Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.13.2.211 (talk) at 23:33, 13 July 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

QUEEN

 It is a fact that neither of the 2 Queen 'Hits' Albums, in the UK's Top 10 Best Sellers, actually sold that many as stand-alone
Albums. They were both given around 566,000 Sales, (each) from 'The Platinum Collection', (2000), & from a 1997 Double CD. This is
because the Triple 2000 'Set', & Double 1997 'Set', contained those Queen Hits Albums. It was decided in 2006, (by The OCC),
to add the extra Sales. However, it was not done for 'ABBA Gold', which was part of the 1996 Double  CD, 'Forever Gold'.
It sold 61,000 copies in the UK, but neither 'Gold' nor 'More Gold' got allocated 30,500 Sales (each) from  that. Nor have any
Beatles Albums been given a share of the Sales of 'Beatles In Mono', & 'Beatles In Stereo' - even though  their Albums are in
those 'Sets'. So adding extra Sales - from other releases - was only done for Queen. 'Greatest Hits' would still be No.1 if
the 566,000 added Sales were removed. But 'Greatest Hits II', would fall to 11th place, if its  566,000 added Sales
were taken away - and 'The Immaculate Collection' by Madonna, would rise from 11th to 10th place. 86.13.2.211 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Featured listList of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2012Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list


  ABBA GOLD IS NOW THE UK'S 2ND BEST SELLING ALBUM 

 At Midnight on Saturday 18th May, The OCC announced that 'Gold'

was now 15,000 UK sales ahead of 'Sgt Pepper'. That is why I came here & put 'Gold' into 2nd place.

(Then someone came along & put ABBA back into 3rd place. It's OK 

- anyone who does that in future will simply be making the

Wikipedia Article inaccurate.86.13.2.211 (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

  Check this Link for confirmation:, 

  http://www.officialcharts.com/
Fair enough. Now that the OCC have made this confirmation, I won't revert the edit. In fairness though, you did make the change a good three hours before they announced it. And without a reliable source, there was no way to verify the information. Happy editing, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Out of date

This list(actual sales) is useless in an encylopedia. Its out of date and whevever someone puts in up to date info, someone else removes it. Crazy...whats the point of a 2 years out of date list?..it doesnt reflect the true state and just adds to the 'wiki is wrong' myth if people use this information when quoting figures. 86.178.73.8 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put in the latest info. THANK YOU. and you clearly labelled the dates as well, to avoid confusion. good job. 86.178.73.8 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the Official Charts Company (OCC) only has sales going back since 1994. End of year sales were avaialble from Music Week for period 1990-93. Prr-1990 sales should be taken with a pinch of salt. Queen's Greatest Hits albums includes sales from The Platinum Collection. Sergeant Pepper's sales based largely on unconfirmed EMI claims. As for Dark Side of the Moon it was cerified 2.7m shipments in 2005 but the OCC gave it 3.9m a year later in the first of its All Time Charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) The best selling CDs of All Time ie 1982-2012 can be found at this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19783857 (Coachtripfan (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Certification levels

I don't want to be rude but this must be the most ridiculous pages on wikipedia - why have the irrelevant "certified" list on there at all yet alone in prime position. It basically is nothing more than a pointless list related to music industry awards. This is shown by the fact that it includes no Beatles records although we know "Sergeant Peppers" is at least in the Top3. I'll at least change the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.187.215 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The certification levels in this list don't match the awards that have been given by the BPI (select "Highest Certifications" link here). What may account for this is that even though an album may have sold enough for a higher certification, if a new award isn't requested it will still have the last one given as they aren't awarded automatically: "BPI member companies apply for titles to be certified via the BPI research department" (in the above link). --JD554 (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 The List from The BPI Site has errors in it. For a start, they have given both

'Bad', (9th), & 'Immaculate Collection', (10th), the SAME Sales that they had in November 2006 - when The Official Charts Company first published those Lists. 

