Talk:List of best-selling singles/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of best-selling singles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please add any details of worldwide best selling singles. Original list is from several sources. BandAid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" reported on many news sites as selling 50 million, but as Elton John's "Candle In The Wind" is regarded as best selling single of all time, have used the next highest found.

This list isn't entirely true. Loads of songs have sold more copies around the world in terms of cd's or vinyl's and have not been put on the internet to download. Of the best selling songs of all time, without downloading, the top is Whitney Houston's "I will always love You". A deserved winner and possibly the best song ever sung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.35.192 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with the GBR 2007 who can confirm that sales of 50m are mentioned?

-- I checked the 2007 edition and it says: Bring Crosby's "White Christmas" is the biggest selling single of all time selling 50 million (estimate). It also says that Elton John's "Candle In The Wind 1997" is the biggest selling single 'since records began' selling 33 million. 60.234.242.196 07:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how come "Candle In The Wind 1997" is under a section titled "At least 35 million"? Are we assuming it sold another 2 million or so since the publication of GBR 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

This article needs some MAJOR cleaning up. There's not even one Mariah single on there, and only one Madonna! And not only that, but there is no source for almost all these claims posted...Ayumi4u 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"White Christmas" is not even on the list? Surely it is this song sung by Bing Crosby that should be in the #2 slot rather than "Silent Night"?

Hi. Could we have more literate sequencing by last name? It is so illiterate in this computer world to sequence by de foist leder. And maybe someone could create a Contents box at the top of this page. George Slivinsky 07:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IFPI Digital Music Report 2008 specifified on pg 06 (Digital Music Sales in 2007) a list of 10 biggest digital singles, beginning with "Girlfriend" by Avril Lavigne at 7.3 million units. Next on the list, "Flavor Öf Life" - Utada Hikaru (7.2 million units) is then discussed on pg 09 (Japan – An International Showcase in Mobile Music) where it specifies, "The song was first released as a mastertone to tie in with the launch of popular TV drama series Hana Yori Dango 2. Additional digital products, such as ringvideos, ringback tones and mastertones were released in the following weeks, helping the single to sell over two million digital units in total" Therefore actual single sales are 2m only. Therefore as these are inclusive of ringtones, cannot be used. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RIAA (link)specifies she had certifications for 30m shipped in the US. Fansite says 48m, therefore this fansite is not reliable, if even the basic fact is not correct. so removing. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the facts are correct on lindaronstadt.de RIAA certifications are not synonymical for total sales. The informations on lindaronstadt.de are the complete record sales in addition of certified and non-certified of all Linda Ronstadt recordings. According to Warner Bros. Linda Ronstadt sold more than 100 million albums and Blue Bayou sold more than 8 millin copies, thats a fact, but Wikipedia paints his own world, deleting facts they don´t like...;(

PS: RIAA certifications for Linda Ronstadt are old, read this page http://lindaronstadt.de/facts.htm and you will be well-informed. One Example: artists get 1 platinum for 1 million sales, but also for 1900.000 sales. The RIAA gets no more sales-information from Linda Ronstadt´s managment and record label.

Looked at the link and not well informed at all. RIAA do not deal in sales, but deal in shipments. Most of what was said above is assumption and opinion. It is correct that RIAA certifications do not match actual shipments, but it is not correct that they are out by 60% as the figures quoted mention. The link provided is also does not provide any new information, and cannot distinguish the basic concept of shipments vs sales. "If" Warner Bros. stated that Blue Bayou sold 8 million, then that is the required reference. I refer you to one organisation that is official, and does not show Blue Bayou on their resarched list of best selling singles. United World Charts - Top Selling Singles of Alltime. I refer you to the top selling singles of 1977 United World Chart - Top Selling Singles of 1977 which this song does not even feature. I refer you to an alternative researched list TSORT INFO - Songs of 1977 which is top 100 songs of 1977, still no Blue Bayou. I even refer you to Linda Ronstadt where the references it "says" state she has sold 45m in US, only this link does, the others state 50m - 80m worldwide. So, on all accounts this page is so dubious as being factual. Therefore unless a verified source can be found i.e. from Warner, from Linda, from a news report, this should not be used as burden of proof has not been reached as required by WP:V. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the following songs of shakira must be included- 1.Hips Don't Lie - Shakira feat. Wyclef Jean-9.845.000 points 2.Whenever Wherever - Shakira-8.541.000 points 3.La Tortura - Shakira feat. Alejandro Sanz-5.568.000 points 4.Underneath Your Clothes - Shakira-5.328.000 points

a few days ago all these songs where included but suddenly i find they have been removed.why?Mrinmayworld (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Because as per your figures, these are "points" not sales. According to UWC, points are made up of 49% of sales, so to get sales ou would have to halve these figures - meaning none sold over 5 million copies. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever's been adding the madonna singles, please add references for them. 80.244.74.178 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

