Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 2

message: Would it be possible to clean up this talk section by giving it some structure, sorting the artists alphabetically etc?
--83.109.142.134 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it possible to structure the talk?

message: ===Why was Jethro Tull removed from the list?===
According to the band's 1999 bio, they have sold approx. 60 million records. They used to be in this list but have disappeared.
68.170.73.213 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfixable.  To do this right, you'd have to have reliable worldwide data (doesn't exist), a better wiki table formatting/numbering mechanism (doesn't exist), a real database query mechanism for the stats (doesn't exist), and no vandals (too many exist).  Vorash spent tons of time and effort on this list, but eventually he was driven insane and left Wikipedia.   Wasted Time R 00:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I gotta agree that this entry is so inaccurate and prone to rogue editing that it's pretty much useless. --Jacj 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins usually require more than a simple majority for deletion.  Sometimes it's two thirds, and sometimes they take into consideration the quality of the arguments being made. -- Beland 21:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't delete.  This is the first time I've seen the list and the first time I've discovered Nana Mouskouri, Cliff Richard, and re-discovered C.W. McCall.  It had an Indian Artist "Jazzy B" when I first found it.  I tried to edit and add India as the country and by the time the edit page came up, someone removed it.  Anyway, I used my Yahoo Music subscription to listen to these 4 artists and loved each one.  I think this is a great list and should encourage listing total sales from international artists, not just USA, Canada, and the UK.  I realize that it's far from perfect, but the disclaimers at the top specify that.  It's getting about 20 edits a day, which I think is good.  It might take a year or more, but eventually it will settle down once rules are defined and posted.  Please let this Wiki play it's course.  I believe the result will be very valuable in exposing great music to young listeners like me.
===Tag===
I'm adding a disputed tag.  If this article survives AfD pretty much every number on here will be disputed at some point or another as there is no definitive repository of international record sales.    Suggest leaving this tag up since at any given point this information is being changed/disputed.  Probably a better indication of this than the ridiculous salt shaker image.--Isotope23 19:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Readded Tag that was removed in edits.  I also removed the intro commentary about "enjoying the music" and "Amen!"... non-encyclopedic commentary.--Isotope23 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not, by the way, intended to endorse any particular version of the list, but to reflect the fact that over the last 48 hours it has become almost impossible to distinguish the vandle edits and the serious edits. Perhpas a short protected period might cool it down again, and allow ana ttempt for a verifiable list to be created Robdurbar 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: According to the band's 1999 bio, they have sold approx. 60 million records. They used to be in this list but have disappeared.
68.170.73.213 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was Jethro Tull removed from the list?

message: The intro should definately be changed. You can't say things like "the biggest selling musician ever will probably never be know", because that is POV unless it is sourced. I have re-worded the intro, and sourced were applicable. Hope you find it easier to read, and more accurate. Street walker 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major POV in the intro

message: I am not removing anyone from the list I am just moving artists around (not changing their numbers)  So that their position on the list is based on their current cited number, I am also crosschecking these numbers as I go along to make sure they have not been tampered with.  Also there were two for Paul Anka, and despite being a Canadian I removed the higher of the two, because its source was questionable, as the source for the lower one could be considered somewhat more reliable, if someone can find a credible source, not the one discussed in the very first section, feel free to move him back up the list. --Meanie 05:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits and Revisions 

message: Here is what I propose we do, we should use the RIAA as a standard for American artists, if their numbers from sources of sales are not stacking up, then we should edit them to bring them into line with the RIAA.  I see many artists on here who their sources that are listed cite them has having sold 100 million in the United States.  However the RIAA has never heard of them. --Meanie 05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA Standard 

message: This section I have not fixed, but it was evidently destoryed by Vandals, as it is completely gone.  We need to replace this section. --Meanie 06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of 200-249 

message: 4 Aug 2005 24.250.0.79: 
Furthermore, this list is a mess. I had to add the Beatles but I don't know all the necessary information. The number one spot is some Japanese singer that I am pretty sure doesn't belong there. The numbering is all wrong because bands have been deleted and added. The statistics at the bottom do not match the list. There are bands that clearly belong on the list but are not there, etc. Someone please fix this!
:Unfixable.  To do this right, you'd have to have reliable worldwide data (doesn't exist), a better wiki table formatting/numbering mechanism (doesn't exist), a real database query mechanism for the stats (doesn't exist), and no vandals (too many exist).  Vorash spent tons of time and effort on this list, but eventually he was driven insane and left Wikipedia.   Wasted Time R 00:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This list is a mess

message: Could someone take a look at the "Notes" section? I did what I could for the first two paragraphs, but had to stop there.  There must be a way to reword the sentence, "sales projected from US album sales data based on "popularity" in the world and based on US/World sales ratio of similar artists that already have both US and World sales data." to something less headache-inducing. 24.4.199.243 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: About half of it is total nonsense. Nuff said. It's almost laughable.
second that thought --Rightsaidfred 01:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst List Ever!!! 

