Talk:Boy band/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What about Big Bang Sales?

1- "Rolling Stone" https://rollingstoneindia.com/10-k-pop-groups-you-need-to-add-to-your-playlist/

2- "Newsweek" https://www.newsweek.com/coachella-line-2020-how-buy-tickets-bigbang-danny-elfman-festival-dates-ticket-prices-1480232

3- "CNN" https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/21/sport/big-bang-taeyang-south-korea-pyeongchang-winter-olympics/index.html

4- "TİME" https://time.com/5549962/seungri-k-pop-scandal/

5- https://www.allkpop.com/article/2020/02/netizen-chose-big-bang-as-the-greatest-kpop-artist-of-the-decade-2010-2019

"Big Bang have sold over 140 million records, making them the best-selling digital group of all-time in Asia and one of the best-selling boy bands in the world."Lee (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah this seems to be ridiculously inflated, Big Bang's popularity worldwide is nowhere near the level that would allow this amount of sales. How reliable is this sales figure? Do we have access to their certifications?--Krystaleen 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There are no music certifications in Korea AFAIA. Those numbers seem to have originated on a fan forum (onehallyu), where fans added up all the sales of any record/dvd even remotely related to Big Bang. I.e. It includes group sales, individual record sales, sales of records where one member of the group featured on etc. So yeah, ridiculously inflated. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • " sales of records where one member of the group featured" This isn't true, they're listed but not included into their total sale, please read the notes of the source.

@123.21.105.176: please sign your comments otherwise it looks as if another editor made the comment instead of you. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Okay then I'm going to remove it in a few days if there's no objection.--Krystaleen 07:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
      • "Big Bang's popularity worldwide is nowhere near the level that would allow this amount of sales." You know they're in the digital era right? Since 2010 their single sale in Korea alone is 75,000,000+ and it can be tracked anytime on Gaon chart. I mean, you can go around their album/single pages with sale list and "reliable" source under them, the "fan work" is just tracking these public numbers. The way you guys talk about it is just unfair for an Asian artist in a digital era? At least beside the "reliable" source aka news articles like the other acts listed, they have their sale numbers shown publicly on Gaon (South Korean official chart), Oricon, QQ Music... how it that less "reliable" than their others?123.21.105.176 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I counted all Sales from Big Bang discography together. They sold 97 Million records mostly in Southeast Asia. I checked all sources the day I translated the article into German.

4,300,000 Album Sales
1,300,000 EP Sales
255,000 Live album Sales
450,000 Compilation album Sales
4,800,000 Single album Sales
62,823,516 Korean Singles
450,000 Japanese Singles
4,300,000 Promotional single Sales
18,427,743 Other Sales

97,106,259 Total Sales

Lee (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Okay I removed it until someone can post a reliable source.--Krystaleen 04:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we're not adding BIGBANG to the list even tho they sold over 97+ as a group (meaning they'll be #3) just because there isn't a reliable source saying they sold this much since those sources are saying they sold over 140+? so basically they sold over +140M as a group and solos, and +97M as a group and they're still not gonna be on the list of the best selling boybands ? help me out here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.193.156 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As a well versed Big Bang wikipedian, I'll have to say there will probably never be a "reliable" source for Big Bang's sales aside from fan records as the bulk of their sales come from numerous million-selling digital singles (say >30) that sell extremely well in China, South Korea and various other southeastern Asian countries. Pure albums sales actually account for only a small percentage (7 million or so) of that 140 million figure. I do not believe they are faked, as the fan records do have quite the number of sources from official certifications from multiple countries ie. Japan, Korea, China. There's also this other problem of the 140 million figure including sales from solo-member releases that sell extremely well, almost as well as the group's releases i.e. G-Dragon. Because we're comparing them to the Backstreet Boys, whose bulk of sales came from pure physical albums as a group, there's a large technological and generational incongruence. Due to the problem of the sales being dominated by dozens of digital singles that are hard to track year to year (they count streaming equivalent sales nowadays too) as it is, its extremely difficult to gauge the accurate total sales of Big Bang, even though they are undeniably popular in Asia. Even so, I agree with Krystaleen that Big Bang should not be included until there is enough concrete evidence (official data) of that figure. Alexataylor07 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, so if we excluded the solos and counted only the group sales (+97M or so) or let's say much much less, they're still not gonna be added to the list because BSB got their bulk sales from physical sales while newer groups like BIGBANG and One Direction got them from Digital ? I do agree that BSB's sales are more impressive considering the age and the time but sales are sales don't you guys think so ? if we want to focus on the physicals or 'how the groups earned their sales' then it should be a different chart with a different name, not 'Best Selling Boybands' because, logically, BIGBANG should be on the list, as you said Alexataylor07 there ARE reliable sources from that fan count to various Korean, Chinese and Japanese sites (as well as Billboard) so why should be discredit BIGBANG from their sales ? (streaming aren't included in BB's sales) I'm sorry i'm just trying to get to the bottom of it :)

I mean, you can go around their album/single pages with sale list and "reliable" source under them, the "fan work" is just tracking these public numbers. On GAON since 2010 alone they sold 75.000.000+ digital copies and it can be tracked anytime. The way you guys talk about it is just unfair for an Asian artist in a digital era? At least beside the "reliable" source aka news articles like the other acts listed, they have their sale numbers shown publicly on Gaon (South Korean official chart), Oricon, QQ Music... how it that less "reliable" than their others?123.21.105.176 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've thought about this a lot, and objectively speaking, not trying to discredit anyone at all, bottom line is there no single reliable source that has calculated Big Bang's cumulative sales (may I stress the cumulative) over history. Heck, I sometimes contribute to Big Bang's sales myself and its maddeningly frustrating how difficult it is to keep up with ALL their singles year to year in different countries that consume music differently (key example: China). All I, or anyone for that matter can concretely say Big Bang has sold A LOT, but we cannot say accurately what that amount is. As a fan, even one who dedicates their time and effort to calculate their cumulative sales, we simply do not have the authority to declare that the information we have is completely 100% accurate. Even if we say okay, let's not assume its 140 million, but give them a spot on the list anyway – its just not the way Wikipedia works, information NEED accurate and reliable citations, therefore reliable sources from official certifications rule in this matter. (Side note: getting off topic and personal here – not what Wikipedia is about but since you're not a user I can't figure any other way. I'm sorry if you feel personally victimised if your favourite band is not "getting" the recognition you think they deserve, but that is life. As a contributor to Wikipedia all we necessarily need to contribute are accurate information from reliable sources. I wish there was a worldwide collective system for calculating music sales in the 21st century that accurate and accessible, but that is not the reality. Frankly, Wikipedia shouldn't be a definitive track record of success, it is simply unfortunate there is no single accurate source of information for Big Bang's cumulative sales over time. Alexataylor07 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just confused, "Declare that the information we have is completely 100% accurate" except that's the numbers are showed publicly on the internet - the charts that they're on? So we just accept that it's true BIGBANG actually sold 140 million records on GAON, Oricon, QQ Music, Billboard as it's showned publicly, but can't accept them into the list because they're not Western? 123.21.105.176 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually a user but i lost my password XD! Anyway, i already made peace with the fact that there will always be people who find loopholes to get what they want, and since you are a fan you also know that these sources (as the user above you stated) are in fact reliable (GAON, HANTEO, QQ..etc) and the sales and the streamings are in fact separated so it's much easier to track, and Variety already stated their +140M sales, so i'm kinda lost of what is considered reliable and what isn't, since i can clearly see articles from far less reliable sources are being tagged as a resource! but oh well, I guess we'll have to drop it here since it's not going anywhere until a more reliable source (more reliable than the official sales sites (?????)) comes along. -Di