 Both Albums were on higher Totals by June 2009. Indeed, 'Bad' has sold even

more, since Michael Jackson's death. According to The BPI List, neither Album has sold even 1 UK copy between November 2006 & June 2009! Obviously that is incorrect - irrespective of Wikipedia & its, 'Prove it!' responses, to many people who try to stop nonsense being published as 'Fact', on its 'Pages.....82.22.122.117 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011 reversions

This article does not have to solely rely on the OCC report. It can contain any album as long as the sales figure is reliably sourced. The report only covers until June 2009 and their are more recent figures available. Also being reverted is the capslocking of the headings, which are completely wrong. Copying and pasting previous versions of articles should never be done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that is acceptable only the OCC report, but that the list must be updated full, not partial, because these are retail sales and can vary weekly.
An example: Sgt. Peppers arrives at 6 million and you update it in the table putting the album to the top. Who says that in the meantime, Greatest Hits by Queen has sold more records than Sgt. Peppers for to be still the #1?
For this reason, a list of best selling albums compiled with retail sales must be updated full and not partial, like does Nielsen SoundScan for US and Canada.
Furthermore, i don't understand what is wrong in the past version. It's written clearly that there are two lists and that they are differents. In the new version is written only about the BPI and nothing about the OCC list (except the last row). Also the table, in my version were structured in the same way: Rank, Date of release, Title, Artist and Sales (in the BPI list there is Certifications before the Sales). Maybe would be only edited Certified sales with Shipments, otherwise is correct. SJ (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the list can be updated as updated sales figures become available, the same as any other list. eg today i updated some of the existing figures from musicweek. the occ only updates full lists every 10 or so years, so you're saying this article has gotta wait 8 more years to be updated? thats ridiculous. and the article still clearly states that their are 2 lists. the sales table should definitely be at the top because it's a list of the best-selling albums, not best-shipmented albums.Mister sparky (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the best-selling lists based on retail sales are updated full and not partial. Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_Taiwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_best-selling_albums_of_the_Nielsen_SoundScan_era_%28United_States%29
Maybe we can find a compromise. We can do like the Japanese page (first link that i posted). We post the list of best-selling albums updated to 14 June 2009 and after that, we add the notes at the albums that according to reliable sources sold more copies. I think that is the better solution.
Now, back to the subject of the introduction. I'm not agree with this version. In the lead is not written nothing about the OCC. It's cited only the BPI and his methodology for to certificate the records. For the tables, i didn't say nothing about to post the Top Sales table before Top Certifications table (it doesn't matter). I say about the structure of the tables. In the old version, the both table were structured in: Rank, date of release, title, artist and sales (also the certifications in the shipment table). In the new version, the tables are different and it's not very good. SJ (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you can list as many examples as you like, but it's completely irrelevant per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. with regards to the lead, then add stuff about the OCC. the only info i removed was poorly written and didn't really explain anything. and it's still a work in progress, the certifications table was going to be structured in the same way. it wasn't going to be left different intentionally because i agree it does look odd at the moment. Mister sparky (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is called good sense. If we put it on this floor, your edits aren't full sourced. According to your table, Back to Black would be the 28th best selling album of all time in the UK. Have you got a source that claims it? Same thing for The Circus by Take That, 21 by Adele and other albums that you introduced/updated on the list ( not counting that you didn't report many albums http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/top%2040%20albums.pdf ). You done Original researches, that is againt the Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to see an updated list, but not in this way. SJ (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so actually sourcing updated sales is against wikipedia policy... that comment has made my interest in this discussion end. how would you suggest updating sales for albums without waiting 8yrs for the bpi to publish another list?? Mister sparky (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and "original research" is defined in the wiki article as "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists"... musicweek is most definitely a reliable published source. so wrong. Mister sparky (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt that it is reliable. I simply said that the sources that you posted, don't claim that Back to Black is the 28th best selling album of all time in the UK. Same thing for other albums. You made that list with various sources and it is original research. It also written "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.". SJ (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you have to use various updated sources to update the list. otherwise it's not going to be updated for another 7-8 years. Mister sparky (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good reason for to do original researches. I know it's frustrating to see these lists not updated, but this is not the correct way, especially for Wikipedia policy. Now, i will restore the old table and meanwhile, we can think to a solution. SJ (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's called updating the article. and don't quote policy at me i've been here far too long. Mister sparky (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and you would know that you are wrong. We must respect the Wikipedia policy. SJ (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What ever happened to Winehouse's Back to Black? It was reported that it sold 3.26 million copies. These are some of the references:
--Iggy Ax (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The top selling albums is a pointless list when it is so out of date

