Talk:Michael Jackson albums discography/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Presentation

I made the writing smaller on the studio albums section, I think it looks more professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.98.112 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I can't agree. But I can see what you mean. I think at the very least that the album titles, and column headers shuld be in a normal sized font. Besides, If you wish to reduce the font size of a table; you can designate so at the top of the table. Chadwholovedme (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

General

This page is appaling. Have you seen Mariah Carey's discography page, that's the way this should be.


US chart positions should be updated for his compilations. Highest chart positions should be shown as on the Billboard Comprehensive Albums chart. These albums were too old to re-chart on the Billboard 200 but the new positions shouldn't be ignored as the Comprehensive chart is a more thorough list. MJ had the top 3 selling albums in America following his death - the first time a catalog album outsold the top Billboard 200 album. A second column needs to be made at least to show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RD09 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Order?

Why in the name of God are the Epic alums listed before the Motown ones? --FuriousFreddy 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thriller sales

104 millions copies of Thriller sold?! this is ridiculous. It's around 50 million—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.180.165 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, Guinness world records says so...--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I love Michael, but I definitely don't believe Thriller sold the 104 million that Guinness is claiming. When I added up the sales for the countries provided on the Thriller page it's just under 50 million. That's probably at least 80% of the world's music markets right there. Believe me, I would love for it to have sold 104 million, but I'd honestly say it's around 60 million. Either way, it's still the best selling album in the world and I'm happy about that. 128.180.211.181 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
104 million copies of Thriller sold is IMPOSSIBLE! That is inflated by at least x2. Guinness does NOT specialize in album sales. Here are CERTIFIED sales that were not able to be proven in guinness.
Certified Sales
USA= 27,000,000 (2005, RIAA)
Argentina= 577,000 (1999)
Canada= 2,200,000 (1984)
Brazil= 1,200,000
Mexico= 400,000 (1994)
Total sales in America = ==31,377,000==
  • Europe = 8,250,000 (IFPI)
Certified Sales
Germany= 1,500,000 (1995) Netherlands= 800,000 (1996) Switzerland= 300,000 (1995)
  • Other Sales
UK= 3,578,000 (2006, OCC) + 182,000 (Club sales until July 1992) = 3,760,000
France= 1,800,000 (1984) Finland= 90,000
  • Other Countries = 2,610,000
Certified Sales
Australia= 840,000 (ARIA, 2001)
Other Sales
Japan= 1,620,000 (ORICON, 2006) New Zealand= 150,000
If anyone wants to add on other countries go ahead. But you have to realize that 100 million is impossible, anyone would like to prove me wrong with actual sales from each country feel free to. If anyone has certified sales feel free to post. I tried to site all my sources and dates when they were last certified. For now, I'm putting it at 60 million (which is an extra 10 million for any missing countries which IMO is extremely fair). Ayumi4u 04:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not how wikipedia works, although I agree with you in principle. Actual sales figures are here [1], which is the most complete list seen. Within wikipedia, you cannot amend detail that has been referenced unless you have a reference that is from a more reliable source. The 104 million sales figure is from Guinness World Records, so it will be near impossible to get a source considered more reliable. Then there is the alternative, to dispute the figure, and put under discussion. But this does not mean that you can automatically amend the page. Then concensus is used to determine what figure to use. The other issue with your correction is that it is at most a guess, thus non verifiable. So you are wishing to replace a referenced verified figure with a non referenced, non verifiable one. For these reasons, the detail should stay - until concensus has been reached. 60.234.242.196 11:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well these are certified shipment of sales from ARIA, RIAA, Oricon, etc. These aren't just made up from some Michael fansite. These are actual researched from the official countries tracker for shipments and sales. I can give you the website to each one if you would like to see and add up everything yourself; I thought I was saving you guys some work. "But this does not mean that you can automatically amend the page." Wikipedia does say to be bold and since most people don't respond to my talks (I thank you both for that) I took action and a little explaination why. I will leave it at 104 million, though I still don't see why we are leaving up something that we all know is fake. Guinness book of world records is known for having a lot of claims that are untrue. ex. largest vocal range from Georgia Brown with 9 octaves (G2-G10, which is technically 8 octaves, another mistake). A lot of musical experts say a G10 is physically an impossible note to hit. Anyways, like I said, I'll leave it as is, but I don't understand why we all know this claim is untrue but are not changing it. I'm thinking it might be best to just get rid of it altogether since 100 million seems to be misleading and unbelieveable yet we are writing it in stone. Ayumi4u 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Yeah we agree with you: Thriller has not sold 100 million copies. But as the above user explained, making an ontological claim like that is not grounds for changing Wikipedia, mainly because you're making a claim to truth, which is not allowed here. Ideally you go by what's widely reported in reliable sources, and even here the 100 million figure is creeping up in a lot of places, even though it's complete rubbish. But when it comes to record sales, you really can actually go by isolated claims from what sometimes appear to be the most disreputable of all internet sources (even personal homepages have been allowed, among other things).UberCryxic 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear sales of Invincible are wrong though, more often (The Elfoid 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Well, according to Guinness World Records 2008, Thriller has officially sold 55 million copies (according to Epic Records) and 104000000 copies according to Michael's management. According to the article, the exact number of sales is unverifiable, but Thriller still is the best-selling album of all time.Agapitos60 10:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Guinness confirmed that the RIAA & Sony gathered information to come up with the grand total of 55 million - which is the most accurate. I think 104 million is a strange claim, I mean the 4 million is completely irrelevent next to the 100 million. They could've said with sales reaching over 100 million. In Michael Jackson's booklet for The Ultimate Collection, it claims Thriller is the best-selling album of all-time with 47 million copies sold - and that was released in 2004. Guinness claimed 55 million in 2007, that means Thriller sold an additional 8 million copies in three years to reach 55 million - I think even that number is too high. The majority of the records Thriller shifted were in the 80s. With 20 million sold in the U.S alone through to October 1984, and an additional 7 million through to April 2005, making 27 million U.S sales. By the time he released Bad in August 1987, Thriller was estimated as having sold 40 million copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.33.225 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why people dispute this??? If you are talking worldwide, which I think this is what the figure is based upon, I can see this being possible! US now has a population above 300 million people... this makes it even more possible, even if only 10 or 20% of the people bought this album which I see is highly possible. Then add on the other highly populated countries, UK, Australia and the overly-populated country of China! NiteHacker (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see why it is so far fetched for an album (especially Thriller) to sell over 100 million copies. If just one person from each family in the US bought one then it would reach over 100 Million. 98.18.170.190 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those who say those figures are ridiculous. An album that sells 27 million CERTIFIED copies in the US CANNOT have sold almost 80 in the rest of the world. Generally an album by a global best-selling artist sells as much in Europe as in the US, which would explain a 50 something figure. Now, everybody knows that the US and Europe are the 2 main markets for music. So, how can you explain the other 50 million copies that it has allegedly sold. It's just nonsense. As with any figure about Michael Jackson, numbers are ridicoulously inflated. Everyday his label, his entourage or his fans come up with new outrageously high figures without any fact to back them up apart from their claim that it's logical since they're attached to what they call the "king of pop". And yet everybody else takes them for granted without any logical analysis or investigation about their truth. The label says those are the figures and they're THE TRUTH. But am I the only one in the world who thinks that a label has every interest in inflating figures just to make their artist appear as bigger and more legendary than he is, thus prompting sales? Or does everybody have to be a fan of Michael Jackson and take those figures as true, even when they're illogical?Dreamboy81 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Hmm? Sounds more like you are talking about the Presley label and the "fans" regarding "outrageously high figures" - which are most definitely "illogical", without "any facts" apart from their "claim" and a self-awarded plaque hanging on Graceland wall, for their claimed sales estimates...Never see anyone putting much effort into disputing that, though.

