Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Laundry Service

Laundry Service is Shakira's best selling album to date and has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide. http://www.shakira.com/discography/index/album/albumId/7/tagName/Albums http://www.shakira.com/music/

Millennium album by Backstreet Boys

This album is cited as having sold 40 million copies by The Korean Times. This is not a reliable source. If you look at the albums certifications, only around 17 - 19 million copies are accounted for. That means that 23 - 21 million albums must have been sold in countries outside of North America (USA, Canada, Mexico), Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

There are loads of sources that show this album has sold 40 million, its also in the guiness book of world records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.231.7 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Celine dion

I don't understand the fact that two of the best selling Albums are not in the list the color of my love 1993 sold 21 m and all the way 1999 sold over than 22 m please include them to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.2.156 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

why isn't celine dions the color of my love and all the way on the list i want to know as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.11.136 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• It need a RELIABLE source. The Colour of My Love's first source is a dead link Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakira

Laundry Service Tbhotch (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Shakira's bio say 20 million link

Shakira's Laundry Service sold 13 million copies. link Genieofmusic (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

link THIS IS FROM SHAKIRA PAGE, HERE SAY 20 MILLIONS Jair (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] is an unvalid in en.wikipedia as per WP:BADCHARTS. Also The Marshall Mathers LP appears on the list with 21 millions, when in the article say over 10 million. Jair (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My links are official! Even in Wikipedia's articles of the Shakira discography run by fans, says it sold 13 million. Sources: link link Genieofmusic (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SHAKIRA.COM is without updating, does not mention: Shewolf, 07/07/07 concert, Pies descalzos fundation link bmi.com has the same validity as PR Newswire Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• also, Laundry Service ~Chart performance and certification~ say shakira sold 13,271,299 copies (including 2x UK platinum album with a exactly number: 851,159 copies)

shakira biography at shakira.com say The 2001 album went on to sell more than 13 million albums. (does not mention where) shakira laundry service at shakira.com say overcame this challenge as the album became top 3 in the United States and the United Kingdom and more than 20 million copies were sold worldwide. (mention where) Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• BMI say about The Remixes: "while a remix album, titled simply The Remixes, moved an additional million copies" when the album is 2x platinum and Gold (2,500,000 copies).Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the certifications, Laudry Service couldn't reach 10 million copies. Genieofmusic (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, all the sites lie, including Shakira. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are not "all the sites", just one. I have several official sources, you just have one. Are you a Shakira fan? It seems so. I'm a Shakira fan and I perfectly know that album didn't sell 20 million, it's just impossible. Have you tried checking the certifications? The don't even reach 10 million copies. Gimme an explatanion. You will be warned if you continue vandalising. Genieofmusic (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• first, we could be report by a "war conflict", and be blocked. the oficcial sources must not be blogs and cannot be from WP:BADCHARTS, laundry service "charts and certif." say 13,271,299 copies, show only 22 countries, 18 of them don't show sources.

An example is Back in Black, sold over 40'000,000 copies and article say: "the album is the second best selling album worldwide, ahead of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon and only behind Michael Jackson's Thriller and the best selling album ever made by a band (since Michael Jackson is a solo artist). The album was successful around the world, which is the reason it made it to the list. Ironically, the album never reached number one on the Billboard 200, making the 22x Platinum distinction, denoting 22 million albums sold, especially unique and making it the fourth highest selling album in the U.S. The album stayed in the Billboard chart for 131 weeks. The album also reached #1 in the United Kingdom." show its certification only 22,900,000 copies, but in this list, its source is NY Times and show over 49,000,000 copies.

exist a lot of WP:BADCHARTS (princupally, latin america (where obiously sold more), but are disable, because wikipedia's community thought they don't deserve exist (without considering the consequences).