... is supposed to have sold 20 million copies, accordingto the Melbourne Herald Sun[1]. Seems a bit much, even though it was obviously a big hit. I'll let others decide if it is worth including or not. Fram (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The song is listed twice, both being recorded by Cher, but selling 5 and 9 million units. Which is it? --Paploo (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the cited source carefully, the sales figures being quoted in Wiki discographies and lists are sourced to a claim buried in an avalanche of information compiled by the unofficial site TSORT. TSORT is knowingly misleading its readers by coupling the sales figure with the term "Global", instead of the source. There is no link to the source of these "Global" figures, but several clicks will take you to a page on the TSORT site where the source is revealed:

"Global—The claimed sales for a number of singles as reported in Wikipedia. Such lists are usually inaccurate and this one is certainly incomplete.

Entries under this tag should be treated with some caution and certainly not used to justify definitive statements. As an example quoting one of the "Global" sales figures in a Wikipedia article would be wrong. As described (here) all artists exaggerate their "worldwide sales figures", some worse than others." {"(here)" is a dead link on the TSORT site.}

In other words, by citing TSORT for this information in Wikipedia, we are ultimately citing ourselves. TSORT cites Wiki for the information, and Wiki cites TSORT for the same information. This is no chicken-and-egg mystery, this is deception. Where did we get this information in the first place? Why wouldn't TSORT give the original source of the claims? Presumably because Wikipedia didn't give one in the version cited by TSORT. And if Wikipedia had given a legitimate source, then why don't all the Wikipedia articles cite that same source, instead of the TSORT citation of Wiki? Beyond that, TSORT itself is casting aspersions to the very information we are citing them for here at Wiki, and for the very reason that they acknowledge Wikipedia is inaccurate for including such sources!

TSORT, as an unofficial compiler of non-original research, is tainting their figures by including them in their computations. By including them alongside presumably citable chart figures in their chart information boxes with no qualifier, and by giving misleading information there, TSORT is irresponsibly implying that all these figures have an equal amount of credibility. It is only several pages away that you find TSORT's disclaimer about this particular info.

In light of this fact, Wikipedia MUST NOT CITE TSORT for sales claims. If there is a verifiable and legitimate third-party source for the claim, it would be more informative and direct for a reader/researcher on Wikipedia for a Wiki editor to cite that third party, and not TSORT.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have had a previous exchange of communication with a representative from TSORT with regard to this issue. Understandably it is in this individual's interest to promote that site, and they took issue with my stance. As I said at that time, I personally find the TSORT site to be a creative endeavor and, as someone who enjoys popular music, I recommend it for its entertainment value. However, an understanding of the way they arrive at their own rankings shows that it is highly unscientific in that each entry does not have all the same variables available to the compilers. Given this issue, as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot recommend it for its legitimacy, and will not accept it as a citable source. Do not misinterpret any of this, my affiliation with Wikipedia is not such that I have some "us vs. them" loyalty. This is purely about the accuracy of the information in question, based on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the source, which in this instance is indeterminate.

As an editor, I have never had a problem with things like "(Musician X) was one of the most successful artists of the (decade)," or "(Song X) was one of the biggest hits of the year" and other reasonable but unsourced statements I have noticed other sticklers slapping cite tags on, when accurate discography data and common sense support them. But that raw data itself is a completely different thing. A number is either accurate or it is inaccurate. And the disparity between the numbers we're discussing here is in the millions per song and hundreds of millions per artist in some cases. The only purpose a number has is to be compared to other numbers. What can we possibly learn or convey by comparing numbers if we don't know if any of them are accurate? The only thing such numbers gauge is the relative audacity of PR people. Currently Wikipedia and TSORT are complicit in reporting vastly inaccurate numbers, and in so doing we are dulling the impact and indeed aspersing the veracity of any accurate numbers which may have inadvertently found their way to these pages and remained.

If TSORT were to provide live links to the source of the information they use in each instance where that information is noted, and desisted in using information they know is suspect at best and artificially inflated at worst, it could become an indispensable resource as a central clearinghouse of accurate information. (Though as a responsible editor I would ultimately cite the original source.)