Only thing I can say regarding WORLDWIDE sales of Thriller, is to agree with one of the other posters, in that it wouldn't be that far-fetched, I mean it STILL does well in the unofficial charts - STILL sells, and it IS OVER 30 years since it was released. Not sure about the 110 million, but would well believe it could have sold over 70 million, worldwide, at least, by now. 78.17.219.91 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


I completely agree here. The closest thing to reliability we have for music sales is certifications, and the certifications contradict the 100 million claim. To suggest a figure so much more ludicrously large is ridiculous. I also checked some of the sources, and was surprised to find that the single source supporting the 104 million sales is a brief blurb at the bottom of a photo gallery image from BBC China. The BBC is not an unreliable resource, but don't you think that this particular part of it being used is drawing a fine line? Anyway, there is plenty of reliable sources out there claiming a figure of around 50 million to 60 million, and I will add some below this post soon. Hitthat (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some source claiming that Thriller sold around the 50-60 million mark:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59Q59D20091103
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.legacy/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/28/michael-jackson-life-death-music

Hitthat (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the figure using the three sources. If anyone disagrees, discuss it here Hitthat (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some countries aren't updated and other countries haven't got an organization that certifie, or certifie only the albums published from a date. The sales of the album are between 70 and 110 million copies worldwide:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1616537/20090720/jackson_michael.jhtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/6431385/Michael-Jackson-fans-dance-to-Thriller-across-the-globe.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/thrill-the-world-2009-sees-thousands-turn-out-to-honour-michael-jacksons-song-thriller/story-fn3i5h5v-1225791111285
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/from-canada-to-argentina-jackson-fans-shake-to-thriller-1809766.html

SimoneJ. (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To suggest that Michael Jackson's record company would leave records uncertified is ludicrous, they would have made sure that they got every certification possible in order to promote Michael. Also, while many countries lack orginisations that certify sales, none of these countries represent a market that is large enough to make dent Thrillers sales. All major markets are covered with their certifications, and began their certifications system prior to the release of thriller, so they would've netted all of the sales in the certifications. It is incorrect to suggest that large numbers of thriller sales have gone uncertified. These certifications show that the album could not have sold more than sixty million at the very most.

Since both figures have decent support in the media, perhaps we could have a compromise; we could put both figures up (supported with the same number of sources each), and have a note at the bottom that states that there is no consensus in the media about the figures and that estimates range from 50 million-110 million. Hitthat (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's better 60(or 65)-110 million than 50-110 million. SimoneJ. (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that, but the problem is that my sources that I found all say 50 million. Anyway, I'll put it up there with 60 million-110 million, and I'll include two of your sources in addition so both figures have three source to back them up. Maybe someone in the future will complain that I'm stating sixty million when my sources say fifty million, but for now I don't mind this comprimise Hitthat (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got a source that claims 65 million copies worldwide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7448908.stm SimoneJ. (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll put all three figure's up there. They are all properly sourced and do accurately show the range of figures being commonly used. As there are so many vertifiable figures I don't see any issues with having them all, in my opinion it makes the encyclopedia more accurate. Hitthat (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not needed to post 3 sources per sale. One for every sale is better. Also because in this source:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.legacy/index.html?iref=allsearch

there are some info uncorrect. For example, HIStory that sold 7 million copies. It's fake, only with the US and European sales (certified by RIAA and IFPI), HIStory sold over 9,5 million copies. Also in this source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/28/michael-jackson-life-death-music

Thriller went to the 1 in the 1983 and 1984, not in 1982 and 1983. SimoneJ. (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll cut back to using one source for each figure. I'll use reuters for 50 million, and I'll use MTV for 110 million. Hitthat (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, when dealing with multiple estimates, its better to have all the estimates showing rather than a range. A good example of that is with the Michael Jackson sales here. After all, you never here people say that thriller sold 80 or 90 million, only ever 100 million plus or somwhere between 50 million and 70 million. Hitthat (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's better to post the BBC China for the 110, because it was the first source to claim that Thriller sold 110 million copies worldwide. Ah, where is written title, we must write the title of the article of the source, not the sales of Thriller. SimoneJ. (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for fixing up the sources names. Hitthat (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! SimoneJ. (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

United States Sales of Thriller

Have there been any updates to Thriller's sales in the United States. Since it turns out that the album has sold over 104 million copies worldwide, it should have replaced The Eagles Greatest Hits album as the number one album in the U.S. by now. Does anyone have any info on this?--Stardust6000 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still 27x Platinum I think. I'm quite skeptical about the Guinness figures, but if they are true, they would have been mostly driven by foreign sales. MJ is still huge all over the world, even though he has declined in the US.UberCryxic 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, a band has to PAY the RIAA for certification I believe. They certainly have to request it. (The Elfoid (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