You actually over-edited my own edit in which phrased the last bit differently since I typed in a rush. The thing is, the variety article isn't exactly super "accurate", like simply looking at the title of the article - Youtube Red or something - the 140 million figure was added obviously as an afterthought to stress the popularity of the group. Who knows where they got that number from anyway. Accurate means official chart certifications. I will leave this talk page after this edit but there is sadly no current official chart organisation either from Korea or Japan that has calculated BB's cumulative sales.Alexataylor07 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"no current official chart organisation" Uhm, Gaon and Oricon?123.21.105.176 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

must I highlight cumulative sales for you? Alexataylor07 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

10 artists in the list, do they have it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.21.105.176 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be holding BIGBANG to a different standard than the western groups when it comes to "reliable sources" of "cumulative sales." The sources given for BSB's 130M+ figure are The Korea Times and The Philippine Star. The one given for The Jackson 5's 100M+ figure is Yahoo; the one for NKOTB's 80M+ figure is the Chicago Tribune; and so on.

In each case, the article linked uses the figure the same way Variety uses the 140M figure to describe BIGBANG -- as Alexataylor07 puts it, "as an afterthought to stress the popularity of the group." What is the difference in credibility between The Philippine Star writing, "Backstreet Boys has sold over 130 million records worldwide, making it the best-selling boy band in history," and Variety writing, "[BIGBANG] is one of the most popular boy bands in the world, with over 140 million records sold"?

Explain to me exactly what you consider to be a reliable source of cumulative sales. Then maybe I can work on finding you one. And if it's something more substantial than a one-off line in a magazine or newspaper, maybe you can work on finding some better sources for the western groups on the list, too. Because at the moment, the sources for their figures are not in any way superior to Variety and The Georgia Strait.96.48.160.249 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you took the time to discredit a group achievements like this is showing how bias your being all because they don't fit your "certifications"no matter what they still managed to make 140million give them their credit or I'll do it for you Cazzilove (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what more there is to say. I don't know who you're referring to but I personally love Big Bang's music. That is mainly why I contribute to many wikipedia articles about them including sales, albums, tours, member's biographies and so on (feel free to check this under my user contributions). I have no prejudice towards them on wikipedia, I only wish to contribute things that I know to be facts. Firstly, the 140 million figure came from a fan site, then somehow appeared on an article in 2017 with no previous online sources ever referencing that number before. That onehallyu '140 million' includes solo member releases which should not be included. Also, its not entirely impossible that that actual number could be higher than 'X million', yes that's right, HIGHER. But we do not know for certain. This is because so far the music sales from China are coming from the music vendors themselves eg. QQ Music (basically China's Spotify), Kugou, and Kuwo, which unlike Oricon in Japan, or Gaon/Hanteo in Korea, doesn't come from any official music sales organisation (note: the official certifying body in China - SARFT - equivalent of RIAJ in Japan doesn't count digital sales). [also this may be hard to accept for people familiar with western music as we simply don't know sales from sellers like Apple Music/iTunes/Spotify/Tidal or count them individually which is the case for China] Because of this, a lot of BB's sales in China are OUTDATED. Many of their sales from MADE in China are actually higher (I've checked) than what is stated on wikipedia, just that nobody has bothered to keep up with all the individual music vendors month to month. I will leave this talk in peace, no more posts. Hopefully you all can resolve this issue someday, good luck. Ciao! Alexataylor07 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Removing Big Bang sales because there is no reliable source? Reliable sources were there, and actually many of sources of other artists are less reliable, there are many news talked about the sales of Big Bang, and it's between 100 million to 140 million, here are the sources: Rolling Stones India, Variety, and New Zealand Herald. Houston Chronicle talked about selling more than 100 million records. Unless there is an actual reason why not putting them on the list and not the reasons listed above (it's digital, not popular enough..etc) than I'm going to put Big Bang on the list again. GD.BB (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus for them being in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that all those numbers originated from a fansite which means original research. Plus those numbers include the individual members' sales while we only count actual group's sales records, not solo ventures.--Krystaleen 07:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The numbers came from the sources, which are by the way a strong & reliable sources, If someone have a problem with the numbers go talk to the original articles that mention the 140 million sales. This is really ridicules not putting Big Bang on the list, because despite having a sources you still won't believe the numbers? On this case delete the entire list because most sources are weak and from unknown sites. Do you have an actual reason other than you don't believe the numbers? Wikipedia depends on such references in all of it's articles not personal opinions, and on ths case it's clear all the articles wrote Big Bang sold 140 million. GD.BB (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some of what reliable sources said about Big Bang sales:

Big Bang are veterans in the K-pop industry with a career spanning more than 10 years and 140 million records sold.

— Rolling Stones India

One fifth of popular group Big Bang—whose 140 million worldwide record sales make it one of the biggest selling boy bands in the world

— Georgia Straight

The five-member group is one of the most popular boy bands in the world, with over 140 million records sold.

— Variety

...Big Bang, which is arguably the world's most popular boy band and the biggest act in Asia. It sold more than 140 million albums worldwide.

— New Zealand Herald

The group has sold more than 140 million records, making it one of the most popular boy bands across the globe.

— Deadline Hollywood

With 140 million records sold, BIGBANG is one of the world’s most successful and well known music phenomena.

