certifications, that is if the song has not more than two lead artists. Back to the song "Love Can Build a Bridge", this song has three lead artists (Chrissie Hynde, Cher, Neneh Cherry) and one featured artist (Clapton), it is very much like the example number five. I personally don't think one certification should go to three lead artists and one featured artist, do you think that would be fair? I know that all of the above may seem rather confusing, but it really is the most correct way when crediting artists.--Harout72 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British Phonographic Industry updated their data giving a total of 18.4 million certified sales for Rihanna in the country. Her total certified sales stand at 104.1 million. Can we finally add her to the 120-150 million with the source for 150 million that we have? Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get done with all others please, I've been working on updating my files since ever I noticed the second batch of the certifications for July 22nd. The BPI had lot of certifications posted for July 22nd since 3-4 weeks ago. The first batch included certifications for Rihanna that I had already added in this edit. See my file for Rihanna's detailed certifications to see if you're not adding those that I had already added from the first batch of July 22 certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so I duplicated them; I started counting the sales from null [from the first certification, until the last one], what I got [18.4 million] I put that into the article. Also, there are some double certs which I excluded in my count :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me just get to them all, I still haven't gotten to Rihanna's second batch (seems to me the second batch contains more certifications for all than the first) and we'll update her claimed figure. I should be done within a day or two as it's a lot of work. I will update all of the BPI's certifications for all artists at the same time, and I will also change Rihanna's claimed sales since her UK certified units have reached 18.4 million based on the second batch of July 22's certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you Harout! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? I agreed with you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I just got confused :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harout! She has 114 certified sales, meaning that we can list her with 180-190 million sales. Only I can't find the right source. Lol. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually she needs her claimed sales supported by 68% certified sales as she's begun charting in 2005. So her current available certified sales (114 million) will allow us to use claimed figures of up to 167 million max. But even if there are reliable sources claiming figures that high, let's just wait until her certified sales go up to 130 million, at least. Clearly, with the rate she's raking up her certified sales, it won't take more than six months to get there.--Harout72 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. OK, so this is a hard thing to explain. The thing is, with "Summertime Sadness", and any remix, they are combined with the original song. For example, if you check the Australian reference for the song's position, it doesn't list it as the remix, but just that of the original version. The US is the only country I see that lists it as the remix. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering why it was that you reverted my update to the "List of best-selling music artists" page about The Backstreet Boys' updated sales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbananaking (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't blindly revert. If you are going to revert a clean up edit to keep your non-standard reference ordering, try atleast to keep the several fixes for broken brackets. If the problems are not fixed, they are still on the queue to be fixed me or somebody else. Bgwhite (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a very close look at what your edit changed before I reverted it. I'm seeing here in your edit that the order of the sources for Spain's and Japan's certifications has changed. I see that "Spanish certifications 1979-1990" has been pushed behind "Spanish certifications 1991-1995" throughout the entire page. Similar changes have been made with the sources for Japan's certifications. I'm not seeing any broken brackets, but if you could point them out, at least, one or two of them, I will fix them all manually.--Harout72 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is fine, according to the list of best selling music artists I can see that MARIAH CAREY'S certified sales arouse from 117 million to 128.1 million... can that result in a definitive increase in the total claimed sales? If not, how much should be the level of the total certified sales to result a move to the 250 million section or more? AurviourFidel 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Mariah's certified sales have moved away from 117 million quite awhile ago. Last year around the same time her CS were already at 120 million. For the time being though I think we can agree that based on her available certified sales (128 million), 250 million claim would still be quite inflated. But once she reaches 150 million with her certified sales, we can bring in the 250 (although I'm not sure if that will happen anytime soon).--Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might take time for so, but as you can see her classics such as All I want for Christmas is You and Merry Christmas always pushes her sales further for example Merry Christmas sold last year 298,000 and her Christmas Classic also went from Gold to 2 times multi-platinum so you never know :) Fidel 16:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to personally thank you for the smart ass comment, I had copy-pasted it from the 2 Chainz discography article, it was not my own words. I notice you really have a major problem with assuming good faith. Cleanup and copy edit others edits all you want, but keep the snide and dumb comments to yourself. STATic message me! 02:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem assuming good faith with those who aren't experienced enough and make unintentional mistakes, you don't fall into that category, however.--Harout72 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that I did not write the note because I copy and pasted it, so ding ding ding sounds like an unintentional mistakes. Sounds like more not assuming good faith on your part. STATic message me! 14:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I am aware that the Australian charts are archived on the ARIA report there is a gap between them appearing on the ARIA website and being published on the report. Thus, in that gap you are then including unsourced information which can be removed from Wikipedia. Therefore if I wanted to I could revert your edits and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However I am not in the mood for an edit war.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you see a gap. Last week's (September 23, 2013) positions are already available here, and this week's (September 30, 2013) positions are on the current chart. I've been doing this for a long time and I too never add anything to the total of already existing certification-figures if they cannot be verified. So, you're wrong thinking that I create situations for myself where someone with little knowledge about certification-awards could knock me off my legs.--Harout72 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before refering to Wikipedia:Write the article first, it would be better, if you would read it first. It says: "list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates". The discography article is non of that. While Wikipedia:Red link says: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." To complete a discography there is always a need to descripe the recordings. And it says: "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon".

As I said, these articles are in progress. But a big thanks for double the work. I will not put every link -separately- into the article after creation (instead of all once), that will not make only a lot of more work and will steal my time, but will also make the article history bigger and more confusing. A wondering user, --Jonny84 (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discography pages are considered lists. Also, you might want to concentrate on creating pages for those singles of Schiller which have high/notable entries. That said, why is it important to have a separate page for "Dancing with Loneliness" which has peaked at No.73 in Germany. I see that you intend to create a page for "Let Me Love You". It's unnecessary to create pages for such non-notable songs which have barely gained any significance on the charts. You should have and/or should create pages for those singles/songs which have at least entered the top-20.--Harout72 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cher albums discography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• nbsp;– Sveriges Officiella Topplista|volume=''Note: To retrieve the certification, click on "<<Urval" on the right side of page, select "DVD Album" and move the upper slider to year 2003, and
• select "DVD Album" and move the upper slider to year 2003, and move the lower slider to week 36'')|publisher=[[Sverigetopplistan]]|accessdate=2013-10-09}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edit when he does not have an actual EP and it is not even listed below in his discography nor in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1remains (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Musica è is an EP, I have now moved it into a separate table.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, the link for their claim figures has been dead (http://www.thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/Review+Legendary+rock+band+still+after+three+decades/7607555/story.html) and i want to change it with this source (http://www.wweek.com/portland//event-159534-mickey_avalon.html)

and for your records, all source beside that always said 80m-albums, not records. I think we just let them with their new 90m-records claim if we could not found another source which said 80m-records for them.

please, need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still r eligiously editing the best selling artist page as you were over 2 years ago. Coul you explain to me what the difference between certified and actual sales is? Surely we should at least keep the figure of 116 million in the reported sales section, Billboard and Nielsen are both highly credible sources Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll try to explain. When the shipment of an album in U.S. market (for example) reaches 500,000 units, the record company which has released that album can submit a fee to Recording Industry Association of America to get that album certified Gold for shipment of 500,000 units. Upon reaching shipment of 1 million units, the record company can submit another fee to get that the same album certified Platinum. The same way the singles and videos are certified. So, unless that fee from the record company is submitted, regardless of the actual sales is, the certifications aren't automatically processed. Most record companies wait until their artists' singles/albums reach a multiple levels of Platinum-awards, then they submit the required fee. This way they only pay the fee once, yet get records certified for multiple levels of Platinum-awards. Let me know if this clarified things for you a bit. BTW, the same is with every other music market, but the certification levels are different.--Harout72 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72,

I'm about to hand in my dissertation, which includes artists estimated total sales. Obviously, I can't cite wikipedia, and I was wondering if I would be able to use you as a reference instead, since this page is by far the best put together and most well-researched out of any I can find (so it appears your figures are more accurate than most available).

If not that's fine, and thanks for your trouble. If so, my email address is one_fried_chicken@hotmail.com, and I would love to hear from you.

Thanks, OFC One fried chicken (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my asking, what does your dissertation cover exactly as far as artists' record sales go? I'm asking because you've never contacted me for information and I've never provided you with any details. So I'm not sure if using me as a reference is helpful to you. Just to let you know, I disagree with most of the claimed sales that the List of best-selling music artists has. The claimed sales we have happen to be the closest/lowest claims we could find based on artists' available certified sales, but even those happen to be inflated, with an exception of very few.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KATY PERRY certified sales Currently 51.7 available certified sales

http://www.mediafire.com/download/k2a4hljn4dgn4l9/Katy+Perry%27s+Certified+Sales.doc

SHE SHOULD BE IN THE LIST RIGHT !!?

