Adding "bold" cat #

as in the bold digits sequence from Virgin and affiliated labels barcode-like cat #

Is that ok?
Or should it be mentioned in release notes section instead?

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=11878#latest

Thanks

Yes, it is ok... because the bold versions of catalogue numbers are used by labels, companies, distributors, shops in some countries as Spain. Although here some users will tell you that it is not possible.

_jules
Is that ok?

Absolutely.

OK, thanks.

Some issues with that submission.

The current variant 1 (which is not the original variant 1) is not made by EMI Uden, it's a later pressing made by Mediamotion.

The original variant 1 is now in the position of variant 5.
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=11878&diff=74&page=2

You will see as was the trend at the time that the company information from the matrix was not entered, many people were voting the inclusion of the company information in the matrix fields as incorrect. This has probably happened here which would explain the omission of EMI Uden/NL and Mediamotion respectively - it also might explain why the moulded mother/son information has been omitted which. Of course they might not actually be printed on the release (unlikely - particularly with respect to the mother.son information).

I think it needs to be checked - this affects variant 3 as well, so that;s 1, 3 and 5 with variant 5 betrayed by using a mediamotion SID code which was never used by EMI Uden afaict.

Any resolution on the necessary changes to the above sub?
I realise it may be a little off-topic and require a new thread but I've come across a very similar situation with The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead where a variation or two needed to be separated from the original sub [see http://www.discogs.com/history?release=368297].
Could anyone confirm it's Cinram GmbH that made those variants suffixed 2.2 V01 instead of Warner Music Manufacturing Europe like stated on fresh sub The Queen Is Dead so it can be adjusted with the 'lost' data?