Invincible sales

Where is the 11 million figure for global sales coming from? Almost all sources I've seen say 8 million.UberCryxic 05:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the source looks completely unreliable to me. How can the album have sold 13 million copies worldwide when only 2 million in the US and 2 million in Europe have been certified? How can an album possibly sell 2 million in the US, 2 million in Europe and 9 in the rest of the world? It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't happen for any album of any artist and the fact that it was an album by Michael Jackson doesn't explain anything. In addition, the source looks completely fake. It's an article written in the post-death euphoria and it's certainly based on figures provided by the label. Figures that have certainly be highly inflated, like almost all figures about Michael Jackson, that have always been arrogantly declaredby his label, his fans and his entourage without any verification whatsoever and any fact supporting them. That album was a flop for that period. Certainly not for today's standards, whereby an album that sells 5 million copies worlwide is a huge success, but back then a REALLY successful album managed to sell 10 million. "Invincible" didn't. Again, it sold 2 million in the US and 2 million in Europe. And everybody knows that the US and Europe are the main markets for records, therefore they make up most of the worldwide sales of an album. So, can anybody explain how the album could have possibly sold 13 million given those poor sales in the US and in Europe? And can anybody back up his claims WITH FACTS IN HAND AND NOT WITH AN ARTICLE COMING FROM THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE? Thank you.Dreamboy81 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Confessions on a Dance Floor of Madonna sold 2 million copies in the USA and 10 million copies worldwide, is not impossible. USA is the biggest market, but not the only one in the world.--XtinoFrost (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

thriller sales

the album thriller sold about 65 million, however all the singles released such as billy jean,beat it,pyt these singles sold over 5 million each and billy jean single sold an estimated 7.8million copies

Sales for Thriller are a mess right now; no one has any idea what the precise figure is. It's somewhere between 60 million and the Guinness figure, but what exactly is up in the air.UberCryxic 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Including Singles

Thriller has sold 104 million copies INCLUDING single sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.47.151 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Guinness made it explicitly clear that they were talking about album sales only.UberCryxic 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Guinness World Records 2008, Thriller has officially sold 55 million copies (according to Epic Records) and 104000000 copies according to Michael's management. According to the article, the exact number of sale is unverifiable, but Thriller still is the best-selling album of all time.Agapitos60 10:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the albums and singles discography pages of Michael's need to be edited severly, lol

...and I'm saying that in respect to whoever worked their hardest to make the thing look as "varied" as they try to. It just look out of order to me. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales figures and RIAA certification

A lot of people confuse the RIAA certifications for actual album sales. The RIAA keeps track of how many numbers of albums are shipped, not necessarily sold. Sometimes, the actual sales figures will differ from any RIAA certification it might have. Sometimes they're higher, sometimes they're lower. Take the 25th anniversary release for Thriller, it came out in Feb. of this year and is listed at having sold 530,000 + copies, but there's no certification listing in the RIAA gold and platinum database. And, since there no sources for any of the sales, with the exception of thriller, anybody can just make up whatever figure they like and toss into the article. Something that's done to a lot of discography articles on a regular basis.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Studio albums

Why is the Studio albums section split in two? I know his career moved up a gear with "Off the Wall", but I don't see any reason why the albums should be separated. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've also noticed that the worldwide sales figures have disappeared on many of the sections, and they were accurately sourced too. I can't find who removed them in the edit history...— Realist2 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and merged the albums - I didn't see it as a particularly controversial edit. Don't know where the sales figures went, but in my experience these discography pages are the hardest to keep track of with people making edits all the time, usually to bump up the figures by the odd million. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have this article watchlisted so anything that isn't sourced I revert. I just can't explain where they went to, they were there before...I have reliable sources for the sales figures but I'm no good with tables. If I provide you with the sources could you reinstate them on the table? — Realist2 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah sure. Give me the numbers and links and I'll put them up.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, here they are, I took the sources from the Michael Jackson article, since it's a featured article they are good sources. You just have to copy and paste the formatting in. The Taraborrelli sources are from a book and I've already added the book details to the article.

  • Off the Wall = 15 million <ref name = "tara 610–612">Taraborrelli, p. 610–612</ref>
  • Thriller = 108 million <ref name="108 thriller">{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/03/do0302.xml|title=Michael Jackson's Thriller is old hat|last=White|first=Jim|date=12 March 2007|publisher=Telegraph Media Group|accessdate=2008-05-10}}</ref>
  • Bad = 30 million <ref name="Bad 30 million copies">{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7448908.stm|title=Pop Superstars turn 50|first=Mark|last=Savage|date=2008-08-29|accessdate=2008-11-25 }}</ref>
  • Dangerous = 30 million <ref name="New jack swing">{{cite news |first=Kelley L. |last=Carter |title=New jack swing |url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-5-things-0810aug10,0,1329158.story |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=2008-08-11 |accessdate=2008-08-21 }}</ref>
  • HIStory = 18 million (36 million units) <ref name="KOP achievements">{{cite web |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15529981/ |title=The return of the King of Pop |publisher=MSNBC |date=[[2006-11-02]] |accessdate=2008-06-08}}</ref>
  • Invincible = 10 million <ref name = "tara 614–617">Taraborrelli, p. 614–617</ref>

Cheers. — Realist2 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Already done. — Realist2 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is list of singles?

Where is list of singles?--Akim RU (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an album discography. The singles discography is here. :) — Realist2 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Implausible

This picture and this edit seem implausible. I searched for references on this but found none. Please provide them promptly. I'm posting this on editor Infamousmikey's talk page as well. Newportm (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ultimate Collection.... 32 DVD boxset?