I can see the logic in having a list of the top certified albums, but there is absolutely no point in showing the top selling albums from two and a half years ago. Either update the sales with reliable sources (as it was) or ditch it because it is now significantly out of date. Given the amount of dicussion on this page suggesting that it needs updated I would say there is a consensus that the article does not work in its current form. Sanders11 (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive reverted back to your table. I agree, its ridiculous to have such out of date info, when current info is available sourced and clearly dated, as you did. 86.178.73.8 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of best-selling albums based on retail sales can't be updated to fragments. The OCC list is like the SoundScan list, that is updated fully and not partially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States_since_Nielsen_SoundScan_tracking_began SJ (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see a new list is released there every year, who knows when the next UK list will be released. Hypothetically, say the next list isn't released for another 15 years, should it remain as it is until then despite being hugely inaccurate and out of date? I agree that the new sales shouldn't really be added with a rank seeing as it is sale figures being referenced, but I don't think we should stick to this rigidly to the detriment of the article's quality; there's no point having an article like this if it doesn't function properly. List of best-selling albums is updated as and when sales figures are announced, and I think if no new figures are released soon then the page should be switched more to follow that style. I would imagine a lot of people viewing this page are looking to see where Adele's sales fit in and I think it's misleading to not mention Adele's sales when they are so widely publicised. Hopefully with new albums featuring on this list the OCC will release an updated version of the list soon. Sanders11 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completly. eg Say we had sourced figures for 19 of the positions, with just one missing, would that mean we couldnt update the 19 we do have sourced?. If wiki rules say this is so, then the rule needs to be looked at because its not working. many people feel wiki isnt accurate and when you have articles like this, with out of date information, it only adds to that myth. Its ridiculous that the top 2 best selling UK albums of the 21st centurty, which currently hold position 9 and 11 in the REAL list, are not mentioned here. 86.176.51.102 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is up to just before Michael Jackson passed away so obviously his totals will be far higher now considering the amounts he sold in the aftermath of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.197.145 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last!!. The OCC have revealed the latest sales. About bloomin' time. Thanks whoever updated this page!. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and ANOTHER official OCC update..wow..after 3 years of none, we have had 2 in less than a month. Hope they keep it up, as this page is only as accurate as the last update. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another update due Tuesday 10th april. This time a full top 40. If noone else does it, then I'll update this page as soon as the OCC publishes the chart. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the top 40, but where are the actual sales figures?. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a brief listen to the Radio 2 programme, and I don't think Tony Blackburn ever revealed any actual sales figures, unfortunately. The sales figues for the top 10 could be found here, but it didn't seem right to me to have sales figures for just them and not the other thirty. The lead currently states that that the top two albums all sold over 5 million, and that the top eight both sold over 4 million - is it necessary to go into much more detail? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only reason most people come to this page , is to see how much the albums actually sold. The certified shipment figures are meaningless as they dont follow the order the albums are listed in, therefore the sales should be included. I dont see why having just the top ten sales affects the rest. But if it cannot be together, then it makes more sense , and much more useful a page, to have just the top ten, as it was until recently. The reason it was just top ten, was precisly this, only those sales certifiable. It was like that for 3 years, what's suddenly changed? Thanks 86.178.229.183 (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included the top 40 for the sake of comprehensiveness – similar articles usually list more than just the top ten. For example, this one goes up to 60, this one 100, and this one 113. If we were to include the sales figures as well, the table would look something like this. Now, I'm not saying that I would be against including this information (as obviously it's highly relevant to the list), and we might be able to source sales figures for the remaining 30 albums from other reliable sources. But we may run into the danger of including sales data for one album that is more recent than another's, which could make the article pretty confusing to follow. To be honest, I'm thinking about submitting this article at peer review sometime soon, so hopefully another editor may be able to offer advice on best to incorporate the sales info. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top ten sales are certified by the OCC and up to date, so there is no confusion in publishing the sales for the top ten imo. 86.162.142.107 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they're up-to-date, but my concern is that publishing sales data for just the top ten would look incomplete and visually unappealing, (see here: User:A Thousand Doors/List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom). That being said, the information is highly relevant to the list, so I have added a new external link to the end of the article that links to the webpage where the sales for the top ten are listed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back To Black

It should have 8 Platinum Awards - not 6. It is in 12th place, because The OCC added in its 'Deluxe' Edition Sales. That means that, that Album's Platinum Awards should be added in too. It has 2, & the original Edition has 6 - that's 8 Platinum Awards altogether. 82.22.125.117 (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'm not entirely sure that that's correct. Island Records requested to the OCC that the deluxe edition of Back to Black be counted as an entirely separate album from the original (see James Masterton's comment here), and the BPI lists the deluxe and original albums separately, with their own distinct certification levels (search "Back to Black" here). I've just relistened to Tony Blackburn's show, and he never said anything about counting both versions of the album together, nor did the OCC say anything like that on their website. But if you have sources to the contrary, I'm happy to change this. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Whilst 'Back To Black' & 'Back To Black' Deluxe did Chart seperately in 2007 & 2008, UK Chart Rules had changed, by the time Amy died, in