— Korean Film Council

Deferent well-known sources from deferent countries, and it's clear all of them agree that Big Bang as group sold over 140 million record, unless anyone have a sources that says otherwise, Big Bang should be on the list, not removing them because some "think" it's not true. GD.BB (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with all those sources is that they quote each other and therefore not that valid. Read the above discussions, the current consensus among editors is to suspend their addition until a reliable source providing a more accurate count is available.--Krystaleen 01:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You still don't have a source or anything to prove your point, your assuming that they copied from each other, where is your proof that they did? I didn't know we should do our editing and add information based on our assumptions and thought of what we think it's true and what's not. If we go based on what your saying than I could go and delete New Kids on the Block from the list because their one source is not reliable and there is no reliable source that confirms they sold that much, the same goes to The Osmonds and others. Even Backstreet Boys, on the List of best-selling music artists their total available certified units are 71.4 million, so where did the 130 million came from? Why your putting a deferent standers for Asian artists, unlike Western artist they could have a weak/unreliable sources for their sales, but for an Asian artist with over 6 reliable sources we can't put them because you think all of them are not reliable sources and copied from each other? I read the discussions above and your points are still weak and unreasonable, all of your words are based on your own assumptions and feelings. GD.BB (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the discussions which was removed for some reason. Please read it through above, we have a consensus already.--Krystaleen 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

All the talk above saying information need accurate and reliable source, but for whom? You're only applying this rule to Big Bang, while others have the same sources and even weaker once, it's either applying the rule for all of them or delete the entire thing, because non of them have an official source like RIAA, BPI, RIAJ ...etc. Creating a rule then applying it only for one person, how is this fair? And no I don't see any a consensus, many talked about how it's wrong and unfair not putting Big Bang on the list, but you just choose to delete them. Again, a rule should be applied to all artists, not just one. GD.BB (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• The rule is applied to all artists indeed. You are welcome to remove or better yet, to find a more reliable source and sales figure for all the artists. I know for a fact that Backstreet Boys and NKOTB sales figures have been verified by the editors over at List of best-selling music artists to have sold at least 100 million. Maybe you can start a discussion topic there to put Big Bang on the list since if the 140 million figure is accurate they should be qualified to be there, they're more knowledgeable about sales figures and certifications so I'm sure they can help you find a more accurate and reliable source for Big Bang's sales figure. I'd personally accept their consensus. If they accept Big Bang's 140 million there I'd concede here.

Now if you want to remove this best selling boy band list altogether you are welcome to start a new discussion topic so other editors can chime in and provide their opinions whether we should keep or discard the list. To be honest I've thought several times to remove the list because there's always fans fighting to put their favorite bands on the list when the purpose of the list is purely informational and not a list for fans to brag and fight about. This is Wikipedia so it should be 100% objective not something that can be debated like "People's 100 Sexiest men alive" or something of that nature. Of course, should you want to nominate the list for deletion you should also nominate the girl bands' list too.--Krystaleen 11:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The list of best-selling artists didn't conform the sales of Backstreat Boys, they only conformed 72.8 million total available certified units and 100 million acclaimed sales, there is nothing about 130 million sales and The Jackson 5 are not on the list. Again, I don't know why you deliberately ignoring the fact that the rest of the list here have the same sources as Big Bang, all of them are sources that acclaimed the sales and does not give the exact number, it's not bragging about anything, if you really think all the 6 sources for Big Bang are just lies, what's your proof that NKOTB, Bay City Rollers & 1D sold that much? Why will we believe sources like Digital Spy & Chicago Tribune, but not sources like Rolling Stones & Korean Film Counci? GD.BB (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you think they're incorrect you can always find a better source or remove them. Are you trying to improve the quality of the article as a wikipedia editor or are you just trying to put your favorite band on the list here as a fan? If you really want to improve the article you can always add citation needed tags or an unreliable source tags to the cited sources if you don't have time to find a reliable source yourself. I don't need to prove anything you are the one who wants to add a new entry, you're the one who are supposed to give a reliable source for your addition. Besides, I never said the numbers are lies, I said they're ridiculously inflated and unreliable as they come from a fan site aka original research and they include solo members' sales figures as per the discussion above. We only count groups' sales not solo endeavors by group members. Now if you just absolutely need to have Big Bang on the list for some reason with the 140 million sales figure I'd say you try to get help from the folks over at the best selling music artist list to help you with the certifications and sources. That way you won't have to do everything yourself. And if they accept your source as is than congrats you'll have Big Bang on both this list and that list. Nothing to lose, right?--Krystaleen 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay my bad I should've checked that there's already a discussion over there Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#BIGBANG and the consensus is similar to here. I guess it's a no until there's a more accurate sales figure from a reliable source.--Krystaleen 16:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't turn to be just fans trying to put their favourite artist on the list, it's not. Your saying Big Bang sales are based of fans search and combain solos & groups, while the sources (which again a strong & reliable sources like Rolling Stones & Korean Film Counci) says it's group sales. And you're only questioning these sources for BB and not the others? Chicago Tribune claimed that NKOTB sold 80 million records, we don't know if this is based on real search from official sites or it's from a fan from twitter, yet we see them on the list, the same goes to almost all the list. You choose to ignore the fact that all sources here are the same, all of them claiming the sales, not one of the sources are official and based on research, but yet they put them all and not Big Bang? The list of best-selling artists have a clear rule that their available claimed figures supported by at least 20% in certified units, which does not apply for Big bang since most of their sales are from Korea that don't have a certification system.GD.BB (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not just that, they also confirmed what I thought, that the 140 million sales figures count group sales, solo members sales, and even sub group sales, therefore it's not valid for this list. As for the other groups' figures, are we done talking in circles? I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. --Krystaleen 01:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If i just may chime in here; One thing led to another and I have been reading these two big walls of text and your earlier comment about getting rid of the list altogether caught my eye. If it really has been a big problem(Fans constantly editing it and so forth) then how would one go ahead with a "petition" to just get rid of it and/or possibly just turn it into an area of alleged sales under the same heading. If we go with the latter it would be much simpler to add information which seemingly is inaccurate for all the sales, while still keeping the information there for those interested. Cases like this will most likely just become more and more common with the new era of EXO/BTS racking up sales and I hardly believe we're ever going to get accurate sources for them either. I'm obviously not too well versed in the rules of Wikipedia and my idea might not go by said rules at all, but that's just my 2cents. Elronor (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elronor: Haven't read all the walls of text, but the what you're asking about sounds like a request for comment where the consensus of the Wikipedia community on a particular issue can be determined. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: Thanks for this. I'll wait and see if the other participants here have something against the idea but if not, this definitely seems the way to go! Elronor (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And as an afterthought, I am on the side of GD.BB on this, but even I have to agree there's absolutely no accurate sources for the sales for Big Bang but isn't it quite dumb to not include the alleged "biggest boy band in the world" on a list like this when its obvious they should be there in some form? This is where my suggestion mentioned above comes in. No more list so its not "official" but still an area for information that allows any future "records" to be added in for those interested without too huge conflicts regarding sources.Elronor (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All the sales from this list are claimed sales, there is no single sources that proof that they actually sold that much, but still editors won't put Big Bang because the sources have no proof where they got their sales from? The contradiction! Anyway, I agree with you, the list now gives no accurate information and missing many things, and many will come and change it since it's not official. Also the column for Records sold could be change to Claimed sales which is more accurate. GD.BB (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going around in circles and I really didn't want to make an appearance here again. But someone does have a point. I support adding the "alleged sales" instead of stating its the official sales and maybe that way Big Bang can be added in. Kind of ruins the credibility of all of this but the sources for the others aren't that great anyway. Alexataylor07 (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think "claimed sales" could work. Is there any publication that has Big Bang sales record without subgroups and solo members sales included in?--Krystaleen 15:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I haven't been able to find anything else but the already discussed collection as linked here As has already been said, the total includes subgroup and solo releases but if its OK we/I can do a count for all the group stuff. Its up to you though if we want to use a blog as a source. Elronor (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are generally unreliable. I don't know. Where did they get the numbers from again?--Krystaleen 05:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Krystaleen:Sorry got busy with life and totally forgot I was supposed to follow up here; They only cite their sources as: source: hanteo, gaon, PP + mol + Andy + fantomas + Dragonfly0915 @ OH! The first two are Official Charts/Sales companies which I simply presume the blog author has been in contact with. The last 4 are different users who hes presumably collaborated with to get the sales. I tried digging deeper and attempted finding sources on the mentioned Hanteo and Gaon charts but hanteo was the typical asian site made up of pictures so you couldnt translate anything, aka. i didnt get far but i had more success on Gaon, as for example seen here so I checked the same on the blog and all seems to be matching. So TLDR; I don't see us finding a better source other than working for a year compiling the same the blog has already done, which makes me suggest we/I get working on compiling the group only sales and then verifying with someone. Elronor (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd love for some other neutral editors to weigh in on this. On one hand I do think Big Bang deserves to be on the list but on the other hand their numbers come from a fan blog and can be completely made up for all we know. It's completely unverifiable so I don't even know how to approach this. I guess you can start counting just the group sales if you want and then present it here on the talk page under a new topic and hope more editors will chime in?--Krystaleen 01:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Krystaleen: Hi, I guess i'm one of the "neutral editors" you're looking for. I think it's interesting to split up the table in "official certified units" and "claimed sales" since I don't think we'll ever find a reliable source for any of their sales numbers in S. Korea since the S. Korean GAON chart doesn't certify any records.Lio51546 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)(talk)

