I just changed a few of these to include “BBC Music, Volume x, Number y” to be consistent with the vast majority of these, but I note that @wcw1966 deliberately removed this prefix from one a few months ago (https://musicbrainz.org/edit/59902452) with the explanation “Label/magazine/series number not part of title. Labels and series are now shown separately.This title appears nowhere on the product.”
I have some sympathy with this (except that the last sentence is not really true - the components of it do appear) as it does make the titles rather clunky. Including it, however, has the advantage of the members in the series being easily identified when viewing the label’s releases (https://musicbrainz.org/label/475901a7-9383-4a68-a6f0-ec9da59de6dd). The explanation given would also make more sense if indeed the release was linked to a series, but only 9 releases are (https://musicbrainz.org/series/ffc02aa2-a6dc-4453-a007-b48f8c09c005). I also note that another (more completely listed series), namely hyperion’s “The Romantic Piano Concerto” (https://musicbrainz.org/series/6fc8a10e-5e8d-4a4c-b22d-9c0a38dacb13) has releases which invariably include the series name and volume number in their titles and I recall (but can’t fine) some discussion relating to that.
To pursue this I added this release: https://musicbrainz.org/release/b9677d1c-49f1-4bd1-899a-936c5c35b659 to the series (so 10* now!) with the Volume and Number in the “number” attribute, which works quite well although the number column is a bit narrow for it. Maybe this is a good idea, although it would be better if the series relationship could be seen from the label page so that it is obvious which ones have not been added to the series.
Lastly, there is some inconsistency in the catalog numbers. Would it be better if they were all in the BBCMMnnn format (no spaces).
Whatever, I think a consistent approach would be good. Views?
*EDIT - continuing to add more