Talk:ABBA/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

'The Essential Collection' (May 2012)

You have no information about the next Global ABBA Compilation 'The Essential Collection'. It is released on May 21st 2012.

LINK:,

http://www.abbasite.com/the-essential-collection/

82.22.125.117 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the nine O'clock News send-up

Some readers may not be aware of a send-up of this supremely irritating foursome on the British satirical programme Not the Nine O'clock news - here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aXFwIgIzaU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.138 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article is a "walking contradiction". In the introduction, it says that ABBA formed in 1970, but in the infobox, it says the group started in 1972. It also says in the infobox that ABBA disbanded in 1983, but the article is in the Musical groups disestablished in 1983. I can hardly stand seeing the ABBA article in such horrible shape. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article states 1972, but late 1982 is when they split. The group had no recordings or activity in 1983. PS. This article is a walking contradiction?!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We know ABBA had their last recording sessions in the fall of 1982, and they had their last performances and last photos as a foursome in December 1982. You can claim the group split at this moment, but in interviews and press releases it was made clear there were plans to continue. In certain regions, their last single 'Under Attack' was released in the spring of 1983. We know the group had started having conflicts with their manager Stig Andersson in the end of 1982, but the group was still together in 1983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.226.230 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As the article states, their last appearance together as a group was 11 December 1982. Their last recordings were some months earlier. What activities did they undertake as a group in 1983? If you show proof that they were still together in 1983 then that's fine, but don't forget Agnetha started recording her solo album in January 1983 so it's unlikely.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"I can hardly stand seeing the ABBA article in such horrible shape" -Well, try writing and editing yourself: consider this: Benny and Björn met June 5th 1966, Agnetha and Björn saw each other for the 1st time May 23 1968 (then met properly one year later, May 4th 1969), Agnetha and Frida met for the first time January 10th 1968, and Benny and Frida February 1st 1969. The Summer of 1969, the two couples started hanging together. Benny produced Fridas single 'Peter Pan' (written by B&B), recorded September 10th 1969. April 1970 the foursome went on vacation together and started singing for fun together, the following months they recorded together and by November they performed together. The Summer of 1971 B + B + Agnetha went on tour together, and more recordings were done. True, the first record credited to all four has its release date in June 1972, but 'Hej, Gamle Man' from June 1970 featured all four voices contributing already. As these four friends spent so much time together, composing, supporting each other, the time of their 'start' as a Band is not connected to signing a contract. Björn, Benny, Agnetha and Anni-Frid were formed -as they always said 'naturally' in 1970, and became 'ABBA' the day they first used that name on October 19th 1973, as on this date this was scribbled on a studio recording sheet by their technician.

Concerning their break-up in 1982 or 1983; Frida was recording her solo album in the spring of 1982, Agnetha had booked her sessions for the spring of 1983. Agnetha assured to the press in 1983 just as Frida had done in 1982 that ABBA had not split, they were just 'resting' while other projects were focussed on. We may say they already had split, but according to themselves, they were still together, just doing solo projects like they had done before during the ABBA years. It's in 1983 the decisions were made, not in 1982: an interview by norwegian radio in January 1983 with Agnetha and Björn promises a future album and a Tour; only towards the end of 1983 do they individually admit they might not come together again.

If ABBAs break-up is considered from their last activity as a foursome, then surely 1982 is correct. If Agnetha is to be believed, she stated to Terry Wogan in BBC tv after the release of her album 'Wrap Your Arms Around Me' that the group had future plans and had not broken up.

We know the 1982 recording sessions were an uphill struggle, and the outcome pointed musically in all directions: the released material did not chart well. Björn and Benny both had become fathers and Agnetha and Frida went solo; Agnetha had a part in a swedish movie and Frida moved to London. Björn and Benny saved all the good songs for 'Chess'.

We now know 1983 became quite turbulent: not in between the four, but between them and their manager and their record company. It was not ABBA that grew apart: things went really wrong for Polar too.

As 'Chess' took more than just 1983 to wrap up, ABBA ran out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.116.246.179 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No decisions were made in 83. I remember hearing that Abba were going to get back together in 84 for perhaps a release in 85. There was never an announcement that they've broken up. 82 was their last activity - and that's it. Peace everybody. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Stylized name

Why was their stylized name in brackets, ᗅᗺᗷᗅ, removed? Many artist pages on Wikipedia have these. Unless I get a valid reason, I'll put it back.Vancho (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit, but I just came to ask the opposite question: why is it "ABBA" not "Abba", when the MOS:TM guideline mentions KISS as an example of something that should be uncapitalized as Kiss? Art LaPella (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It specifically also states: "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually", which in Abba's case it is not - it's pronounced as a word. Also as to the stylized name, this should not be used either as it is a trademark and can only be used once in the infobox (ie. as a picture) if it's fair-use and is necessary to include it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had some comments about this at Talk:NASA, which is a similar case. Of course, the obvious point I missed is that NASA isn't a trademark, so it doesn't apply. In that sense neither is ABBA, it's a name (the stylized inverted B is the trademark - and of course that does now have to go). I've seen ABBA written many times as Abba, but it's down to consensus, which I'm guessing will stick with ABBA.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeep® and Kleenex® are also trademarked but that does not mean we cannot write it. I added ᗅᗺᗷᗅ® back on the wikipage.Flamma (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Logo from ABBASite.com

Can we use the logo from ABBA’s official website at the top of the article? This one: abbasite.com/wp-content/themes/ABBA/images/logo.png --Vancho (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be allowed, it's a registered trademark. Boot Blues (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision importance

I have to say that when I read the article their Eurovision 1974 win gets very little importance while it actually was a big part in ABBA becoming famous. I think that part of the article needs expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's true that the Eurovision victory was what made their career take off internationally, but if there is to little written about it you can always add some more information you know of yourself. Boot Blues (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 1974 scores can be found here</ref>(Coachtripfan (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC))

Agnetha Fältskog debut and breakthrough 1967 - 1968

The article states ms Fältskog had her breakthrough and sold 80 000 records at the age of 17.

Agneta (still without the 'h') Åse Fältskog was born April 5th 1950. She made her debut as a singer with a very small band on September 17th 1966 at the restaurant 'Bellevue' in the little town of Karlshamn. She only appeared in a few numbers each night as she was so young. A home tape recording of the bands repertoire, including Agneha singing her own composition 'Jag Var Så Kär', was sent to a record company in Stockholm: They again contacted Agneta and she came to Cupol Records to record her first four songs (two singles) on Monday October 16th 1967. She then signed up as Agnetha Fältskog with an extra 'h' in her artist name. The first single, 'Följ Med Mej' / b-side 'Jag Var Så Kär' was released in late November 1967.

Nothing happened the first two months. She was invited to perform on tv in January 1968: and on Wednesday the 10th that month she was live on public tv (and meeting Anni-Frid Lyngstad who also performed in the same "Studio 8" Program that evening!).

A week and a half later, Sunday January 21 1968, the b-side of her single, her own composition 'Jag Var Så Kär' was tested for the highly popular radio charts 'Svensktoppen', and a week later, Sunday january 28th, she entered this list at # 3. It stayed in Svensktoppen for seven weeks.

The sales charts saw the single entering in February at # 6, climbing slowly until four weeks later it became # 1.

Her second single, self-composed 'Utan Dej' / b-side 'Slutet Gott Allting Gott' was released in February, entering Svensktoppen at #8 but disappearing after two weeks. Her third single 'En Sommar Med Dej' didn't chart at all. September 15th 1968 she entered Svensktoppen at # 9 with the song 'Den Jag Väntad på'. She fell out after one week. September 22nd 1968 she was back stronger with 'Allting Har Förändrat Sig', as this song climbed to # 2 on Svensktoppen and stayed there for seven weeks. The single also did well in the sales charts.

But Agnetha was not 17. She was one month short of being 18 when she finally started selling records and got her break-through. And for sure she did not sell 80 000 records at the age of 17, not even at 18. Her first album "Agnetha" was not released until December 1968; her five singles didn't sell 80 000 in 1968.

Thanks for the info, I reformulated the original sentence to reflect the reality more accurately now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Abba's Genre

Genre: Abba is a pop/Europ pop band before anything. Eurodisco should be secondary. Abba only did one "Disco" album which could have been categorized as pop, Voulez-Vous. Most of it's tracks were not dico such as Chiquitita, I Have a Dream As Good As New. I think people are hung up on Dancing Queen which was released during the disco age but was really a pop song played not only in discos but EVERYWHERE! It's like saying the Beatles were psychedelic rock before they were pop/rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree most of Abba's material doesn't really fit the disco genre as such and not everything played in Discos for dancing belongs to the disco genre. Actually aside from typical Abba sound features, Abba's material is a somewhat weird collection that is all over the place (glam rock, pop-rock, reggae, schlager, jazz song, tango, funk, synth pop, disco, musical style songs, traditional folk anthems, folk dances, canon, pop/europop....).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do not understand what is the insistence that some people in the U.S. have to label ABBA as a Disco group, when in essence they are a Pop band that only incorporated some disco songs (as other genres) to their repertoire. Categorize ABBA as Disco only for Dancing Queen (which, infact is an exception in their repertoire), just demonstrates a great ignorance about their music. Just listening to "Gold", anyone can learn that Abba is not a disco group. They don't even have their roots in Funk or R & B. They have their roots in Folk music infact MiltonMacVie 10:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd question whether even "Dancing Queen" is disco really. It's too slow paced for that and carries few of the trademarks, such as the Wah-wah pedal or hi-hat. Seems more pure pop to me. Some parts of the Voulez-Vous are much closer. Certainly they're overall a pop group.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

new section suggestions

I've read that Abba have sued a lot of "abba tribute bands" for using their name. Also, Abba sued the KLF for sampling one of their songs in the 80s. Are either of these significant enough to include in the article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What exactly do you have in mind? An extra section just about tributes band being sued? That seems a bit out of place to me at first glance. The signficance primarily depends on the sources and how prominently that topic was covered in news and other publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's quite a huge article, so a few concise mentions in the "After Abba" section would do (if that section is chronologically laid out to begin with). The KLF story is significant, and apparently there was a significant proliferation of Abba tribute bands in the US who used shady marketing to try to pass themselves off as Abba.

AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If the article lacks balance and takes sides I don't think it should be used that way. In the real world Andersson and Ulvaeus have preferred to sue artists with whom they could have reached friendly compromises, and some of their actions have been less than admirable in that respect. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sales

Ok, apparently this requires some elaboration.

First of all here is subset of sources claiming figures in the 350-400 million range: Die Welt 2013, >380 million, The Telegraph 2014, >360 Million, ABC 2004, >360 Million, The Age 2005, >360 million, Billboard 2008, >350 million, Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame, esimates up to 350 million, Express 2011, >375 million, Biilboard/AP 2012, > 400 million, BBC 2014, >400 million, Rock'n'Roll's Strangest Moments: Extraordinary But True Tales from 45 Years of Rock & Roll History - book 2014, estimate from 140 to 500 million.

Many of them are as good as sources as CNN, but more importantly note the CNN article is from 2003 (so refers to some published or researched figure from 2003 or few year earlier). I can see no reason to prefer 2003 source over much more recent ones with updated figures in particular since the sources somewhat consistent anyhow. In addition Polydor published in 2004 (on the occasion of the 5 year anniversary of Mamma Mia in London) an estimate of over 360 million. Reuters reported that in 2000s Abba was still selling several million records globally so the more recent figures in the 360-400 are consistent with the Polydor publication and roughly the CNN estimate from before 2003 as well. Since WP is supposed to reflect what recent reputable/reliable sources state state and to use the most recent data in doubt, the article should state a figure between 360 and 400 or even give that range.

Now having said all that, one might of course question the Polydor statement or various other publication, but WP cannot create content based on personal/private guesses or assessment of WP editors instead it it needs to stick what representative sources report. If an editor has serious doubts the only thing he/she can do is to qualify/attribute the statement (so using something accord to the BBC in 2014, according to the record label Polydor in 2004, etc.). But he cannot modify estimate based his own private assessment or cherry bon-representative or outdated figures.

In any case personal doubts or general issues with published sales figures aside, the given figures for Abba are actually fairly consistent in the big picture (from (globally) "best selling" band of the late 70s/very early 80s with estimates in the 200-250 million range in the 80s/early 90s, over the Abba revival in the 90s to the Mamma Mia boom the figures seem reasonable. The only possible glaring contradiction at first glance might be the relatively low figure of certified sales. However considering the time frame and global scope of the Abba sales (with a comparatively low importance of the US market), it is to be expected that bulk of the Abba sales is not certified. So there is no real contradiction or inconsistence here either, that is the published figures fit roughly together and make sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think term "over 300 million records" is adequate due to the facts: 1) reliable sources claim 100-200 million figures, too (not only 350 or 300+); 2) ABBA certified sales are 3 times lower than Elton John although he has started carrer long before them (it's questionable that they for sure outsold him and others like Led Zeppelin (same problem); 3) other articles don't inflate records sales (600 million for Beatles, 400 million for MJ etc.) + informations discussed years ago in "best selling artists" article – there should be any coherence). Due to this, I think "over 300 million" is objective/not inflate and there are sources that claim records sales – so all is written now (btw, there is much more sources claiming 200-300 million for example). 87.207.65.84 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't so much about inflating or not inflating sales but stating (and sticking to) what the sources say (with attribution in doubt), it is not up to individual WP editors to provide their own analysis and to integrate that into the article because it appears "right" or "plausible" to them as that would be a violation of WP:OR. The 300 million figure for Elton John in his article for instance is sourced with USAToday. Using the same publisher for Abba I again end up in the 350-400 million range (see [1], [2]).
• As far as the "best selling artists" article is concerned from what I've seen so far it seems highly problematic what editors have done there and I don't want to see the issues of that article imported into this one. Why is it highly problematic? Because its certified sales figures at least partially seem to consist of self compiled (rather than reliably published) certified sales data. That is politely put at least borderline WP:OR but nevertheless might be acceptable if all those figures are easily verifiable and agreed upon, but they are not. For instance I just tried to independently verify some of the certified sales figures for the UK for which the article compiled 16 million records. That figure seems high enough at first glance however in that figure the Dancing Queen single only accounts for 500,000 copies whereas the actual certified sales figure clocks slightly above 1.06 million ([3]) So we are off by a factor 2!. Ironically enough the official compilation up to 2012 has Abba as the 3 biggest selling group in the UK with 11 million records rather than 16 after the Beatles with 22 million and Queen with 12 million. The Beatles figure however in the WP article is just given with 12 million, so again off by a factor 2 almost. To sum this up the figures in "best selling artists" article are at least partially self compiled and do not always match the actual reliably published data. It seems WP editors simply compiled all the data they could access at some point, which however in parts seems incomplete and/or faulty (not to mention that some of that data lacks rather simple sanity checks, which would directly suggest its unreliability - for more details the discussion page there). That also means however the certified sales figure it provides for Abba is probably anything but reliable. So to argue certified sales for Abba we need to actually a reliably published figure for Abba's globally certified sales in the first place. Do you have one? If so then it certainly should included in the article.
• In the meantime however we stick to what the majority of the most reputable and recent sources say, which brings us back to the 350-400 million range. If want to attribute/qualify that by "according to their label" or provide a sourced range or more details in a footnote, that's fine. But we definitely are not using an outdated 300 million CNN figure from before 2003, just because you feel it to be the most accurate or closest to the "real" figure. WP policy is quite clear on that point.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note, you are the only one editor who see problem in term "over 300 million records" (all sources that are cited in the article claim various number of units). Term "over 300 million records" include all of them. As you've seen BBC claim 200 and 400 million units for ABBA in different articles. There is no putting "other articles issues in that article" - Wikipedia is the project, there must be some coherence between informations. In other artists articles claimed figures are not inflated or understated. I think "pver 300 million records" term with all sources that are used is objective (sources are given). 87.207.65.84 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC) There is another one newer source claiming CNN figure, as you think CNN's is too old. PS. Certified are not private work - private work is Harout document (as he's written). Total certified figures are supported by reliable sources in that article (Harout has also written about it). "Over 300 million records" includes all cited sources - I don't delete any of them, because it's not objective. 87.207.65.84 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WP is project that must reflect appropriately (in a representative fashion) what reputable external sources state and NOT what WP-Editors at the "best selling artists" article think might be the "real" figure. I don't know how I can state that any more plainly. This is basic corner stone of WP policy - in other words non-negotionable. Now having said that I'm not on quest to personally rid WP of any possible WP:OR violation and/or inappropriate handling of sources. So if editors in "best selling artists" are hell bent and do it in certain way and in doubt ignoring standard policies, I don't really care all that much. However if they or other editors now spread out to make the articles of other artists conforming their notions (rather than sticking to sources) or in other words spreading potential policy violations all over, then it becomes a big problem. As I've already stated above reflecting reputable external sources is non-negotionable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree we can't argue with reliable sources. We have to base on it. I think now it's clear and objective. 87.207.65.84 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The last edit is still violation of WP:OR and exactly something what we as WP editors cannot do. We cannot the state (presumably) "real" figure/estimate, if the real figure it not known. What we can do however is giving the most prominent or most common figures and attribute them properly and/or providing a range. That's why re-adding the old text as an additional information is not appropriate in this form. As it seems to suggest to the reader that there is an neutral and most likely correct figure of 300 million whereas the label gives a supposedly false 375 million and there are other also supposedly false estimates, which is simply not correct and only a WP editors best guess. That exactly is a violation of WP:OR. We report report/summarize what reputable external say, but we do not report our personal conclusion we draw from them.

Another thing which we cannot do is compiling various figures from te press and pick the lowest with the argument it would be correct for sure since we state all those figures as "over". While that is correct from a pure logic perspective (at least under the flawed assumption that one of the figures contains the true value), it makes little sense in normal English not to mention that arguing the line of that formal language perspective, we simply all record as "over 0" (being logically true). So unless the different cited estimate are very close, we cannot cannot simply pick the lowest but instead we need provide and attribute the individual figures or alternatively summarize them in a range argument.