That's also a good idea. What are we going to put in Big Bang's official certified units though if there's no official numbers?--Krystaleen 01:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We could use their sales numbers in the US and Japan.Lio51546 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Lio51546

I agree with the fact that because there are no official records of Big Bang sales that we can't include them on the list. However, could we include a note saying that? JDDJS (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mademoiselle @Krystaleen, sorry about my last reply, i read all your talks about BIGBANG, MOST Their sale Sources came from GAON are Certified because that Chart are Supported by Korea Music Content Industry Association' (KMCIA) and (RIAK) recording industry association of korea http://www.kmcia.or.kr/sales/source http://www.riak.or.kr/chart/gaon_total.asp , so based on that we can Add BIGBANG on the list, What You Think ?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRAU-vip (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) 

Many editors above said GAON doesn't certify any records so which is correct? How many records are certified by GAON?--Krystaleen 10:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

here is the correct answer : RAIK KMCIA http://www.riak.or.kr/english/ The First one RIAK are supposed to certify those sales, but their system of work are diffirent they leave This job to GAON, Gaon is the most trustworthy source for sales bc they count for returns. Gaon numbers are the amount of sales an album is certified for (Gaon is basically Korea Billboard).

The Gaon Music Chart tabulates the relative weekly popularity of songs or albums in South Korea. It is compiled by the Korea Music Content Industry Association and sponsored by South Korea's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, with an aim to create a national chart for South Korea similar to the Billboard charts of the United States.

ALL BIGBANG RECORDS ARE CERTIFIED By GAON, Here You can see thier records with sources from GAON

- Comment added by MRAU-vip (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC) 

I guess you can start counting only their certified group sales, without their subgroup or solo sales as suggested by an editor above. Then post here on this talk page to get other editors' input about it.--Krystaleen 14:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying back, yes i counted only their sales as a Group, at the time of writing this reply they sold :

KOREAN Certified Sales: 67,239,327+ (GAON SALES + DIGITAL ONLY)

CHINESE Certified sales: 25,802,605+

JAPANESE Certified sales: 2,492,042+

US Certified sales : 44,000+

TOTAL OF CERTIFIED SALES ONLY = 95,577,947

so they sold 95.5M+ in certified sales , i think we should add bigbang to the list with 140M (CLAIMED SALES)

MRAU-vip • 21:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Care to provide a verifiable and citable source for all those numbers?--Krystaleen 00:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course