Hi

If you google "Michael Jackson - The Ultimate Collection 32 dvd", results show a box set of 32 dvds in a briefcase-type box. Is this an official release? Does anybody know anything about this boxset? It is even available, though through a different seller, on amazon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian1411 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a bootleg. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Album - 7even and Diverse

I was just wondering how come the album "7even" was not included in this page??? I have the album, but when I tried to research the official release date I can't find it. Neither can I find the official sales number. This is the same case with the album "Diverse", except for the fact that I know it came out on 1975, according to one source, but I am not sure if it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight Knight Mage (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because "7even" is not a real Michael Jackson album. That was a fake album recorded by a soundalike named Jason Malachi, mixed with a couple Michael Jackson rarities. No physical copy of this album seems to have been released. As for "Diverse", judging from a copy of that album I found a BitTorrent site, there is *no way* that could have been released in 1975, since it has Jacksons material from the Eighties! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.62.171 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This Is It

Again, I think objective people are made fun of. How can this album have sold 2 million CERTIFIED copies in just a month and a half? In general, it's not impossible for an album to sell that much. But "This Is It" peaked at #1 and spent the rest of its 6 weeks at the bottom of the top 10. How can it possibly have sold as much as Taylor Swift's "Fearless" in just 6 weeks, considering its tepid performance? Taylor Swift's album has managed to sell 2-3 million copies staying in the top spots of the Billboard 200 for ONE YEAR!!! It's obvious that the figures have been inflated. Again. It's true that RIAA certifications are the only reliable figures that exist for the US market, but it's also true that they're based on declarations by the record label about the number of units shipped. Am I the only one who thinks that his label has made up figures again? Certainly, those figures are not backed up by the unimpressive chart performance of the album. So where do they come from? It's appalling. It seems to me that all the figures concerning Michael Jackson have been unbelievably inflated by his label and his entourage and, obviously, been embraced as pure truth by his fans. What's discomforting to me is that even non-fans have embraced them as if they were the Gospel without ever questioning them and investigating the facts that should support them. It's as if we'd all been hypnotized and couldn't use our logical and critical skills anymore. Dreamboy81 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dreamboy81, yes, this album has definitely not sold 2 million copies. But certifications are given based on the number of units shipped, not sold. So whats probably happened is that the label has shipped two million or so albums to the stores, either believing that they would sell far better than they have, or (more likely) expecting them to sit on the shelves for a long period of time and gradually be sold. But remember, certifications are awarded for copies shipped to stores, not sold!!! As these copies have already been shipped, the label has paid for the RIAA to certify them. This doesn't mean that they have all been sold, and as the chart run show, most of them definitely haven't been sold. So theres nothing wrong with the certification, though its does show that you can't assume that certifications are evidence of the number of copies sold, especially if it is quite soon after the albums release. And yes, the tag in the sales column saying that it has sold 2,000,000 copies in the US should be removed. Hitthat (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Style

I cut the album listings into two sections, "certifications" and "chart positions". The reason for this is the page looked VERY cluttered with all the information in one table. The most common screen resolution is 1024x768 so all pages should AT LEAST be compatible with that.

User:Simone Jackson, you said I included "fake" Japanese sources. But the only sources I included were sources which were already on the page when I started editing (which was a week ago).

I did remove Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand because there is limited room on the screen. If I added any more, the table wouldnt fit for users with a 1024x768 screen resolution. My rational behind choosing to remove those specific countries is the fact that those countries had the least record sales on average.

It still needs a lot more work, but its a whole lot better than the previous layout.

cubfan789 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the Wikipedia standard. All discographies on Wikipedia have got that style and thanks to it we can post all certifications and sales.

That Japanese sources claims only chart positions and some sales, not the certifications. Furthemore, according to RIAJ rules, only the albums released from 1989 can be certified and you write certifications also for that albums.

The other countries are useful for the total and a correct vision of the sales of an album, also because the worldwide sales that we meet in the articles are often inflated. Thanks to the certifications (or sales) we can know the real worldwide sales. Every country has got an its importance. We can't snub a country only because it's not big at least than Germany or France.

Furthemore, your table can't include the sales of the certifications (in some countries the level of the certifications is changed), with a note with updated (not certified) sales, but only one of them. Simone Jackson (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Here are the two layouts. Vote for which you think is better:


Responses:

Separating the "certifications" and the "chart positions" should make it easier not harder to include more countries. As a compromise I propose the seperation with the inclusion. Sole Soul (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but with the cub style (in the certifications table), we can't add other certifications for the other countries. Infact, he removed Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland etc... If we want to separate the certifications, is better to do a table with another style. For example:


Year Album details Certifications
(sales thresholds) 		Certifications sales/(Sales) Worldwide sales
1979 Off the Wall
  • Released: August 10, 1979
  • Label: Epic (EK #35745)
  • US: 8,000,000
  • EU: 1,000,000
  • JPN: (500,000) [11]
  • UK: 300,000
  • FRA: 300,000
  • CAN: 100,000
  • AUS: 350,000
  • NL: 100,000
  • MEX: 500,000
  • HK: 10,000
  • NZ: 90,000
 20 million [12]
1982 Thriller
  • Released: November 30, 1982
  • Label: Epic (EK #38112)
  • US: 29,000,000
  • EU: 1,000,000
  • JPN: (2,500,000) [22]
  • UK: 3,300,000

(3,825,857)[23]

  • FRA: 3,000,000
  • GER: 1,500,000
  • CAN: 2,000,000
  • AUS: 1,050,000
  • NL: 800,000
  • MEX: 1,600,000
  • SWE: 400,000
  • SWZ: 300,000
  • HK: 20,000
  • AU: 400,000
  • FIN: 91,609
  • NZ: 180,000

Simone Jackson (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see a couple problems with that layout:

  • 1: It takes up too much vertical space
  • 2: Album-to-album comparison is hard to do and even country-to-country comparison for a specific album is hard to do.


It is better to have 8 countries spaced neatly than to have 11 countries all jammed together. Cubfan (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The certifications (or updated sales not certified) country by country are important for the real total sales of the albums, because the worldwide sales published by newspapers are often inflated. Every country has got an its importance and to exclude someone only because is not enough big is not really good. For the comparisons album-to-album haven't got much sense (according to me). You can't compare the cumulative sales of an old album (the old albums have got updated certifications) with the sales of an album in its era. It's obvious that the old album sold more records in 30 years (for example) respect to a new album. If you want to do a compare, you would to post the certifications of the albums in their respective era. Simone Jackson (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG We must respect the Wikipedia standard. Now, i can modifie. Simone Jackson (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG#Ignore_all_rules

Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals.

