Series Numbering Confusion

[Caro]

I am wanting to know the correct way to number this series. The book on the series page are listed as .1, .2, .3, but I noticed that the books' titles have both .1 or 1.1. Since the novellas were combined into one book (Book #1) I am lost on how the numbering should be for the novellas and book 1. The inconsistency has me befuddled. Please help.

Here is the series page.

[Empress]

You need to look for information about that novella and if the events are happening before or after books 1. If the first the book should stay as 0.1 if the latter you should move it as 1.1.

If it doesn't matter when the book is read or has no relation to the book timeline you can remove the numbering and leave it at the end of the series.

If the series has an alternative order in which the books can be read choose one (or leave as it is) and list the alternative order in the series description.

The title should reflect the series information correctly.

[Caro]

The novellas are Book 1. Book 1 was later published (after the novellas) and is the accumulation of all three. Now the novellas are no longer published and just Book 1 is available. Since Book 1 is all three novellas together as one story instead of 3 parts of a story. I'm confused because there isn't really a timeline. Using the numbers on the series page: .1 is the first part of Book 1, .2 is the middle, and .3 is the last part of Book 1. Is this making any sense. I'm hoping I'm writing this clearly. Possibly a little more help? Sorry I didn't make it clear enough earlier.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

The decimal notation is generally used for shorts or novellas that come before/between whole-numbered books, not that comprise them. For that we more often use A, B, C, etc. Edited series.

[Caro]

Thank you both for the help!

[Empress]

Caro wrote: "The novellas are Book 1. Book 1 was later published (after the novellas) and is the accumulation of all three. Now the novellas are no longer published and just Book 1 is available. Since Book 1 is..."

Shouldn't that be: (1, part 1 of 3) and so on to make it more clear?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

That method is sometimes used as well, but more for translations broken into parts.

[Empress]

rivka wrote: "That method is sometimes used as well, but more for translations broken into parts."

Thanks.

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Except that it then became the first of 4 books, so having it as 1 really works better in the overall picture.