message: This edit strikes me as possible sneaky vandalism, as it is by an editor who has done nothing but change numbers without edit summaries or cited sources; in one case it was immediately obvious that the change was incorrect, but I am not sure about this one. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible sneaky vandalism 

message: I'm adding a disputed tag.  If this article survives AfD pretty much every number on here will be disputed at some point or another as there is no definitive repository of international record sales.    Suggest leaving this tag up since at any given point this information is being changed/disputed.  Probably a better indication of this than the ridiculous salt shaker image.--Isotope23 19:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded Tag that was removed in edits.  I also removed the intro commentary about "enjoying the music" and "Amen!"... non-encyclopedic commentary.--Isotope23 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: I've just renumbered everything on the start of the list (10, 20, 30; was 11, 21, 31 ...) to have the ranks numbered the same way as with ranks 100ff.
And I've found a huge bug. Please look at the David Bowie line (#40) and then count by hand down to 50. You will arrive at somewhere over 50 but the next section (50~99) will start with 50. OUCH! -andy 80.129.80.89 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole list seems to have a structural error 

message: Should this page be locked to prevent editing and vandalism? I suggest the page be locked, and if someone thinks something on the page should be edited, the make a request and provide reliable sources to back it up. Street walker 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this page? 

message: This article needs some working definitions of what an artist is, and what exactly counts as a sale.  Otherwise it makes no sense.
Is an artist one person or a group?  Should a solo career be separate from a band that, that artist led?
Eg: Jackson Five being part of the Michael Jackson statistic, Paul McCartney, the Beatles, The Wings... ect.
A sale is...? 
A single?
An album?
A download off iTunes or the like?
Each track off a album/single?(Zonzhal 10:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions? 

message: The concept is great, and there are some outstanding wikipedia MEMBERS who are contributing, but a majority of the people editing this article are doing it to promote their favorite band using no creditable sources.  Therefore, I highly suggest that this list be completely restarted and carefully watched by a panel of people. Just a thought.  Deckiller 01:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is quite possibly the worst list on the site because of vandalism. 

message: Due to the large levels of vandalism of this page over the last two days, I have listed it under Wikipedia:Requests for protection.Robdurbar 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not, by the way, intended to endorse any particular version of the list, but to reflect the fact that over the last 48 hours it has become almost impossible to distinguish the vandle edits and the serious edits. Perhpas a short protected period might cool it down again, and allow ana ttempt for a verifiable list to be created Robdurbar 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request For Protection

message: Michael Jackson recieved the World Music Award for "Best Selling Artist of the Millennium" in 2000, "Best-selling artist ever" in 1996, and "World's Best Selling Pop Artist", and "World's Best Selling Artist Of The Era" in 1993. In 2002, he recieved an American Music Awards for "Artist Of The Century", a Bambi award for "Artist of the millenium", an MTV Video Music Award for "Artist Of The Millennium". Surely all this must count for something. The Beatles didn't get this award, neither did Elvis. Michael Jackson is the best selling artist of all-time PERIOD. Source 61.69.178.169 12:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who should be on top at #1?