And yes I'm a Shakira fan, but I don't put laundry in list. and why she cannot be in list? is for she is colombian or 'cause she is latin? Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be smart to know that Back To Black didn't sell 40 million albums, it's just silly. So, we don't have a source that say Laudry Service sold that, so I will remove that because that's false information. Genieofmusic (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

if you revome laundry service from list, remove back in black from 40-49 to 20-29 and also remove thriller, according to Guiness record book records sold over 65 millions Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point: there are numerous cases where most/all of the charts from a country are on WP:BADCHARTS, but there is still a valid certification body. Brazilian certifications are legitimate, even from years that no valid album chart existed. There's a valid Colombian certification body, even though there are no valid Colombian charts.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

LLaundry service deserves to be on this list her OFFICIAL WEBSITE states that it has sold twenty million copies. This is a reliable source therefore it should be included on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.156.230 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cross Road

On Bon Jovi discography page it says that worldwide sales of this album are 20,000,000.--Helios13 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC) by SineBot-->

Oasis

Please dont delete oasis from the list whoever did. The source from the guardian is a very highly reputable source and several reliable sources have stated that the album has sold in excess of 20 million. Until a link is provided to a highly regarded sources that states otherwise. they stay on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.15.231 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also found a secondry reputable source from this claim and I have added it. It is from the daily mail. It also states 22 million sales. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250950/Brit-Pope-Vatican-puts-Oasis-albums-time.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 11:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not be fooled by the above troll. The above sources do not stand up to the certifications available online as well as the band's official website. Although the use of band's official websites is not favoured (by wikipedia), the fact that the website gives figures that are closely aligned to the certifications available would seem to make a fair enough correlation to presume they are more accurate than the figures printed by lazy, red-top journalists from the Daily Mail et al. Is míse Play Brian Moore (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that certifications do not stack up, but they dont stack up to 110 million for Thriller or to 49 million for Back In Black either. All of the sales on this page are estimated claims from reputable sources. The guardian AND the daily mail are both very reputable sources, and as you pointed out yourself, band websites cant be relied on verifibility. Please dont just delete oasis from the page from individual research. To delete something thats been on the page for well over a year you must have a discussion explaining why you think it should be removed and then provide sufficient evidence to back your opinion. At the moment, i'm sorry but a band website does not cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.15.231 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm discussing Oasis here, not Michael Jackson. Editing a page with false information qualifies as vandalism. As a life long Oasis fan I would love to be able to say Oasis have sold 25 million copies of this album and 70 trillion copies of that album. Unfortunately, that would be a lie however. Kiss me arse newspapers like the Daily Mail and The Guardian are not reputable sources. Find a source in a book or else Sony's (through Oasis' official website) certified sales figure will go up. Is míse le meas Play Brian Moore (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Various sources on this page are from the guardian or the daily mail. If you think otherwise then why dont you have a chat with the wikipedia people about the criteria, because you will be proven wrong. Once again band websites cannot be used as sources and as I have already tirelessly stated you still havent provided a more reputable source than the two I have provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving." Wikipedia policy is clear in the matter.

How can you possibly prove that both these articles are subject to that policy? You could attribute this to any newspaper source on wikipedia. It is way too much of a genarlisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a coincidence that two papers with pretty poor reputations have come up with the exact same figure (22 million exactly apparently) or we may just be able to read between the lines on this one. If the Times or a paper with a bit more of a reputation could come up with that figure, it may be more believable. The compromise that was agreed on the Morning Glory page has created a wee problem over here though. How do we leave the album on this list? Play Brian Moore (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes your right, we must have a decided figure on this page after the compromise on the morning glory page. We could put the figure on this page to 20 million + as well or we could try and find another reputable source. With the newspapers, whether they are poorly researched or not they still are regarded as more verifile sources than a band website in wikipedia criteria, so Im not sure where we shold go from here. In my opinion, two sources against one shoudl probably mean that it can stay up there, but I'm happy to come to some sort of agreement if you have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.15.231 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how many the album has sold actually. But, as long as you provide the figure with highly reliable sources like Daily Mail or The Guardian, I'll stongly support the album on this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hummm well I guess having the Morning Glory page as correct is probably enough. I think these lists are highly dubious by nature and most users searching for them should take all the figures with a pinch of salt. Is míse Play Brian Moore (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, i think this is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source? Bluesatellite (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.110.0.70, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the words 'illegal downloading' to file sharing. The term 'illegal downloading' is assuming that all music downloading is illegal in all countries. The legality is highly complex and depends on, for example, the country of origin of the server hosting the music file, and the location of the computer where the music file is destined. It also does not take into the 'fair use' doctrine in the USA and similar doctrines in other countries.