So to have the 300 million figure in the article at all it would have to be stated something like "According to CNN Abba had sold over 300 million records by 2003" or "According to Michael Lennox/Huffpo/AP Abba had sold over 300 million records by 2013". But this raises the question what the purpose of that 300 million figure, since contrary to the 375 million figure there is nothing special about it (in comparison to any other figure published in major news outlet) and it is already included in the range information anyhow. The 375 million figure however is special in the sense that it is the figure released by the label, so it makes sense to state it separate/in addition to the range. Other figures for which it might make sense to state them separately from the range would be a figure that is much more recent than the rest or an actual independent analysis. The latter would be the most interesting and useful additional figure, personally I have seen a few on the web, but aside from having some weak points they are not published in reputable source but only in private blogs or websites which are normally not acceptable as a source for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For those who for whatever reason prefer to see additional figures in the article. Rather than adding them in the lead and by that creating unnecessary and potentially inappropriate clutter, it might be a better idea to compile such figures into a (new) section on sales figures. The article in the German Wikipedia does that quite successfully for instance. It tracks and describes the development of various sales figures (including the certified sales) from the 1970s until today.--~~

I think it should be discussed. Only 2 editors are talking about it so it seems no one other doesn't see any problem in all of (previously and actually) form of sentences in that topic. Note the article redirects to best selling artists article so we should be cautious with noncoherence between both of them (someone who reads about ABBA and next use redirecting file from it can be confused). Someone objective/new should discuss it because 2 involved persons could be wrong and noone has the exclusivity of having right. 87.207.65.84 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right, that incoherence of data between different WP can be a bit irritating to readers and annoying in general. But on topics where no universally accepted or agreed upon data really exists outside of the WP that is cannot always be avoided and is not that uncommon in WP in practice. However in this particular case the incoherence somewhat only exist at first glance anyhow. Why is that? Firstly because the Abba figures in the "best selling artists article" are included the range figure here and more details could included in a separate section (as suggested above). Secondly the "best selling artists"-article outlines a very special approach and special criteria in its lead, that govern its ranking and compilation and that don't necessary apply to other articles. In fact as since that special approach can be seen as problematic with regarding to WP policies, I'd even argue they shouldn't apply to other articles. Some policy violations or exceptions might be acceptable for an individual article (there is also WP:IAR, if it still produces something meaningful for readers and the involved editors at large agree that the benefits outweigh the problems. That is something which cannot always be avoided with a huge project like WP and its diverse set of editors. Nevertheless as I stated earlier such potentially tolerated exceptions for an individual article cannot be applied or generalized across the board, that is moved on to the musical artists' articles. Because in that case we'd moved from a locally tolerated exception to policy to ignoring the policy at large and making the exception the rule and that is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: If you strongly feel that this issue requires more input from other (experienced) editors, you can request additional opinions/assessments at Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or at some other special project pages (dealing with popular music or the involved policies).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I know your edition is good faith, but please don't delete sourced information. It's as justified as your addition. If someone reads the article he will understand what is written. We shouldn't delete reliable sources. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@TaurenMoonlighting:

This still not appropriate as you skipped the date for the CNN reference (actually idicating that the figure is at least 12 yeas old), but more importantly as explained above there seems to be no good reason to cite the individual 300 million figure. Another (minor) issue is that you cited the same source twice which makes no sense here (Huffpo and Yahoo are both copies of the AP article by Lennox).

The (formal) problems stated above aside, I personally don't get the fixation on the 300 million figure. Imho there is at high likelihood that the 300 million figure is essentially just taken from an earlier Label statement of Abba sales (or taken from another article being based on such a statement, fo instance AP might have copied the info from CNN) and I can't see any hint or any reason to suggest that it is derived from an independent analysis. That however means most likely with the 300 you are just adding an additional outdated label figure (the most recent label figure being 375), that iss already included in the range information anyhow. That makes no sense to me at all.

To sum this up. I didn't simply delete sourced information, but I removed insufficiently stated and redundant information, which doesn't really add any new value to the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Other sources claimed 300 million are more recent (2013) that information from label (2010), CNN (2003) is only one of them. I think this information can be include in the article and there is no reason to delete it. There's information with source and date. Reader can understand what is written. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said already, here is no good reason/rationale to add yet another individual published figure in the lead, that is already in included in the range. For giving a figure in a in addition to the range it should have have a special property, that makes it worthwhile noting it individually (like official label figure, the (by far) most recent estimate, independent analysis, etc.). None of that however seems to apply to the 300 million figure, which in that case just adds inappropriate clutter in the lead. As I wrote earlier if you want a variety of individual published figures (including the 300) then augment the article by detailed section on Abba's sales in which you might cite plenty of individually published figures, but do not clutter the lead with it it. The lead should only have the range and individual figures with a special property as explained.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no WP rule that suggest delete that information and which expand which kind of sentence must be include in the lead. Also there is not practice of creation special detailed section about various claimed sources in other artists article. Previuosly the article stated about over 300 million units figure. Sentences added by you explain and expand informations about it. There is no reason to delete previous information, because next sentences don't deny it and only expand it. Also that information cites reliable sources. All WP rules are keeped. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Also, if there is any kind of dispute about include various informations, it should be accrued the consensus (by including information as consensus if it doesn't breach WP rules, but not include only form which is offer by one of disputing editors). According to not breaching any of rules, actually lead is the consensus in that meaning and, as it is seen, noone other (readers) has any objection to it. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually no, before your recent edits since beginning of July the article did give a 380 million figure [see [4], [5]) figure which was the most recent published in reliable sources (and probably based on label statement). Then this figures was removed and replaced by various other lower and older estimates (most likely based on older outdated label statements) and this includes your 300 million figure. Moreover that was done to synchronize the figures with the (problematic) "best selling artists"-article and I explained above in detail, why that is a bad idea and a policy violation.
• Yes, there is no WP rule explicitly forbidding to cite the 300 million, the same way that there is no rule against citing any other of the plenty of available published figures (including 380 million that got removed). However good writing (and WP recommendations to that regard in general) suggest to summarize those figures appropriately and that is exactly what the range information and the most recent label statement did. Simply adding additional arbitrary published however is bad writing and adding clutter in the lead.
• As far as "objections" by other editors are concerned. None of the editors here raised any objection against primarily stating the up-to-date label figures being published in reputable sources, that is the the 360 to 380 million figures which had been in the article for years until you showed up.
• Lastly, WP does not directly accrue random bits of information based on editorial consent, but it summarizes what external reputable sources state. Editorial consent only comes into the picture, when it is about the exact form of the appropriate summary. That the article however is supposed to appropriately summarize the (most recent) information from reputable sources is not up for debate or editorial consensus. That a mandatory given by WP project rules. Having said all that, even if you want to make an editorial consent argument for the exact summary in the lead, then (so far accepted) consent before you showed up would be 380 million not 300 million.
• On the positive side your recent edits triggered at least an overhaul of the lead attributing the label figure explicitly and providing the range information. You should leave it at that and stop pushing a somewhat random 300 million figure (being most likely based on an outdated label figure anyhow). That figure (with the cited sources) is simply not improving but deteriorating the lead by just adding redundant information and clutter.

Conclusion: Good writing, general WP recommendations, past editorial consent and frankly imho common sense all seem suggest not to state that 300 million figure in the lead. Other than your personal preference, I still can't see any proper reason to have that figure in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not true. Previuos version of the article stated 380 million units and cited sources (1 dead and 1 claiming 370 - that was not consistent). Next edits were added not only by me. Another editor has given citation need for information about 2nd best-selling group. Also Harout has explained why 100-200 million figure is used. There is no other reason to delete information about 300 million (according to you, it's "probably outdated", but it's/can be only our opinnion, actual sources (2013) tell sth different). Note, I don't remove your editions, you (not considering my, Harout's and editor's who added citation need arguments) deleted my edit. I think it shows I am more ready for compromise. There is no reason why we can't add information about CNN and Yahoo claims. Only reason could be you as only one person don't want it. Your sentences are not deleted. Lead text is correct, not breaching any rules and more complete by various claims. It's the practice which is applied in other artists' articles. Other editors don't have objections - especially your propositions are considering by sentences you've written. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is true if you take a closer look. The dead link was at the time the latest estimate from November 2013 ([6]) that stated 380 million. The guardian link was originally used to source a 370 million figure in an earlier version of article ([7]). However if you read guardian source carefully (370 million for 2011 or earlier plus still selling several million every year) it sort of supports the 380 million figure as well for a point in time being few years after 2011. That is why I left it in, when I upgraded the figure based on a newer source (the dead link). If you had any doubt about the dead link, you could have easily confirmed the 380 million figure by 5 secs googling (for instance billboard 2014, Palm's book about Abba, 2014, Boston Globe, 2014, 2015, ABC, 2013, Telegraph, 2014, Sydney Morning Herald,2013) and simply replace the dead link. There was absolutely no reason to replace that sourced figure by somewhat random and most likely older estimates and as pointed out above, before you showed up there was no issue with 380 million figure for almost 2 years and before that there was no issue with the older 370 million figure before that either.