message: Below, you will see the sales figures of each and every one of his solo albums and singles, both with the Motown label and Epic label. I have also provided my calculations and what I can gather is Michael Jackson's total sales figure. I get these figures from very reliable sources, which I've also provided. If you disagree with these sales figures, or if my calculations are incorrect, please let me know. I am more than willing to debate this issue, if you feel Michael Jackson total sales are something different from what I have calculated.
Sources: "The MJ Fan Site", "MJ Fans United Club", "Michael Jackson Himself", "His Fans", " Captain Eo Productions", MJJ Productions press-releases   
SOLO MOTOWN ALBUMS:
Got To Be There: 4.1 Million
Ben: 4.4 Million
Music & Me: 2 Million
Forever: 1.6 Million
Best Of MJ: 2.2 Million
One Day In Your Life: 1.5 Million
Farewell My Summer Love: 2 Million
Looking Back On Yesterday: 300, 000
The Original Soul of MJ: 370, 000
Anthology: 2.5 Million
TOTAL = 20, 970, 000
SOLO EPIC ALBUMS
Off The Wall: 20 Million
Thriller: 60 Million
Bad: 31 Million
Dangerous: 32 Million
HIStory: 36 Million (classified double album)
Blood On The Dance Floor: 6 Million
Invincible: 8 Million
Greatest Hits (HIStory Vol 1): 3 Million
Number Ones: 6.5 Million
The Ultimate Collection: 250, 000
Essential MJ: 2 Million
TOTAL = 204, 750, 000
TOTAL ALBUM SALES = 225, 720, 000
____________________________________________
SOLO MOTOWN SINGLES:
Got To Be There: 2.2 Million
Rockin Robin: 2.8 Million
Ben: 2.8 Million
I Wanna Be Where You Are: 1.3 Million
With A Child's Heart: 340, 000
We're Almost There: 400, 000
Just A Little Bit Of You: 860, 000
Aint No Sunshine: 280, 000
Morning Glow: 15, 000
Music & Me: 12, 000
Doggin Around: 5, 000
One Day In Your Life: 1.7 Million
Happy: 145, 000
Girl You're So Together: 90, 000
Touch The One You Love: 1, 000
Farewell My Summer Love: 780, 000
Twenty Five Miles: 10, 000
TOTAL = 13, 738, 000
SOLO EPIC SINGLES
As of 1989: 35 Million
1990-1993: 17 Million
1994-1997: 11 Million
1998-2003: 7 Million
TOTAL = 70 Million
TOTAL SINGLES SALES = 83, 738, 000
____________________________________________
TOTAL ALBUMS SALES: 225, 720, 000
+
TOTAL SINGLE SALES: 83, 738, 000
= 309, 458, 000
(Note: The figures from Motown are from 1990, since then (with most of his Motown albums being re-released on CD) he has probably sold 10 million more, bringing the total to 319 Million)
MICHAEL JACKSON'S TOTAL SOLO ALBUM AND SINGLES SALES: 310, 000, 000 (approx.)
61.68.80.124 06:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Jackson's worldwide sales break-down

message: Only in Wikipedia could Leonard Cohen be claimed to have 210 million record sales.
An influential songwriter, yes.  Easy to listen to, no.  A big seller of records, no no.  I'd be surprised if his lifetime sales are 2 million, much less 210 million.    Wasted Time R 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
You think he didn't sell even 20 million ? Vorash 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
I Highly doubt it! 195.93.21.40 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leonard Cohen

message: She is maybe Canada's shame and all, but she sold a lot of albums and I don't see her on the list...
:She was there, now she's there again. You just have to look at the right time, that's the key to this list!   Wasted Time R 01:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celine Dion 

message: Why did somebody remove James Last from the list?  Last has sold more than 100 million albums.  For the past few days, I have been adding James Last to the list on an almost daily basis.  Then a few hours passes, and some vandal edits him out.  What is going on here?
--83.109.142.134 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Last 

message: Where Is MODERN TALKING with official (source BMG) 120 mln. sales
Look at this article: Modern Talking.--80.134.240.104 17:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Talking 

message: Queen Post #1:
Because Queen was anomalously less popular in the US than in the world as a whole, US figures will tend to under-estimate the number of albums sold by this hugely popular international band. As an example of the US anomaly, although the song "A Kind of Magic" 
reached the number one position in 35 different countries, it was not even in the US top 40! In fact, Queen is so popular in England that they have actually spent more time on the charts than even The Beatles()!
Most recently, an Ericsson poll of 600,000 people in 66 different countries found "We Are the Champions" to be the world's most popular songInterestingly, this finding contradicts the findings of a another huge world-wide poll conducted by Guinness World which showed "Bohemian Rhapsody" to be the world's favorite song !!!
My point in sharing all of this is that, whether or not Americans are aware of it (after all,
"Bohemian Rhapsody" only reached the #9 spot in the US), Queen is  actually one of 
the most popular bands in the world. To this day, Queen still holds the record for the 
highest concert attendance ever for a single band (Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1981) and there 
was not a single country in which Queen could not sell out entire stadiums.
Note: Several of the Queen references provided by Wikipedia users have been repeatedly vandalised!!
My suggestion is that, if people do not agree with the references cited, then, rather than simply erasing them and moving the band down 100 spots, they provide alternative sources which contradict those that are cited. If Queen's relative position is to then be drastically altered based upon any sort of contradicting information, then not only should the alternative source be referenced, but explanations should be provided as to why this latter source is more appropriate than those sources currently listed.
____________________________________________
   