The current article is biased because it is framing the terms of debate by saying music downloading is illegal regardless of it's actual legal status.

Changing the term to 'file sharing' makes the article more neutral.

65.110.0.70 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Declined In context, the phrase is accurate. Legal downloads count towards certifications and sales figures.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.28.194.12, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi there, just a detail: Metallica, The Black Album, is listed below in the 'sales record worldwide' list but not above in the 20-29 million records list with the flags.

193.28.194.12 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Metallica is under 22 million "certifications" and is unsourced. Please provide a source. SpigotMap 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ACDC error with flag thumbnails

ACDC back in black has the australian and british flags after it, but ACDC was an australian band, reading the whole article on ACDC there is no mention of the group having had any significant activity in the UK, so either some british guys are trying to take credit for something thats not theirs, or just a mistake. please fix.

it may come from the fact that a few albums underneath, the BeeGees greatest hits one, that band was indeed made of some guys from australia and some guys from the UK, so maybe it was a mixup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.62.157 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... lets see, Malcolm and Angus Young were born in Glasgow (in Britain), Bon Scott was born in Kirriemuir (in Britain), Cliff Williams is from Romford (in Britain), In fact from the two best known line ups only Phil Rudd is originally Australian. Bon Scott was replaced by Brian Johnson who is from Gateshead...guess where that is..(in Britain), two of the band (Cliff and Brian) were British citizens when Back in Black was made. Also note that while Phil Rudd was out of the band (1983-94) the drummers who replaced him were Simon Wright (6 years, 3 albums) and Chris Slade (5 years, 2 studio, 2 live albums). Wright is from Manchester (in Britain) from Slade is from Pontypridd (in Britain). I think there is sufficient justification for the Union Flag being present. Also to say that the band had no significant activity in Britain is bizarre, if you knew anything about the history of the band you would know that in the late seventies they left Australia for a while and were based in the UK, and of course while they were there they started to break through in a big way worldwide and also unfortunately Bon Scott died (in Britain while not undertaking any significant activity!).Thunderbuck ram (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.116.234.59, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Metallicas black album has sold 22 million copies. therefore it should be on this list

69.116.234.59 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: The album is officially called Metallica but often called The Black Album. The 22 million copies figure needs to be given by a reliable source before it can be given here. If you can provide one, please do so. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Green Day

Souldn't Green Day's Dookie be mentioned in the 20 million category? Even on their Discography page, it states worldwide sells of 20 million--09nick (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Appetite for Destruction vs. Hybrid Theory