77.44.232.141 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perry still doesn't have enough certified sales to be on the list, even in the 75 million section of the list. I personally think, she will soon have the required amount of certified sales to be on the list. For 75 million claim (albums and singles combined), she needs 54.6 million certified units. Once she has that much certified sales, we'd need a reliable source claiming that she has sold total of 75 million records to put her on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was taking a look at some of the citations for the different artists, the usual sources like MSNBC, Business Week, CNN, etc. However, one of Elvis' citations is from some Kenyan news source, is this a reliable source? Not sure who added it or when, but seems to be from this year, just letting you know. Veritas Blue (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know it was provided awhile ago. The Star (Kenya) is a reliable source. Thanks for letting me know though.--Harout72 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring for an unreliable source ? I hope it's a joke ! If I removed Discogs references, it was for a good reason : this is not a reliable reference for music genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record, I have no idea on why the page you linked reports a twenty-ninth place, but if you check the weekly charts in the same HitparadeItalia.it website you will find the song at first place for four weeks (and second, third etc. for several others):

Go here, click "Top Settimanali Single" and "81" and you will find the song at first place in the weeks 12/12, 19/12 and 26/12. The same in "'82" checking the week 02/01. My best. Cavarrone 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and it looks the website has the same kind of inaccurances for other Parisi's songs (and probably for other singers/songs too). "Disco Bambina" was also a number one hit (several weeks at first place in January-February 1980), not a No.23! Cavarrone 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Seems like it's always best to check the weekly peaks on HitparadeItalia.it, and not the overall history of peaks. Also, we should consider removing Heather's "Disco Bambina" as it was released in 1979 and we're supposed to list those Italian based songs released during the period of 1981-1989.--Harout72 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you changed the edit for the sales of Summertime Sadness, which I believe is unlikely to be correct. Generally Paul Grein for Yahoo does not distinguish between the different versions unless he specifically mentions them. This is shown by Paul report for the same week as the Billboard one - here. It reported that the song by Lana Del Rey & Cedric Gervais "tops the 1 million mark in digital sales this week", while Billboard said on the same week "all versions of "Summertime Sadness" have so far sold 1.1 million downloads, with 512,000 of those coming from the remix." You can tell the latest figure is unlikely to be for individual version because it cannot sell ~1.35 million in 11 weeks, it already fell to 78,000 a week by October 13 and is probably selling ~30K a week now looking at iTunes chart. Generally it is difficult to distinguish sales for different versions because most reports don't make the distinction unless they are by completely different artist. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Paul Grein, as you say, doesn't specify here what portion belongs to which version, I wouldn't say it's unlikely that the remix version could not have generated 1.8 million to date. It was reported by Billboard that by September 14 (that is sales coming before Sep.14), the remix version had sold over 500,000 units. That figure includes sales generated by the No.9 on September 7. Then it charted at No.10 the following week on September 14, and on September 21, it peaked at No.6 , and on September 28 it again was No.10. So it is possible that 1.8 million is for the remixed version alone. But if you have individual sales figures coming from reliable sources for those weeks Sep. 14, 21, 28, it would help us to understand this better. With this source, however, we cannot claim that the 1.861 million is for all versions combined, because Grein specifically mentions the sales being for the remix version. Using that very source and stating in the footnotes that it's for both versions, goes against verifiability.--Harout72 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused by your dates, so I'm assuming you are not aware of the difference between chart date, the date the numbers are released, and end date of sales week. The song peaked at #6 - its chart date is September 21, the sales figure is the one given in the Billboard source dated September 15 (September 13 in Yahoo) that gave the number of 512K for the remix and 1.1 million for all versions. These figures are the total sales up to the week ending September 8, 2013. The chart date is always 1-2 weeks late for historical reason (it refers to the date of the print edition of Billboard which is published more than ten days after end of sales week). These are some of the numbers available, the dates used are chart date:

September 21 - 127K for week (in total 512K for remix, 1.1 million including all versions)

September 28 - 118K for week (source)

October 5 - 110K for week (#9 Hot 100) (source)

October 12 - 99K for week (#10 Hot 100) (source)

October 19 - 89K for week (#10 Hot 100) (source)

October 26 - 78K for week (#10 Hot 100) (source)

November 2 - (#11 Hot 100) - weekly sales figure no longer given as it fell outside Top 10.

This gives 494K extra sold by October 26 chart date. There are six more weeks of dropping sales (latest chart date is December 7), if we average them at ~50K each week, that will give another 300K, so roughly a total of 800K extra sold. The only way the sum is going to add up is if we assume the number is for all versions. I'm not bothered what you do with the figures BTW (as you say, you can interpret it to mean only a specific version), you just need to be aware of what the numbers means and how the journalists often present these figures. Hzh (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed breakdown. You're right I didn't pay close attention, the 1.1 million reported by Billboard here does seem to include the 127,000 generated by No.6. But I don't think we can use this source, and state at the footnote The sales figure and Platinum-award in the U.S. are for all versions of "Summertime Sadness" combined. The statement by Grein doesn't agree with it. Anyways, we do have the sales figure for the remix version updated, and based on the breakdown you presented above, the standard version should still be around some 600,000 units. Once the current Platinum-award turns into 2x Platinum, then we'll have to find a source that will clearly say that [then] 2 million units are for all versions combined.--Harout72 (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, Paul Grein (and most music writers) doesn't differentiate between the different versions. When he said the song is by Lana Del Rey & Cedric Gervais, he is simply identifying the song, not a specific version (i.e. he could just as well have said the song is by Lana Del Rey). Unless Paul Grein (or most other music writers) specifically mentions something extra that identify it as a version only, the default understanding is to assume all versions (except live versions) by the same primary artist. The reason is that RIAA doesn't make the distinction when certifying using the following rules (if the remix version is not more than 90 second longer than the original, they can count as the same song), so writers seldom do as well. Hzh (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory is normally true when dealing with remixes that do not get released as official singles. Here we're dealing with two separately released official singles for the "Summertime Sadness", the standard version and Cedric Gervais's version. The remixed version by Cedric Gervais is a completely separate single release from 2013, while the standard version is from July 2012 which had remixes released alongside, none of which were released as official singles. Note that Paul Grein specifies Lana Del Rey vs. Cedric Gervais, and not "Summertime Sadness", because the former is the official release in the U.S. while the standard version on the album did manage to sell also. Various markets never released the standard version as a single, they only released Cedric Gervais's version. As for the RIAA (I'm aware of the rules), the reason why we see Platinum instead of two separate Gold-awards (as it would based on these figures), is because the RIAA allows the record companies to combine all units coming from all versions of the same song, which in its turn allows the record companies to submit a single fee rather than two, as it would be for each Gold-award, one for standard album version, and one for Cedric Gervais's version. The Platinum-award is also more attractive and more marketable than two Gold-awards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference whether they are separate releases or not. The new song by A Great Big World "Say Something" are two separate releases (one with Christina Aguilera, and the original without). As far as I know, the writers treated them as the same one sales-wise (even if different versions are mentioned), and the sales figures given are for the two combined, for example Billboard (it specifically said the numbers are combined), and Yahoo (it implied the numbers are combined). But as you see in this week Yahoo, it only mentions the song by A Great Big World and Christina Aguilera even if it is combined sales. It's exactly what Paul Grein did with "Summertime Sadness" (Lana Del Rey and Cedric Gervais identifies the song, not the specific version).Hzh (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what seems confusing. In Billboard's article, two separate figures are mentioned for both versions (1.A Great Big World's "Say Something," featuring Christina Aguilera, debuts at No. 1 with 189,000 sold), (2.Previously, the song had been available (without Aguilera), and had sold 52,000 through Nov. 3.). And Grein here mentions the sales of the newer release with Aguilera. Anyways, for "Summertime Sadness", including a statement such as the following at the footnote: Note: The U.S. sales figure (1,861,000) for the remix version represents sales for all versions sold in the U.S, market, and using all available weekly sales coming from Yahoo! brings our total to 1,460,000 units leaving 400,000 units unsupported, which will directly go against verifiability. Readers must have a source immediately supporting that statement, we can't expect them to automatically know that all sales are included, specially Grein mentioning Lana Del Rey vs. Cedric Gervais.--Harout72 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is confusing. The 52K is for total sales before the version with Aguilera was released, the 189K is for both versions combined for the week when the Aguilera version was released. There are no separate figures for the two versions (although you can work out the sales for both versions for the week using Grein's numbers). Anyway, I have already said you can do what you want with the figures, I'm merely giving you extra information to make the decision. Hzh (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72!