Queen Post #2:
Keep in mind that Queen although lacked sales in the US because of Freddie's change of image etc... they continued to increase their sales all over the world... including Japan and South America were they were very famous. In Europe, Queen had a string of number 1 albums and they were hugely successful there. A kind of magic alone reached No.1 in 30 countries. This year (2005),Queen have officialy passed the beatles in UK in the album charts making them even bigger than the beatles (in album sales in Uk). One can check this out in this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4648611.stm. 
I think that this is a great achievement.
____________________________________________________________________
This doesn't mean they've sold more albums in the UK than the Beatles, just that they've spent more cumulative weeks on the albums chart.  The two may or may not correlate.   Wasted Time R 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen

message: Cliff Richard is said to have sold 250 million records per his official website http://www.cliffrichard.org/biog/index.cfm, and holds a huge number of UK charts records, yet he keeps getting dropped completely from the list.  What gives?  I guess the Michael Jackson fanatics that control this page now don't approve of him.    Wasted Time R 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cliff Richard

message: Added Roxette becouse they have sold enugh. According to the official website of the bad they've sold 45 million albums and 25 million singles. They ougth to know, rigth? So I put them down on 70m.
Hello??? Who do people keep deleting what I add? I've added Roxette two times now and someone keeps deleting them! Withoute even writing an arugment here on the talk-page. WHAT'S THE F*****G POINT WITH HAVEING A WIKIPEDIA IF ONE CAN'T ADD INFORMATION?
:More like misinformation, amirite? --Jacj 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roxette 

message: Quotation (by an expert): "I'm no statistician and his total sales are nowhere near the top of my Sinatra interests. However, I would guess that if you count his 78's, 45's, LP's, EP's, casssettes, 8 tracks and CD's, the total has to be many times 50 million.
He made his first record in 1939 and recorded until 1993. He has made hundreds of "singles." At least two of them, "All Or Nothing at All" and "Something Stupid," each sold over one million. Many more in the 40's, 50's and 60's were best sellers. He made more than 40 singles alone between '53 and '60 for Capitol. Add to that all lthe singles he made with RCA, Columbia and Reprise and sales have to exceed 50 million in just singles.
A bunch of his albums such as "Come Dance with Me" and "Only the Lonely" have sold at least a million each, maybe several million over the decades in their various formats. And there are 100+ more albums sold in the 45, LP, EP, 8 track, casssette and CD formats (remember 8 tracks?).
FS was primarily an album seller, but with just singles alone, there have to be more than 50 million.
Take all of the above and include collections, box sets of 2, 3, 4, 10, 20 or more LP's, CD's, etc,, and I would guess you have more than 500 million. "
I think it sounds plausible!
So Frank Sinatra is one of the artists who sold MORE than 250.000.000 Records!
:I agree it sounds plausible. But we need a more substantial claim than 'an expert' on a forums page. In the end, the RIAA list none of his albums as selling over 50 million. I agree that Frank was massive but it was simpy an era in which fewer sales occured. Robdurbar 09:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Sinatra 

message: How is Tupac Shakur not on this list?
--andrew 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is, under the name 2 Pac, #159 I think.  If you think that's the wrong name for him to be listed under, change it.   Wasted Time R 01:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupac 

message: The figure of 240 million for Neil Young seems highly unlikely, and the source that is quoted is the same outfit that gave the discredited 210 million Leonard Cohen figure – Canadian propaganda or something.
http://www.thrasherswheat.org/tnfy/neilyoungalbums.htm has some Neil Young figures – maybe after you add it all up you get to 24 million, but no way to 240 million.   Wasted Time R 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Leonard Cohen at 210 million figure was the funniest serious (not vandalism) entry this article has ever had.  I now regret having pointed out the ludicrousness of it, I wish it had stayed in.   Wasted Time R 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Young

