Should there something be corrected?

[☕ Lachgas ♿]

Came across that series https://www.goodreads.com/series/4641... and first did correct the novella #1 to 0.5 as I thought it's a prequel to #1.
Then so that novella #2 which seems to be a combination of two books, so I numbered it with the numbers of the books ...

and as I thought I'm done I came over a list of the series in one of the descriptions whichmad it complicated
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

Shouldn't that novella #1 and the real #1 then be combined? the novella just seems to be an abridged version of #1 (like there are abridged and unabridged audio books which we also combine)

If so, same implies to novella #2 which already exist as a #1-2 book in the series.

I must admit I do find the way it's numbered now more confusing than helpful...

[☕ Lachgas ♿]

and found that series https://www.goodreads.com/series/4107...
shouldn't the novellas which are included in #7 being numbered different than a full #7 (although 7.1, 7.2 could be a bit misleading...)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Parts of 7 would be 7A, 7B, etc.

[Renske]

I suppose '7 part 1 of 2' and '7 part 2 of 2' can still also be used? Because that style has its advantages when a book is split in multiple way (in 2 parts and in 3 parts for example)

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Renske wrote: "I suppose '7 part 1 of 2' and '7 part 2 of 2' can still also be used?"

Yes, although it's a bit wordy, it definitely works in the case you mention.

[☕ Lachgas ♿]

ok corrected #2 series

opinions on the one in #1?