Your page style looks horrible. Connecting the Sales/Certifications to the Chart Positions is fine when you are only listing the Sales/Certifications of 1-3 countries, but when you add more than that it becomes a mess. Thats why I split it.

cubfan789 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The your split include only some countries, not all. Furthemore the sources of the certifications of the your table aren't used well. For example, Japan Certifications (that source claims only chart positions and some sales not certified), French Certifications (in France after the 3x Platinum there is the Diamond Award, not 10x Platinum) etc... You removed also the certifications for the Compilations. The Wikipedia standard is more complete. SJ (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All that can be fixed while still maintaining the new layout. I'm working on a huge edit right now

cubfan789 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And until that moment we should have an incomplete page with fake informations? No, thanks.

I looked that it's not the first time that you don't follow the Wikipedia standard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cubfan789&limit=500&action=history

All users and editors warned you, but you nothing...

SJ (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok look. Ive only received two 24 hour bans out of the three years Ive been editing. It's mostly because of disagreements I had with people like you who have no sense of aesthetics.

Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG

cubfan789 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They are three http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACubfan789 and the people that disagree with you are in all categories (user, moderators etc...). Your method can't be approved without a discussion. Until that time, we must to use the Wikipedia Standard. SJ (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


This is not about me, this is about whats better for Wikipedia. You say "you must discuss before making changes" and I have. You just dont like my style. If you would like to get more people into this discussion then do it.

cubfan789 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, becuase that style wasn't approved by nothing. Only you agree with your style, infact you were banned 3 times for this reason. Ah, it's not my IP address. You can also to ask to the moderators for to check. SJ (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Stop this man. This is NOT about me and my past. All I care about is making Wikipedia better. 95% of the time I follow the rules, but there are times, like this instance, where going by the rules is not the best solution. If you would look at the page with a 1024x768 screen resolution you would see how unorganized it looks. Do you not agree with the statement, "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals"? According to that rule I am following the rules.

Feel free to bring more people into this discussion. I dont know how to get more people.

About the IP address: I honestly dont care if that was you or not. The fact of the matter is the IP came from Italy. So it could have been you at your friends house or you could have reset your IP or something.

cubfan789 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but without a discussion with more users and moderators, you can't modifie an entire page. That page would be written with the Wikipedia standard until that your style will approved by community. Furthemore your style removed infos in the non-studio albums sections and certifications in other countries. Also the content of the page is in error for the sources that claim other facts. Your style need of some corrections, otherwise, we would to divide the albums discography in two pages: chart peaks and certifications.

For to contact other people, we would write to them in talk page for to invite them at the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Michael_Jackson

I'm not that IP address, is sure and he (she?) is not my friend. Wikipedia English is the best platform of Wikipedia in the world. It's normal that the people from other countries come here. SJ (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


So you dont mind splitting it, you just want all the sources corrected? Cuz Im working on fixing all those right now.cubfan789 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If there will be the split, ok, but it must include all countries in the certifications and all infos sourced correctly, not some fake infos sourced uncorrectly. According to me, the best split is to divide the albums discography sections in 2 pages: Peak positions and certifications and not to do a split in an entire page. SJ (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Some suggestions:

  • Do not do mass changes. Instead, try one change per edit with clear edit summary or explanation here. If you want to change a table format do that alone.
  • Try hard not to revert. And try harder not to revert every change the other user does. You better have a good explanation for your reversion, not just "there is no consensus for your change".
  • If your change is likely to be contested, move the part you want to edit to the talk page. This way the other editor is more likely to engage with you calmly.
  • Address the concerns of the other editor, try to compromise, ask the other editor about their opinion. Sole Soul (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Before your message, i suggested to split the albums discography in 2 pages, one for the charts and one for the all certifications of all countries. To split only in one page is not very good because to include all certifications in a page make it very long or like in this case, force to post only some certifications. SJ (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Page lock

I have gotten the article page lock until you guys figure out what you guys are doing !!! This is done neutrally without endorsing any one editors version..It has been placed so that a civil conversation can take place..As of now the page is locked until January 23, 2010 ...if this occurs again after this date the lock will be extended.. I would suggest you guys bring this up here-->Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson - Talk page...anyways hope you guys figure this out soon!!! ............Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting The Page

Resolved
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The question we are trying to resolve is if the Michael Jackson albums discography article should be split into two pages. We are so far even when it comes to "Support" or "Against" the split. We simply need a few more outsiders to give us there view on the matter so we can move on with other Michael Jackson WikiProject tasks.Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's in favor and who's against it? cubfan789 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Favor, because it's very tidy and can include all informations for charts and sales. To split only in one page is not very tidy and can't permise to post all informations for charts and sales. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_%28peak_chart_positions%29&oldid=344010148 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_%28certifications_and_sales%29&oldid=344010160