In response to your comment on our offices' public IP address's talk page I have added a detailed explanation to the article's talk page. Does this clear things up?

Cheers, Christian at MC GfK (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haddaway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Haddaway to learn how to play [[trumpet]] at the age of 14.<ref name="YMe: Haddaway (Biography)">{{cite web |url=http://www.yme-entertainment.com/index.php/2013-06-18-21-02-51/haddaway|title=YMe:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles#D.C3.BCnya_Sat.C4.B1.C5.9Flar.C4.B1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgryk (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mediafire.com/download/n2ooowwp9ec8t96/B%C3%A9yonce%27s+Certified+Sales.doc

mtv ::::: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1703895/beyonce-bow-down-i-been-on-reality.jhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgryk (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the document you sent an untrusted site http://www.amprofon.com.mx/certificaciones.php?item=menuCert&contenido=certificadon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgryk (talk • contribs) 19:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look it! http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=C91C40E1-A65A-0F81-EBB3-8FE3B7C0ECEA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgryk (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Cgryk (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Cgryk (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)--Cgryk (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)--Cgryk (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undoing all the hard work I put in on that discography.

Your smart comment "not sure why every proper source was messed up" is non-factual. I added more references to certification to the table. Some of the links in your table are in fact dead! You have now lost some of the internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Also, the Irish charts have more peaks than the NZ ones, how does this lost consistency exactly???

The only agreement I have with you is that we should not have more than approximately 10 columns as per wiki rules. In the studio album charts, Finland have a number 1 album and two certifications, so this should be there in place of the US one where they have one certificate and a 197 placing on the chart. Also, the compilation chart only has 7 columns, so why have you deleted the 8th one that I spent time finding???

I am not happy with what you have done to this!!!

Wozza20 (Wozza20) 11:41 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions one at a time.

• Sources: Peaks must be verifiable to readers, you should not leave Canada's peaks with a source that doesn't take you to a specific page for verifications purposes, as it is in your edit. Also, sources from Hung Median, should direct to the Discography page, see this for example. In your edit, for Austria's albums, is this here what you had, that's not how it's done.

• Certifications: Take a look at your edit here. Now click on Finland's certifications in the album table, it says Swedish certifications in the title area of the source. Your certification for EUROPE, redirects to Austrian association. Also, we don't list the certifications of those markets the peak-positions of which we don't have in the tables (referring to European peaks). As for the certification of Australia, this is not a reliable source, it's a blog.

• Consistency: All of the tables for consistency sake should normally list the same markets in the columns of peak-positions.

• Finland instead of U.S.: All available peaks for Finland are these. The rest aren't available. That said, your source here for Finland's peaks cannot be used. Wikipedia cannot be used as source.

• Belgium (Wallonia) in Compilation table: Initially I'd left the compilation table unchanged. But I noticed that your source for Wallonia redirected to the page of Flanders. The page for Wallonia is this. You can re-add the Wallonia's peak if you wish, make sure this is how you have the source.

I hope you're clear on every point.--Harout72 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions, all you seem to do is revert other editor's works if they don't fit in with your way of thinking.

The wiki rules say approximately 10 columns (so in my opinion up to 12 is not excessive if you really have to have the US. The rules also state the relative success on a chart, which I would say 3 x top 40 albums and 2 gold records is more of a success than the one album scraping the top 200 in the US with one gold record.

Stop blindly undoing all the hard work others do. I hope you're clear on every point!--Wozza20 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have ordered the book from Amazon, along with other such charting books, such is my interest in European charts. When this arrives, the discography will be reverted. I have familiarized myself with many discographies on here, and there are many with more than 10 columns. I have also looked at all the wiki rules which are guidelines, and open for subjection.

You will have to realize that not all entries within wiki have to be the Harout72 way--Wozza20 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me draw your attention to the following with 12+ columns: Bon Jovi discography#Albums, Tina Turner discography#Albums. Are you going to remove one column from each of these?

I also got from the rules you could ask another editor for verification which is what I did. Once I have the source material myself, I will make the necessary changes.

--Wozza20 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still confused about whether you can have a maximum of 11 columns for peaks, you can ask User:Kww that question, who happens to be an administrator and edits music related articles mostly. I personally don't edit Bon Jovi discography nor do I edit Tina Turner discography, but if you wish to minimize the number of columns on either one, you could do that as neither should have more than 10-11 columns. In fact, tables should only have 10 columns. As for the book for Finland that you expect to receive as you claim above, please make sure to open up a discussion at the talk-page of 2 Unlimited discography, as you'd need to establish consensus first with editors who are involved in editing the page.--Harout72 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go further, I think these discussions between us are getting a bit heated, and I do not want that - I am relatively new to editing wiki compared to you, so I firstly apologize for that as the last thing I want is editing wars with other users.

I really do have the book coming as the finishcharts.com page doesn't go back far enough for some of the updates I have made. It has cost me £18 with P&P!!! If as expected, the book shows these positions, I think it would be up for discussion to include it and remove another less successful territory (likely not the US) due to volume of sales there. It does appear the number of columns on the majority of discography's does not exceed 11, so I can see the argument here. Wozza20 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have the book, let me know. Also, if you could provide scans for the pages where the chart-peaks of 2 Unlimited stand (perhaps you could scan and upload on www.mediafire.com), that would help us reach a consensus (come to a better understanding). Perhaps we can replace the Norwegian music market with Finland, since Norway's certifications aren't available. But I don't believe removing the U.S. market with its Gold certification (representing 500,000 units) is a good idea, despite the fact that the peak position of it isn't plausible.--Harout72 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about putting "United States" alongside Rihanna? I mean in that case why not "United Kingdom" next to Madonna or "Dubai" next to Michael Jackson? :) --Loginnigol (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Country of Origin" stands for the country the said artist represents or has begun his/her professional recording career. That said, Barbados is Rihanna's birthplace, not the country she resides and/or represents. Rihanna is signed to a U.S. record company, her music is produced by American producers, resides in the U.S., therefore, her Country of Origin is the U.S., not Barbados. In fact, Barbados should not be listed at all, but I'll leave it on there for now.--Harout72 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Absurd. Never heard in any source anywhere interpreting "Country of origin" as referring to anything other than the person's identity. It's the PERSON, not his or her workplace, his/her record company place, his/her agent office place... etc etc not his/her STUFF but HIM or HER. And what on earth do you mean "and/or represents" that is just as absurd. It is a totally non applicable concept as Rihanna is not "representing" anybody as far as selling records is concerned. I think you're confusing the topic with American Idol or Eurovision or some other thing where artists are representing countries. --Loginnigol (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've never heard this or dealt with it, it doesn't make it absurd. Birthplace does not play a role in the music industry. A good example of this is the German music market. Huge number of German based acts represented Germany in the 1990s especially, lot of which were fronted by non-German singers and rappers, including Culture Beat, Nana, Fun Factory, Magic Affair, Captain Hollywood Project, the list goes on and on. Germany isn't the only market, others have had acts also fronted by singers born else where. Again, the nationality and/or place of birth isn't what decides the Country of Origin.--Harout72 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing origin of an act with origin of a solo performer. An act (i.e. a duo or a group or a band) has to be identified as an act - therefore by where the ACT originated, not where the members' separately originated. That's why those acts are considered German acts (it's the ACT that is of German origin). Other than that it's always possible that an individual may have acquired the citizenship of the place where they moved to (like Nana). But this doesn't apply to Rihanna - she hasn't obtained US citizenship - maybe she can get it if she wants to but the point remains that she hasn't. Just as Kylie Minoge hasn't become British even though she lives in London - just as Shakira is not Spanish even though she lives in Barcelona. Just as Cat Deely is not an American TV presenter even though she's been on US TV and living in Los Angeles for 8 years straight. --Loginnigol (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citizenship isn't what determines the country of origin. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but what determines the country of origin is where the music is being produced and the record company it's being released on. Relocating to someplace else temporarily while remaining signed to the original record company, doesn't change the country of origin. As for the German acts, it doesn't matter whether it's a band/group or an individual artist. For example John Larkin A.K.A Scatman John, was an American musician, who later went to live in Germany and never became a German citizen. He was known as a German artist thus representing Germany. He went on winning a few Echo Awards in Germany with his singles for the category of Best National Single of the Year (see source, select 1996). Another example is Haddaway who began releasing his music before he was a German citizen. He similarly won Echo awards in the category of Best National Single of the Year (select 1994 in the source). Other countries have had similar situations also, including Italy. They too had non-Italian born non-Italian citizens representing them, whether it's Baltimora (fronted by Irishman), Corona (fronted by Brazilian), Eddy Huntington (born in England), Tom Hooker (born in U.S.), again the list goes on and on.--Harout72 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted my contributions to the list? (sales claims for ABBA). I have added very reliable sources ('Rock And Roll Hall of Fame' and an official ABBA biography) and also argued why the changes were made. The source you have reverted to, is a (dated?) article referring to exactly 'Rock And Roll Hall of Fame' as it sales claims source. It doesn't make sense, that you won't allow people to update 'your' list, even when we use reliable sources. Pardy (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted for two reasons. 1) You have changed the U.S. certified sales for ABBA into 21 million units, which is incorrect. It is only 12.7 million certified units. 2) The list largely relies on Certified sales rather than only claimed sales. For detailed certified units that ABBA have available for each market, please refer to this file that I've put together.

