Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of best-selling albums worldwide/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [1].

List of best-selling albums worldwide[edit]

previous FLC (04:02, 8 April 2008)

Me and Kodster have worked really hard on this article, we are sure its strong enough to pass FL. It has improved significantly since the last review. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominater. I support --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominater. Every entry is well-sourced, it is organized clearly, and has a lead that summarizes the list, with inclusion criteria and other information. Definitely a worthy list. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support, it's a good list.Xp54321 (Talk,Contribs) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm unsure about this one. It is certainly well-researched, but it seems to be pieced together from multiple articles and multiple sources, some dating as far back as 2000 and are just mentioned in passing in articles. Album sales can change a lot in 8 years and different sites use different sources for their sales figures. Is there at least one reliable list of top selling albums that you could use as a source? Also, one of the links doesn't work [2] -- Scorpion0422 01:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, some do date quite far back, but i used them because they were respected sources and the sales figure actually wouldnt have moved much in 8 years. There is no list as such, there are a few good sources that might give the top ten selling albums but not a list of the top 50 or so, such as we have. As for that link, it did work a few days ago, i have now replaced it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to oppose on the grounds that several of your figures may be out of date. There is just too much of a range in the dates of sources for me to support it. For example, this BBC source for the Backstreet Boys' Millenium is from February 2000 and says it has sold more than 30 million copies. The album was released just over a year prior to that, so isn't it more than possible that the album has sold several million more copies since then? And then you have potentially outdated sources like that mixed in with some as recent as a couple of months ago. It's not just that one, there is a huge range of sources. Either try and find a reliable list, or try and get sources from roughly the same period. -- Scorpion0422 01:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, we can look for more up to date sources where possible. How recent would you be prepared to accept (as a guideline for me when i go looking). Cheer.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Scorpion on this one. I think anything dated 2006 or before would be considered out of date. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email)
      • Why not something like 5 or 10 years after the album was released (except for recent albums). I think after this period the sales would settle down. Eklipse (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats a bad idea, we would have to rename the article; List of best-selling albums worldwide (Oh according to how well they sold in a ten year period). That no way represents what this list is called or about. Best bet is to go for up to date sources, my question is, just how up to date do we need.Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That what I was saying. Instead of fixing a year (like 2006), I say that we can consider that any source published after 5 or 10 years after the release of the album, the sales figures that it mentions for that album can be considered accurate enough. It's more flexible and easier than a fixed year. Eklipse (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, i get you, sorry. However by that standard im not sure it would take affect here. When it comes the older albums we are well within that suggested limit. The problem sources seem to be for the newer albums such as backstreet boys. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 16:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • What about a Beatles album released in 64? If a figure was published in 69, that would be fine for "Best selling albums in the 1960s", but if no figure has been reported since, I'm willing to bet my house, car and kidneys that that figure is now out of date. This is why I said "anything before 2006 is out of date". That could be changed to 2005 to give more leeway. It's not feasible to get figures for 2008 yet, there's a good chance for 2007 and 2006, and 2005 is too far gone to get any kind of figures that is still up to date in 2008. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I could settle with 2005, however we wouldnt be able to get that done anytime soon i imagine, im not sure how many are older than 2005. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • as determined by sources that have a history as being trustworthy and reliable." I would hope so if this is featured. It's an unnecessary statement
    • DONE
  • "The criteria are that the album must have been published by some organization (self-publishing by the artist is allowed)," "Some organization" is a bit colloquial.
    • DONE
  • Why is it capped at 20m copies? What makes that figure the magical number for best selling?
    • The answer to that is when you go below 20 million it gets stilly, there are so many albums that have sold between 15-20 million its not a particular achievement. It is also prone to a lot of fan craft, you can just about find a half reliable source that will tell you any album sold 15 million. I could try explaining why 20 million is the cut off in the lead, i would be interested to know how i should possibly word it? Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why the list isn't auto-sorted by sales figures or even albums given that it's an albums sales figures-related list. It would be different were this for artists, where more than one release would be included in a total figure
    • DONE
  • "This list can contain" → "This list contains"
    • DONE
  • "Information is also lacking for non-English language albums." I'm sure it's not, and it's probably more likely that it exists but hasn't been translated into English by someone who contributes to this page
    • DONE
  • "The BBC claim that the Guinness Book of World Records lists it as 65 million copies" Why not simply "The Guinness Book of World Records lists it as 65 million copies"?
    • DONE
  • Because of the different figures given regarding Thriller, why is it listed at above 100 million, rather than 45 million, or 65 million?
    • Because many if not most sources now put it at 100+, but to appease michael jackson haters i also added the opinions of lower sources, they can just be removed if you wish. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 07:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or perhaps to appease the Michael Jackson lovers you included the higher figures? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC) As mentioned by the reviewer below, something more definitive needs to be found, and it doesn't have to be online. Surely the Guinness Book of Records has something on this? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, okay. Instead of getting offensive, maybe you should suggest what we should specifically do with the numbers? Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to see the sections as 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 100 rather than the oddly picked numbers the list currently uses
    • Take a look at the talk page archive 2, i suggested that exact thing, however on closer inspection we realised that a 35-39 box would only contain 3 albums. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genres should be wikilinked
    • DONE
  • classicwhitney.com and Casper's Queen Site are fansites, and disallowed as a reliable source
    • DONE
  • Spice Girls biography at spicegirls.com is owned by the management company, and they are likely to exaggerate figures for their own benefit.
    • DONE
  • Less-biased reliable sources must be found

