Talk:C81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is part of the Music of the United Kingdom WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Music of the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

How many did C81 actually sell. The stylus article quoting the rough trade compiler; Christopher Rose says 15,000. Simon Reynolds in Rip It up and Start Again says 30K. any more for any more ? Jem 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, great little article: and I am glad that C81 is being credited as more pivotal than C86. Unfortunately the sales figures I could not accurately say; probably less than both figures. I would err on the side of Mr Rose - as 30,000 divided by 2 vouchers does make 15,000 → friedfish 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference cited after the sentence that gives a sales figure says "over 15,000", and that is what the text should say; otherwise the reference should be changed. Neither C81 nor C86 should be credited by the text as being pivotal, unless this opinion can be referenced and attributed to a notable source. I do not understand what point you are trying to make by dividing 30,000 into two. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)