A good starting point as to what are the rules that apply to List of best-selling music artists, would be reading up the the lead of the list. That said, the list uses those claimed sales, which are closer to artists' available certified sales. Further specifics of the rules for certified sales can be found at Talk:List of best-selling music artists (see second box from the top on that page). The list also does not use sources of this kind, which is one of the sources you've used.--Harout72 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Counting the certifications listed in the source I get 21 million, but maybe I am using it wrong?

2) That doesn't really fit with the sections headlines. They are based on claimed sales, not on certified.

I understand it is necessary to have general guidelines for a list like this (even though the guideline really favorites artists which had most of their success in sales awarding countries), but that doesn't change the fact, that an official book about the band and 'Rock and Roll Hall of Fame' are more reliable sources, than the article listed, who refers to a source, who does claim another number than written in the article.

About the Amazon-source; I guess you are right, that the reference should technically rather be to the book, than to the website. But I don't see how that makes the source invalid in its statement. Pardy (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

1) You need to count the highest award only, once. 2) The title of the list, Best-selling, doesn't translate into Claimed sales. In fact, the certified sales are the real proof of sales, not the claimed sales. The Certified sales always illustrate the true sales of artists, whereas the Claimed sales always supplied by artists' record companies, are almost always inflated for promotional purposes. I'm not sure if you took your time to read the lead, but it clearly states: 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.--Harout72 (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sorry, I didn't realize that.

2) I don't agree, that the certified sales always illustrate the true sales of artists - it rather explains why the list almost only included UK and US (old sales certificating countries) artists. Furthermore i still find the 100m record sales claims for ABBA totally invalid, as it cites a source claiming a different number. Pardy (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the key music markets which generate over 50% of the global music sales for western music, have all had certification systems since the early/mid 1970s, that includes U.S., UK, Germany, France, Canada and even Finland (small market though). And we have 43.8 million in certified units coming from those six markets, which can translate to some 50-55 million in actual sales as albums/singles/videos get certified only when they reach certification-levels. Also, bear in mind that ABBA's international chart success came circa 1974-1975, including:

• Germany: where ABBA have begun charting in 1974. That's only a year before Germany established its certification-system (1975).
• U.K.: where ABBA have begun charting in in 1974. That is one year after the U.K. established their certification-system (1973). So, all records that have reached certification-levels, must have been certified.
• France: ABBA have begun charting France in 1974. That is one year after the establishment of French certification-system (1973). All records must have been certified, if reached certification-levels.
• Canada: ABBA have begun charting in in 1974. That is one year before they launched their certification program (1975).
• Finland: They too have had certification-system since 1971.

So all in all, the 100 million records (albums, singles, videos) claimed by the following sources 1, 2, falls just about within the correct neighborhood of where ABBA's actual sales should be.--Harout72 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you care to weigh in at this discussion genre changes made at Led Zeppelin IV? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could comment but I'm really not familiar with Led Zeppelin's music, at all. I could help out if the discussion was about sales or certified sales. My apologies.--Harout72 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilary Duff 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) 08:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy. I seem to be including the shipments of "Divas Live" as well. Did you not see it (I believe 98' albums) or are we just not including it? PS. Really cool findings on Carey's Japan stuff :) I see you've really dug up some cool reports. I'm having trouble translating them though :/ Would love to read them. Cheers!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nathan. Divas Live should not be included. We include certifications of duo collaborations only, whether singles or albums. I think you've forgotten that :). As for the Japan's certifications, those PDF files starting from January 2001, you can copy and paste them into Google translator. The certifications are posted on the page entitled Gold-albums. The earlier files need to be converted into an editable version first, with Adobe acrobat. Anyways I have them saved, so here are those before 2001:

• For the 4x Platinum of Emotions, see the second column on page 5 here.
• For the 1 million-seller of Musicbox, see the second column on page 5 here.
• For the 3x Platinum of Mariah, see the second column on page 5 here.
• For the 2 million-seller of Merry Christmas, see first column on page 8 under Gold-albums here.
• For the 2x Platinum of Vision of Live (MTV Unplugged), see first column on page 9 under Gold-albums here.
• For the 4x Platinum of "Rainbow, see first column on page 9 under Gold-albums here.

You might find the formatting on the editable versions a little clumsy, but it gets the job done.--Harout72 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, I just received the scanned pages from the person who has the NZ charts (1966-2006) book, here is the file http://www.mediafire.com/view/w1u3yrmaxu7y3ed/NZ_chart_book_Cher.pdf - it has the glossary afterwards, though the certifications are clear to read (two gold singles, three Platinum, one 2x Platinum and one 4x Platinum album and a Platinum DVD - total 155,000). Since you've decided the remove the NZ charts/certs from Cher's discography page - is it OK to add the total amount of her certs (155,000) to the best selling artists page column? With it, the total available certs for Cher should be 39,5 mill (39 531 000 - counting 5 850 000 for UK not round 5,8 mill...) Hope it's OK now, but just in case you have any doubts here's a thread from a few years ago which confirms the stats from the book are correct http://charts.org.nz/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=39053&statustxt=Welcome%20alfiebot& ). --Uncleangelo (talk) 15:35, 07 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would it be possible to get the page for certifications re-scanned more clearly? It is really badly scanned. It is otherwise perfectly ok for us to use at the List of best-selling music artists. By the way, each Gold single released before June 2007 is 5,000 units. The levels for single were raised starting June 1, 2007 to Gold=7,500, Platinum=15,000.--Harout72 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could ask. but the person who has the book was too busy to scan/send these already, so here's the extracted file of the certs/charts only anyway - maybe it's better/clearer to read now? thanks http://www.mediafire.com/view/9tz11jzwi4dzqz7/Cher_NZ-scan.pdf regarding the singles - ok, good to know, so the total then would be 150,000? --Uncleangelo (talk) 15:25, 07 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's very clear. Can you get the first page and the third page on there also for verifiability purposes, just like you have them on your first scan.--Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thank you! Here's the re-uploaded larger pdf file http://www.mediafire.com/view/b1l57842fpfp59p/NZ_chart_book_Cher.pdf --Uncleangelo (talk) 15:49, 07 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - just saw that you edited the 39.5 mill to 39.4 - again, while I understand the logic behind it, what if several markets have several tens of thousands of units certified which, if combined, would add up to a bigger number, for example 1.550.000 and 2.580.000 would be 4.13 mill not 4 mill? I guess imo that would be essential but I guess it isn't a big difference and would require much more work calculating each artists' total...

Anyway, as the NZ source has been accepted, I would like to check with you if it would be OK to at least include it in Cher's compilations section? Again, I would propose to replace France with it, as France only has one Gold cert (100k) while NZ has 2 certs (4x Platinum and a Platinum one = 75k) and as it's not a huge difference total wise. Would it be okay with you to do so? In the main studio albums France could stay as its Platinum award is a way bigger total figure (300k) towards all NZ awards (60k). Looking forward to your reply, thanks! Uncleangelo (talk) 17:49, 08 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as much the time and effort that would require to calculate every artist's total as much I'm trying to keep the bytes at the List of best-selling music artists controllable, it is already out of control as you may have noticed (250,000 bytes). What I will do is I will test on my Sandbox first to see how much more bytes the inclusion of tens of thousands will add. If it's not much, then I'll add them for all artists.