That the CNN figure of 300 million is outdated, is not my opinion but it follows directly from the publication date. That the other later sources just restate an older estimate (like the old CNN figure) is indeed just my personal opinion, albeit a rather plausible one. However that was not the primary reason for exclusion of the 300 million figure, but an assessment for your personal benefit. The primary reason for removing that figure from the lead, is that it makes no sense to add random individual figures that are within the already given range. This simply adds no useful information for readers. It makes only sense to add an individual figure in addition to the already given range, if that figure has particular property like official figure from the label, latest (updated) estimate, independently reasearched figure or certified sales figure. But if it is just another published figure without any special property, it really has no place in the lead, since that would only amount to redundant clutter and that's just bad writing. At best such random figures could be added to a later chapter that deals in greater detail with sales figures, though imho it is questionable even there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

300 million records figure appear also in more recent sorces. You are writting only abou CNN, but more recent sources claim 300 million. It's not all, more recent sources are claiming 100 million figure, too. Noone has any objections, information about 300 millio nrecords is supported by reliable sources, so tgere is no reason to not include that information. Your informations are still included. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Note, more editors are editing article and noone has objections; cited sources are reliable; as reliable sources claim 100 million, 200 million, 300 milion etc. all informations can be included. Information about outdating is opinnion, cause recent sources claim 300 million (100 and 200 million, too). Which figures are random is only opinnion. Some sources claim they've sold 100 million records. I think including the information about 300 and figures you've added is not bad idea, it only shows more details. Also, if lead part informs how many records they've sold it's not reason to use some of it in lead, but other figures (which is not fitting to someone feeling - mine or others) in next part can be described as trying to omission one and distinguish another one. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• a) "noone has objections" <--- False, I'm objecting ever since you started editing here. Also if you to make a "silent majority" argument, then it kinda wirks against you as well, because everybody was fine old figures (current at time) from 360 to 380.
• b) Correct is nobody has raised an opinion yet, but I requested a third opinion now to remedy that.
• c) Which figures are random is not simply "my opinion", but i laid out a neutral and imho rather obvious criteria for it.
• d) That some of the sources you've cited are clearly outdated is not my opinion either but it follows directly from their publication. For the remaining (few) sources with recent dates you might argue it is "my opinion" that they are outdated. However this "opinion of mine" is more less backed up by various authoritative sources including the latest edition of Palm's seminal biograpohy of Abba and any reasoable reading of the overall sources seem strongly suggest it. On the other hand you've provided about zero arguments to suggest that those figures are not outdated (other than pointing to the publication date).
• e) The 300 millions figure is already included in the range information and you still haven't provided why it should be listed separately as well. From my perspective it still just adds redundant (and most likely outdated) clutter to the lead.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course by writing it I only thought about that noone other didn't tell about objections (I didn't think of you, It's of course). Please note, another editor has added "citation need" and also Harout has written about 100-200 M figure. Also, please note I only add sourced information, I don't delete nor discredit content added by you. Adding information supported by sources is nothing wrong. Honestly, I can't understand all the time what is a problem. You've added information about 375 million records and more, it's written. I've added 300 supported also by sources, so there're more details. I still believe in your good faith, I swear. But cannot understand what's the problem. All information (including yours) are added. Some recent sources claim 100-200 million records, so we can't write 300 million is doubtless outdated, because sources are claiming various number. I think there is no reason we can't add it due to any of rules. I don't delete nor want delete informations added by you. So I don't see any bad in current version. Of course, we can ask others, and I see you've asked. By 'opinnion" I undesrtand that information that 2013 publications are outdated is opinnion, not fact. Also information which sources are authoritative more which less is disputable. That's my point of view. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinions

Sources

>= 350 million:

• Die Welt 2013, >380 million
• The Telegraph 2014, >360 Million
• ABC 2011, >360 Million
• The Age 2005, >360 million,
• Billboard 2008, >350 million
• Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame, esimates up to 350 million
• Express 2011, >375 million
• Biilboard/AP 2012, > 400 million
• BBC 2014, >400 million
• Rock'n'Roll's Strangest Moments: Extraordinary But True Tales from 45 Years of Rock & Roll History - book 2014, estimates from 140 to 500 million
• billboard 2014, 380 million
• Palm's standard biograpy of Abba - probably the most authoritative source, 2014, 380 million
• Boston Globe, 2014, 380 million
• Internartional Business Times, 2015, 380 million
• ABC, 2013, 380 million
• Telegraph, 2014, 380 million
• Sydney Morning Herald,2013, 380 million

<= 300 and below:

• CNN, 2003, 300 million
• Huffpo, 2013, > 300 million
• Yaoo MUsic, 2013, > 300 million

[ note: There are also recent sources that cite 100 M and 200 M figur (see e.g. List of best-selling music artists). That seems noone knows how many they have sold (most probably between 100-500 M records). 3rd "vs version" is an example probably (it was not discussed). That what I've wanted to add. :) TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC) ]

Yes, the "List of best-selling music artists"-article cites 4 small, regional media outlets with low reputation. That the exact number is not known is without dispute and contained in all 3 textversions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

[1 note: In that article reliability of used sources was disscused. Harout has written about it. TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)]

Opinions & dispute

The dispute is over which of the following two formulations is more appropriate for the lead (with the arguments and sources for or against listed in the section one further up plus the sources in current article version). Please note that for all figures given in those two versions there exist some external sources, in that sense all figures are "verified". The dispute not being about being sourced as such, but about how to best summarize and assess all all available sources for the lead. For that one needs to consider reputation and publication dates of the involved sources and the context of the figures they state.

According to its label the Universal Music Group Abba has sold over 375 million records as of January 2010, this figure has not been independently verified and has occasionally been questioned. Other estimates range from over 140 to over 500 million sold records. (permanent link with footnotes/sources)

versus

According to CNN and some other sources ABBA has sold over 300 million albums and singles worldwide. Although according to its label the Universal Music Group the band has sold over 375 million records as of January 2010, this figure has not been independently verified and has occasionally been questioned. Other estimates range from over 140 to over 500 million sold records. (permanent link with footnotes/sources)

versus

According to BBC and a large number of other sources ABBA has sold over 350 million albums and singles worldwide. Although according to its label the Universal Music Group the band has sold over 375 million records as of January 2010, this figure has not been independently verified and has occasionally been questioned. Other estimates range from over 140 to over 500 million sold records.

add your opinions below please:

I prefer the second version. First, the first sentence isn't properly punctuated in English. The comma should be a period or semicolon. However, more importantly, I don't think that we should lead off with a figure that is noted to be unverified. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, only one third opinion is permitted (because another one would be a fourth opinion), so I am deleting the third opinion request. If you want more opinions, go to voluntary the dispute resolution noticeboard or use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Did you check the (unfortunately somewhat lengthy )discussion above? The 300 million figure is as "unverified" as any of the other figures in question.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Another opinion... User:Kmhkmh asked me to have a look at this. Truth be told, nobody knows how many records ABBA sold through the 70s and 80s. Most English speakers (not talking about editors here) have little or no notion as to how overwhelmingly popular ABBA was in the non-English-speaking world throughout much of the 70s and 80s. They indeed had, at times (though I don't think this is still true), more total "lifetime" worldwide record sales than bands like the Beatles. Before the USSR fell, they did barter records for manufactured goods (staples) with "eastern bloc" countries because demand was so high and they weren't seen as too "counter-revolutionary" or whatever by some of those governments. They also handed out manufacturing licenses in "import challenged" countries in exchange for lump sum payments in hard currencies and it's more or less a given that record keeping under many of those deals was "loose" in sundry ways. This is why the sources mis-match so wildly. Given the sheer volume of records they sold in over 100 countries through mazes of deals, I think it unlikely that stronger sources could or ever will crop up. My humble opinion is that the UMG estimate is on the lower end of what may have been sold, with half a billion on the higher end. So, I'd go with the second version while making it clear to the reader that the total is unknown. I'd also have the last sentence read something more like, "Other estimates range further upwards to over 500 million sold records." This is all aside from the straightforward commercial bootlegging, which was meaningful. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could state in the article that the info comes from the label itself, rather than an independent source. These figures were compiled before computerization at the point of sale, which I understand affected the record industry in the mid-1980s.(hifrommike65, 14 August 2015)

@Hifrommike65: Well both text suggestions do that already with regard to the 375 million figure. I agree that the 300 million cnn is most likely just an older label information (see the cnn publication date) if you're referring to that one. So if the cnn figure is kept in the lead the description needs to be more accurate. The problem with the CNN figure however (and most published figure in newspapers/journals) is that they do not tell where the figure comes from. Common sense may suggest, that it is just a label figure from the time of the publication or an older label figure looked up in an archive/reference book, but as long as the source is not stating that explicitly, we don't know for sure and hence can't describe it as label figure in WP. That is precisely why I picked the 375 million figure of 2010 rather than any of the newer 380+ figures because in that source it is explicitly stated that the figure comes from the label. That also why dislike the cnn figure in the lead, because it is unclear where it comes from exactly, it is contained in the general range information given later anyhow and when looking at all the published figures and their dates (see discussion one section up) common sense seems to suggest that it is an outdated label figure being superseded by the 375 million label figure of 2010.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read all of this discussion, but here goes a quick question to those who are debating the sales: if many sources claim more than 300 million records sold (some claim more than 500), why isn't ABBA in a higher position at the List of best-selling music artists ? The ranking on that page is based on claimed sales, not certified ones. ABBA should be right below Elvis. I'm asking this because, if there isn't any proper and fundamented objection, I can do that myself. Clausgroi (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Most somewhat recent sources seem to state >350 million, presumably based on label figures released over the last 15 years with the most recent label figure (2013) being at 380 million. The List of best-selling music artists seems to have its own peculiar methodology, wich strictly speaking constitutes WP:OR. The basic idea is that they generally discard any label figures and compile instead the current certified sales figure themselves by adding up figures from various national databases and in addition they provide some arbitrary estimate published in a "reliable source" that isn't much higher than 3 times the certified sales figure. There are a lot of issues with that approach, but that is a problem of that particular article and not really of any consequence here. If want to change any Abba figures at List of best-selling music artists you would need to discuss that on the talk page of that article rather than here. Here we need to figure out, how to best summarize the sales figures for this article, independently of what editors at the List of best-selling music artists article are doing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I'm uninvolved other than as a member of WP:ESC, but you make a good point about the practice of that list. Would you be interested in somehow trying to help with changing that, possibly starting with simply an RfC? —烏Γ ^(kaw), 22:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Second version for me as well, for exactly the same reasons that Robert McClenon and Gwen Gale state. It covers all the bases. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Third version is best in my opinion. More sources including reputable ones. The CNN estimate is from a year that is to far back anyway. It is reckoned ABBA are still selling 2-3m records per year. Universal Records presented the group with an award celebrating 360m sales in April 2004.