message: === French sellers ===
There are errors (Marianne James never sold 100 millions!! maybe 1 million, maximum... She's fun, but not a hard-seller. I think it's a joke).  Here are some french artists : Tino Rossi 300 millions, Mireille Mathieu 100 millions (and not 150...), Johnny Hallyday 100 millions, Charles Aznavour 100 millions, Michel Sardou 90 millions, Dalida 85 millions (some sources says 120, but its overweight...), Jean-Michel Jarre 80 millions, Sheila 70 millions, Richard Clayderman 60 millions, Claude françois 60 millions, Henri Salvador 60 millions,Georges Brassens 60 millions, François Valery 40 millions, Chantal Goya : 32 millions, Serge Lama 30 millions, Sylvie Vartan : 30 millions, Francis Cabrel : 25 millions, Joe Dassin : 20 millions,Michele Torr : 20 millions,Renaud : 12 millions
There are a lot more French artists beetween 10 and 80 millions (Pierre Perret, , Téléphone, , Edith Piaf, Barabara, Patrick Bruel, JJ Goldman, Mylene Farmer, Indochine, Richard Antony, Hugues Aufray, Pierre Bachelet, Daniel Balavoine, Guy Béart, Gilbert Bécaud, C Jérome, Karen Cheryl, Julien Clerc, Jacques Dutronc, Dorothée, Henri Des, Jean Ferrat, France Gall, Serge Gainsbourg, Gipsy Kings, Richard Gotainer, Juliette Gréco, Françoise Hardy, Jean-Luc Lahaye, Gérard Lenorma, Michel Fugain, Michel Delpech, Eddy Mitchell, Florent Pagny, Pascal Obispo, Ringo, Dick Rivers, Tino Rossi, Véronique Sanson, Michel Joansz, HF Thiéfaine, Laurent Voulzy, Charles Trénet, Hervé Vilard, Michel Polnareff, for exemple). Good luck for that list, because it's very hard to find the good figures... Clio64B 00:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: National

message: There are errors (Marianne James never sold 100 millions!! maybe 1 million, maximum... She's fun, but not a hard-seller. I think it's a joke).  Here are some french artists : Tino Rossi 300 millions, Mireille Mathieu 100 millions (and not 150...), Johnny Hallyday 100 millions, Charles Aznavour 100 millions, Michel Sardou 90 millions, Dalida 85 millions (some sources says 120, but its overweight...), Jean-Michel Jarre 80 millions, Sheila 70 millions, Richard Clayderman 60 millions, Claude françois 60 millions, Henri Salvador 60 millions,Georges Brassens 60 millions, François Valery 40 millions, Chantal Goya : 32 millions, Serge Lama 30 millions, Sylvie Vartan : 30 millions, Francis Cabrel : 25 millions, Joe Dassin : 20 millions,Michele Torr : 20 millions,Renaud : 12 millions
There are a lot more French artists beetween 10 and 80 millions (Pierre Perret, , Téléphone, , Edith Piaf, Barabara, Patrick Bruel, JJ Goldman, Mylene Farmer, Indochine, Richard Antony, Hugues Aufray, Pierre Bachelet, Daniel Balavoine, Guy Béart, Gilbert Bécaud, C Jérome, Karen Cheryl, Julien Clerc, Jacques Dutronc, Dorothée, Henri Des, Jean Ferrat, France Gall, Serge Gainsbourg, Gipsy Kings, Richard Gotainer, Juliette Gréco, Françoise Hardy, Jean-Luc Lahaye, Gérard Lenorma, Michel Fugain, Michel Delpech, Eddy Mitchell, Florent Pagny, Pascal Obispo, Ringo, Dick Rivers, Tino Rossi, Véronique Sanson, Michel Joansz, HF Thiéfaine, Laurent Voulzy, Charles Trénet, Hervé Vilard, Michel Polnareff, for exemple). Good luck for that list, because it's very hard to find the good figures... Clio64B 00:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French sellers 