TSORT themselves find the data in question dubious, yet they use it anyway. Wikipedia must hold itself to a higher standard than TSORT, even if (or should I say especially when) the information TSORT provides was found by them in a previous, uncited version of a Wikipedia article. Abrazame (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

as someone who has previously referenced TSORT, I was certainly not aware they gathered detail from Wikipedia, so is self-resourcing. Thanks for pointing that out 121.98.140.13 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? Katy Perry sold 9 million copies of a song that has been out for maybe a year?

The link provided does not verify that many have been sold either... 69.155.81.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

I was just wondering since Lady Gaga's Just Dance, has reached over 4 million in the US, I could easily see it achieving another million with all other countries combined.

Also for Poker Face, with it reaching over 3 million in the US and it being a monster hit across the world I could also see it having 5 million easily.

Just wondering if they should be added to the list somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.25.123 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't simply presume a song has sold a certain number of copies, we can only present what can be proven from a reliable source (to read what constitutes a reliable source, click on WP:RS). Abrazame (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I went to Just Dance, and with adding up the totals from around the world and checking the sources it went over 5 million, as for Poker Face with what info was there it was just a little under 5 million, and that only has the limited, but I understand we can't infer on the rest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.25.123 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there are two answers for you. The lame answer is that there are some editors who will call this Synthesis, to say "these five certifications add up to..." Wikipedia very much prefers one reference for one statement.

The better answer, and one I think is in line with Wiki standards, it to realize that it is simple logic to use simple addition based on the most basic Wikipedia policy of notable and reliable sources. This is hard data, certified by official accounting firms (Paul Grein was a Billboard singles chart editor). So I'm adding the title, with the five references which add up to 5 million plus. There are many titles already on this list which have no ref whatsoever, and there are many titles on this list with a ref sourced to a fansite. So I'm making the editorial judgement that this title does indeed belong on this list. I think if someone has a problem with this song's inclusion, they'd better be prepared to delete a couple dozen more titles here.

However, to potential contributors to this list, editors will continue to delete any titles newly added to this list without references, and strongly recommend to anyone interested in a currently unreferenced title to research a reference. The fact that this list is imperfect at the moment doesn't mean we should make it more imperfect as it evolves—obviously, we need to improve it with each new addition and with each review of the titles already here. Please look for a reference from a reliable source (WP:Reliable Source) that clearly states the full amount of worldwide sales. In the absense of that, we can use officially certified sales numbers in the post-SoundScan era if the references are double-checked (some are exaggerated, and the Lady Gaga single was no exception—the UK sales were 100,000 over what the reference stated; I'm not saying that she didn't sell 100,000 more, I'm saying it's not supported by the ref, so if you're making a change based on a legitimate source, you have to add that source or it may be reverted as I have done). Abrazame (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else think with all the clutter on the lists that songs, generally in the 5 to 10 million range should be removed unless they have the sources to back them up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.8.40 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally interested parties would select their favorite(s) from among the unreferenced titles and track down a reference to the sales level, or someone with a book or list can reference several. Alternately, someone could post here the link to such a list elsewhere on the web. I don't know what you mean by cluttered. And we shouldn't presume the unreferenced claims of more than 10 million are any less suspect than those of less than that. Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU MEAN EVERYBODY IN THAT LIST HAVE A GOOD SOURCE EXCEPT MICHAEL JACKSON? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENCE AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.93.148 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you're a die hard fan, that's not our problem. I'm a fan too. And yes all the others have reliable sources, because in fact these are the only Michael Jackson singles to reach over 5 million, believe it or not. Unless you have reliable sources then don't go assuming that all of his singles have gone over 5 million. You can check the sources yourself.--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is becoming ridiculous. Half of the singles here aren't even verified with sources. It's infested with blatant vandalism. Unless, users can find reputable sources, I would like to delete all unverified figures. It is getting to the point of being laughable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan based website for overly obessed fans of artists. If anyone has any input, please respond. BalticPat22Pat 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Naturally. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, responsible editors of a list of best-selling singles would not simply remove unsourced material, they would make a reasonable attempt to source the material. You can see from my TSORT post above that I'm seriously committed to presenting properly sourced and accurate data. You can see from the article history that I have been regularly reverting the addition of new unsourced material after a quick visit to the songs' articles. You can see from three sections above this one that I have helped interested anonymous parties source suggestions.