As for the New Zealand's peaks in the compilation chart, why would we want to remove a market that has more sales (France=100,000) and replace it with one with lower sales (New Zealands=75,000)? New Zealand has two peaks for Compilation albums (No.6 for Cher's Greatest Hits: 1965 - 1992 and No.15 for The Greatest Hits), that's versus also two peaks for France (No.6 and No.25). If you really feel that New Zealand should be added, then you could add an eleventh column in all tables. While the rule is approximately 10 columns, I believe 11 can pass for approximately 10. We should be ok as long as Cher albums discography doesn't get nominated for Featured list.--Harout72 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi again! thanks for proposing the solution - I have just found this in the wiki's 'rules for discographies' page:

"A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart."

So it says approximately, and I guess 11 would be just that, though of course more than that would be too much. So if it's OK with you I would like to add NZ for the reason also mentioned in the text I cited above - the relative success and a somewhat consistency on the chart, while in France both certified albums are from the same year - even though the sales are more significant - in NZ there was more chart consistency.

Again, if 11 columns is a problem, France could be replaced, besides up until your revert a few days ago, Norway was included in the compilations instead of France and it is also a smaller market...

What does the Featured list mean by the way? thanks... Uncleangelo (talk) 00:49, 09 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 columns should be ok for now. Featured lists are higher quality lists, and Discographies fall into that category. You should be ok with adding New Zealand as the 11th column. By the way, use Hung Medien for peaks, and your file for certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done - thanks so much! Uncleangelo (talk) 11:49, 09 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted multiple times to correct Beyonce's total record sales, but it has continuously been undone each time. I am able to give you sales figures for each of her solo-career's albums and their singles in each music market. All of these figures are from Billboard/Sony/Columbia. I can also give you each of her DVD, videos, soundtracks, live albums, and EPs' sales figures. Her success is being degraded - she has sold well over 75 million albums throughout her solo career and even more including Destiny's Child sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List of best-selling music artists largely operates based on artists' available certified sales. If you could take a few moments and read the lead of the list, and also go to the talk page Talk:List of best-selling music artists, and look at the second yellow box from top of that talk page, you'll see the detailed requirements of the certified sales each artist would need based on the first charted year. Meanwhile, this file here, that I've put together, provides all available certifications that Beyonce has collected during her solo career. That said, Beyonce's available certified sales at the moment stand at 58.5 million. Only 18.4 million units of the 58.5 million belongs to her certified album sales, which clearly suggests that she could not have sold 75 million albums. Based on the 58.5 million total certified sales, Beyonce seems to have sold some 75 million records (Singles, Albums, Videos), by now. But her actual sales for albums, should be around 25 million maximum.--Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. Beyonce has sold 138 million records as a solo artist (based on certified, actual figures. Her actual record sales must stand between 160-180 million). 29.8 million would represent album sales (although personality I believe she's actually sold 32 million), and 100.9 million represents single/track sales. Her label has not updated her certifications in years (I Am... Sasha Fierce has sold 3+ million in the United States, but is only certified 2x platinum). Personally, I think it's ridiculous to assume her 11 years as a solo artist, she has only sold 75 million records and extremely discrediting to her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout! I've found two sources wich imply that Rihanna has sold 191 records including 41 million albums and 150 million singles. With 117.5 million of certified sales, is there a chance that she could be listed atop of the "120 million to 199 million records" list. If not; how much porcentage does she need for the 191 million claim? and how much porcentage is 117.5 million according to her certified sales?

I'm sorry for making so much questions and my english is not that good, you'll have to excuse me. Anyway here are the two sources:

• http://www.rollingstone.co.za/musicrev/item/2290-rihanna-heads-to-south-africa

• http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/rihanna-returns-to-abu-dhabi-for-eid-concert-2013-05-02-1.504928

Have a nice day.--Fallengrademan (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rihana has begun charting in 2005, therefore, all her claimed figures must be supported by 68% certified sales (the details of requirements for certified sales can be found at Talk:List of best-selling music artists). She'd need 129 million in certified sales for a claim as high as 191 million. Even when she reaches 129 million with her certified sales, the 191 million claim will still be an inflated sales figure as 129 million in certified sales can be translated to 160 million in actual sales. Therefore, we should only update her claimed figure from the current 150 million to 191 million, only when she comes close to 150 million with her certified sales. This is also stated in the lead of List of best-selling music artists (see the last few sentences).--Harout72 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, if you don't mind. Please look at this source (http://online.thatsmags.com/post/bruno-mars-mercedes-benz-arena-shanghai-interview-thats-shanghai) this source coming from a Chinese free monthly English-language magazine published and the biggest English magazines in Shanghai and Beijing. that's PRD.

It is possible to use that source for Mars's album and singles claim sales just for while. Until I found a better source and change it immediately.

I need your advice Harout. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source speaks of Singles sales only, 68 million. Our list starts from 75 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, you don't read the entire article, but i will clear it for you.

The Smeezingtons produced his debut album, Doo-Wops & Hooligans, back in 2010. An effortless example of pop song craft, it earned a nomination for album of the year in the US, winning generally positive reviews for what Entertainment Weekly described as “instant-access melodies” and “sly snatches of dance-floor swagger.” It also sold over six million copies worldwide, catapulting Mars into the upper echelons of pop.

Two years later, Unorthodox Jukebox was released. This impeccably made and compulsively listenable sophomore effort – five million copies sold around the globe, and counting – features producers extraordinaire Mark Ronson and Jeff Bhasker among its collaborators.

Harout, the writer of the article also mentioned about Mars's two albums sales. and Combined with 11 million albums sales and 68 million singles.

Bruno Mars reach 79 million sales total. The article inside looks have a good quality and the magazine also considered as the national magazine (like Forbes & People).

Harout, if Mars could reach the 79m-sales claim, we should let him enter the list with that source. I will looking around for the better source and if i found it, i will replace it immediately.

thanks. Politsi (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see it. But Bruno Mars needs 60 million certified units for 79 million claim (76% certified sales required). He is still at 59.2 million. Let's keep an eye out for more reliable sources claiming similar figures, in the meantime, I will keep this source in mind. Once Bruno Mars reaches 60 million with his certified sales and still no reliable source, then we'll consider this.--Harout72 (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... It's nearly close, only needs 800.000 copies. Well, I feel Mars's certification sales would passes the 60m only within a month.

Harout believe me, I check up that list almost everyday and try to re-new the claim source and find out if there's any claim source of the artist inside have been Death or something like can not found.

I really care about the content of that list, and the reason why i always try to find out another artists who deserved to be get into the list is because i feel if the list looks very complete and reliable.

The list would become a legendary list in history, the list where all artists will do anything and dreaming to get into it.

Please, i mean it Harout... If Mars already reach the 60m-certification. Put his name to the list, it would increase the list popularity. thanks Politsi (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, I still feel angry, when i see Genesis at the 120m-list seller while their certification sales less than 40m. Sometimes, i feel that we need to kick out Genesis from the 120m-list since their certification sales are too low comparing with the others on the list.

Please look at this source (http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/opeth-frontman-guests-on-album-of-genesis-tracks-556572/) from MusicRadar, inside the article said Genesis have sold 100m-albums.

Which is for me, so much appropriate for their claim. I know that we need to get the claim source from the News Agency, but trust me Harout. All news agency still stuck with their 130m-150m albums sales claim (or sh1t)

Sometimes the media just copycat the claim sales without verify the real certification. And a source about musicians such as MusicRadar, more reliable from them.

Harout, what do you think if we put Genesis at 100m-list with source from MusicRadar?