It states in this article, that Appetite for Destruction has sold 28 million copies worldwide. However, In the article for Hybrid Theory, it is states a global sales total of 29 million (unlike the 24 Million stated here). If I am correct, wouldn't that make Hybrid Theory not only the best-selling debut album of all time, but also higher in the list than Appetite for Destruction (the currently listed "best-selling debut album of all time")? I would also like to mention the importance of reliable sources, because when i googled it, i got mixed results of Hybrid theory selling 19 million copies, and 45 million copies. ~L.H.C.D.1~ (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you haven't noticed, I had already changed the number to 24 million in the Hybrid Theory article. Also Appetite For Destruction has sold about eight million copies more in the United States and about 500,00 copies more in Canada. This huge lead easily puts Appetite For Destruction ahead of Hybrid Theory when it comes to certified sales. Also, the sources that state high figures like 45 million are usually unreliable ones. If you find a reliable reference that states Hybrid Theory selling more than AFD, you may very well add it.-KingdomHearts25(talk) 11:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we need to find reliable sources, because every source I have found seems unreliable. In addition to being mostly unreliable , most of the sources I found came at a difficulty. I am not stating that Hybrid theory sold more, nor am I not arguing it. What I am saying is that the article for Hybrid theory has, multiple times in the past, stated the album has sold 29 million copies; and that it has also been stated on Wikipedia, that Appetite For destruction has sold 28 million. May I also remind you that we are looking for up-to-date sources, i.e. album sales dating from 2010, or at least 2008, or 2009. Also, the fact that Appetite for destruction sells 18 million copies in America, while Hybrid Theory sells around 10 million, does not mean anything regarding worldwide sales. For instance, an album could sell 20 million copies worldwide, 15 million in the United States, 5 million elsewhere, while another album could sell the same amount of copies, but 5 million in the United States, and 15 million elsewhere. Do you get what I am saying?

~L.H.C.D.1~ (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hybrid Theory selling more than Appetite For Destruction, I don't mean the United States and Canada are the only countries where AFD sold more. There have been other countries where it lead as well. What I mean is that Hybrid Theory may have sold just a few million copies in every country except the United States, say 2-3 million. If you take Hybrid Theory selling about 10 million worldwide and another 10 million in the United States, AFD has sold about 18 million in the US and say 5-7 million worldwide. This would give AFD's total WW sales as 18+5-7=23-25 while for Hybrid Theory may give only 10+10=20. Of course, I'm just giving an example as I don't know their ACTUAL worldwide sales but it is roughly around that figure. Also, I do agree with you that most sources are unreliable but the source for Hybrid Theory is as unreliable as AFD's. Whoever put that 29 million in Hybrid Theory's article did not back it up with a source which is why I changed it while the person who put the 28 million in AFD's article has backed it up with a source. I myself can go and type in AFD's article that it has sold a billion copies without any source and then blindly claim that it has sold more than Hybrid Theory.

KingdomHearts25 (talk) 10:14, July 23 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from FredNielsen, 9 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to request add an album to this list, Dookie by Green Day which has sold over 20 million copies and therefore should appear here. I have a reference. http://greenday.wikia.com/wiki/Dookie

FredNielsen (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm sorry but Wikia is not considered a reliable source, as it lacks editorial oversight. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera

Has sold at least 40 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snellios (talk • contribs) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Which recording? Do you have a reliable source which we can check? --Jayron32 02:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WHERE IS METALLICA'S BLACK ALBUM????

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/zanelowe/2009/11/masterpieces_metallica_metalli.html

http://www.24bit96khz.org/viewlisting.php?id=662

http://www.pianofiles.com/node/1046

http://www.grindstore.com/Official+Merchandise/Metallica.html

http://www.shareseeking.com/Metallica-Metallica-a-k-a-The-Black-Album-Warner-Rhino-4-180g-LP-Set-45rpm-24-bit-96kHz-redbook-format_386580.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/61119367.html

http://www.last.fm/music/Metallica/_/Nothing+Else+Matters

http://avaxhome.ws/music/metal/metallicablackalbum_fourlpset.html

http://www.afgrant.com/metallica/met070500.htm

Here are NINE links for Metallica's Black Album including BBC.I can't understand why this album isn't already there...most of the links for the other albums posted as sources don't exist/are expired while i'm giving you 9 links and you people still ignore it.

Place the album on the list.It has sold over 25 million copies and it certainly deserves to be there.

I hope you know none of these are reliable sources. The BBC would be usable, however its a radio DJ from the radio station saying this, therefore NOT reliable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me on question...are you that dense?Not reliable?So the links you want are reliable,the links you don't are not...i get it.