One page is good with the Wikipedia Style (without a split). Simone Jackson (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Support : I think the option that offers more information would only make sense.. no? Not sure about 2 pages, however it is already saying This page is 63 kilobytes long. meaning its getting a bit to long already -->Wikipedia:Article size...So i see the new layout is adding info am i right?..looks sourced and nicely layout ...and seeing the fact that we have trusted Simone Jackson edits and recognizes hes the main contributor since 2008...Pls explain what the problem is?? Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Against : 63kb is nothing. The page "Michael Jackson" is 153kb. Even WITH Simone Jacksons split, the certifications page is still vertically larger than my version. You dont need to list countries with only 20,000 record sales. If there was a way to list them efficiently then I would do it, but there isnt. No other artist has information on 15 different countries, most of them just have information on 2-4. So I think the top 8 countries for Michael Jackson is enough. Simones arrangement is a huge mess. cubfan789 (talk)
Support : An encyclopedia must be complete and not partial (or with fake informations). Every certification for every country would be posted, also because some worldwide sales that we found on various newspapers are often inflated. Furthemore you removed the certifications from Compilation and some certifications and sales that you posted are fakes. For example the Japanese Certifications (the source claims only some sales, not the certifications, also because the albums released before 1989 can't certified by RIAJ), or French, German and Mexican Certifications (the sources claim other Gold/Platinum/Diamond awards for these albums). Furthemore, there isn't a table for the uncertified sales, that you written in the table such as certified sales (look to Blood on the Dance Floor in Germany, or Invincible in the United States). The page results incomplete and with fake informations. SJ (talk) 14:59, 1 Feb. 2010 (UTC)
Against. Is it really, really important to include all sales and certifications in every countries? They already present in each articles of the albums, so it's not worthy to be in this list. Look at Madonna albums discography, there are only certifications of world's biggest music markets. I suggest the certifications are reduced: only US, UK, AUS, CAN, JAP and EU Bluesatellite (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
If we include all certifications for every country in one page, the people can view the trend of every album country by country without click on every them (and it's very comfortable). However, you missed France and Germany by the most important markets (and are most important than Canada and Australia). SJ (talk) 00:39, 5 Feb. 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely right, Germany and France is the fourth and fifth biggest music market respectively. But, as I mention above, "EU" will cover all sales in Europe, including France and Germany. We also don't need to mention minor markets such Hong Kong. Also, I see there are many compilation albums on this list which is totally unsouced (I think most of them are bootleg, that are not worthy to include. That's why the size of this article become so huge. Just reduce the certifications and remove unsourced material or bootlegs Bluesatellite (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The albums released prior to 1994 can't be certified by IFPI for the IFPI European Platinum Awards. http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat_criteria.html It's needed to mention all countries because an encyclopedia would be complete and easy to read (an example, to use a page only for the certifications. So a person can read all certifications without click on every album). Most compilations are sourced (also only with chart positions or certifications), only someone is not supported by source. SJ (talk) 15:40, 6 Feb. 2010 (UTC)
So you really want to do ALL countries? ALL countries as in all 52 of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_recording_sales_certifications cubfan789 (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
They aren't 52, because some countries certifies from the launch of the awards (for example in Russia, the albums released after 2002, or in Japan from 1989), other countries haven't got a database, other countries have got only in-house awards (like in Italy. FIMI compiles only the charts with retail sales. I written to them for to ask if there will be a database with certifications and they answered to me that FIMI doesn't certifie and that in Italy there are only in-house awards). After, if you count that some countries are very poor...the list of the countries would be circa 20 or 22 (only for the studio albums. The compilations sold very less, max. 6 countries).

SJ (talk) 23:36, 7 Feb. 2010 (UTC)

Against. I can't find the discography on wikipedia that is separated into peak position list and certification list. Wikipedia is not fansite where all things should be listed. Baratayuda (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but it's an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia would be complete in every info. However, the discography is equal in both page. The only different is that one has got certifications and one has got peak chart positions. SJ (talk) 13:07, 14 Feb. 2010 (UTC)


Support : What a very strange pool is this? I don't find in other pages about Michael jackson Discography all over The Net so many data. In the next years maybe we have to uptade their data with Korean and Chinese. Do you really think that anybody will be able to read it?. Obviously you know that Michael Jackson is a world phenomenon, and I think that this page should be as a mirror for his world sales and certificatios. If I live in Ukraina, I want to know the Michael Jacksons' sales and certifications in my country --Lanc71 (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
New user? Are you a sockpuppet?? If you want to know how should the discogrpahy articles be, check this --> Category:FL-Class Discography articles. They are the best discography lists in Wikipedia, and they NEVER mention chinese, korean, or even minor market such Ukraina.
I'm not a new user, and I'm not a sockpuppet! I bought my first Album of Michael Jackson in 1987. Instead, I don't know who you are. Please respect the discussion and sign your posts!!! I don't understand why if we have data about Michael Jackson sales in other country we can't use it. We could make this page better! --Lanc71 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Support : I believe that an encyclopedia consulted by thousands of people like Wikipedia should be as complete and accurate as possible --MJforeverinourhearts (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So if ALL countries in this world have certification database, you will add them to this lis?? Are you kidding? Bluesatellite (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, a lot of countries haven't certification database. It would be great! --Lanc71 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just remind, the article looks much better now. So I can't find the reason how important to spit this list. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. I sincerely believe that if there are serious people and able to incorporate as many data as possible is a great thing. I see no reason to limit an encyclopedia. Above I read that an encyclopedia is not a fansite. True. But if it can provide thousands people with detailed, easily and immediately available data, it will surely give a better service. MJforeverinourhearts (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support . It's good that people are willing to work on expanding and improving Wikipedia. This is a willingness of accepting and adapting to change. This is how people and things succeed! If one does not follow such values, then the end of their road is near for them. New and better ideas is what keeps our world going! Best, --Discographer (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not long enough + I don't see a reasonable reason for that. -RobertMel (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that's not long?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_%28peak_chart_positions%29&oldid=344010148
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography_%28certifications_and_sales%29&oldid=344010160

And count that these old versions are incomplete. SJ (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose : It doesn't need splitting because it's not that long. However, I disagree that an encyclopeadia needs to be complete. We can include some counties, but not all. I think 8 would be enough, one from each continent, and certain other key ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Only the users registered can vote. SJ (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep together. It's not a long article (most bytes are in refs and markup anyway). May I recommend redesigning table width specs from absolute pixel width to relative (percentage), this will tidy it up. NVO (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Against, I feel that there is no need to make this concurrent article into 2 seperate articles. I feel it is a unnecessary move. A5051790463174 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Your vote is not valid for these reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A5051790463174
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:A306200130048123
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcjakeqcool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mcjakeqcool

SJ (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Support . It could become one of the best and most complete pages of Wikipedia. I hope that also for the other artists that sold and charted like Michael Jackson will adopt the split of the pages. DarkAryn (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Support. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and its purpose should be to give all the available informations that can be verified. There is no reason to select and limit the informations only to US, Europe and few other countries. I think that the split can be useful to the readers because there will be more informations also for other countries and the resulting pages will be clearer and more readable. InfiniteMJ (talk) 12:13pm, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The flag was removed and after two months, the vote is closed :) SJ (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A vote is not a reason to split the discography page.