Need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about Genesis not having enough certified sales for the current claimed figure, but I'm afraid we can't downgrade artists using less reliable sources. If we are going to move them downwards on the list, then the newer sources must also be equally reliable. By the way, let's keep the discussions of List of best-selling music artists on its own talk page, that way, if you and I agree with something, and decide to proceed with our decisions, others can see why the changes were made.--Harout72 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout! I'd like to know, if it's not a problem, if you could tell me the worldwide sales based on certifications by Kanye West and Eric Clapton, and if there's any chance they could make it onto the list.--Fallengrademan (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eric Clapton's available certified sales stand at 67.5 million, that should translate into some 100 million in actual sales. Clapton can easily get on the List of best-selling music artists, unfortunately, we haven't been able to locate a reliable source for his claimed figures. As for Kanye West, I haven't gone over his available certified sales, but I doubt he has enough certified sales for our list. Kanye West has begun charting in 2004, therefore, he'd need his claimed figures supported by 66.4% certified sales based on the requirements of List of best-selling music artists. So for a claimed figure like 75 million, he's required to have 49.8 million certified units, which I don't think he has.--Harout72 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to found a reliable source for Eric Clapton's 100 million sales. And if you have some free time, I would really like to know Kanye's certified sales, even if he can't make it onto the list. Thank you for your time Harout :).--Fallengrademan (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I may one of these these go over Kanye West's certified sales just out of curiosity.--Harout72 (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks a lot!--Fallengrademan (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. Your recent reverts are very disconcerting and certainly come off as your OR at this point. She meets the certification criteria more than any in her group or even those above her. How are you going to tell me a 1990 artist that has 130 million certifications as having sold max 175? That's 75% and your arguing about even that being inflated. I'm really disappointed. We have a set tally and you're fabricating reasons to go against it. At 220 she is still far beyond the %50. Don't forget your place mate. You might watch over the article, but you aren't the owner (the set guidelines agreed upon still apply to you). Not to mention Music Week & The Guardian are more than top notch sources, especially the former. 60% & 65% are more than fair claims for an artist in 1990 (Not 75% and 65%). The agreed upon amount in over 50%. It more than meets the criteria. Tally up all the others. I guarantee Carey has more favorable percentages than any other artist in any of the categories (let me remind you Dion never really charted in the 80s... She made it big even later than Carey). I'm done repeating the facts, this is how it's going to be.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nathan, I think you have been away from List of best-selling music artists for quite sometime now. It clearly states at the end of the lead that we are to use those claimed figures which are closer to artists certified sales. In other words, often times claimed figures may meet the required certified amount, but are not used due to being unrealistically high based on available certified sales. Thus my removal of the 220 million isn't based on my own opinion. Mariah Carey is only required to have her claimed figures supported by 40% certified sales, that means that based on her 129 million certified units, she can be listed with claimed figures as high as 322.5 million units. Does that mean we should go ahead and replace her currently listed claimed figures with that when some news agency reports that figure?

And since you have previously been involved in the discussions of List of best-selling music artists, you should know better that even when the most reliable sources claim outrageously inflated sales figures, they are not always true. Need I remind you how CNN, one of the most prestigious sources ever, claimed 750 million records for Michael Jackson? By the way, many others on the list have their claimed figures supported by 80-90%, so you are wrong. Those examples are Garth Brooks & Shania Twain (90% certified sales), Bruce Springsteen & Metallica (81% certified sales), that's just to name a few. Anyways, I will now re-insert the 175 million, and leave the 220 million in place only for now.--Harout72 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deleted my recent note at the talk page? just asking. thanks Politsi (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What note?--Harout72 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, i just a little bit angry with those Mariah Carey's fans... and Harout, about Kanye West? is he ready to be on the list? thanks Politsi (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, you are constantly bringing up these ridiculous fan wars in an immature and unprofessional manner. Stick to assisting with the list (as with West) than trying to derail its quality (and disturbing the peace in between editors).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan. Stop saying immature and unprofessional manner (please do not raising my anger!) and this talk only between me and Harout. Politsi (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring up my name, that privileged gets negated. Now, again. Learn to behave yourself. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, I need your help. I was posted my question regarding with Bruno Mars after Kanye West at the talk page of our list best-selling artists, but now it is deleted already... i don't know why? I need your advice. thanks Politsi (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I've fixed it now, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have made them narrower,,. (I think) I just don't want all the info squashed up. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been adding some missing compilation albums as they seemed to stop at mid-2006. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of best-selling music artists page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout. To be honest, I really need your response regarding with those two artist at our best-selling artists list. But if you feel not interest and don't want to waste your energy to answer my question.

It's yours. thanks Politsi (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit to their album sales. Each album sale were based off of certifications, which were cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits were incorrect, including this where you have added 900,000 units in the Sales column for The Writing's on the Wall and this where you've added 100,000 units for Destiny's Child, both of which you have supported with BPI's certified units. The certified units are simply the shipped units, not the actual sales. The actual sales are always different from the certified units. The certified units are often less than the actual sales, and sometimes the record company does ship more than the album actually sells. So, don't mix the two with each other. In this edit, you have inflated an already existing sales figure, which is disruptive editing, also you have added 6,090,000 units for world sales, which you have supported with artist's site. You can't use artist's sites to support anything, you need a third party reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. That said, this source wont' do either as it's not reliable. In this edit, you have replaced a reliable source with an unreliable one just so you could inflate the claimed figure.--Harout72 (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RIAA isn't updated for the album "Future Starts Here: The Essential Doors Hits" having sold in December 2013 500,000 copies becoming gold disk. That is why it is a total of 33 million more than 33,5 million.

Studio Albums:

• The Doors first album 4 million
• Strange Days 1 million
• Waiting for the Sun 1 million
• The Soft Parade 1 million
• Morrison Hotel 1 million
• L.A Woman 2 million
• An American Prayer 1 million

Live Albums

• Absolutely Live 500,000
• Alive She Cried 500,000
• In Concert 1 million

Compilation:

• 13 compilation 1 million
• Weird Scenes inside the Goldmine 500,000
• The Doors Greatest Hits (LP version) 3 million
• The Best of The Doors (1985) 10 million
• The Doors Soundtrack 1 million
• The Doors Greatest Hits (CD version) 2 million
• The Doors Box Set 1 million
• The Very Best of The Doors (2001) 500,000
• The Absolute Best 500,000
• The Very Best of (2007) 500,000
• THE FUTURE STARTS HERE: THE ESSENTIAL DOORS HITS 500,000

Singles:

• Light My Fire 1 million
• Hello, I Love You 1 million
• Touch Me 1 million

Video Albums:

• A Tribute to Jim Morrison 100,000
• Dance on Fire 100,000
• Live At The Hollywood Bowl 100,000
• The Doors Collector's Edition 100,000
• Live In Europe 1968 100,000
• Soundstage Performances 50,000
• When You're Strange 50,000

TOTAL sales US : 37,1 million.

Bominchina (talk 13:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout!, I've been looking to Lil Wayne's certifications and, if you don't mind, I'd really like to know where his worldwide sales stand (even if most come from US market).--Fallengrademan (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Wayne's certified sales stand at 75.1 million units, most of it of course comes from the U.S. Note that my total certified sales on my file includes the singles that have Lil Wayne as the only featured artist or as the lead artist. In other words, if a single has multiple featured artists and Lil Wayne is one of them, the certification of that single isn't included on my file, Sweetest Girl for example. But if a single has multiple featured artists with Lil Wayne being the lead artist, the certification for that single is included on the file, Mrs. Officer for example.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harout. So is there any chance he can get into the list, if I find a reliable source that claims 75 million records?--Fallengrademan (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can actually be added to the list with claims as high as 104 million as he's begun charting in 1999 (required to have 72% certified sales). If you come across a reliable source, please make sure that it's a newspaper and it says "records" after the claimed figure.--Harout72 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Media Control Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zedd discography may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• url=http://www.officialcharts.de/artist.asp?name=Zedd&country=de | title=Zedd (Singles) | work=[[GfK Entertainment| publisher=Charts.de | language=German | accessdate=05 July 2014}}</ref>
• {|class="wikitable"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, please update your document on Madonna for The Immaculate Collection. It was listed there as 11x platinum, but is actually 12x platinum per ARIA Catalogue charts. It seems plausible since its hard scanned sales are at 880,000 units. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Madonna's certification for Canada needs updation. You have missed gold certification for "Sorry" per this, so another 10,000 should be added. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates. I used to retrieve the Canadian certifications from CRIA's monthly updated database where the Gold for "Sorry" was never posted. This tells me that it might be a good idea to go over their current database for all artists, in case other certifications have been missed. Thanks again.--Harout72 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to catalog, single living in the background was released in germany in 1985 after tarzan boy, then re-released in 1986 in canada, eua, italy.189.73.191.33 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some singles get released in some markets a bit later than they do in some markets, but that doesn't mean "Living in the Background" was re-released. The records companies that were marketing Baltimora's music in North America simply released "Living in the Background" a year later than it was in Germany. It would be a re-release if it was once released in 1985 and charted everywhere, and then it was re-released in a new version and charted again in those the same markets where the original had charted. Only then we would have to list it separately. Otherwise, the release years of the same version should be specified only on the single's page, not on the discography tables.--Harout72 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok but living in the background was released after tarzan boy and before woody boogie, i think that living in the background should be the second single in the list. 177.203.85.148 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this one was posted without any source, but the source is blacklisted by Wikipedia because there were some misuses of it in the past. And then why the #104 at Cascada discography is still standing there, both in the discography and the song article? I know there are some other articles where positions over 100 are standing, so I thought these ones were allowed here. --Ali1610 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit Cascada's discography, so I don't know who's added that. The singles chart in Germany has 100 positions only, therefore, anything below the No.100 would be incorrect. You should not add any peaks to discography lists unless the peaks are immediately supported by the sources provided.--Harout72 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

since you're not answer my question in the best-selling talk page, so I ask you directly.