MRAU-vip • 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything Big Bang released after 2010 is reliable, because the Gaon Chart was introduced then. You can check all Sales, by e.x 2016년 12월 Album Chart. Fantastic Baby sold four Million copies and to verify alone this, we need 44 links. We can't add hundreds of links to the sales pages. The only thing we can do is link to the discography article, but the the discography article is not 100% correct, which means everything needs to be checked again. I'm doing this currently for the German discography article and will add the correct information to the English one too. -- Lee (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Frankly no one else on the list is being held to the same scrutiny and fine-toothed combing as Bigbang is right now. Several reliable sources were provided, and yet Bigbang is not being put back on the list due to the unfounded assumption that the sources all copied from each other. Furthermore, while Gaon only started in 2010, we have data from other highly reliable sources for years prior to that. Putting them under "claimed sales" isn't necessary because we have several credible sources listed here. Sources have been provided, and they aren't enough for some reason. We've found the sources to be properly certified, and it's not enough. More sources are provided and it's assumed they are copying one another. The music charts are provided as well as the sources they pull from and still they are not put back on the list. I'm sorry but this is erasure. They are currently at 150M+ and aren't being credited for it because no source out of the many posted is "good enough" even though most of them would be perfectly fine for anyone else on this list. In fact, we are keeping people on the list who would fail the same test that people are putting Bigbang through. I agree with the others above. Bigbang is being held to different standards than the Western artists. I agree with these comments in particular: "You seem to be holding BIGBANG to a different standard than the western groups when it comes to "reliable sources" of "cumulative sales," and "The sources given for BSB's 130M+ figure are The Korea Times and The Philippine Star. The one given for The Jackson 5's 100M+ figure is Yahoo; the one for NKOTB's 80M+ figure is the Chicago Tribune; and so on." Bigbang should be put back on the list based on the fact that the other Western bands are using the same or similar sources that are suddenly reliable if the band is Western, but not if they are from Asia. Also, we've provided even more credible sources than many of the other bands. And BSB's numbers are being believed for their 130M+ figure despite the fact that we've added different numbers because suddenly the higher figure is credible for them, but not Bigbang, based on these same sources. For the sake of fairness, Bigbang should go back on the list and be treated just like every other band listed here, not massively scrutinized because they aren't Western. I've seen no argument to keep them off the list that isn't incredibly biased and speculative AND that addresses the fact that the Western bands aren't being treated in the same manner when they have less sources, some even less credible. We are not asking that you remove the first nine Western groups, only that you put Bigbang in the number one slot under the same treatment and good faith that the Western bands are getting. The sources for everyone else are just being believed with no further scrutiny. The other bands and their sources are being kept on in good faith for the same, similar, and in some cases lesser sources, so Bigbang should go back on as well. And no, the suggestion to just delete the sources for the others is not the answer, because you're asking us to erase other bands when we simply want Bigbang put on the list under the same standards. Unless people can provide a good reason as to why they aren't deleting the Western groups for the same issues, Bigbang should go back on and stay on. LiSyao (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually if you take the time to read the entire discussion you'll see that the main issue with Bigbang's sales numbers is that it includes solo members' sales and subgroups'. We don't count those here, only the actual group sales.--Krystaleen 03:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Krystaleen if you read it good you will realize that we give you the numbers excluding solo members .--#MRAU 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRAU-vip (talk • contribs)

I'm aware of that but that number came out from nowhere with no reliable source to back it up. For all we know it could be completely made up.--Krystaleen 02:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This source puts the number at 150 million [1] but I do not know where they pulled that number from. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sales figures get gradually inflated by record companies with each major promotion. And this is no different. This boy band's sales figures, however, whether it be 140 million or 150 million, are one of the most inflated of all that I've seen over my years of analyzing sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This has become ridiculous to be honest. Saying BIGBANG sales are "unbelievable" and "inflated" so you personal opinions decided to delete them? Even though there are reliable sources. Then Let's see the other sources from groups on the list: BSB source are from The Sydney Morning Herald, and here is BIGBANG source from another Herald News, it's New Zealand Herald, The Jackson 5 source is from Yahoo! Here are BIGBANG source from Yahoo!. Other sources for those groups are from online newspaper like The Independent, Los Angeles Times and Belfast Telegraph. BIGBANG have also sources from equally reliable sources like New York Press, The Georgia Straight and Rolling Stones. Even some groups are listed are backed up by sources from Seventeen and Oprah?! Are these two reliable sources? Let's leave the "reliable sources" argument aside for a moment, some cliamed that if they count their discography page it won't even reach that and only around 97 million sales. How about other groups pages? The Jackson 5 is claimed to sold 100 millions, but in their page they sold around 43 million albums and they don't have sales for their single (not even certifications) they are not even on the List of best-selling music artists because their available claimed figures is not supported by at least 20% in certified units, yet they are listed and their source is Yahoo. Menudo is claimed to sell 60 millions, but there is no single certification I could find, and a source from Seventeen magazine, I could claim as many of you did that these sales "unbelievable and inflated" and 'their popularity worldwide is nowhere near the level that would allow this amount of sales." so why are they listed? The same goes to many of the groups on the list, but only BIGBANG you decided not to list, while others are fine? Do you see where it's going? Having some kind of "rules", the rules applied to all of them, but one of them is not listed....? Is this where Wikipedia editors has reach? Letting personal opinions and thought decided? Even if we go only by BIGBANG discography page, they sold almost 100 million records, so why not adding them? Oh you don't believe an Asian group could sell that much? The continent that have 60% of the world's population can't produce a group like that and sell that much? Because this is the only way I see it here, pure racism. GD.BB (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The exclusion isn't based on personal opinion, it based on the fact that the available actual sales numbers do not add up. Just because sources claim they've sold 150 million records, it doesn't make it true. News outlets never analyze sales figures before publishing, they simply copy from each other. Therefore, The reliability of a source depends on context. Yes, there are also many inflated sales figures out there published by reliable sources for many western artists, and for that reason they are all left out of the List of Best-selling Music Artists, including The Jackson 5. And because Asia as a whole has a huge population it doesn't mean Asian music markets are large. Only Japan's music market is huge, the rest of them are tiny, see Global music industry market share data. The population size isn't the only factor that decides the size of a music market, the economy and per capita are the main two factors that determine whether people are able to spend enough money on music. I'd personally be open to discussing the inclusion of Big Bang if the claimed figures are somewhere around 75-85 million. But anything above that is simply outrageous.--Harout72 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