message: Rather than lsiting the artists in the current format, why do we not reform it to group artists into sections depending on approximate number of sales. We could have the top group of 'Artists who have sold over 250 000 000 records; artists who have sold over 100 000 000 records; artists who have sold over 50 000 000 records. Within these groups we could list them in alpahabetical order.
This might stop some of the deabtes over the exact order, which is petty and undoable given the lack of suitbale soruces. This page (my sandbox) shows how the first group would look, based on current figures. The other groups who be done in the same manner, though I don't have time to draw up the tables at the moment.Robdurbar 16:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, well if I get not feedback about this I will go ahead and make the changes anyway Robdurbar 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this list is a complete mess, and the figures are wrong. It is impossible to rank these artists so exactly; new editors will just come in and shuffle people about, making up false and unrefernced figures.
By introducing this new format, the article will still be a list of the best selling music artists, but a more accurate and realistic one. Robdurbar 18:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I disagree. In producing a new format, I'm also going through the sources for each entry. Many of them are sourced by unverified claims in other Wikipedia articles, through websites that copy their content from Wikipedia or through sites that do not mention the sales figures.
Even where there are sources, a quick google search finds that these are often fansites, or sites making vague claims - e.g. 'over 100 million record sales'. The page as it is - due to its format as much as anything else - contains incorrect and misleading information. A version similar to the proposed one would make it more accurate Robdurbar 10:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're really going to use this new format, the second class should be 200 million, not 250 million.  The current 50-100-250-300 progression makes no sense, whereas 50-100-200-300 would.   Wasted Time R 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So somebody changed the section title text from 250 million to 200 million, but didn't move any of the artists in the 200-250 million range into the section.  This really is the worst article in Wikipedia.   Wasted Time R 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Format

message: The old is better because you can get good estimate. Although there has been vandalism going in this site, the list has remained rather stable. The new list, although a good idea, will only cause more debate especially since in the intro Elvis and The Beatles where glorified as the likely countenders worlwide. I know of many sites and many people worldwide who would say its Led Zeppelin, or Michael Jackson, or Abba. The old list should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.104.16.26 (talk • contribs) 
Well how about the new format without the Presley/Beatles comments? The fact is that the old version is far more inaccurate than the new one. 
As you say yourself, arguments rage about who his the biggest seller, and few of the sources stand out as being more reliable than the others. For example, previously, the only source given for Elvis Presely claimed he had sold 1 billion records; the article here said he had 300 000? Where on earth did that figure come from? Like many on the page, it was random, or created by guess work. This new grouped format allows us to present agreed-upon fact, rather than speculation.
Robdurbar 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Format ( Continued) 

message: Ok well then its settled. The new list should stay, but might I add that another section should be added with artist who are believed to sell over 300 million. Even though people dispute whose the best-seller, we know that Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Abba, and The Beatles are well in the 300 million margin. This list is better then the last in some respect but the only thing is we know that 250 doesnt do any of this artist any just. I think the 300 million margin should stay and it should not go any higher to give more agreeable statistics. other then that this is the most fitting list and it will more than likely stop the vandalism.
-Kelvin
:If you're really going to use this new format, the second class should be 200 million, not 250 million.  The current 50-100-250-300 progression makes no sense, whereas 50-100-200-300 would.   Wasted Time R 03:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So somebody changed the section title text from 250 million to 200 million, but didn't move any of the artists in the 200-250 million range into the section.  This really is the worst article in Wikipedia.   Wasted Time R 13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New List  Again 

message: Hey guys, well done for clearing this list up finally. Although there may be a few niggles with it remaining, it is a vast improvement, so credit to whoever sorted it out.
In response to whoever said that Led Zeppelin may have sold more than the Beatles, I have to say that I am a massive Zep fan, but don't believe they sold more than the Beatles.
An interesting stat:
Only 2 bands in history have achieved 5 diamond albums (albums selling more than 10 million).
They are Zep and the Beatles.
Anyway, well done again.
12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: As a user of Italian Wikipedia , since the article has been cleaned up and seems to have good sources, I wanted to copy the tables and, if necessary, translate some parts (for example, nationality). Are there any good chances to have the article unprotected in order to proceed? Thanks in advance (you may see our stub here )--Felyx 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian translation 