I make a note on their own biography same as all artists in this list, having a title as one of the best-selling artists of all time. But well, not all artists happy to have a title like that.

The editor at band (The Who) biography with name Ritchie333 rejected that title and revert my edit and I read the editor's comment in that band bio talk page.

I'm going to continue my comments from the Peer Review here.

having sold more than 100 million records: as of? I think Snuggums asked the same question, and I addressed it, however if nobody wants it in there it can be removed. Ritchie333 (talk)

Well, then if that band think that they don't sell as much as we mention here. I think we should erase that band's name from this list. I really need your advice regarding on that. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, Ritchie333 tells you to refer to the discussion page where apparently a discussion of some sort has taken place about the sales figures. Did you read any of that? Anyways, the main page of The Who has its own main editors and I'm really not familiar how they do things on there. But as far as the List of best-selling music artists go, The Who have enough certified sales for 100 million records. All we can do is move them downwards on the list if there is source out there that claims lower figures than the current 100 million. I personally think that The Who have sold around 50-75 million records, based on what their certified sales suggest.--Harout72 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already read that and Like i said, the who wiki bio editor doesn't believe that the who sold records that much, as he ask with the question "as of". Well then, if The who still deserve to be on the list, we let them there but once I found another claim lower, I will put down their name. Thanks Harout. Politsi (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Harout72 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: ). Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:3RR at Baltimora and Den Harrow. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harout72 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bbb23, I understand that it may seem I was engaged in edit-warring, but I was only trying to restore sourced information that Synthwave.94 was persistently removing. I even contacted one of the administrators regarding his/her behavor as I noticed that the edits made by Synthwave.94 were disruptive and they were simply being made based on her/his point of view and not on specific policy. As you can see here Synthwave.94 never provided solid reason as to why he/she was removing sourced information. Not sure if this is a reason for being unblocked, just wanted to bring this to your attention. I never deliberately engage in edit-warring.Harout72 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm declining your request to be unblocked, because I'm not entirely convinced that you won't continue edit warring if unblocked. I think you should commit using dispute resolution to resolve editing disagreements instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what you mean by "deliberately". Your opinion that the material added by the other user was unsourced, even if true, would not be a justification for edit warring. If you believe that the other editor is wrong about the content, then you have to use dispute resolution to resolve the conflict or obtain a clear consensus that the other person is wrong and that you are right. There's nothing wrong with contacting an administrator if you believe they can be of assistance, but you do that before you violate 3RR, not after or during. Genre-warring is a problem at Wikipedia, and some, depending on the war, may view one of the warring editors as committing vandalism, but that's not for me to say in this situation as the kind of vandalism that is exempt from edit warring is not a genre war.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I should have contacted the administrator earlier than I did. I was merely trying to restore the sourced Genre that I provided, which was being removed by the other editor. I found the other editor's removal of sourced information disruptive and detrimental to both articles, that is why I was trying to keep the information there before I could have someone look at the situation. I guess my restoring the article without actually hitting revert buttons was no different, and in the process of all that, an unintentional violation took place. My apologies for that. --Harout72 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harout72 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

When the user Synthwave.94 is unblocked and I see him/her continue to remove the sourced Genres at both articles that I have provided without opening up discussions on talk-pages, I'm simply going to take the matter to WP:AN/I without reverting his edits even once. I will let the administrators take a thorough look at this editor's removals. I've ruined my reputation enough because of this editor's persistent disruptions. It's because of edit-warriors like Synthwave.94 that sometimes honest hard working editors decide to walk away from wikipedia.Harout72 (talk) 8:50 pm, 8 November 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM Yunshui ^雲_水 09:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I think you're being overly dramatic ("ruined my reputation"). I think you should just learn from this and move on. No one's accusing you of being a horrible editor or anything even remotely like that. Many good editors are blocked during their tenure at Wikipedia. If you requested an unblock in a different way, I might accept it if I found it sincere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, can you link me to your document for Gaga's certifications? Would love to cross-check some data. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here it is.--Harout72 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, Im User:Cartoon network freak. Can you please explane me, why the italian chart peaks on the songs Lemonade, Cliche Hush Hush and All My People are catalogate as wrong? The Peaks are right in the Wiki-articles about the songs.

Italy's No.22 position posted at Cliche (Hush Hush) isn't in the source provided. In fact, the same goes to Italy's No. 22 posted at Lemonade, and No.46 posted at All My People. All chart peaks must be verifiable, so readers can check them.--Harout72 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout! May you can replace some rows like Canada or Australia, where Stan has only peaks for Mr. Saxobeat, with Countries like Romania or Japan, where her songs often peak? Merry Christmas! Cartoon Network Freak!:-) 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Canada and instead added Japan which has more peaks and it's also a much bigger music market. But Romania's peaks should be left out for now as they are not easily verifiable. Merry Christmas.--Harout72 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Բարև :) Մի հարց կարելի ա? Ինձ նենց հետաքրքիրա խի հայերեն Վիքիպեդիայում ակտիվ չեք? :) Էնտեղ ձեր նման մասնակիցների կարիք շատ կա~ ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.23.242 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Մի գուցե ապագայում կմասնակցեմ, բայց հիմա ունեցածս ժամանակը միայն այստեղ կարող եմ տրամադրել.--Harout72 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Soc Forta an official single by Alexandra Stan, so I could include it on her discography? I've seen it on iTunes:-) User:Cartoon network freak 22:25, 02 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's an official single, you can include it in the singles table. But please provide the source for it right next to the song, so it is verifiable. Is that a non-album single? I can't see it here.--Harout72 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? 80.111.184.146 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask yourself that question instead of edit warring. The cover clearly states "Featuring".--Harout72 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harout72, the 3RR complaint has been closed with a warning to you. If you continue to revert while making no effort to get a talk page consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, I'm curious, I the IP reverts without making any effort to discuss on the talk page, are you going to take the same action as you would against me?--Harout72 (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that you begin the discussion, if you continue to believe that only 'featuring' is correct. If the IP continues to revert without joining the discussion then you may have a point. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! source for his 60 million records is http://www.repubblica.it/spettacoli/musica/2013/10/26/news/eros_ramazzotti_felicit_riconoscere_a_cinquant_anni_la_terra_promessa-69499126/

second part of text in the middle. :) --8Sirlo6 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some chart peaks on Allmusic.com (direct link here) for the singles Cliche (Hush Hush) and All My People by Romanian recording artist Alexandra Stan in the Japan Billboard Hot 100. I really don't know if these peaks are right. Cliche (Hush Hush)'s peak there is #11. Maybe she won because of this a award on the 27th Japan Gold Disc Award in 2013. Can U Help Me! If the link to allmusic will not load, go to the homepage, search Alexandra Stan and click Awards.:-) --Cartoon network freak 9:49, 08 February 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the previous source with allmusic and added all the peaks that were not listed.--Harout72 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for bothering you in your talk page... I just wondered if you saw my update at Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#140_Million_records_claim. Neither you nor Indian:BIO answered. What do you think? You can answer there if you would like.
Thank you, דיידרים (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I took a look at it, it really doesn't change anything honestly. We'll just have to wait for a better source.--Harout72 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You've put an extreme amount of effort in gathering data, and even answering my questions. This award is long overdue for you in my opinion. Bobtinin (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that.--Harout72 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, as UK's OCC has updated their database with all the charts accessible (including the video chart which started in 1994 and which is why the 1st 2 albums released earlier have lower peaks), so would you think it's OK to add the chart peaks in the video albums column (with each peak referenced of course).