All I see is personal opinion, since what you say also applies to many other groups on the list, but why are they still counted? For example, the claim sales for The Jackson 5, New Kids on the Block and Menudo does not add up, there is no certifications that back them up, we only have some news outlets that said those numbers, and those as you said doesn't analyze sales figures before publishing, but yet you are still counting them! Because the way I see it, you believe is those numbers as you possibly grow-up with those groups, and they were huge in their prime, so it's normal to sell that much (also the mentality of they sing in English so yes they sure sold that much), but I'm sure we can't say the same for BB, since they don't sing in English, and they are from less powerful market (South Korea) so how could they sell that much? How is this fair? And by the way, in BIGBANG discography page, their available sales from songs are over 80 million digitals from South Korea only, not forgetting that we don't have the full sales of ALL of their songs, if you count the rest of their sales from other countries including China and Japan, it will easily cross 100 million, so I don't know where is this "around 75-85 million" come from. We are talking about a group who did fans-meeting (playing games with fans) in stadiums in Asia (capacity over 40k per show). Their latest world tour gathered 1.5 million fans, which have bigger numbers than tours from Lady Gaga, Enrique Iglesias, The Weeknd and Katy Perry, and BIGBANG had lesser shows than them to bring those people. Their tours in the last 3 years bring over 4.7 million fans! So their might not be inflated as you think, maybe you should go and read about them to know how huge they are, and selling that much isn't inflated as you believe. And once again, you people still didn't give one valid reason not to add them, because if we go by your reasons 90% of the list should be removed. GD.BB (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Jackson 5 are early beginner and their sales are difficult to track down for other markets. Most markets didn't have certification system until late '80s, even until the 90s. While NKOTB have begun charting in the '80s, they have 31 million in certified units. As for Big Bang's Korean sales alone, I'm not sure where you're getting the 80 million just for Korea. I Have gone as far as putting their singles digital downloads on a single file just so I could get and idea as to where their Korean singles sales approximately would be(not interested in 10,000 of thousands of units). The total on my file doesn't support more than 47 million units, and 2.150 million certified units from Japan. That is certainly nowhere close a figure to blindly believe that this Korean boy band could have sold anywhere near the neighborhood of 150 million records.--Harout72 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So why counting Jackson 5 and NKOTB on the list when there is no way to find that they actually sold 80m-100m? You basically believed a source that could simply took their numbers from fans or just guessed it! I could do what you doing and ask to remove them, since I don't believe NKOTB sold 80 million records, they only have 2 big albums and their singles didn't sell that much, and their certifications are way less, so where did the 80 million came from? Your file is way outdated, Gaon Chart have shown the top 400 best-selling songs (weekly, monthly & yearly) and songs like Fantastic baby already hit 4 million sales, and other older songs already hit millions of sales between 2010-2016 in Gaon, they also sold millions in China, from China's three major music platforms KuGou, QQ Music and Kuwo, all the links of their sales are on their page. And once again, you people still didn't give one valid reason not to add them, because if we go by your reasons 90% of the list should be removed. GD.BB (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not after tens of thousands of units posted on weekly charts, I simply needed 90-95% of the each singles downloaded sales in order to know where they stand sales wise. Again, they could never come anywhere near the claimed figures. And Big Bang cannot be compared to earlier beginners, their verifiable sales should be well inline with what's claimed in sources. Even the newer western artists cannot be listed at the List of best-selling music artists if their claimed figures are not inline with their certified units. And stop claiming that we haven't given valid reason, we've given plenty. In fact, failing or refusing to get the point is another form of disruption.--Harout72 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I will do your job Mr @Harout72 -- i can provide a file with BIGBANG's certified sales, and i will put it here so you can check it, and i will make it easier for you to count their sales, BIGBANG is well-deserved to be included in this list. --MRAU-vip

@Harout72 You still giving different standers to BIGBANG! This list is based on claimed sales not actual certifications like the List of best-selling music artists, so the entire list is based on claims by reliable sources, and we have zero clues if their numbers are based on expert research or fan research. but you believe all the sources of 11 groups on the list but not the Asian group? And you said: "Jackson 5 are early beginner and their sales are difficult to track down for other markets" so how could we believe that they sold that much, as far as I could know there is a huge chance that they didn't sell half of the claimed number, but they are THE JACKSONS, a well-known group from US so of course we will believe the numbers? And if you updated your "personal research" you'll find that BIGBANG sold 80 million digitals songs from South Korea only, that is enough to be listed, but I guess you'll believe your personal outdated research rather than actual sources from NY Times, Variety, The Rolling Stones, etc... And don't bring the disruption thing like a child, if you want to report me than go a head, I'll be glad to show the recap of how the editors here are fully biased towards western artists. GD.BB (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The List of best-selling music artists are also based on claimed sales mainly, just has certain amount of certified sales required for all. And you might want to start to read what others are actually saying rather than shooting back with a nonsensical argument everytime the discussion doesn't go in your desired way. As I said earlier which you obviously haven't read, The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Therefore, the sources you mentioned above NY Times, Variety, The Rolling Stones, etc..., are reliable in general, but sales figures need to be analyzed on individual bases.--Harout72 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Again you didn't answer my main questions! 1. Why the sales of Menudo are not analyzed? To be honest the sales are questionable, they barely charted anywhere even in latin charts, yet the claims are that they sold 60 million records! How? 2. Even if you don't believe BIGBANG sold that much, in South Korea alone they sold at least 80 million digital songs and you can check all the references on their discography page, but they are not listed? GD.BB (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I already have used the references at their discography, nothing above 55 million is supported by those refs for South Korea. Again, Big Bang can be listed with 75-85 million records claim, but I will not support anything above 90 million, I'm sure neither will anybody else. As for Menudo, I'm not seeing any Gold and Platinum certifications, so if you want to start a separate discussion for their removal, I'll support it.--Harout72 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

Given that they had no musical talent coming in, and were assembled to be a band (of boys) solely because of their look, it seems that this not only should be added to the Boy Band list, but credited as being the first, even if more abrasive than those others which would tend to be listed here. 205.172.134.23 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Could someone please explain why this article has a music genre infobox? Boy bands are not a distinct music style, much less their own genre. The term, as I understand it, refers more to how such groups perform and are marketed. Although commonly associated with only a handful of them, boy bands can play any of a wide variety of genres (the article itself acknowledges this); they are not a genre in their own right. Using a music genre infobox creates many unfortunate implications: the light blue banner, intended solely for pop genres, would seem to indicate that every single boy band fits within the category of pop music (not to be confused with popular music), which of course is not true. Listing pop and R&B as stylistic origins would seem to suggest that a what is essentially a way of marketing music groups was birthed from those sounds—this is not an problem when the template is used for actual genres. Furthermore, this appears to contradict the article's body, which instead states that the concept has its origins in barbershop quartets and male vocal groups (note how these are actually types of groups associated with certain styles rather than strictly genres in their own right). Ultimately, the main issue here is that a template intended to be used for distinct styles of music has been placed atop an article for a broad range of groups that, for any given example, could be associated with more than a few genres. Boy bands can adopt different music styles; they are not themselves a music style, and there is no infobox that, music-wise, could ever meaningfully represent groups as disparate as the Jackson 5, South 65, and One Direction. It is for these reasons that I would opt to have the infobox removed. LifeofTau 04:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

After more than thirty days with no objections, I have decided to be bold and go forward with the removal of the infobox. I am more than happy to discuss the matter here with anyone who feels differently. LifeofTau 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove "Best-selling boy bands" section

Most artists on list of Best-selling boy bands are filled with claimed sales, which supported by weak and unreliable sources. As we seen previously in the discussion of [What about Big Bang Sales?], BIGBANG is not listed although they sold almost 100 million records in Korea and China alone, and was supported by sources from local and international well-known and reliable onces that claimed they sold between 140-150 million records, and the reasons for not listing them are there, but those exact reasons can be applied to most of the list. Claimed sales and certifications, artists like BSB and The Jackson 5 claimed to sell 100m, but their certification only showed 70m for BSB and 25m-30m for Jacksons, and the sources to support those claimed are from The Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo (which both claimed BB sold 150m!), Other artists: New Kids on the Block (80m claimed sales), The Osmonds (77m claimed sales) & Bay City Rollers (70m claimed sales), but their certifications are not even close, and barely support 20% of those sales! (sources: Chicago Tribune, Oprah? (really!) & The Independent) The same goes to Boyz II Men, Take That, Westlife and *NSYNC, many claimed sales but no real certification to back it up Menudo, claimed to sell 60 million record, but they have zero certification and their supporting source are from Seventeen magazine! But they are listed!