message: The new list before was better when it stopped at 250 million as the highest format. Now fans of Elvis, MJ, Abba and The Beatles have added the 300 million just to put their fave acts at the top. I say put it back to 250 million, then 100 million, then 50 million and leave it at that. More accurate listings then. Also, deleted the mention of Michael Jackson in the heading, The mention of Elvis and The Beatles selling a billion was deleted, so why do MJ fans think they can put their man in the top? Ridiculous! Todd
In reply to last change, 300 million format is fair, I mean yes it seems perfectly clear that The Beatles, Michael jackson, Elvis Presley and Led Zepplin have sold at least 300 million records. This got nothing to do with fans wishes or fans celebration. In any case if Mr Smith or Mr Sam or Ms Betty (fake names) are the best selling artists you will always find some comentaries highlighting their fans conspiracy to put them on the top. If I'm not happy finding out that Beatles, Jackson, Presley are the best selling artists than my favorites Cliff Richard and Bob Marley then it's my business but it doesn't give the right to criticize the 3 I mentioned above. I hope everybody will get that.
Your list is unfair mate (the one who put 200 million format), by removing The Jacksons from the list your point of view is not objective. Actually I'm not a fan of Led Zepplin BUT they are together with the Beatles the world best selling band ever. If you expect to change the list format please put forward your objective reasons and then change. I hope some day one official organisation will finally state about the top 100 world best selling artists of all time as the World Music Award stated only about the world best selling artist of all time (i.e Michael Jackson) they should let us know about the second, third until the 100th and update that each year just like does RIAA for US sales.
:I have moved it back to the original with 250 million sales as the top brakcet; I did feel that this worked  best. I wouldn't be agianst a paragraph at the top explaining that the artists most commonly labeled as best sellers are elvis and the beatles, with claims existing for MJ, ABBA and Led Zepplin, noting that none of these are confirmed Robdurbar 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and PLEASE Sign Your Posts!!Robdurbar 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do others think of this one? I'm in two minds at the moment, but it's not the worst idea I've ever heard? Robdurbar 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, go for it Robdurbar 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About The New List

message: Was mentioned on the list before now isnt- Certified sales of over 70 million records - Britains best selling female artist and most successful solo artist of the 20th century
:No she hasn't, isn't, and wasn't. Proto t c 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petula Clark 

message: WHERE THE FUCK IS CHER?
She has sold over 100 millionen records all over the world +.~
Cher wikipedia page stated 100 million records sales as solo artist but without mentioning any link. Is there anybody to find out this information (100 million record sold) in any reliable website or pages? at least if CHER official website could state about this I think this will help to put her in the 100 million format. I've been searching and I found out that CHER sold 12,5 million ALBUMS only in the US (source RIAA), so she probably has sold more singles than album in America, and so worldwidly. I hope some people will get reliable sources on that. Readerweb 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cher 

message: I have gone through all the sources on the page, making sure they are (relatively) reputable and agree with our claims. I have removed various artists where the sources say they have sold fewer records than this article claims, or where there is absolutely no hint that they might have sold so many records.
The following artists have been left in as, although I could not find any useable sources that show they have sold the records claimed, there appears to be some evidence (either unuseable or overly vague) that suggests that they might deserve to be here. If anyone can find sources for these acts, then they can stay in the list. Otherwise, they will have to go for the sake of consistency:
* Modern Talking
* Björk
* Eric Clapton
* Fairouz
* Guns N' Roses
* Paul McCartney
* Mötley Crüe
* Oasis
* Simon and Garfunkel
Robdurbar 20:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However, I have now removed the above from the list as they are all unsourced Robdurbar 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrefernced Artists

message: Has sold at least 50 million albums worldwide according to the promotional details of the Majikat DVD  and should therefore be included. However whether his total record sales fit in the 50-100 million category or 100-250 million category I haven't been able to figure out yet. Cedars 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cat Stevens]] 

message: Probably belong in the 50 million plus category. I'm thinking it may be better to just delete this category and focus on those with 100 million plus sales. Cedars 04:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Spice Girls]] 

message: Best-selling female singer dosn't even try to rank sales and perhaps this page shouldn't either.  This would be a much better way to lay out the page noting ABBA, the Beatles, Elvis and 3 or 4 others who might be close. Honestlly, despite being a very similar topic this layout dosn't have the confussion that this page has --T-rex 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS that page that gave me the idea for the current format. I feel that the improvements meen its worth an effort to keep this as it is - if we can now keep the vandalism under control, this page could gradually evolve into something far more ambitious than the 'best selling female' page. Do you think that removing the 'years active' might reduce some of the clutter on the page? Robdurbar 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another idea...

message: Has anyone taken a look at the front page? I highly doubt some person I've never heard of could have sold 10 billion records. -- Andrew Parodi 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I stand corrected. Apparently he's the biggest selling Bhangra musician of all time, which most certainly means he's the biggest selling artist in world history. Bhangra has always been a favorite of mine. -- Andrew Parodi 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jazzy B]] -- 10,000,000,000 albums?