I included the chart peaks in the US, which are correct but atm I don't have the links or files to reference them, so US can be added later on. Thanks! Uncleangelo (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's OK to add Video chart peaks as long as they are sourced.--Harout72 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Uncleangelo (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to condense the talk headers? They take up over two screens worth of space on my decent-size laptop. —George8211 / T 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the bottom two boxes should not be condensed as they contain important information about the way the list is operated. The rest are already condensed, I'm not sure if they can be condensed further.--Harout72 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I'm just worried that no-one'll read any of it because it's so long. —George8211 / T 22:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's a little long but the information posted on there seems to have minimized the unnecessary number of questions that were being asked before.--Harout72 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it doesn't sound like there's anything we can do. It reminds me of when {{Archives}} had a merge nomination, which seriously impacted WT:USRD. —George8211 / T 22:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout! Since I know you're keeping archives of artists' certified sales, do you happen to have of those two? Can you tell me how much certified sales they have and with how much in non-certified can they be listed? Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have Ricky Martin's certified sales only, his total available certified sales are 28.6 million. Since he's begun charting in 1991, for the List of best-selling music artists he needs 48% certified sales for his claims. With the 28.6 million certified units, he could be listed with 59.6 million claim, but our list starts at 75 million. I haven't gone over Timberlake's certified sales, but I would if there already are claimed figures that are 75 million or over.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why others albums like Westlife (album) no have problem with Philippines, Malaysia, Hungary, Taiwan or Indonesia level-certifications???

• Let Go (Avril Lavigne album)
• The Best Damn Thing

Coolcoolmen16 (talk)

If there are no sources supporting the certification-levels, they should never be used. The album Let Go (Avril Lavigne album) that you are pointing out, should not have the certifications of those countries because the earliest certification levels we have for Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Indonesia are for 2005 which are posted at RIAJ Yearbook (see page 23). As for Hungary, we only have the certification levels for domestic releases, which are different from the levels for international repertoire.--Harout72 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Para Ti" Magazine is from the editorial "Argentine Televisa", Televisa is the most realiable sources in Latin America. For something logic, The 1997 edition is not complete full view, but the preview said in spanish: doble platino en la Argentina con 140.000 unidades. Is not easy found the sales from 80's or 90's albums from countries like Argentine in internet, that source said the exact sales. Hope you change again. Coolcoolmen16 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Harout!

Should this Alexandra Stan-related article be deleted or mergered into an another article? I just can't find enough information for it, and it looks like a stub:-) °Cartoon network Freak° 10:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's nothing notable, it should be deleted.--Harout72 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McShane was Baltimora, all of the persons listed on the album covers were session personnel.Citadel48 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McShane wasn't Baltimora, he was merely the frontman of the project. That doesn't make Baltimora, McShane.--Harout72 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The album sleves present him as a solo project, as do the performances. Almost all foreign wikipedias with pages on Baltimora/Jimmy McShane refer too the act as a solo project, not a multi-person musical ensemble.Citadel48 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to familiarize yourself with Baltimora project. McShane was only one part of the act. There are others involved too.--Harout72 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there were others, but you may as well call Silver Pozzoli a band. Was he? no, because Silver Pozzoli was a solo musician that traveled and recorded with a ensemble. Unofficially, he was a "band", officially, he was a one man solo act. Same with Baltimora, I have researched Jimmy McShane and the supposed band extensively, and have found no evidence too support that they were a multi-person musical ensemble. Just because they played on the albums doesn't mean they were a band. There are no videos of all six men performing together, same with most one man solo acts such a CC Catch, who only had a in-studio ensemble, thus forcing her too perform with non studio personnel during performances. Dire Straits, an English band, always performed with the full band, as did many others. So why did not Baltimora? And besides, there is much too suggest Baltimora was simply McShane's stage name.Citadel48 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Well, please try and find the sources that you believe prove it's a band, and I will gather my sources. Then I believe we should ask a neutral (not in terms of conflict, there is none, but in views) person too review them and see which is more reliable.Citadel48 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC) My apologies on the undiscussed revisions. I carried them out as evidence suggests it was actually his stage name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Citadel48 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC) If it was just one front man, then why even have a band at all? The sources I have are much more detailed, and much more reliable than the ones you have provided. I have myself studied all of the members of the supposed "band", and they are all session musicians. There was no band.Citadel48 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) May I carry out the revision & re-direct?Citadel48 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. You do not have my consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May you define you're definition of the difference between project & band? Thank you.Citadel48 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC) If you define project as a musical ensemble that doesn't perform together, why not include the 15+ backing vocalists, keyboardists, & guitarists on Baltimora's members list? Why not include the keyboardist, drummer, and backing vocalists on the list of members of Milli Vanilli? After all, they weren't even singing, yet they are called a "project." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC) There is not one source referring too Baltimora as a project, but there are sources indicating it was a band (unreliable sources, record charts etc). Then there are sources stating it was a solo act, which are reliable (biographical information, personnel centered research). I myself have researched the members, as stated before, and almost none have been members of a band or project; they are all temporary session musicians. Just like Milli Vanilli, he likley wasn't singing, and this was likely just a façade, just like Den Harrow, Michael Bedford, etc.Citadel48 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Billboard is not a reliable source, as it only documents chart positions & record sales. Everything you have said is either supported by a unreliable source, or is an assumption. In what position are you too judge it as a musical project without even posessing reliable sources or even a source at all?Citadel48 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is as reliable as sources get. If you have doubts, post it at WP:RSN and ask the community's opinion rather than labeling one of the most reliable sources as unreliable. My explanations at your talk page are not based on assumptions, they're based on sources and common sense.--Harout72 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What type of common sense suggested too you that it was a musical project? What sources say it's a musical project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC) And how is some billboard "one of the most reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC) On Findagrave.com it states "McShane was a solo singer who recorded under the name of 'Baltimora.'" & in Nick Tavelski's book it denotes that Baltimora wa shis stage name, not a group name. The sources you have stating it's a group are unreliable.Citadel48 (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC) So you finally admit they are studio musicians "Studio musicians are not part of the main team"?Citadel48 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to learn how to separate your conversations from each other when leaving repeated futile messages on people's talk pages. Right now, all your messages are connected to each other, it's a complete mess. Also you need to read what people are saying to you, instead of typing only what you want to say. That said, had you carefully read everything I said to you, you'd know that I never even once discussed anything about studio musicians.--Harout72 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one with incorrect assumptions, you assume they weren't members, you have no sources saying they weren't just like you have none saying it's a project, and neither do have musical accreditation or proper expertise. I have sources, such as: [1][2]

You're providing me a scan of the album which clearly states the names of the studio musicians, it doesn't say anything about those names being part of the main team, you can again ask WP:Third opinion. The only names that should be included are the names of the producer and the lyricist, we currently have those two. And wikipedia cannot be used as a source to prove anything, read that up.--Harout72 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you're edit as it itself was incorrect, it was supposed to list certifications of all countries, not just Canada. You cannot just choose things because you feel like; you do so if you have Reliable sources.

And don't you threaten me, you yourself lack adequate sources.

Listen, first sign your posts, second, I suggest that you start paying attention to what sources say. That said, where do you see that this source which you have reverted to says anything about Living in the Background having gone Platinum or even sold one million copies of the album. The source talks about the single "Tarzan Boy".--Harout72 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"FourFiveSeconds" was released in January 2015, thus your count for the Italian "platinum" certification in the list is wrong. — Tom^(T2ME) 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the "FourFiveSeconds" having been released in January 2015, but until February 1, 2015, FIMI's certification levels were Gold=15,000, Platinum=30,000. All titles released after February 1, 2015 are certified for sales of Gold=25,000, Platinum=50,000. The Platinum for "FourFiveSeconds", would be 50,000 units only if FIMI applies the newer certification-levels to even titles that were released before February 1, 2015, but that's a rare practice by certifying agencies.--Harout72 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:IAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest that you stop disrupting the wikipedia. Or I will report you at WP:ANI.--Harout72 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one disrupting, as you lack sources for you're claim that Baltimora was a project.Citadel48 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits for redirecting Baltimora to Jimmy McShane aren't being reverted because it's a project, they are being reverted because sources clearly state it's a band, therefore, it should not be joined with McShane's page. Other editors have also commented and disagreed with. So with all that said, yes you are disrupting.--Harout72 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was a project.Citadel48 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's a project, I said it might help you to view Baltimora as a project, I said it's a band. That still doesn't justify your repeated attempts of redirecting the page to Jimmy McShane, especially when others pointed out that it's band too and should remain separate, as it is now.--Harout72 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was it's lineup changed so often? Give me at least one band with over 4 members that is represented in it's videos, performances, & record sleeves by it's "frontman."Citadel48 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you revert the edition? That is the right order! --Jbaranao (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see, you were right! I am sorry. It's confusing that the default order of the list is by claimed. I was looking at the order of the table itself, assuming it is by certified. Sorry --Jbaranao (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]