The entire list is based on claimed sales, but all the artists certifications are not even close to the sales, but the editors chose to believe the sources which are not from official research sites like Billboard, RIAA, Soundscan or any other Recording Industry Associations, unlike BB which their sales are supported by Gaon, RIAJ and China's QQ Music & Kuguo. So I suggest for the entire list to be removed, since there is no clear standards or rules that applied to everyone, the list is just pure mess. GD.BB (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: GD.BB, you're absolutely incorrect when claiming that all listed bands have no certifications. Most of the bands you are mentioning including Backstreet Boys, Boyz II Men, Westlife, NSYNC, Take That have huge number of certified sales. The older the bands/artists, the bigger the gap will be between their certified sales and claimed figures as most music markets didn't have certification systems in the 1970s and even 1980s. It's only natural for the certified sales to be much lower even if the bands/artists have begun charting even in the 1990s.

• Backstreet Boys' certified sales are inline with their claimed sales, 100 million is supported by 72.2 million certified sales, that's 72%.
• Boyz II Men have 40.2 million certified sales.
• NSYNC have 33.4 million certified sales.
• As for Westlife and Take That, just type in their names in BPI's search box, 17 million certified units, and 22.3 million certified units just from the UK respectively. If you think that's not enough certified sales from one market for claimed figures like 40 million and 45 million, then you should stop having arguments about certified sales altogether.

As for Big Bang, they are not early beginners, therefore, their claimed sales should be tightly inline with their available/verifiable sales which is not the case with them at all. As I mentioned countless times, their Korean sales are supported by less than 50 million. Clearly you got no case here. I suggest developing better argumentative tactics rather than calling editors biased.--Harout72 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You are bringing me a personal researches and using it as facts? Even the sources you put on those researches didn't open and others were send to the main pages! Westlife and Take That have UK as their strongest market, as for the rest of countries yes they have certification, but it's small certification and not that much of sales. NSYNC are not early beginners, so all the 70 million sales should be tightly inline with their available/verifiable by your logic, but they only had 33.4 certification by your claimed "research", that's not even the half! And Menudo? At least they should have "some" certifications! As of your data gathering for BIGBANG is outdated, some examples: "Fxxk it" you put it sold 1,491,184, but the song already reach 1,778,189 sales, "Zutter" you put 800K, but it already hit a million, "Fantastic Baby" you wrote 3.5 millions, but it already hit 4 millions, not to mentions there are other sources that reveled the sales of pre-2010 releases of Big Bang's greatest hits like "Haru Haru" & "Lies", that's why I can't take your own personal research as a back up to the list. As of you saying BB is an early beginner, so their sales should be inline with their available sales, you forget it came from Asian markets, which they recently start having systems to gather sales, as before they didn't, so they are basically the same as those who are not early beginners.

Simple questions, what is this list is based on? Is it based only on claimed reliable sources? Or it should be backed up by available claimed figures supported by at least 20% in certified units like List of best-selling music artists? Or both? Or the entire list is based on the opinions of the editors? GD.BB (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

My personal research is based on facts. Follow the sources on my files. And if you don't know how to convert Gold and Platinum certification into figures, now that's your problem. 17 Million certified units just from the UK for Westlife, and 22.3 million for Take That are not small certified numbers relative to their listed claimed figures.

I'm not interested in a few thousands of units missing for Big Bang's this song or that song. I have utilized all refs at Big Bang's discography that contain significant sales numbers. Your so called 140 or 150 million claims are completely delusional figures, which cannot be supported by any means.

As for Menudo, I told you before. Start a separate discussion for their removal, and I will support it. Why are you bringing their name up again? With the way your discussing things, we're gonna circle around the same topics without accomplishing anything.

With regards to your simple question, I have answered that question before. Just because the list is based on claimed sales, it doesn't mean we should blindly take any claimed figure and add a new band. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.--Harout72 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing this section. It seems to be made up of sets of figures which each "owner" claims that, while not perfect, are better than the other guys' less than perfect figures, all combined with "The band I like (even though they aren't actually a band) is better than the one you like". It's a fanboy article, and this is one of the worst of its fanboy sections. Crappy figures, supported by non-encyclopaedic reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: The list is filled with claimed sales, most of them probably false. It's a table for fans and not needed since there is no one strong source to support all the list. GDFan1988 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: For the reasons Harout stated. Also I wonder why List of best-selling girl groups exists and no one ever seemed to contest it? Yet this boy band one always has fan girls complaining every now and then. It's quite telling.--Krystaleen 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support: Either correct the existing figures (currently stated more than recorded + add reliable sources as the existing ones are weak) and update any new entries (if there are any) based on the certified sales OR get rid of this page as a whole, seeing the argument regarding big bang's sales, in the future there'll obviously be more boy bands whose sales exceed the current ones and the whole scenario will repeat. As for the person above, it's self explanatory, there hasn't been a girl group to exceed the existing groups listed on the page, but once there will be, an argument will happen if an editor refuses to add them. Suugaapio (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol no Big Bang most definitely did not exceed the sales even though their fans claimed so. That's why no neutral editors support their addition. And this list has always been contested years before Big Bang even existed, you can see the history. Nothing to do with Big Bang at all. There's always overzealous fan girls of certain boy bands who would claim crazy unrealistic numbers for their beloved group, they'd come and go over the years. This isn't new. Let's face it, this is a case of "if I (my favorite group) can't have it then no one can have it".--Krystaleen 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, your claim is easily refutable as they can be put down at #11 with 40 - 45 Million records sold if you calculate their sales. But either way I couldn't care less, It should be an informative place but it turned to a "must place my group on the table", absolutely pointless. Times change, records get broken it's natural, but the table itself lost it's original purpose, these situations WILL repeat as time goes by. If figures were more accurate and the references were more strong then obviously I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not, hence the option to remove it as a whole. We all have our own opinions and this is mine. Suugaapio (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Point is, we're limiting the table to 10 entries. We don't need an endless list. And I absolutely agree with you, it has become a "must place my group on the table". If you check the editors who are fighting to put Big Bang on the list, they're ALL Big Bang or at least Kpop fans. All of them. That's why their WP:NPOV is iffy.--Krystaleen 07:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, if that's the case maybe remove Westlife from the table then? Cause they're currently #11 (I initially thought there were 10 but after going back to count there're currently 11 entries). Nevertheless glad we're somewhat on the same page Suugaapio (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Westlife used to list 50 million as their claimed sales so they're tied with a few of the other bands, hence the 11 bands. Not sure when it changed but yeah I'll remove them now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Krystaleen 05:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It would've been better if Menudo were removed from the list instead of Westlife as they don't have a single certification supporting such a big claimed figure. Westlife, on the other hand, have plenty of certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok you're right that'd be better. I'll edit the table again on Monday when I have access to a computer if no one beat me to it. I'd rather not mess with tables on mobile.--Krystaleen 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This is now done.--Krystaleen 06:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Please add BIGBANG as the number one selling boyband. They have over 140 million records sold (source: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/bigbang-kpop-youtube-red-reality-show-1202399581/) Itslawnuh (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Change link for 'Big Time Rush' so that it links to 'Big Time Rush (Group)'. Presently it links to a television series of the same name. Jellyman305 (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