That's all I have for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A good amateur effort but the sources just aren't good enough to make this a solid trustworthy list that we can say "exemplifies our very best work". For example, the BBC may be a reliable source for many things, but an editor reviewing an article on Mark Knopfler's motorcycle crash isn't going to be that concerned over whether Brothers in Arms sold more than 30m or 40m copies. I appreciate you're having difficulties with vandals on Jackson's entry, but you've got to agree on an authoritative figure for the #1 album. The fact that all the sources are online says to me you haven't ventured to the library or the bookshop to see if you can find a better source. This is a significant topic. I can't believe there isn't a book or music magazine containing an up-to-date listing drawn from record industry figures, rather than newspaper clippings. The list's lead section is still weak and the statement "Additionally fans, record companies and the media are prone to exaggerating sales figures to boost the image of the relevant act." needs a source. I wonder if the list would be better as just one table. That way readers can sort the whole list, and find the biggest selling album of the 70s, for example. Colin°Talk 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK there's the Guinness Book of Hit Singles. IIRC, that has this kind of information. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's Hit Singles, not albums. I'm not sure whether that would have this kind of information. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it now consists of both and has been renamed, but I haven't lived in the UK for some time so check www.whsmith.co.uk -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know any books that give a list of best selling albums, guiness only mentions Thriller. The only "list of albums" are internet sources and none of them are reliable. Thats why we've found individual claims for individual albums. A magical reliable list doesnt exist. Ill check whs now but if its not there then its not there. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nevermind. It was Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums. Actually, you might have an easier time rejigging this list to a number of different best selling albums lists for America, UK, Australia, and any other countries you want to take a stab at. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then its not worldwide. There already is an article on US albums. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you know those sources are truly worldwide figures? Writers can be very parochial and a US journalist may only actually consult US sales figures before saying "XYZ has sold more than NNN million albums". If there is no authoritative source collecting worldwide information, then where do you think all the journalists who wrote the articles you cite got their information from. Either they aren't telling the whole story (likely) or they have access to sources you haven't yet found (also likely). At the moment, it looks like this list is doomed to be just a "best guess". Colin°Talk 11:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to tell these arent just US figures, ive checked the official RIAA for the sales of these albums. The RIAA figures and these figures are commpletely different. Also the tagging on of the word WORLDWIDE in each source helps. Every source identifies its figure as worldwide and non of the match the US sales of the RIAA. I specifically checked to make sure they werent just using RIAA figures. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you definitely say that all 245 countries are represented when each "worldwide" claim is made? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the music market is only made up of about 35 countries, yes, i think i can. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion A by Realist2[edit]

OK, by the looks of it there are no reliable lists out there that document the list of worlds best selling albums. At least they woundnt be considered reliable by FA standard. Therefore it seems unlikely that this article could EVER be FL, no matter how well researched. There seems to be a concern that the list almost amounts to original research or something. Thus i have a suggestion, to word the article like it was when first created. Instead of giving the article the bold notion of being a definitive list of the worlds best selling records, could be instead reword the article to state that it is a CLAIMS article, an article that documents the highest claims for an albums sales. It needs to be worded carefully, but i think thats more accurately what this article represents. It documents claims from sources that are reliable. Basically it will be worded like it once was. Instead of saying "Albums that has sold 25-29 million copies" it will read "Claims of sales between 25-29 million". Other things need rewording but i think it will work better that way. Thoughts. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to pop in and check my watchlist. Your suggestion would be a good idea, but it (I think) would never reach FL. Wikipedia should be able to hold on on its own, and shouldn't have to resort to pick-and-choose sourcing. Realist2's suggestion is a solution to the problem, but would have the same result (namely, failing FL). If you're an FL reviewer, and you disagree with me, feel free to do so. But I doubt the probability, for lack of a better word, of your suggestion reaching FL. Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, im just trying lol, ive called a few people back, maybe they will like it, otherwise the article is stupped. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I'm going to be here for exactly 2 more minutes, so bear with me. I think that this article, unless a/some definitive lists can be found, is pretty much down the drain. This isn't the easiest list to source, unlike the U.S. best-selling albums (LOL, RIAA to the rescue). That's all, but keep trying and maybe we'll find a way. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attempt with the reword suggestion, but no, an encyclopaedia lists facts not claims (except perhaps if those claims were notable in themselves because they were widely documented lies, for example). Colin°Talk 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion B by Realist2[edit]

OK ive found a definitive list here. One problem, it only ranks the albums but doesnt give specific sales. If people are opposed to suggestion A, we can use this list and do either of the following. i) Write the list out exactly as the source does, removing any sales figures. ii) Write the list out exactly as the source does and add a column for "Highest claims" so we can at least try and give some figures. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list, it doesn't seem accurate based on the few reliable sources that the article uses. For example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is ahead of Back in Black. Might want to check that out. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the research we have done counts for anything against a definitive list, still thats why we should keep a highest claims catagory so all that stuff can still remain. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Republishing media traffic's list could be a case of WP:COPYVIO, so I'd be careful there. :::When was their list last updated? It could be years old. There are still problems with any "highest claims". Who made the claims? Reliable news sources? Where did they get their facts from? Perhaps the record company, who might be inclined to up the figures for their own benefit. Perhaps from an interview with the artists themselves. Again, they could up it for their own benefit. You'd have to be careful not to use any fan sites, or any primary sources. You'd also have to make sure any tertiary sources are not simply rehashing primary sources. See also WP:SOURCE and WP:RS Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also take care of when the claims were made. As discussed above, anything older than 2005 is unlikely to be correct now, and even claims made after then may be using figures from before then. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just scrap the figures, its going to be inpossible by wikipedias mad standards. Lets just get the definitive list down. This is getting silly different sides are telling us different things, at last i find the definitive list i was told to look for now all of a sudden thats copy vio. Either way i just cant win, you know? I say scrap the figures and just write the list. The list was compiled in 2007 so its fresh. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide/archive2&oldid=1149835255"