A vote is not a substitute for consensus forming. Just because a vote was conduced with the "support"s out-weighting the "oppose"s, it does not mean that a page can be spilt, because it goes against Wikipedia guidelines. (See: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) I've merged the peak positions and certifications page's into this discography page because in the poll above no user gave a actual reason for the page's to be spilt, because only major countries are suppose to be listed and the page is not "getting to long" - its only 49kg, pages should be split once they get anywhere from 60kg to 100kg. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We may split the page also if >40Kb and you always keep in mind that many users use low speed services or must pay a fixed rate for each KB downloaded. As well, users frequently access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone, and these mobile browsers may truncate pages at as little as 32KB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPLIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

Furthemore, keep in mind that in the actual page, there aren't all greatest hits/compilation of the artist and that the new contract of MJ provides for at least 10 albums. So, the page would be over 60Kb. SJ [talk] 20:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC+1)

@SJ, the albums peak position's and certifications are 50kg and 40kg long, the two individual pages are the around same length as the page with both included. So sizing, regardless of whether or not you are using a mobile device, would be almost the same as well. Regarding what you said about the upcoming albums, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the pages length can not be debated because of upcoming albums because it is unknown on how long the page will be with the new albums included. As of right now, the article should stay merged. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference. the splitted page ensures all the informations on the charts and sales (and therefore suitable for an encyclopedia, which must be complete and informative as possible), while the merged page, does not provide all the details and is incomplete. Then....why to delimit the information? We can make this encyclopedia really complete. SJ [talk] 00:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC+1)

Only major countries peak chart positions and certifications are suppose to be listed, that's why. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Crystal Clear x3. Discogrpahy article is olny listing the most notable markets. As I said before, if someone want to see all certifiations and all chart positions, he/she can look on the each of album's articles. It is not about complete or incomplete, but if you want to nominate this for featured list, you should follow my suggestion. So far, I can not find a featured list that mentions all music markets. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It could be a good solution, but you should always mention that there are people who use low speed services or must pay a fixed rate for each KB downloaded. As well, users frequently access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone. It becomes difficult for them to see each page for to know all certifications and peak chart positions for all countries (especially for his studio albums from Thriller to Invincible). Simone Jackson (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC+1)

Well, if you still want to split this page, I highly suggest you to make a discussion at MOS:DISCOG. I think the other experience editors will help to clear this matter. Bluesatellite (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m very bitter about the result of this debate. If a poll is not valid for deciding on a particular issue, why it has been allowed? It seems really a joke. I’d have easy agreed to a poll with an opposite result like expression of a different from mine will, but the nullification of a lasting over a month and now end poll seems really an abuse of power. So, if poll isn’t a legitimate decision making means and Wikipedia isn’t a democracy, how can editors show their point of view for improving it? No way? Must they accept an unchangeable status quo? After these considerations it’s clear that in a such system the efforts for an improvement are frustrated and completely useless. It’s obvious that the wish to make one’s best and to be registered fails too. MJforeverinourhearts (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This page includes sales and certifications only for the so-called "major countries". In the older version of the same page, there are more informations for more countries. So it means that the old version is more complete and accurate than the actual one, according to the concept of an encyclopedia. If there are avaible and reliable informations, what is the principle to follow to include or to exclude them? To exclude reliable and avaible information is a POV choice! And it's against Wikipedia's rules and goals. If I want to know Mexico's certifications, I will not find them on Wikipedia. They have been deleted. The same happened for other countries' certifications like Netherlands, which are important music markets but they are not considered among the so-called "major countries". Why do I have to be barred from finding those informations on Wikipedia if they are avaible? Are they not worth enough to be included just because some users prefer (as a POV expression!) only the so-called major countries? If an encyclopedia fails to give the informations the reader needs, the reader will turn to another source. Regards, InfiniteMJ (talk) 10:18 pm, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@InfiniteMJ: Only major territories for peak positions and certification are suppose to be listed. If you ever bothered to spend a second of your time to look at other FL artist's discographies, you'd know that only major territories should be listed. This is how Wikipedia is, if you do not like it then you should not use this website. Regards, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG#Ignore_all_rules To limit an encyclopedia is like filtering informations and to provide informations in the worst way possible! If you select among avaible informations, without a rational principle (and "only major territories should be listed" is not rational, it's just convention), you are making POV choices. And it's against Wikipedia's rules. I'm sorry, but Knowledge is not something you can decide what it is! Knowledge doesn't depend on your POV choices. Regards, InfiniteMJ (talk) 00:29 am, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing only major peak positions and certificates is not me using my "POV", it's me using common sense and going by FL discographies. Show me multiple Feature List discographies that have recently passed their FL candidacy that list every territory under the sun before asserting that you know everything and leaving messages on my talk page. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Repetita iuvant. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Please read carefully this link: "It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG#Ignore_all_rules. Wikipedia is not based on common sense, so your supposed common sense is not a good reason to filter avaible and reliable informations. Filter is a choice, it's a POV expression against Wikipedia's rules. I suppose you know Michael Jackson is the second top selling artist of the world, after the Beatles. Some federations make certifications only if an album was released after the launch of their awards, for example, RIAJ certifies only the albums released after 1989 so, Thriller can't be certified. In UK, BPI makes certifications since 1973 so the Beatles' albums released before that period can't be certified. FL discographies show artists who didn't sell like Michael Jackson. If certifications data are not avaible or don't even exist, you cannot include them. This is the reason you find only the data for the so called "major countries" in FL artists' discographies! But those informations are avaible for Michael Jackson and there is no rational reason to filter them. Why a minor-selling artist's discography should be the model for an artist whose certifications are avaible and whose discography sold at top levels in every country under the sun? Mexico and the Neatherlands are not on Mars or Neptune! They are under the sun too, like USA, UK, Japan and other "major-countries". PS. I never said 'I know everything'. So, please, read again and more carefully. InfiniteMJ (talk) 02:12 pm, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A good portion of your response is original research and none of what you said makes for a good argument to spilt the pages. Show me multiple Featured List artist discographies that have recently passed their FL candidacy before you even bother to reply to this response. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 14:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The other countries should be listed because they had the same dignity like USA, UK, Japan and what you call "major countries". What is your problem with those you don't consider a "major-country"? Did you ask me to find FL artists' discographies where not only "major countries" have been listed? 50 Cent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_discography Metallica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica_discography Eminem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem_discography Duffy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duffy_discography Tokio Hotel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokio_Hotel_discography The featured countries are Argentina, Brazil, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Russia, Norway and many others. Do you need more? So if those artists have certifications for countries that for your POV are not among "major countries", why the second-top-selling-artist-of-the-world Mr. Michael Jackson's discography shoud not list those countries? InfiniteMJ (talk) 03:05 pm, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you've actually showed me multiple example's then, as long as the proper reliable source for each country is used, other territories can be included. Although, even with the other countries listed the page will not be long enough to warrant a split. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