Fältskog albums

The sentence

In 2004 she recorded an album of 1960s covers who had the most impact on her teenage years as a music contender.

in the paragraph starting with

In May 2013, Fältskog released a solo album entitled A through the Verve music label

should probably be removed. It breaks the chronology of the text, and the album in question has in fact been mentioned already. 95.34.143.224 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sentence now or rather moved it up to the earlier section.

However the whole section is currently jumping between Agnetha anf Frieda sort of attempting to describe their after Abba careers in parallel. Personally I think it might be better to deal with each of them separately in their own chronology. So after the introduction paragraph first all paragraphs dealing with Frieda and then all paragraphs dealing with Agnetha.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Abba's 50th Anniversary?

Today, June 6th 2016, it was widely reported on at least a dozen tv news broadcasts, that it is Abba's 50th anniversary. How can it be the 50th anniversary? 50 years ago was 1966. According to the Wikipedia article Abba offically formed in 1972. By Abba I mean Agnetha Fältskog, Björn Ulvaeus, Benny Andersson, and Anni-Frid Lyngstad. Do they mean that Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson started colaborating 50 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.180.11 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what those newslines refer to but you last suggestion makes sense, at least around 1966 Benny and Björn collaborated/met for the first time. Can you post some url nor those newlines?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It was a celebration of the exact date 50 years ago when Andersson and Ulvaeus became friends - a celebration of their friendship and subsequent work together. It was a private party at Berns in Stockholm and all 4 of ABBA did get up on stage and sing together. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Year active

Should their active years really be listed 1970-1983? Yes, they made a few contributions on each other's albums at that time, but as a group they strated of in 1972 with the single "People Need Love". Aslo, they didn't record any music as a group in 1983, only B&B asked Agnetha to help out with the Chess demo "Every Good Man". I suggest that the date should be changed back to 1972-1982. --AgrisR (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

fine with me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Under Attack was released as a single in 1983 though.--Coin945 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The note in the infobox that they were active again (as a unit) in 2016 seems really dubious. They have not been performing together, or writing songs together, they "only" appeared all four at two occasions in Stockholm, one public (to honour their musical) and one a strictly private party. There were no group performances, just the two ladies singing "The Way Old Friends Do" together, with the guys watching. Let's say John Densmore and Robby Krieger showed up at a party and did an on-the-spot, unplugged rendition of Light My Fire on a small stage with some female singer unrelated to the original band; nobody would count that as a sudden revival of The Doors as a group. Strausszek (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Abba

Dear whoever it is who wrote what is written about Abba on 'Wikepedia'

You have said that the album 'The Visitors' marked something of a departure from the group's previously pop-based and commercially orientated compositions. I felt your comments don't do sufficient justice to the quality of those commercially orientated and pop-based compositions. Take a song like 'My Love, My Life', from the Arrival album, and try listening to it without thinking like an American or an Englishman. Alternatively, if you have no interest whatsoever in the romantic fatalism that 'My Love, My Life' evokes far more successfully than any Beatles song does (with the possible exception of 'For No One' although, ultimately, the concept of the tragedy of a failed romance comes through far more strongly in the Abba song than it does in the Beatles'), try listening to 'Watch Out' on Abba's much derided 'Waterloo' album: as a piece of unhinged rock, it ultimately surpasses 'Helter Skelter' in terms of its sheer manic nature. It's the girls' voices that achieve it on 'Watch Out'. That's where Abba outscored the Beatles: all the Beatles had was Yoko Ono saying 'Not when he looked so fierce' on 'The continuing story of Bungalow Bill'. Whether Lennon fans like it or not, I'm afraid to say Yoko's vocals just don't measure up to Agnetha's and Frida's.

All I'm saying is that the average English or American music journalist that gets to 'state the received wisdom' on a medium like Wikepedia is not prepared to acknowledge the quality of the two Abba tracks I've decided to mention. It's linguistic racism at the end of the day: anything that an Englishman or an American does must be best, almost 'by decree'. I'm fed up with it. What about Francoise Hardy?

Just to confirm, I am a massive Beatles' fan. I'm a bigger Abba fan; and even Lennon, the guy people who write on Wikepedia love to wax lyrical about, had to concede that he liked 'SOS' - the song Pete Townsend I think described as the 'best pop song ever'.

I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just fed up with the English and Americans and their superiority complex - and their linguistic racism. This world will be a better place for finally accepting that racism can extend to things other than just the colour of the skin (sorry, that was color spelt the English way).

Sorry to have been so overtly controversial! (but isn't freedom of speech the thing that makes the English and Americans think they are so superior to anyone else on the planet?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.214.40 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hootenanny Singers photo?

Hello! I stumbled upon these Hootenanny Singers photos for a while. I brought this up since the pre-ABBA section looks rather dissonant in terms of colours, looking at a grayscale Hep Stars photo and a coloured Hootenanny Singers photo simultaneously.

Yes, I know, it's an ABBA article, but I assume Björn's early pictures are public domain in Sweden (unless someone gives an evidence that these are definitely not of the license.) – Can anybody give their opinions on which photos represents The Hootenanny Singers more?

• 
  1966
• 
  1967

If that discussion needs to be moved to Hootenanny Singers's article, then I won't hesitate. Misterpither (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually to my knowledge you have to assume that pictures from the 60s are not in the public domain (unless explicitly stated otherwise).

As far as the question which picture might be better suited for an article on Ulvaeus, Abba or the Hootenanny Singers is concerned, I'd go with the second picture simple due to the better resolution and much better recognisability of faces/band members.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Reunion dates in dispute and record label revision on infobox

I've noticed some disputes of reunion dates of ABBA. They've been constantly removed, then added, and then removed. These editings causes so much confusion to any readers that I can't explain it that much, but I'd like for this issue to be very important in this talk page. I even requested this article to be semi-protected because of what's occurred inside the editing history. Would anybody mind starting a consensus or a RfC about this?

This situation has been going on since around June 2016, and I would appreciate it if someone can make it less of a problem. I understand that The Beatles announcing "The Beatles: Rock Band" does not make it a 'Beatles reunion', but ABBA, reuniting for a Simon Fuller project? That's a different thing.

Also, I've had another thought of revising the infobox. The record labels are a complete mess: I think these are just not notable enough, especially the 'Vogue' or 'China International' record labels. At least 'Vogue' was mentioned only once in the whole article.

ABBA/Archive 4
ABBA in 1974 (from left) Benny Andersson, Anni-Frid Lyngstad (Frida), Agnetha Fältskog, and Björn Ulvaeus
Background information
Also known as	Björn & Benny, Agnetha & Anni-Frid
Origin	Stockholm, Sweden
Genres	Pop
Years active	1972–1982, 2017–present (reunions: 1986, 2016)
Labels	Polar Music
Members	Agnetha Fältskog Björn Ulvaeus Benny Andersson Anni-Frid Lyngstad
Website	abbasite.com

The infobox I devised has been shown only with "Polar Music", but feedbacks and criticism are welcome if you think Atlantic Records, Polydor, Polygram, Universal Music and RCA (Australia) has some significance behind it.

Misterpither (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

With no response from this section, I've made an edit where the other record labels are discarded due to the lack of notability (and no mention of the labels in the article). Misterpither (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Record labels

I added a sneaky notice that said: "DO NOT add other labels such as "China Radio", "Ariston", or "Metal" back. These are NOT of importance because "Metal" is not consistent with the lead paragraph that states the selling countries." in the infobox. The editor with the IP address keeps adding it back, but they're not notable by any means due to insufficient evidence. Any other opinions? Thanks Misterpither (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Abba as gay icon

This should probably be mentioned in the revival section, as this is usually mentioned in various interviews, books and stories on Abba. See for instance:

• https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-07-08-abba-inside_N.htm
• https://books.google.de/books?id=SufjAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT6
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/2002/03/31/abbas-sweet-hereafter/2c6af435-f1d9-4868-a802-63f0da22b44c/
• http://www.towleroad.com/2016/01/abba-gay/
• https://books.google.de/books?id=eaxbWJ7dpu8C&pg=PT386

and also:

• Gay_anthem

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ABBA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abbasite.com/people/bio.php?id=395&page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527223611/http://abbasongs.co.uk/ to http://www.abbasongs.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

NO stylized "Aboriginal Canadian" Backwards B in lead paragraph, ever!