July 2011. At that time the Sales of both versions of that Album were combined by The OCC. This is perfectly clear to see, as there is no sign of the Deluxe Edition in the W/E 6th August 2011 Chart. (There would be if The OCC had still been counting them as 2 Albums). Amy had 3 Albums in that Top 10 - 'Back To Black' at No.1, (up from No.59), 'Frank' at No.5, & a 2 CD Set, at No.10 - 'Frank' & Back To Black'. 

It is 100% obvious that 'Back To Black' Deluxe would have also been in the Top 75, that Week. It wasn't. Why? Obviously because The OCC was

adding its Sales to that Week's No.1 Album - 'Black To Black'. 

 Indeed, The OCC have told me that they now combine the Sales of the original & 'Deluxe' versions. That is why 'Back To Black' is the UK's 12th

Best Selling Album. It would drop several places if the Sales of the 'Deluxe' version were removed. And as their Sales are now combined, their BPI Awards should be too. Otherwise, it is very inconsistent! 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_Kingdom

  I'm saying that the 2 versions did Chart seperately in 2007 & 2008, but, by 2011 The OCC added their Sales together

- for both the 2011 Charts, & for 'The UK's Best Selling Albums' purposes. However - if you want to remain wrong, then so be it.....86.13.2.211 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we would need a reliable source to verify that both the standard and deluxe versions of Back to Black were counted in the Radio 2 list. The OCC may well have told you that they now combine the sales of both versions, but to include that in the article would be original research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I've had a bit more of a think about this, and I'm beginning to suspect that you might be right after all. As you say, the deluxe version of Back to Black didn't appear in the charts after Amy died, which would suggest that the OCC combined its sales into those of the standard version, and its entirely conceivable that they did the same thing when compiling the list of biggest-selling albums as well. Plus a certification level of 8× platinum would make more sense given the levels of the albums around it. The only thing stopping me from changing that "6" to an "8" is that the BPI lists the two different versions as being distinctly different, each with their own certifications. To represent Back to Black's platinum status any other way seems like it could be original research to me... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston Bodyguard Soundtrack

Where's the Bodyguard soundtrack? It's 7 x platinum in the UK?? Her first two albums are 5 and 6 x platinum also. Where are they?

The Official Charts Company didn't include those albums in their best-selling list (see here), hence why we haven't included them in this article. If you think those albums should be included, you'll have to take it up with them, I'm afraid. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Figures pre-1990

The Official Charts Company (OCC) has been the official chart compiler since 1994. It has though been around since 1990 whn it was CIN. Sales figures prior to that date are based on a lot of guesswork and estimates - and a lack of transparency.

Queen's Greatest Hits include sales from their Platinum Collection and The Beatles' Sergeant Pepper hasn't had its sales scutinised by any independent chart compiler - at least its sales pre-1990.

The OCC does not have sales prior to 1990. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the US's book which has it ALL TIME list only from when SoundScan took over in 1991. (Coachtripfan (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Here is the link from the OCC regarding the All Time Top 40 Albums http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/the-official-top-40-biggest-selling-albums-of-all-time-1329/ (Coachtripfan (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

That particular source is already cited in the article — it's reference number 9. As for your other point, it may or may not be true that the OCC only took into account sales from 1990 onwards for this list. But they promoted it as being the "best-selling albums of all time" rather than just "best-selling albums since 1990", as did several reliable sources, so that's what Wikipedia needs to reflect – anything else would be original research. Personally, I reckon they took into account all album sales in the UK, rather than just the last 22 years. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Charts Company - compiler since 1990s

The OCC came into being in 1990 (as CIN). It became the 'official' chart compiler in 1994. Sales pre-1990 are mainly record company estimates - with some certifications. There were no official sales chart prior to 1969. The BMRB compiled charts from a sample of 250 shops - 5% of all outlets from 1969-82 and Gallup took over with a larger sample until 1994. The OCC didn't have these old chart sales. Take with a pinch of salt these "All Time" lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachtripfan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. The OCC and several other reliable sources promoted the list as being the "best-selling albums of all time" rather than just the "best-selling albums since 1990" – per WP:Verifiability, that is what Wikipedia needs to reflect. I'm afraid that all we have to the contrary is your word. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=564159298"