Forum:Cite source part numbers

Opening post
Just a quick forum here: I want to change the current way parts are stylised in.

Currently, we cite specific parts in sources like this:

(AUDIO: )

Which, while it does get the information across, feels... inelegant to me. So I have a few solutions.

So here are a few different versions I've knocked up that convey the same information, but just stylise it differently.

(AUDIO ) (AUDIO ) (AUDIO )

Alternately, we could place "Part One" in the same place we place chapters, so something like:

(AUDIO )

Ignore that it uses "Chapter" for now. However, this wouldn't be ideal for pages like Jack Bannister (although this isn't the perfect example, it'll have to do because not many pages use cite source currently), as every citation would look identical until expanded.

Thoughts? 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Aesthetically, I prefer the first option to any other, and agree that it is an improvement in what we currently have (no slight to Bongo50 intended; they have done an absolutely wonderful job on creating the template in the first place), and as the entire thread is about aesthetics, and which citation method is considered the most aesthetically pleasing, I think that I shall stop there. (Goodness, I'm feeling loquacious today!) Aquanafrahudy   📢   20:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like the idea of ": Part N" rather than "(part N)". However, what do people think of "- Part N" instead? However, I don't quite understand the reference to Jack Bannister, as that article features namedparts, rather than numbered parts. I'm not against the current way we do namedparts, but I also wouldn't be agaisnt changing it to "- NAMEDPART", in fact I think I slightly prefer that. Oh, and I think chapters should be cited like numbered parts are. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ettolrhc, I think Jack Bannister is being used as an example of a page where a lot of parts of a single source are cited. In this case they're named parts so the whole calculus is different (though I wouldn't oppose a "Title: Namedpart" format either, come to that, either), but the intuition is the same that pages like this are a good reason not to dismiss part numbers, or part names, to the collapsible part of the template. A page that cites different parts of the same stories would look just plain confusing in that scenario: imagine "after doing one thing, (PROSE: Example Book) the Doctor did another thing (PROSE: Example Book, Example Book)" when, with the part numbers expressed, it ought to read as the perfectly intuitive "after doing one thing (PROSE: Example Book: Chapter 1) the Doctor did another thing (PROSE: Example Book: Chapter 3, Example Book: Epilogue)".


 * In any case, I support the "Part 1" format over "Part one" or "Pt. 1". I'm largely neutral about colons vs. parentheticals vs. hyphens, although parentheticals likely wouldn't be generalisable to named chapters/episodes/parts, which is less than ideal if we want to also introduce the "Overall Title: Subpart" format for those. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scrooge regarding both "Part 1" and the generalisability of parentheticals. – n8 (☎) 13:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)