Talk:List of best-selling music artists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Arcive 1, Dec 04 - Aug 05. Discusses various artists and their sales figures, and legitimacy of article
- Talk archive 2, Aug 05 - Jan 06. Archive refactored into discussion about various artists. Reorganisation of article discussed and carried out
- Talk Archive 3, Feb 06 - Apr 06. Discussion of legitimacy of WMA and RIAA figures, also of Queen's sales
- Talk Archive 4, May 06 - Nov 06. Various artists discussed, also the possibilty and creation of a new subdivision (75 million+ sold
- Talk Archive 5, October 07 - December 07. Discussion of various artists as well as page protection suggested.
- Talk Archive 6, January 08 - May 08. Discussion on a 1 billion table and dispute over the validity of Japanese language sources.
Contents |
[edit] Major clean up
OK, im going to go through the entire article removing all unreliable claims, the article needs a good purge. There are 2 options;-
- A) Remove the crap source and replace it with a Fact tag.
- B) Completely remove the claim if the source it crap.
So we are going to vote on which is the best method and run with it. Ill keep it open for 2 weeks, if there isnt a clear cut "consensus" the timeframe can be extended.
[edit] Vote (or "consensus" if you want to be a wiki bureacrat)
- B --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, but how are you planning on to do that after Rodhullandemu came up with this bad call [1]. He simply opened doors for many unreliable sources as well as many vandals. Now everytime we try to remove a foreign-language source, a major scandal is going to take place, even if the source is crappy. As for me, I'd like to go ahead and remove all unreliable sources including those that turn into bunch of question marks after you click on them.
- Id say, give me a chance, look how i turned List of best-selling albums worldwide around. Its now a very strong article, id like to do the same here. Non english sources are a sensitive subject here but they are in the fast minority, we can still sort out the other 99% of claims with no controversy. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, but how are you planning on to do that after Rodhullandemu came up with this bad call [1]. He simply opened doors for many unreliable sources as well as many vandals. Now everytime we try to remove a foreign-language source, a major scandal is going to take place, even if the source is crappy. As for me, I'd like to go ahead and remove all unreliable sources including those that turn into bunch of question marks after you click on them.
- B Completely remove the claim if the source it crap. --Harout72 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- B Good idea, if a reliable source is found, just add it in. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about just following the wikipedia guidelines? What you consider to be "crap" could actually be a reliable reference. As was evident in the recent incident. Moreover, it seems you are taking role as an authority figure within this article, which raises other concerns. 220.253.148.207 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- No really, i have some experience getting these articles up to a reasonable standard. Because someone decides to actually sort an article out that doesnt mean they OWN the article. We would only allow sources that would be accepted in a Featured List review, which is the ultimate goal of this article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that only 1 claim is removed at a time with a clear edit summary to say why. It will be easier for edits to moniter what is being removed. If someone opposes a deletion they can bring it back to the talk page for consensus. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] 200 million to 500 million records
Has anyone else noticed that the lines of this section are really fat in comparison to the other benchmarks? Can someone sort that, i dont understand why its happened. Cheers. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that it's done. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FALSE INFORMATIONS
Both of the information on this list are falses. Michael Jackson has NOT sold 500 million records worldwild, not even Frank Sinatra, who has sold less than 15 million records in USA (making the 500 million seller status impossible). Jackson has sold a maximum of 350 million records across the world.
For the 200 million seller status, we don't need to say that Whitney Houston has NOT sold over 200 million records worwild. Houston's sales are less than 150 million (130 million is the right information). Celine Dion has sold 200 million (with singles sales) and Mariah Carey the same thing. So why is Carey in the category of 100 to 150 million sellers if she has sold more than 166 million records and 200 with single sales?
And another ridiculous thing. ABBA has sold more than 300 million records? Totally impossible. Their sales in the US are less than 15 million (12 million maximum) so their 300 million seller status is totally, but TOTALLY impossible. They have not sold more than 150 million records in career. In fact, I'm not sure if the 100 million status is right for ABBA. So make the right corrections and stop to put protections to protect false and fanatic information.
Correction: Just because an artist has not sold tens of millions in the US does not mean they have not sold the stated 100 million + on this list. There are other markets besides the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.229 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you, Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.11.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yet, somewhat contrary to your assertions, all the figures cited in the article are supported by verifiable sources, and you say otherwise. What psychic powers do you have that are denied to the rest of us? --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clean Up
We need to clean up this article with better sources. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
See my preposal above. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)