However, here is my reasoning for not removing the information immediately as we might in another article. This is not an article, where a handful of unsourced claims that (hypothetically) are incorrect would have some bearing on the other information in that article and could cause the entire subject to be viewed in a different light.

Personally, I feel that unsourced titles are less egregious than titles that have a footnote number next to the claim but actually link to fansites or some other sort of sham information. No citation or "citation needed" at least indicates that these titles are unreferenced.

I am not suggesting we simply leave it in, or have a double standard here. But we have two concerns to bear in mind: it is imperative that we don't present inaccurate data. On the other hand, we have to make sure that the way we handle the first concern doesn't bring about the second, which is that we would wind up with a list heavily favoring qualifying singles from the '00s but only a smattering of the qualifying singles from previous decades. This would indeed have bearing on the other information, namely by making it look as though bestselling titles were far more rare in earlier decades than they actually were. Recent singles by currently active artists have a number of things going for them. One, a greater degree of current interest makes it likelier that an interested party will arrive here with the title, and perhaps even the patience and familiarity with Wikipedia to find a ref. Two, recent releases have a greater amount of web coverage and in the SoundScan and legal download era there is a greater likelihood that accurate data is available and fans have the patience and perhaps the allies to track it down.

Now that there are two registered users with interest in the accuracy of this article other than myself, would the two of you help reference these unreferenced titles? Are either of you aware of any online reference materials that we could use to source legitimate sales information for songs from previous years? Abrazame (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with your assesement. If we are to cite sources for these figures, then we must refrain from using fansites. Google News has articles dating many years back. I cannot think of specific sites that would assist the older released singles, but article from the New York Times, Billboard, BBC, and others would be the first place that I would go to try to find information on newer songs (released less than 20 years ago). I've been looking at songs that are featured here from the 1960's and even the 1940's. I would have no clue from which to start searching for reliable sources for those specific songs. I don't even know of any music industry that even tracks songs from before 1950 (other than Billboard) and even then, they only track from inside the United States. In any case, I'll try to find as many reputable sources as possible. Lastly, I would like to delete sources that give fansite references and replace them with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. BalticPat22Pat 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Great to have your participation! I support your replacement of fansite references with cite tags. I was wondering if we should create a separate section on this talk page for these bad or questionable references and their respective singles (with a "reflist" at the bottom of that section here) instead of simply deleting them, a simple cut-and-paste. This could help show interested editors which sources have been disallowed from the page so we avoid re-adding the same bad source. If anyone does re-add the bad ref, we could simply direct them to that section of this page for the explanation. Abrazame (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be great idea to implement! That way, like you said, other users would know past references that were used and why they were changed with more reputable sources. I'll try to find more references for unverified figures, also. BalticPat22Pat 03:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do digital sales count in this? Because I could name some singles that sold well over 5 million digitally, like Utada Hikaru's "Flavor of Life -ballad version-." --Sylfi (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this question and invite someone to weigh in with a referenced source explaining and supporting the presumed inherent inconsistencies in current industry practice. My first instinct is to say, of course they would count, as digital singles sales would be simply another format like cassingles and CD singles were to vinyl. The fact that digital sales are so much more convenient to purchase than earlier singles ever were, and linger both on the charts and on digital sales "stores" far longer than in earlier eras, and the fact that there are millions, even billions more people now than there were then, is a reasonable and fair weighting toward recent offerings.

On the other hand, aren't a good many of these digital sales sold as a part of an album? Are these sales counted twice then, once as sales of the featured ("single") song and once altogether as an album sale? Is there a way for SoundScan et al to distinguish between digital song sales that were sold as part of the album and those which were single-song (or multiple-song but not whole-album) purchases? (And if so, has this always been so?) Consider an artist like Michael Jackson. Say one of the singles from Thriller sold 1.25 million copies. It would be certified Gold. Yet his album sold, what, 20 or 30 million copies? So would we know today the difference between the 1.25 million people who bought just the single and the 20 or 30 million who bought the whole album? And what of people who buy parts of albums? What about single (or sub-album) purchases of a song which is not at the time of sale a single, but becomes one later. Surely they are considering this as a portion of that later "single's" sale, yet isn't it actually appropriate to have been counted as a partial album purchase at the time? This kind of double-dipping, or double-crediting, gives a massive favoritism to digital-age tracks over earlier tracks which does not seem reasonable or fair.