I probably have to find someone on wikipedia who can delete this article because people like you are absolutely spreading nonsense and pure lies.The fact that Iron Butterfly is on that list says it all.It's like the USA has 12 million citizens and you post it because of your reliablesource,i give you ten links how it's certainly at the very least over 300 millions and you tell me oh no,you're wrong,we don't deal with common sense or facts in this article,if someone stated in one website that we deem as reliable then the USA really has only 12 million people

Go on RIAA,the official American certification association and see how much Iron Butterfly have sold...ONE million copies,they have NO certifications in Europe so why are you posting that reliable source that ignores every common sense ?It hasn't magically sold 24 million copies in Timbuktu.

If someone in a reliable source says that the sun is just a big elephant with a pink underwear,would you post that at the Sun's page?Hmm?

For example how in the hell is THIS a reliable source for Linkin Park???

http://liveearth.org/?p=45

Who are you to judge what a constitutes a reliable source?This place should be about posting facts,not pick and choose whatever you think it's reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargetina (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To see how misguided your chart is,see what a real chart looks like,made from people who have sources in RIAA and IFPI,who are simply music and charts fans and who have spend some real time doing research unlike you and the lot like you.

http://fanofmusic.free.fr/index.php?m=Charts&s=BestSellers&p=BestSellersWorldAlbums (press ok) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargetina (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We need RELIABLE source

Please don't ask here, where's she, where's he, where's this album, that album, etc. Just provide a reliable source (like these references) and we will add it to this list. Thank you Bluesatellite (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

question

how is it that there's sundry of sources with sales? for example i thought ac/dc's "Back in Black" was sold around 45 mil., but here's standing 49???-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Best Selling korean albumof all time

Kim Gun Mo's third studio album, "Jalmotdwin Mannam (Wrongful Meeting)" is South Korea's best selling album, selling 2.8 million copies in South Korea alone. Please do include that. See Kim Gun Mo.

That one should be on the list of the best-selling albums in Korea, but we do not have any reliable sources, so far. MrFawwaz (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson number has no reliable source

Everything about this 110m, even the sources quoted here, just say the 110m number is an estimate. In fact the only concrete numbers to ever turn up are closer to 30m, and that's also from the same source quoted here. It seems there are some Michael Jackson fans on Wikipedia who want to push him up to the top, which makes it hard to see the article as reliable or trustworthy. Can we put the album at a number that has actual proof, instead of someone's guess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.148.85 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The only source listed for the 110 million nonsense lists the speculative estimate as number shipped, not sold. The ridiculosuly inflated number comes from the assumption that each country's platinum certification is the same as the US's 1 million, when in fact some platinum certifactions are as low as 20,000. By cross-referencing Wikipedia's certification threshold for each Wikipedia-listed country on Thriller's certification chart, it has about 40 million combined albums shipped/sold, plus whatever numbers for countries without certification. Certainly nowhere close to 110 million.

Dear God - now someone has changed Thriller to 120,000,000 copies sold. You have got to be friggin' kidding me!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.76.164 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost none of the albums have a reliable source...the list is one of the worst articles that exist on wikipedia.

Some people who have no interest or knowledge in the selling market will find some source,which does not prove by any means how much the album have sold.All the sources are some columns or expired links.

For example i can write an article about Linkin Park and casually mention that it has sold 49 million copies and the editors here will post it as if it's a scientific research.You know,like the USA sales article which is the complete opposite.

Here is a chart that is based on the actual sales and certifications of the albums...if the sales in the USA+Europe+Asia+Australia=17,6 millions you cannot post a source that claims 24 millions because it didn't sell that much.It's simple math and logic,that are completely ignored by the article.

http://fanofmusic.free.fr/index.php?m=Charts&s=BestSellers&p=BestSellersWorldAlbums

On top of that the hypocrisy is remarkable...one expired link about Linkin Park makes the album provable and yet i've posted 4 different sources about Metallica that their sales are over 25 millions and it's ignored.Just write Metallica 25 million copies on google and you'll find hundreds of sources that in fact it has sold that much,not to mention that if you add all the sales,chart runs and certifications of the album it surpasses 25 million so there's no conflict like Linkin Park or the awful numbers for Backstreet Boys's Millenium which has sold not even close to 40 million copies.