It has come to my attention that some people are willing to put the letter "ᗺ" in the lead paragraph; This letter "ᗺ" is actually part of the Canadian Aboriginal symbols; specifically the Carrier language, which is pronounced "ka". To prevent other editors from doing it, I added a notice to not put "stylized as AᗺBA" (not explicitly)... Besides it wouldn't make sense if the readers see "Stylized as AᗺBA" as one letter is bigger than another; additionally, some readers may pronounce that as "a-ka-ba" Misterpither (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Session musicians

Why is there not a single mention of Ola Brunkert, Rutger Gunnarsson and other session musicians in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.221.74 (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Very good question. The article reads as if the 4 Abbas had done everything themselves, played every instrument, danced every dace, done their own choruses, etc etc etc. Ridiculous! Not even Anders Eljas, who was so instrumental (!) to their success, especially on tour, is mentioned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hhhh MalihaMumtaj (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I looked at the article to find information on the musicians who played with with the band - and.... nothing at all. SAHBfan (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ABBA exhibition

There is going to be an ABBA exhibition at the South Bank Centre in London. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy

In the section entitled "2016–present: Reunion and upcoming hologram project", we had the following two statements:

1. On 20 January 2016, all four original members of ABBA made a public appearance at Mamma Mia the Party in Stockholm. It was the first time all four original members of ABBA had appeared in public together since the Mamma Mia movie premiere 8 years earlier.
2. On 6 June 2016, the four members of ABBA appeared together for the first time since 1986 at a private party at Berns Salonger in Stockholm...

Both statements cannot be true. Both are referenced, but the first one's source says only that it was the first time they were photographed together since the movie premiere, and that doesn't seem especially noteworthy. The second one's source appears to not to say anything about its being the first time they'd appeared together since whenever. Based on my reading of the above, I've trimmed these bits down to their bare essentials, removing any "first time since" claims. Second opinions are welcome. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest winner

When this article first says that ABBA won the Eurovision song contest, should it sat that it was with the song "Waterloo"?Vorbee (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Associated Acts: Ted Gardestad

If Tony Sheridan was listed as associated acts in the Beatles article page, shouldn't ABBA's infobox display associated acts as Ted Gardestad since they collaborated with Ted's earlier albums, akin to the Beatles being a backing band to Sheridan? (Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album) Or would that be considered trivial?Misterpither (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improved Grammar in ABBA article

+ This is just a suggestion in the use of proper grammar in the beginning sentence of the article, where the statement, "Abba were a group". The verb "were" is a 3rd personal plural use of the infinitive, "to be". When reference is being made to one person, or a singular object, as in this case, referring to use of the verb in the past tense, for singular reference to a group, the verb should be "was", not were. If the verb "were" had to be used, the sentence should read, "The members of ABBA were part of a group in the late 70's". You see how members clicks with the verb, "were". So the correct verbiage should read, "ABBA was a group in the late 70's; you see how "ABBA" clicks with "was a group"?; you wouldn't correctly say "ABBA" were a group because were refers to the plural use of the verb to be, and "ABBA" in this sentence refers to one group, not to many groups.

• • I think you are saying that in terms of American English grammar terminology. "Were" is correct in British English (and its direct derivatives, e.g. Australian English) as ABBA, being a collective or proper noun, are treated as plural. That's how British English grammar goes, apparently. "ABBA were a Swedish pop group..." Misterpither (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Info additions?

Bjorn, on the new ABBA songs in December 2018:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeSo5SJrjM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAeDoZMZ7ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by TapLover (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

New song

See

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8505427/abba-bjorn-ulvaeus-new-song-september-october

Billboard reported it on 3 April, is it possible it originated on 1 April? Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo ABBA.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

British English for a Swedish band

Does anyone know that Swedish bands do not always use British English, even on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're asking.

(Swedish) Bands are usually not Wikipedia authors. If you are asking which variant of English should be used for articles on Swedish bands, I don't think there is general rule, but it is rather decided by the main authors of the article and what variant they decide to use.

if you're asking what English variant Swedish musicians use then that obviously depends on the individual artist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, interesting question I suppose, but in the case of Abba, it would have to be British English as opposed to US, because they were specifically (as a band) focusing on the British market with little interest in breaking the US. They had a slight push there during 78 and a concert tour in 79, but the UK seemed to be their main focus during their active years.Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's manual of style states that on this issue, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change. When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" (my emphasis). The early history of this article shows that "ABBA are...." (as opposed to "ABBA is..." was introduced to the article in its 11th revision (here), which was the first revision to use non-truncated prose, and Br Eng was used throughout the article with this edit, which was the first post-stub revision to consistently use one English variety. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The claims that Abba focused on the British market and had little interest in the US market are not true to my knowledge. They just happened to be less successful in the US market during their active years (but not for a lack of trying). Also if success or cultural influence is taking as a marker the British English might be preferred over American English, however for such an argument the real contender would be Australian English, as Australia can claim to be the first English speaking country where Abba took off and which was home to the original Abbamania. It was also one of the starting points of the Abba revival in the late 80s/early 90s.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

the one being Fältskog and Ulvaeus, the other Lyngstad and Andersson.

This is the right version. Not with two 'and's. Kapeter77 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

With regard to these edits: [8], [9], and [10], they do not improve the article. The previous version is more concise and easier to read, and is perfectly good grammar. See https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/commas_the_Oxford_comma.htm, with the example: The Bakerloo line runs between Harrow and Wealdstone, and Elephant and Castle. The version with "the one being" and "the other" is unnecessarily complicated and awkward, and was reverted already by 65.41.99.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Although I had let the change stand the last time, I agree with them. Please follow WP:BRD and do not continue to repeat the same edit without consensus. --IamNotU (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OK its better with a comma. Kapeter77 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

2016 or 2018

Infobox says they returned in 2018, while the article body suggests 2016. Which one is right? Are both right? Are they different in context? --37KZ (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

37KZ, it seems that the 2018 mentioned in the infobox is when the band began making music, whereas 2016 was when they began to make appeareances. Hope this helps. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 11:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. Otherwise, one could argue that ABBA originally kept going until 1986. So yeah, the years in the infobox indicate the years of musical activity. --37KZ (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Eminem Beats ABBA & Led Zeppelin's Consecutive UK No.1 Albums

  The Article says that ABBA still holds the joint UK 'Chart Record', for the 'Most Consecutive No.1 Albums' - with 8. 
  That would be for Led Zeppelin's 8 UK No.1 Albums, from 1970 to 1979, and ABBA's 8, from 1976 to 1982. In fact that 
  Chart Record has been beaten by Eminem. His 1st UK No.1 Album was in 2000, with 'The Marshall Mathers LP'.
  In 2017 he equalled ABBA's and Led Zeppelin's Chart Record, when 'Revival' became his 8th consecutive UK No.1 Album.
  In 2018, he beat the Chart Record, with his 9th UK No.1 Album, in a row - 'Kamikaze'. At the end of January 2020, he 
  had his 10th consecutive UK No.1 Album, with 'Music To Be Murdered By'. 86.2.61.136 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

UPDATES ON THE NEW ABBA SONGS...

 I see that you do not mention Bjorn's Interview with the UK's ITV News, (September 2019). In
 that TV Interview, Bjorn said that ABBA had been into the Recording Studio in 2019, to work on 
'A Work In Progress'. That suggested that there were going to be more than 2 New ABBA Songs, as 
 those 2 were Recorded way back in June 2017. You also do not mention, that Bjorn made it clear, 
 that no New ABBA Songs were to be released until: 'Sometime in 2020'. In February 2020, Benny
 was Interviewed for Swedish TV, and he revealed, that ABBA were hoping, to release the New Songs,
 'After the Summer'. That ABBA were 'aiming' for a September release, but the decision was not up
 to Benny alone. So, that is an up-date on the new Songs. Your Article is still talking about a 
 late 2019 release, so it is way out of date. 86.2.61.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Apologies, there was some vandalism that wasn't fully reverted, so I had to revert the revert in order to undo it properly... if you see what I mean. Anyway, all fixed now. MFlet1 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

'Take A Chance On Me' -- USA Sales

 It is a Myth, that 'Take A Chance On Me' outsold 'Dancing Queen', in the USA. It is easy to destroy the Myth.
 'Dancing Queen' was No.1 in the 3 USA Charts of 1977. That is 'Billboard', 'Cashbox' and 'Record World'. It
 was 'Billboard's 12th Best Selling Single of 1977. It was 'Cashbox's 3rd Best Selling Single of 1977. As a
 contrast, 'Take A Chance On Me' reached varied Peaks, in the 3 USA Charts - No.3, (2 Weeks), in 'Billboard',
 No.5, (2 Weeks), in 'Cashbox', and only No.9 in 'Record World'. It was nowhere near the Top 20 Best Sellers
 of 1978, in any of the 3 Charts. It was the Year's 32nd Best Seller in 'Billboard', the 47th Best Seller in
 'Cashbox' and it can't have done much, (at all), in the 'Record World' Top 100 of 1978, as No.9 Hits never
 do well in Year End Best Selling Top 100 Singles Lists. It is perfectly obvious that 'Dancing Queen' sold far
 more US copies than 'Take A Chance On Me'. However, People, who know very little about how Charts work, just 
 love to repeat the Myth that the 1978 ABBA Hit outsold 'Dancing Queen' in the USA. They do no research. They
 just copy off what other sources say. From what I've gathered, (over the Years), 'Dancing Queen' sold around
 1,500,000, in the USA, between 1976 and 1977. It has since sold well over 600,000 in USA Downloads. The 1978
 ABBA Hit, did not sell much over 1 Million USA copies, in 1978, and its Downloads, are nowhere near, those of 
 'Dancing Queen'. If 'Take A Chance On Me' really had outsold 'Dancing Queen', in the USA, then it would have
  done much better than No.3, No.5 and No.9 across the 3 US Charts, and been much higher than No.32, No.47 and
  not in the Top 100, at all, ('Record World'), in the Year End Charts of 1978...86.2.61.136 (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

sales figure

@Dhoffryn:, @88marcus:

Your edits regarding the sales figures are imho a clear violation of WP:V and WP:OR, two core policies of WP. If you want to have sales figures/estimates, you go with the figures cited most commonly in (recent) reliable authoritative sources and/or certified sales figures. What you cannot do however, is to pick non-representative outlier figure from some outdated low quality source, just because you personally think that figure is closer to the "true figure" as such an approach violates the two core policies named above.