There's another troubling issue. Though often back in the '80s and before, an artist would often have only one (but perhaps two or three given remix versions), and no contemporaneous live versions, in the 2000s most songs are released in several versions, often two, three, even eight or ten versions or more of the same song (acoustic/unplugged, a cappella, various remixes, radio version, live version, ballad version, etc.) per disc. When this is sold as a vinyl or CD disc, that counts as one single sold, right? (In fact, my understanding is that once a "single" has too many versions on it, it is no longer considered a "single", but instead an "EP" or some other entity; in other words, far from adding to the overall sales impact of a song, it actually detracts from it.) So what happens when someone downloads the two, three, eight or ten different versions digitally, whether all at once or gradually? It seems likely that this is not counted as only one sale, particularly given the immense numbers recent "singles" claim.

It seems like whatever is industry practice is what we should use here, and I invite anyone who can to link to an authoritative source here to do so. However, I would caution that an authoritative industry source has an incentive to make whatever current sales patterns as exist in their industry seem as spectacular as possible, to promote their individual artists and the genre/product/format and related periodicals (like Billboard magazine and subcription website) in general. I wonder if there's any scholarly debate/dissent in this regard, and if any of this rises to the level of considering as our basis here. Abrazame (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a slightly more verifiable source than "Booklet notes from CD release Peppermint Tea House", and it implies that the 30 million sales number is for all artist recordings of this song (and not even as singles): Quote, "It is estimated that about 30 million CDs containing some form of the song have been sold worldwide." (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20020512cs.html) Therefore, I'm removing it from the page.
Ulmanor (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 or 6 singles by Britney and most or even all of em for sure haven't sold 5 million copies. "Piece of Me" according to wiki has sold less than 2 million. Others, e.g. "Gimme More" or even "Womanizer" sold lil more copies but still not 5 million... it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.130.245 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Aguilar, a pop/rock musician from the Philippines is listed in your Wikipedia. He wrote the song "Anak" and became a phenomenal hit worldwide with estimated sales of 30million copies worldwide. I am just wondering why the song was not included in your list of best selling singles where in fact it is stated there in wikipedia that the song "Anak" sold 30million copies. Eliezer serrano (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

" The song generated a hundred cover versions, was released in 56 countries and in 26 different foreign languages, and it has sold 30 million copies" So that would be there would be at least 26 different versions of the song thus the total sales of any single single would be a lot less. (60.226.113.111 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)).

this dame has been singing for 55 years,does that not amount to anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.42.176 (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Although a formidable talent, she apparently has one song that has sold over a million copies in a single territory ("Goldfinger"), yet it's unclear how well it did elsewhere, or how well it has sold in the years since. Sales of more than 1 million in one territory is not literally a prerequisite for this article, but it's very rare that a single sells more than 5 million worldwide without selling more than a million in at least one of the major music markets. As always, if you can find a WP:Reliable source that she has sold more than 5 million copies of one particular single, then I welcome you to add the song to the chart, or link the source here and an editor will format it for you. Abrazame (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Left Outside Alone can be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccendiLaLuce (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. If you have a reference that it's sold more than 5 million it can. That song's article shows certifications that add up to less than 600,000. Is that article missing significant certifications, or did she get 4,400,000 additional sales from territories where the song failed to be certified? Abrazame (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go to page 10 of this IFPI report, it says that Circus sold 5.5 million singles in 2009. I don't know why someone reverts it. IFPI is one of the most reliable sources and it counts what it sold in fact. Please add it again, or tell me here why can't it be added. --GenieOFbritney (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that in the past few Weeks you have removed 'Dancing Queen', from the Best Selling Singles (Global) Lists. It is actually ABBA's best selling Single. 'Fernando' did not sell 10 Million. It sold about 6 Million. It is a Myth that it sold 10 Million. It only reached No.13 in the USA, for a start.

'Dancing Queen' sold around 6 Million in the 1970's, a further 400,000 to 500,000 in 1992, & it has sold almost 600,000 on Downloads - in the USA alone - in recent Years. It has sold well over 7 Million copies - 6 Million of them in the 1970's.

The UK Chart Company, (whom I do a lot of work for), tell me that UK Downloads have now caused its original, (1976 + 1992), UK Singles Sales, to go over 1 Million copies. So, it has become ABBA's only UK MIllion Selling Single.

It was No.1 in more Countries than 'Waterloo', (which has sold less than 400,000 in the UK).