It sold,factually sold 14 millions in the USA and over 2 milllions in Europe certified by IFPI...it sold 1 million in Japan....that's 17 milllion copies.Only someone who believes that Santa Claus is real will believe that it sold 23 millions more in the rest of the world.

The whole chart is a mess and is a lie...that's what pisses me off,wikipedia should not be based on unconfirmed LIES where a better system of the adding the numbers of the sales in every country that are made on chart forums is ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargetina (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking into more of the albums on here, the whole article reads like a page of higgledy piggledy hearsay, original research, fabrication and wishful thinking. Maybe if nothing can be properly verified the whole mess should just be done away with. Or on the other hand, I could make a blog, write that the album I made in my bedroom sold 200 million copies and use that as a source to get it to the top of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.148.85 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly...i mean Iron Butterfly selling 25 million copies from their album is probably the worst joke i've ever heard.

It's an American band selling 1 million copies in the USA,no certification in Europe...and yes that all adds up to 25 million copies.The album hasn't sold more than 5-6 millions and i'm being kind.

The whole article should be abolished and put into some serious analysis.It's nothing more than hearsay,with zero verification other than he said/she said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kargetina (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Colors

Seriously? Those Legend colors are shit. Three shades of gray. It's like a joke. "We want to color-code the categories but we don't want the colors to starkly contrast" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.154.134 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 September 2010

Boston

Boston's debut album has sold 17 million copies in the USA. I'm sure it would be on this list if worldwide sales were accounted for. Does anyone have a source with the worldwide sales of this album?75.142.54.211 (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys- Millenium

I've counted all the certifications from that album and it was just about 18.000.000. So if we also count copies that were sold but weren't enough to give the album (another) certification, the toal number might be 23.000.000 +- but not 40.000.000. Please delete that wrong information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.216.16 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly someone who is anti-backstreet boys, therefore, your opinion does not matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.231.7 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No he is clearly someone with half a brain cell and can add? (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.28.144 (talk)

Albums sold divided by years on the market

- Would not this be a better way of measuring the "succes" or overall sales of the albums to each other? 212.10.48.104 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is inconsequent. The over 100M for Thriller is only based on the number of MJs management. It is usually supposed to be arround 50M. If you take the number of MJs management on the one hand than you have to take the 90 M for Sargent Pepper, which is said from the EMI too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.215.190 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would you base the amount of sales from this album from what MJ's management says and not base all the others off of what their management says? Their is no way that MJ's Thriller album could have sold over 110 million, over 61 million more then the next album on the list, if that was the case then songs from that album would have the possibility of still being in the top 50 for this weeks charts. This is not a reliable or creditable page, not the type of bias Wikipedia should be involved with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.249.197 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lil Wayne The Carter III

). I don't I've noticed that the album "The Carter III" by Lil Wayne was removed from selling How come mariah carey album #1s was listed at 20 million copies with the UNCLEAR source ? that album only sold 17 million copies, and it is funny to listed 20 million without a reliable source ?