So if you keep pushing low quality sources into the article, which are not representative for generally stated figures (in better sources) then I'm going to escalate that into an "official" conflict (to Arbom if need be) to enforce that WP core policies are followed in this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: The only person who is doing WP:V and WP:OR here is you. There's no problem with the 150 million claim, it's a very acurate number for a group who have around 70 million copies certified by organizations like RIAA, BPI, ARIA and so on, also there are many sites who claim that too. Maybe you're the kind of fan who wants to inflate the sales like many Michael Jackson's fans did in the past with the Thriller album, they claimed that 100 million was the correct and actual number of sales for the album because that claim was everywhere. Maybe we can do an Rfc here and like the Thriller case change the 380 million claim to a more accurate claim based in the reliable cited organizations.--88marcus (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point above. So again WP editors cannot personally pick/decide which figure is the most realistic one and cherry pick a (low quality) source (that's a violation of WP:V and WP:OR). Instead they are supposed to report summarize what the most external sources state.

If you want the 70 million certified sales figure in the article, then include it, there is no issue with. If you want to to point out that the 380 million is merely label estimate, there is no issue with that either. But again you cannot do what you are currently doing since that is a policy violation.

And es i'm aware that label estimate can be problematic and there are known cases of intentional inflation, there is no dispute that. But the proper way to handle that is not by violating core policy but to properly summarize what is known from reliable sources.So you explicitly mention that the high number is merely label estimate or give the certified sales figure in addition or instead. But what you cannot do is cherry picking non-representative sources, because you personally think that figure might be more realistic, because that is violating core policies. Not to mention that the low quality source you use are by all likelihood just older outdated label estimates anyhow. --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

150 million records doesnt looks "wrong", when a group with oficially only 8 studio albums, a couple dozens of singles, 2 live albums and 7 compilations have 65 million copies certified available and is supported by RS publication(s). Their main market, certifications and sales have a based outside the United States. Some artists such as Madonna, Dire Straits or Julio Iglesias among the List of best-selling music artists have their certifications available of more than 51% outside USA. Contrary, a tons of artists such as Taylor Swift (see her difference: 181M certified in USA + streaming and only 36M outside), Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and so on have their main certifications based in United States. Figures will vary among them, but in these two "type" of examples/"categories", a claim with more than 200/300/350 million etc vs. 65 million certified units looks mathematically questionable in their case, whatever is the market.

Music sales inflation exists and it's a common practice. However, I also noticed you have a part of the "other truth": claims of 200/300M etc is not a minor point of view in ABBA case; actually these figures represent the "majority" instead 150 million and we can't also be a judge of the information. My 2cents is keep both figures or all of them with a footnote. Example: ABBA sold 150 million records worlwide (footnote → "Additional sources place this figure somewhere between 150 and 380 million (refs)" or "Record sales may vary, other claims includes: 200, 250, 300, 380, 400 or even 450 million (refs)"). IMHO, this couldn't apply for all artists, since we need to analyze each case if is necessary like this one. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well one can make argument why 150 million might be more realistic than 380 and vice versa. I'm not really interested in that discussion, because at the end of the day that comes down to personal assessments/evaluation of various pro and con arguments by WP editors, so their private opinions and those have no place in WP articles. Personally i don't really care what the "true figure" is, I just want to make sure that this article follows core policies.

Personally I suspect that most sales figure for Abba between 100 and 400 million that you can find in most sources are label estimates anyhow just from different times (and different labels). How reliable thos estimates are is an open question, but we should not put outdated label estimates in the article to compensate sales inflation, we might suspect. But again my personal take is irrelevant for the article as well, the article simply needs to match core policies. The way to handle label estimate in WP is by stating clearly that there are label estimates. Other than that we simply reproduce the most common estimate from the best most authoritative publication or offer a range and stated certified sales in addition. But we can't really do what 88Marcus and some other editors associated [List of best-selling music artists]]-page keep pushing in here. That is pushing low quality sources over the most recent authoritative sources, just because they have the figure they believe to be true. I mean currently they push [11] over background articles on abba in major newspapers or books by music journalists as a source, which is completely unacceptable.

The List of best-selling music artists itself is strictly speaking a long standing policy violation, which I personally don't mind that much, as at least they clearly state in the article's lead, what they are doing, so readers know how those numbers are assembled and can make up their own mind. However pushing those figures into other articles based on low quality sources (and without further explanation) is really problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Luxembourg Chronicle is a reliable source and it's from 2019. The way you said seems like this source are from the 1990s! And about "most recent authoritative sources" that would be IFPI, RIAA, BPI and so on, any other claim seems circular. At that time you were including the 380 million claim, the source was BBC, which copy the content directly from Wikipedia versions. Only you are complaining about the 150 million source. If there is another person I think I should do an Rfc. Also, we can't included things in Wikipedia only because sites on internet are saying that, Wikipedia is not a deposit of website's informations, we have to be accurate with the content and add the 380 million claim would be the contrary of that.--88marcus (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry at this point I can't take that serious anymore. I don't know if you have issues with assessing sources or you want to push the 150 million figure no matter what or whatever the reason. If you keep pushing this source in the article then I'm going to escalate that as stated above.

If you want to use IFPI, RIAA, BPI to state/source the certified sales figure, go ahead, as already mentioned above i have no issue with that. The issue is merely with the source you keep pushing for the 150 million figure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Do you see problem with that source and with that claim: "While figures vary, industry watchers agree that ABBA has sold at least than 200 million albums and singles worldwide" source link--88marcus (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also saw that source from Forbes.com, but not sure if we can use it due WP:FORBESCON because is a "contributor" article. Although many times, the reliability also depends on the context. My early suggestion was pretty simple: keep all the claims —preferably the most recent publications— in a footnote (150 million + footnote explaniation) and let the reader choose what they want to believe or what is the(ir) "truth". I stronly oppose only have the 380M claim or more than 200M +, but if there is not a "consensus" the best option IMHO could be the current version without a figure. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: Ok for me. But the probleam is the same case of Thriller (again), the inflated claim was spread over the internet and would be hard to find a new 200 million claim for them. If we found maybe the text can be like you said: "Estimate album sales for ABBA are over 150 million records worldwide (with claims as high as 200 million sold)link"--88marcus (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thriller is a separate case and it already reached the consensus since a lot time ago. We don't need to do anything... And that case is kind of different additionally, because we have reliable sources indicating explicitly about that hoax/inflation in sales (as the MJ sales overall). Although are the "same problem" every artist and every album will be kind different and we need to evaluate separately when is needed. A footnote helps to advoid be the judge of information, especially when higher sales that we need to "avoid" are the "majority" and ABBA is one example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I know. Maybe you could change the article and include the footnotes too. ;) --88marcus (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: disregard (if you want) previous message, I just read wrong. Yup, I understand your point, many artists have a consolidated figures with a large etc of sources over the time but are thanks to the circular reporting and circular references (WP:CIRCULAR) and Wikipedia helps a lot to create it. That's not only happens with music sales, is also with almost everything. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: The 200 million figure of Forbes article suffers essentially from the same issue, while as a source it is slightly better than the event announcement in chronicle.lu it is still not representative for the commonly published figures and it is still a low quality source compared to background articles on Abba in major newspaper or journals or books. There are enough of the latter two and can you cannot simply ignore them just to get the figure you want or to get a figure closer to List of best-selling music artists, because exactly that is violation of WP:V and WP:OR.

What you can do however without violating policy is:

• a) Only state the certified sales
• b) state the label estimate and the certified sales
• c) state a range rather than a single figure based on single figures and ranges given in various "high quality" sources
• d) write a special section (or footnote) on Abba Sales providing a variety a different figures given over time from reliable sources and explaining why high figures might appear dodgy (that's how German WP article handles the issue for instance)
• e) state the most common single figure cited in recent high quality sources
• f) state no figure

In the past the the article used mostly e), which apparently is to your disliking. I don't really care which of the 6 options is used, I only care about this article being policy compliant. In particular that means you cannot not cherry pick a source with a figure you personally like, while ignoring all the other often more reputable sources. That approach is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Using sales claims from a record label usually is something that we need to avoid in my knowledge. Third-party sources are more acceptable. Even, in a early original version (2012) of that page used in German Wikipedia, we can see UMG cited a questionable source (ABBA.de). There aren't "most common single figure" or not matters how reliable is a source, because in ABBA's case range of estimations vary dramatically, so the problem you pointed out is virtually the same with that system (e.g: if we only put "ABBA sold between 300 to 400 million" ignoring the other lower claims if there is not a footnote). Please be advise, no matters the age or tenier of the references as you will see below. Usage of certified sales could be very unnatural in a biography and the List of best-selling music artists fulfills it with the internal link.