BTS

Is ChartMasters considered a reliable source? According to this rundown BTS has over 60m EAS (this is the updated total). - Ïvana (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Which magazine first used the term Boyband?

Was it Smash Hits, Big or TV Hits in regards to people like Take That c1993-1995, or maybe even a bit earlier with a publication like Number One Magazine, who were always going on about NKOTB around 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.170.74 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the 2010s just be considered one peak?

Regarding the last sentence of the lead section. The first two peaks are given as periods of a decade or decade and a half (the 1960s, the 1990s-2000s), but then it's stated that there were two peaks in the "early" and "late" 2010s respectively. In the long run those periods of time aren't very far apart, and the article itself has only one section covering the 2010s. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply say boy bands had a third peak in the 2010s? The bands mentioned as part of the "late 2010s peak" seem to be less well-known than the ones mentioned for the early 2010s (and aren't mentioned again in the article), so I don't think it makes sense to say that they constitute a second peak just on their own. Also, at least one of the bands mentioned from the early 2010s (BTS) actually became more influential in the late part of the decade.

While I'm on this topic, I suppose we should probably have a source for that sentence in general, if anyone knows of one. GranChi (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

1960s/1970s

a) the Jackson 5 and the Osmonds were definitely both from the 70s (not the 60s) b) should probably add the Bay City Rollers to that 70s list too c) whilst the Beatles and other British Invasion bands were not strictly boy bands, both playing their own instruments and not being manufactured, though they kicked off the whole teen mania d) though the Monkees were perhaps wholly manufactured boy band? 86.139.20.5 (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Caladusp (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I request the inclusion of "The Beatles" in the table of most sales, with estimated 600 million claimed sales

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is addressed in the article, and the Beatles aren't generally considered a boy band. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Add my proposals after the line in "Early history" ending with "... their lungs and pass out upon first sight of the "Fab Four." "Alternativ information: A Boy Band is a concept of young boys or men, who is hired for the concept by the company, producers or managers, because of their individual looks and skills. The band are completely controlled and owned by company. The Beatles had known each other for several years before the contacted a record company." Herluf98 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This does not look to be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Vocal groups vs. Kpop

In the introduction, it says that boybands are vocal groups, but that is often untrue for Kpop. While purely vocal groups exist, the majority are a mix of vocal+rap groups. 2003:CA:3F1A:8A00:A168:6FFF:83C3:E7EB (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

+addition: In fact, there are also many groups that are more rap focused, such as BTS in their early years. Ktaec (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Songwriting and producing in Kpop

It's not uncommon for Kpop groups to have members who extensively write and produce for the group, as well as for other artists, such as Bigbang's G-Dragon (primary writer and producer), BTS's RM (primary lyricist) and SUGA (producer, has produced major hits for other artists) and Seventeen's Woozi (primary songwriter and producer), who are among the groups mentioned in the article. Ktaec (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to find a WP:SECONDARY source talking about this. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Beatles are the best selling boyband

The Beatles are literally a boy band not just group, and they are the best selling boygroup of all time same as such other rock groups like Queen, yet they're not on the list. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Beatles were not and are not a "boy band". This is why the phrase "boy band" is stupid and meaningless and should be tossed out.

The Beatles were a band of four hugely talented men (not boys) whose musical complexity could never be compared to a simple dance pop/vocal group act like Backstreet Boys or One Direction. Also, The Beatles were not deliberately concocted, they formed on their own. They have nothing in common with what's referred to as "boy bands".

Please don't be so foolish as to not get this distinction.

Alialiac (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Boy band" is a misnomer. Should be altered.

Since most often members of these groups are over the age of eighteen, it means they're not "boys'.

And in the realm of popular music, a "band" refers to people in a group who play musical instruments. Since most male dance pop groups don't have members who playing instruments, it's inaccurate to call them "bands"

Seems to me the phrase "boy band" should be put into the dustbin of history where it belongs (sorry but it's not 1999 anymore) .

Recommend changing all instances of "boy band" in the article, including of course the title of the article itself, to male dance pop group, or male singing groups.

Existing articles on dance pop or singing/vocal groups could just as well have a section with a much more condensed and concise version of the material here under the new and more appropriate heading: Male groups. Alialiac (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alialiac: Oppose. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME, even if the common name is not official (e.g. Mueller report) or a misnomer (e.g. Spanish flu). Reliable sources commonly refer to such groups as "boy bands", not "male dance pop groups" or "male singing groups", so that is the term Wikipedia should use. Bennv123 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned name links to wrong Wikipedia page

The linked Wikipedia page for Shinee's Jonghyun leads to a Jonghyun from another K-pop group. 112.199.141.209 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

98°

what is a "Westlife" and why is it listed more prominently than 98°? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.232.227 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can answer the first part of your question. Westlife was an Irish boy band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.57.82.130 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

Backstreet boys is 30 years not 29! Daddy Devi (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding BTS

Hello,

The BTS page shows they are both a boy band and have surpassed 40 million albums.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTS

Thanks! 2603:8080:21F0:30:8582:B71:DD05:D275 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Umm.... okay and? -GogoLion (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

They should be added to the table? If the table is claiming it shows boy bands who've sold over 40 million and doesn't actually represent that, it's a problem. 2600:100C:B035:4DAD:0:49:4359:5F01 (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They have approximately 75 million (only counting certified sales so the number is probably much higher). I've been compiling sources here but so far I have almost 50 which I'm not sure people will like, although I would argue that the more detailed the better. In the current table the sources simply claim sales without offering any sort of proof, and some are not even listed in WP:RSPSS. So I'm not sure what carries more weight when adding a new entry. - Ïvana (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)