Wikipedia expects Links for these matters. As long as a 'Fact' can be Linked to, it is accepted by Wikipedia. The trouble is - many 'Facts' are nonsense & myths that can be Linked to. And many Facts are accurate, that cannot be Linked to.

It says it all really, that you give 'Yes Sir I Can Boogie', by Baccara, 18 Million Sales. I recall their Record Company - RCA - saying that it had sold 3 Million in Europe, just before it came out in the UK, (where it sold around 750,000). It was not a USA Hit, & at the very most it sold 5 or 6 Million. But - hey! - if you guys want to say that it sold 18 Million & that 'Dancing Queen' sold less than 5 Million, then that is up to you. (LOL!). 82.22.122.117 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several editors at this page (though only very sporadically) and any editor who can make a compelling case for an inclusion is not only welcome to join us but likely to have their edit defended against the whim of a future visitor. I am not the editor who removed that particular title, nor would I have, as I am aware it belongs here more than any other ABBA title. I'm contemplating how to respond to that edit, though this isn't the only thing I do. You make a lot of compelling points (I frequently point out that, from the standpoint of logic, a hit has to be absolutely gargantuan elsewhere, and/or released numerous times, in order to vault the 5-million mark worldwide without having been a significant U.S. hit, given the size of the record market, at least historically, here versus elsewhere) but ultimately compelling points need to be backed up by reliable sourcing of raw data points for exceptional claims (which is all there is at a list devoted to nothing but legitimate exceptional claims about sales figures).

Hopefully as someone who does a lot of work for a music chart company and has these sorts of awarenesses about record sales, you are in a position to have or of an inclination to seek such legitimate reliable sources (they need not be available online, though they do need to have been made public at some point) as are required to support the edits you imply need to be made. If you can make a specific and compelling case against a particular ref currently used as nonsense or myth, by all means give it a go (you'll note I've done so here already). I've repeatedly said in posts and edit summaries that the list as it has stood has been imperfect and we need to weed out, add to, and perfect the list while requiring a higher standard for all new additions. (Though I've also said that simply deleting older titles without either attempting to research them or making a case against them in particular is not the best, nor an inherently more accurate, way to go.)

Or to put it another way, jump in and help out! Best, Abrazame (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of best-selling singles worldwide's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "billboard":

• From Telstar (song): "allmusic - The Tornados > Charts & Awards > Billboard Singles". Retrieved 25 February 2009 (2009-02-25). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• From Lollipop (Lil Wayne song): Lil Wayne Continues Hot 100 Dominance. Billboard (June 12, 2008). Accessed June 13, 2008.
• From Hips Don't Lie: [2]
• From Crank That (Soulja Boy): Artist Chart History - Soulja Boy Tell Em Billboard
• From Flo Rida: Concepcion, Mariel (November 28, 2007). "Flo Rida". Billboard. Retrieved March 29, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Mediatraffic.de site:

About Us

Media Traffic was founded in 1998, we are two german guys with special interest in music and charts. In February 1998 we released the first top 40 hitlist, which based on official national single & airplay charts around the world. It was the first attempt ever to create a global chart on a reliable base. In the course of years we refined the ascertainments (please, read the notes below). In autumn 2002 we began to tracking a global album top 40. Today mediatraffic.de is one of the most visited music websites in the world and the first address for global charts.

Chart Methodologies

Track-Chart

THE MOST POPULAR TRACKS ACCORDING TO PAID DOWNLOADS, SINGLE-SALES AND AIRPLAY

SALES (70%)

SINGLE-SALES AND PAID DOWNLOAD STATS FROM USA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, FRANCE, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, SPAIN, NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM, NORWAY, SWEDEN, FINLAND, DENMARK, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND, IRELAND, GREECE, CANADA, AND NEW ZEALAND.

AIRPLAY (30%)

THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL AIRPLAY-CHARTS FROM USA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, FRANCE, ITALY, SPAIN, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND, SWEDEN, NORWAY, DENMARK, FINLAND, NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM, IRELAND, GREECE, HUNGARY, POLAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, AND NEW ZEALAND. THE CHARTS ARE WEIGHTED TO THE SIZE OF ITS MARKETS ACCORDING TO THE LATEST IFPI-STATISTICS

PLAYLISTS FROM HUNDREDS RADIO-STATIONS IN ALBANIA, ARGENTINA, BELARUS, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, BULGARIA, CHINA, CHILE, COLOMBIA, CROATIA, CYPRUS, ECUADOR, EESTI, EL SALVADOR, FAROE ISLANDS, GEORGIA, GUAM, HONG KONG, ICELAND, INDIA, ISRAEL, KENYA, LATVIA, LEBANON, LITHUANIA, MACEDONIA, MALAYSIA, MEXICO, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERU, PHILIPPINES, ROMANIA, RUSSIA, SINGAPORE; SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOUTH AFRICA, SRI LANKA, THAILAND, TURKEY, UKRAINE, VENEZUELA, AND YUGOSLAVIA.