Sales in some examples

240 million records (1993 by Simon Garfield) 350 million records/+ (1999 by The Guardian/AFR) 100 million records (by James S. Olson in 1999; pag. 2) 250 million records (1999 by Swedish Institute; pag. 254) 215 million (until 1985) (Guinness World Records 1992; pag 488) 150 million records (Billboard; 1982) 350 million records (2000; by Sweden & America; pag 13, #1) 180 million (1980s), 250 million (1980s) to 350-400 million (2000s) (by Carl Magnus Palm in 2009) 250 million (by William Hartston in 1986; pag 16) 50 million (by an author called Joseph Murrells in 1984; pag 410) 50 million (by an author called David Dachs citing Atlantic Records in 1980; but citing only in four years) 53 million (by Christopher Andersen in 1986 citing only in four years) 350 million (by a promotional book Michelin Must Sees Las Vegas in 2003) 400 million (by academics Christine Lundberg, Vassilios Ziakas; 2018 citing ABBA website in a 2012 version) 500 million (by Fast Company; 2018) 140 million records (by Paste in 2018) 140 million (by BroadwayWorld in 2017) 400 million (by Los Angeles Times in 2012) 370 million (by BBC in 2012) 370 million (by CBC Canada in 2008) 380 million (The Telegraph in 2009) 380 million (by Evening Standard in 2020) 390 million (by a book of Marshall Cavendish in 2010; pag 1277) 375 million (by BBC in 2014) 375 million (by ABC News in 2010) 200 million+ (by BBC in 2012) 200 million (by Sky News in 2012) 200 million/+ (by Smooth Radio/Telegraph in 2012) 200 million (by BroadwayWorld in 2010) 360 million (by ABC News — Australia in 2007) 600 million (by The Post and Courier in 2020) 350 million (by Purdue University in 2014) 600 million (by Brown Paper Tickets in 2016) 600 million (by Vendini) 600 million (by Daily Republic in 2019)

As you can see above, those are only a few examples of the range that is very unusual and the problem with them exists since virtually late 70s/early 80s. Some of them are more "reputable" (as a source) than others, but are only examples, is not an exhaustive list. A range from a 70/80s artist with 100-110 million of "missing" sales (certifications) vs their claim figures is pretty understandable in most of them, but more than that, even 200-300-400 million is highly inflated, unless you as an artist have sold more than The Beatles or Elvis Presley. And please note that according to some publications such as the Guiness World Records the first four best-selling artists are: The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna (and she sold an estimation of 300 million not 400 or more). That's why certification vs sales claims is a must, and is not only a whim from some Wikipedians. It may have errors and have not completeness (perhaps only 80/100 % in some of them to give a estimation) but if there a reliable sources (preferly more than 1 estimation as is given there) is pretty fine. Also, that's virtually impossible arguing something like "if ABBA sold (oficially) 250 million since 1990s, an estimation of 350-400 million in 2020 or since 2010s is more than acceptable". Is not possible and is a corollary, since they must have at least newer certifications as a proofs, and within the most higher markets as a plus, either with reissues, special editions or their official discography as with the Beatles case, Presley or MJ etc. Increase sales has been a common practice even by reliable sources, to say nothing for record labels and fans, but certifications exists to prove it. Please be advise, that there is something called "woozle effect", and these practices in sales matters are really easy to have a countless of "highly reliable sources" (despite if they are realist or not) and its pretty easy thanks to a circular reporting and circular references.

Sorry to have extended it, but I feel was necessary explain (and explain again) many of your points. I actually already gave in my first post in this talk page one of the "two best solutions": footnote indicading all possible sales and let the reader choose what is the truth for him/her and the other one is "state no figure". 88Marcus already agreed with the first one, and you said, that you don't have problems with both since you have included them in your list of "solutions". In the meantime, lets see if there more additional opinions --Apoxyomenus (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We are still talking past each other. I am well aware of issues with inflated sales, but we cannot replace possibly inflated sales with personal guess work or cherry picking nor can we assume fallacies like "because label X inflated sales for Y, so label A must have inflated sales for B", both is not allowed by core policies. Instead we are supposed to compile what the best sources say (which in the case of Abba would for be in 300 to 400 milion range).

Of course we should use 3rd party sources (and only those). However one should be aware that in Abba's case (almost) all figures in 3rd party sources seem to be label estimates (from different labels at different times) rather than independent research/computations. You can actually observe that in your list, most of those figures below 400 million seem to based on label estimates (starting with the 50/53 million figure being a label estimate from 1978).

If 88Marcus is happy with any of the approaches a) to f) which don't pose direct policy violations, that's fine with me and we close the discussion, but in my reading of the discussion so far, he still seems to insist on cherry picking non representative figures. If he wants to use Forbes article with a footnote on the range and other authoritative sources (basically approach d)) that would work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we include the 1986 and 1999 one-off reunions in the infobox?

This is fairly self-explanatory, so I'll just leave it here. And maybe also their non-singing appearance at the Mamma Mia premiere in 2008? Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Swenglish in their lyrics

More and more is being blogged about regarding some of ABBA's lyrics which some people find strange. The confusion is a matter of interpretation and, sometimes, concrete and common false-friend errors which you have to know Swedish to understand. Examples are "funny" where they mean "fun" (Money Money and Does Your Mother Know), "high" where they mean "loud" and "dance" where they mean "a dance" or "dancing" (Dancing Queen), "throw a dice" where they mean "roll the dice" (The Winner Takes It All) and "got taste" when they mean "got a taste" (When All Is Said and Done). Frequent Swenglish pronunciation like "ice" for "eyes" or "loss" for "laws" also complicates perception for many listeners, whereas most might not actually hear the "mew sick" where "music" is meant. Many people don't listen too carefully, and many don't care. I am asking for attention to this in possibly identifying a quotable source which could enable us to add a reliable sentence about this clearly discernible phenomenon, sad perhaps for English teachers, but idiosyncratically relevant, though not vital, to their huge success. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion here, pp.89-90, if it helps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ABBA - TopPop 1974 5.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

BABBA (tribute act)

Another possible tribute act to add is BABBA (https://babba.com.au/). They have been going since 1994 and claim to be endorsed by Benny, and have also performed with him. —DIV (1.145.37.116 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

Article issues and classification

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.

The article has inline "citation needed" tags from October 2022 and February 2023, as well as several unsourced sentences and paragraphs so does not pass the B-class criteria. Reassess article to C-class.

There are no "Documentaries" sections between the "Further reading" and "External links" according to the MOS.

External links

There are ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

Move excessive links here for future examination:

• The Secret Majesty of ABBA. Variety, 22 July 2018
• ABBA's Essential, Influential Melancholy. NPR, 23 May 2015
• What's Behind ABBA's Staying Power?. Smithsonian, 20 July 2018
• ABBAinter.net TV-performances archive
• ABBA Songs – ABBA Album and Song details
• ABBA – The Articles – ABBA news from throughout the world
• {{youtube|tQh8auCk6m0|ABBA – Bios (video; 9:18; 2021)}

-- Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually given the size of the article I'd say way more than 3 external links are acceptable and so far we are nowhere near link farm dangers. And a non-excessive number of useful links isn't a reason to remove some either.

As far as the Documentary section is concerned where is it supposed to go if not between Further reading and External links?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUTWORKS suggests before the "See also" section. The actual layout of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works suggests the same. ::If there is no "See also" section then above any styled "References" (Notes, etc...) section.

If there is no "Further reading" section nothing would generally go between the "References" and "External links". -- Otr500 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding with regard to the styleguide. The places you suggest, if I understand the styleguide correctly, are for works or documentaries by Abba (the article's subject) but not for documentaries about Abba. Documentaries about the article's subject (rather than works of the article's subject) are similar to further reading section or a recommended reading list, with the difference that they are in film format rather than a text format. Hence placing next to a Further reading section makes sense to me. However if the style guide suggests explicitly to place it elsewhere, then I'll have no objections against moving it. But as I currently read the styleguide, it simply doesn't deal with the documentaries case (as it is less common/non-stanndard appendix so far).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Kmhkmh you have presented a dilema. There doesn't appear to be a single answer. It appears that a section referred to as "Works or publications" would be material by the subject (for biographies only). MOS:SO further states; Books or other works created by the subject of the article, under a section heading "Works", "Publications", "Discography", "Filmography", etc. as appropriate. Within the criteria presented it appears that a documentary "about" a subject, if not incorporated into the article, has no defined location. Since this surely cannot be the first time this has been approached it would seem likely there would be a solution.

Have you run across any similar articles for a president? This is the only one I recall seeing, however, I have not made a scuff mark in looking at the over 6,626,405 articles.

stylism

I recently learned that this is possible: ABBA —Tamfang (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)