 lil wayne sold 3 million most  he sold all

This article appears to be original research

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. What this means is that the title of the books/chapters/articles/etc. that comprise the WP:RSs should, in general, be similar to that of the article. Looking down the list of supposed sources, there appear to be few, if any that could be considered to be on the subject of best-selling albums worldwide. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also tagged notability; if sources on the topic remain unavailable, the article will be proposed for deletion. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your inappropriate tagging. Please read WP:RS carefully and then edit. If you feel that any source is unreliable, then discuss it in the talk page, don't just remove everything idiotically. There is a limit to being bold. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the words of another editor above, “the list is one of the worst articles that exist on wikipedia”. Please read the points above, refrain from insulting edit summaries, and wait until the discussion is concluded before removing the tags (though, the way things stand, I expect it to result in the removal of the article, not the tags). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You have absolutely no reason to put those tags here. This article has been fine for a long time before you came to do edit warring. EVERY figures here are supported with reliable sources and entries with unreliable source were removed immedietely. If you insist to put the tags, please discuss it on WP:OR or WP:RS, because there are other similar articles in Wikipedia like List of best-selling music artists and List of best-selling singles worldwide. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been fine for a long time; it has been unnoticed. W.r.t. the other articles you mention, please read WP:WAX. The notability tag is there because (WP:N) “A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources”—you should need only two sources for this page, each of which confirms the entire list. The OR tag is there because you are researching the list as presented (isn’t that obvious?). Here’s another clue for you all (WP:MOSBEGIN): If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X". — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you feel unhappy with this article, please open a discussion on WP:OR or WP:RS (not here) to gain wider comments, because this page is not the only one to work by this way. There are many other lists, like List of best-selling music artists, List of best-selling singles worldwide, List of highest-grossing concert tours, etc. Okay? Bluesatellite (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel unhappy with WP policies and goals, then you should debate those on their respective pages. If you can demonstrate that this article complies with WP policies and goals then please do so; the forum for that is now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling albums worldwide (but please read WP:WAX first). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Martin(1999) sold 22 million of copies

Ricky Martin(1999) sold 22 million of copies200.73.96.194 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Novice7 | Talk 11:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

MAKAVELI?????

Where is Makaveli? Tupac's Makaveli album sold 29 million copies worldwide. It should be on this list. Biggie's Life After Death should be on here too. Think that sold somewhere around 20 million worldwide. This list ignores rappers entirely (MC Hammer not rap---that shit is Pop). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.194.162 (talk • contribs)

Sources? postdlf (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Queen - Made In Heaven

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/mar/20/news1 According to this source, Made in Heaven sold at least 20 million copies worldwide. Please add this album. Alex Mane (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.174.128.138, 25 April 2011

In 1990 Green Day sold over 60 million records sold :) !-- End request --> 74.174.128.138 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 DeclinedHighly unlikely, and requires a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Usher

there isn't a source for usher leave it --AccendiLaLuce (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SHAKIRA- LAUNDRY SERVICE

The Shakira´s album Laundry Service has sold more than 20 millon copies around the world!!

Nirvana Sales Update

"Nevermind" by Nirvana has sold over 30 million albums worldwide, up from the currently-listed 26 million. Source: http://www.nirvana.com/news/default.aspx

Kcorthe (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please provide reliable third party sources for the same. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable third party evidence of this sudden leap from 26 million yet someone seems to have sneaked it into the list as 30 million.Needs rectifying.

The Beatles??? Where are they?

This list shows best selling albums and there are only 2 albums from Beatles adding a total of 60 million records... But in your OTHER list, the one of best-selling_music_artists ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists ) you put The Beatles in top (doesnt surprise at all, they are The Beatles) with certified 250 Million records sold. At the right, is the "claimed sales" detail with a very posible BILLION records sold by them, personally i think its even more... So i really cant believe they only nailed 2 very low places, the math doesnt add, no matter how you put it. Am i missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.43.251 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Beatles album such as the 'White Album' are not mentioned yes sales of this album exceeds 20 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLEetw123001 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what usually happens with older artists (like artists from the 50's and 60's) is that they have dozens and dozens of albums certified "Gold" or "1x Platinum" and only a couple certified "Diamond" or "11x Platinum", This how an artist like Elvis can accumulate 186.3 million in sales (just in the United States) with barely two albums certified more than 5x Platinum. Mauri96 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Apple claimed in November 2010 that The Beatles sold 600m records - singles, albums, EPs. Not a billion. And record companies usually exaggerate sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijjb (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

"The list takes no account of any kind of copyright infringing activity such as home taping or the emergence of illegal downloading of digital music in the 2000s[citation needed] or of pirate sales of copied discs." could certainly be phrased in a more NPOV way and probably shouldn't contain hidden links like home taping and illegal downloading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.192.190 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Currter, 3 September 2011

For Michael Jackson's' "Thriller" , the category should include R&B along with Pop/Rock.