About the split question. The most complete version of Michael Jackson's discography with certifications and charts together is the one compiled by Simone Jackson on January 12th, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_albums_discography&oldid=337494656. This page is 77Kb long and according to Wikipedia's rules here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPLIT, the page should be divided because "Always keep in mind that many users use low speed services or must pay a fixed rate for each KB downloaded. As well, users frequently access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone, and these mobile browsers may truncate pages at as little as 32KB". InfiniteMJ (talk) 10:28 pm, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Once other territories are added to the disc. page then we'll find out how long the page will be (aka let's cross that bridge when we get there). Quite frankly I do not think the page will be that much longer from what it is now, just sayin'. Once an article get's up to about 80-100kg then, that's when it should be spilt, the page is currently 49 kg, and it will probally be at the most like 55-65kg, so even then the page would not be long enough to be split.Crystal Clear x3 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I added other countries and important notes and the page is already 71 kb. This version is still incomplete, I must add other informations with the sources I have and it will be longer. The split is needed, according to Wikipedia's rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPLIT. InfiniteMJ (talk) 11:25 pm, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation was clear from the first discussion, then votation and then again discussion. It's 3 months that this page is poised. Simone Jackson 13:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, i will divide this page again. I hope that this time the debate is finally finished. Simone J. Jackson (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion sounds heavy... O_o DRAGON Elemental (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

EP

I'm expanding the article Forever, Michael and I discovered that Jackson had an EP. An EP must have a duration less than 36 minutes and this album have a full-lenght of 33:36 minutes, this should be added to this article?, thanks TbhotchTalk C. 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you can find the critera for to define an EP in the US. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=criteria Simone Jackson (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC+1)

So almost all the "EPs" on wikipedia don't are EPs. I've never seen an EP with 3-5 songs with that criteria. TbhotchTalk C. 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That is the criteria for an EP now due to the CD becoming the prominent choice of release back in the late 80s. As for Forever, it does not count as an EP as several albums in the 1970s (especially those released on Motown) never utilized the full 45 minute limit. For example, Let's Get It On and Ben barely top 32 minutes. MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 07:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

EPs

Prehaps we could make an EP section and add the five Remix Suite extended plays too it. Signed and timed with --77.99.231.37 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Off The Wall US sales?

The table has the US figure as 100,000,000. Does that mean 100 million? Since it is 8×platinum, one×platinum is then 12.5 million. Right? 82.141.124.221 (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather Harsh

I think it's in rather harsh to call 'Invincible' a commercial failure. Can we stick to facts? The marketing of the album was pulled but it still managed to pull over 10 million copies. It also managed to sell greater than 'Blood on the Dance Floor'. Madonna's page doesn't call 'Erotica' a commercial failure despite the fact she went from 30 million in sales with 'The Immaculate Collection' to 5 million soon after. Jackson's page is actually rather modest regarding his album achievements compared to other pages. Thanks for reading VoguePlease (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it says, "compared to the previous albums" which is correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Yes, but whichever way you cut it, nobody ever said that kind of thing about other artists. Its like MJ's work was looked upon in a different way... Like he was competing against himself!?! "Harsh", indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.219.91 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alan Jackson albums discography which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Michael Jackson albums discography. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Michael Jackson albums discography. 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:

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) 00:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Jackson albums discography. 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:

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) 21:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "RIAA Searchable database – Gold and Platinum". RIAA. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
  2. ^ a b "IFPI Platinum Europe Awards". IFPI. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
  3. ^ a b "BPI Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". BPI. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
  4. ^ "Charts In France Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". Charts In France. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
  5. ^ a b "CRIA Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". CRIA. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
  6. ^ a b "ARIA Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". ARIA. Retrieved 2009-02-22.
  7. ^ a b "NVPI Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". NVPI. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
  8. ^ "Eil Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". Eil [disambiguation needed]. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  9. ^ "IFPI Hong Kong Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Hong Kong. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
  10. ^ Scapolo, Dean (2007). The Complete New Zealand Music Charts, 1966-2006: Singles, Albums DVDs, Compilations. Maurienne House. ISBN 187744300X.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference MJ JPN and US sales was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ "Michael Jackson: Off the Wall - Classic albums - Music - Virgin media". Virgin Media. Retrieved 2008-12-12.
  13. ^ "Thriller three-time Diamond in France". Tele Satellite & Numerique. Retrieved 2009-05-22.
  14. ^ "IFPI Germany Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Germany. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
  15. ^ "AMPROFON Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". AMPROFON. Retrieved 2009-02-07.
  16. ^ "IFPI Sweden Searchable database - Gold and Platinum" (PDF). IFPI Sweden. Retrieved 2009-01-29.
  17. ^ "IFPI Switzerland Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Switzerland. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
  18. ^ "IFPI Hong Kong Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Hong Kong. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
  19. ^ "IFPI Austria Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Austria. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
  20. ^ "IFPI Finland Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". IFPI Finland. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
  21. ^ "Radioscope Searchable database - Gold and Platinum". Radioscope. Retrieved 2009-06-30.
  22. ^ "Michael Jackson Remains A Global Phenomenon". Billboard. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  23. ^ "Top 40 Best Selling Albums 28 July 1956 – 14 June 2009" (PDF). BPI. Retrieved 2009-12-26.
  24. ^ "FACTBOX: Key facts about Michael Jackson". reuters.com. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bad 30 million copies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ "Michael Jackson Photo Gallery 迈克•杰克逊影集". BBC China. Retrieved July 16, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson_albums_discography/Archive_1&oldid=1137007134"