PLAYLISTS FROM VARIOUS TV-MUSIC CHANNELS

Best-selling singles have nothing directly to do with airplay or video channel play, which make up 30% of the "points" people are conflating with singles sales. Beyond that, it is not clear that the sources they are using for the 70% sales portion would be recognized by encyclopedic standards as reliable sources. For the record, I think what these two German guys are doing is a fun and creative project to concoct a blend of various sources of information to arrive at a guesstimate of singles' relative success, and as an entertainment website, I don't in any way disparage their project. However, it is not an encyclopedically WP:Reliable source, and as such the site is not an acceptable reference for this list. Abrazame (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the reference for Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/8/newsid_3522000/3522702.stm), which says that it sold 8 million copies, and it appears to have been taken from 1994, when Kurt Cobain's suicide happened. That was over 16 years ago and accounts for none of the rise in sales just after Cobain's death, or any downloading of the single. Are there any newer sources claiming a more up-to-date figure that anyone can find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.125.221 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone find a reliable source for Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance", there are many sources stating that the single has sold 7+ million but none of them are reliable. And seeing the song is a major hit, I think we need a reliable source.--Hussein Ibrahim (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The AIWFCIY page says that it has sold 12 million copies worldwide, and that it is one of the best selling singles ever, with that title being a link to this page, however the song is not listed in the list....why???????calvin999 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

-If you check the source, it says that the ALBUM ("Merry Christmas") has sold 12,000,000 copies WW. It doesn't refer to the single's WW sales. Therefore, I'm removing AIWFCIY from this page.

I found a page what says that All I want for christmas is you has sold 10,000,000 copies WW. The article refer to the single's WW sales. http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/Showbiz_Carey__8217_snewChristmasjam/Article/ --67.194.152.93 (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt Leona Lewis - Bleeding love here ?! 90.210.232.212 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source? Lxhizy (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Tik Tok" has sold more than 5 million copies in the U.S. alone. I think it's time you put her on this "list".

Done Even if the sales of Tik Tok are over 9 million copies, there are no reliable sources to prove it, so it's nice to use at least the sales un the U.S. Lxhizy (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many singles of Christina Aguilera which reached the 5 million mark, like Beautiful and Lady Marmalade, it would be nice if someone could provide a reliable source to put them on the list. Lxhizy (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The source for the incorporation of shakira on the list does not says she has sold 10 million singles. She has to be removed from the list. --Therein8383 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The source says "hips dont lie" sold over 10 million digital sales, so it's actually over 10 million aswell since it doesn't include total sales... but a source can't be found for specifics like these. --109.156.221.54 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its says on hips dont lie wikipedia page that it is the most successful single of the 21st century , so why isn't this on the list. Like wise for Whenever,wherever,Underneath your clothes and la tortura. Shewolf has apparently sold over five million . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.141.122 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything you said is BS. "She Wolf" was not popular anywhere except certain Latin countries, so thats for sure not true. The rest are exaggerated, their are much better sellers out there.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Shakira is not just popular in Latin America, but all over the world. Hips dont Lie is the best selling of the decade, and her other songs are close. I even question why "Whenever "wherever" is not on the list... --109.156.221.54 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

About shakira.. shouldn't it be written in the introudctory bit that it's the best selling of the century? It deserves a mention... --

It says on Hip's don't lie wiki page it has sold 14 million.