Currter (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As it appears on the album's wikipedia page, Thriller (album),  Done ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to List of best-selling albums. Favonian (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

List of best-selling albums worldwide → List of best-selling albums – This is unneeded--that's not how we name pages on Wikipedia. There is no History of Algeria until now or List of jazz albums so far (cf. Talk:List_of_longest_reigning_monarchs_of_all_time#Suggested_move.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. "Worldwide" is unnecessary because it's already implied by "List of best-selling albums". Jenks24 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is automatically unrestricted by being unqualified, so it quite naturally applies to the whole world. Retaining "worldwide" promotes an unwelcome assumption that other titles on Wikipedia that lack "worldwide" apply to the US only, or the English-speaking world only, etc. Noetica^Tea? 06:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Who's Tommy

I think The Who's Tommy should be on the list because it sold 20 million copies. Proof: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandjazzmusic/3653281/Hope-I-dont-have-a-heart-attack.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebbenSebben123 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nossttam, 29 September 2011

Please change the year of release of Ace Of Base album "The Sign" to 1993 when the album was officially released.

Sources: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ace-of-base-p43297/discography

Thank you!

Nossttam (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with MJ THRILLER

This was surprising.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.236.150 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

mj history

according to the "history; past present and future " album page on wikipedia ,it has sold 40 million units, please place it in the correct area,,thank you--65.8.187.20 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The list is by number of copies, not units. — Bility (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road used to be on this list, but has since been removed. I do not know why. It has sold at least 31 million copies. Can this be added back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Echidna (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 2 November 2011

There is a typo in the following fragment: " the highest being for claims of at least 50 million copies, "

It should read: " the highest being for claims of at least 40 million copies, " (40 instead of 50 million)

Soleary7 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done You're right, I fixed it, thank you. Zidanie5 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a leftover from when the article used to have one more section, called "50 million copies or more" (with only Thriller in the table). When the section was ditched, the number wasn't changed accordingly. Zidanie5 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Move THIS PAGE off line! 'List of best-selling albums worldwide', that is. Found a contradistinction in less than a minute. Canada's #1 sold 120 million according to writer. M Jackson Thriller 110 world wide. The article is an easy mark for corporate 'bots' and spammers. NOTE: It is nice as an index but there is a lot of incorrect information. In terms of the old industry, it is after the 1940's with Frank Sinatra, then Elvis Presley, when record sales start to skew. 1980's marks the rise of artist released albums and it is changing again. ASCAP and BMI are still the most consistent source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

'Thriller' has not sold 110 million. Certified sales of this album do not exceed 49 million. Also, the sales of Beatles albums in the UK is also incorrect. There was no audit source for certifications of Beatles albums in the UK until 1973. These are just 2 mistakes of many I have found on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLEetw123001 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

'THRILLER' - The 110 Sale given for it is regarded as 100% garbge by any real Chart Fan.

It has sold no more than about 59 Million to 66 Million. Had it sold 110 Million its Sales in numerous Countries would have to be doubled. For example, it would have had to sell about 58 Million in the USA, rather than the 29 Million that it has actually sold. It would have had to sell about 8 Million to 8.6 Million in the UK rather, than its true Sale of around 4 Million to 4.3 Million.

 The 110 Milion claim came from a Sony Press release - in about 2005. It was never true, but it
has now been quoted as 'Fact', by people who know nothing about these matters. [...] that the Thriller album sales of 110 Million

claim is hugely exaggerated. 82.22.125.117 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)