109.156.220.230 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It used to be on this list and is still listed in Wikipedia in its own article as having sold over 13mil worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taucetiman (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can verify the singles sales which supported by that book??? I don't have this book and it is also not available on Google Books. When I cleaned up and rearranged this page, I thought to keep it even though I was not really sure. Thanks Bluesatellite (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should change this for more up to date sources. Mattg82 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the book is used to support sales of pre-1978 singles. I think it would be really difficult to find recent sources. All we need is to verify whether the sales is same with what the book says. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lemme check if I can get this book. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed this single from this list because of its fake source. However, I'm really sure that the single deserves place on this list. So if someone has found a reliable source, please add it to the list. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that I signed up for Wikipedia. After going through the torture of signing up, i was unable to enter my question. I'll never make that mistake again. Anyway, my question is where is Elvis Presley's It's Now or Never on the best selling singles?24.92.139.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

RIAA certifies that single as Platinum. That certification was received in 1992 and I forget whether that was before or after Platinum was reduced from 2 million to 1 million. (Our own article on the RIAA is no help whatsoever.) Considering that the track topped the UK charts not once but twice, it's not impossible that this single could have sold an additional 3 or 4 million around the world, but that's not something a quick visit to RIAA can prove. If you'd like to do some research on that song, you're welcome to post it here and an editor will be happy to double-check the source if they can, and add the title for you. Bear in mind that this song has been recorded by many other artists, both in this form and in the original "O Sole Mio", and that excessive claims are likely to include all versions of both songs, which is relevant to the writer/publisher, but not Elvis' single. Abrazame (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been removed Mariah Carey singles " All I want for Christmast is You " because the reliable stated that THE ALBUM (Merry Christmast) is sold 12 million copies worldwide, not the singles " All I want ". thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.244.177 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Beyonce's Single ladies has sold 6.1 million copies worldwide [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.162.156 (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on! If Circus has sold that much then surely Oops, Toxic and possibly (probably) Slave and Womanizer have easily outdone that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.81.136 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is a mess , there is many singles which aren't mentioned I would put a new limit on the best selling singles , make it ten million or more , since the 2000's there have been much more singles that pass the 5 million mark , it will be very hard to keep updating the list.

I agree, we should raise the bar on what the minimum sales are. Just as a side note, it's not necessarily true that more singles sold 5 million+ in the 2000s. (See my above letter/essay) People just don't realize the sales of/care about/know about older singles such as Eye of the Tiger, Do They Know It's Christmas? (nearly 4 million just in UK), You're the One That I Want, Another One Bites the Dust, Billie Jean, Beat It, etc. Mauri96 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for this list to be presented in multiple tables with arbitrary section breaks. The table is sortable and viewers can easily determine which records sold 5–9.9 milion, 10–x and y–z million, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, can now sort on artist, year, etc—can't do this with multiple tables. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

why Da Da Da I Don't Love You You Don't Love Me Aha Aha Aha by Trio (band) is not on the list. the song sold 13 million copies worldwide. i agree.... leona lewis bleeding love sold 7.3 million downloads in 2008 alone...it was the biggest song of 2007 in the uk selling 700,000 copies...so thats atleast 8 mil, then u have 3 years after with downloading and considerong leona sis still highly played the number should be nearer 10 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.16.74 (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} According to its respective Wikipedia page Kylie Minogue's "Can't Get You Out of My Head" has sold over five million copies and therefore should be added to this list.

86.135.243.111 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That page is sourced to an oddly archived page on Minogue's own site, which is itself unclearly attributed. However, that source claims sales of over 4 million, not over 5 million. It may be that the single has sold over that level since that report, but I would imagine that if that's so it could be sourced to a currently active page somewhere. If you can find a reliable source of over 5 million in sales, please link that source on this page (and, for that matter, at the song's article) and the title will be added. Abrazame (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

shouldnt born this way be up there ? its already sold over 5 million!Elektrik Band 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

its sold over 1 milion...put sources --93.45.40.66 (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

2000 millions xD wtf xD--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

this is the source, i can't edit it http://www.mediatraffic.de/tracks-2004.htm 4,6 and 3.8....7 years ago, Left Outside Alone at least, has sold 400,000 copies in 7 years, whereas only include sales of 2004, it was in the charts from 2003 to 2005 and then succeed in 2006 with greatesthits...

sorry for the mistakes i'm not english — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccendiLaLuce (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

answer or add them-.---AccendiLaLuce (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Billboard in 2010, has placed it as the second singer to have sold more singles in the last decade. Can you search sources for the singles? I didn't find it. Thanks --93.45.40.66 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are toxic, me against the music, womanizer, oops i did it again, everytime????? And tik tok didn't sale 12 million copies!!! Finally, where are vogue, like a prayer...????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.86.45 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BAD ROMANCE has sold almost 10 million copies worldwide, tying with Poker Face! TELEPHONE has sold 7 million copies worldwide!

All according to this official site: http://www.ifpi.com/content/section_resources/dmr2011.html

The #'s are also listed on each song's main articles!

PLEASE CHANGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.142.11 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)