Didn't really know how to formulate this title but oh well. Basically, if you have two parts of a motif and a track has both in alternance (let's say it has part 1 0:00-0:10 and 0:20-0:30, and has part 2 0:10-0:20 and 0:30-0:40). Do you format it like this (example 1):
[Track]: 0:00-0:10, 0:20-0:30 (part 1); 0:10-0:20, 0:30-0:40 (part 2)
Or like this (example 2):
[Track]: 0:00-0:10 (part 1) 0:10-0:20 (part 2), 0:20-0:30 (part 1), 0:30-0:40 (part 2)
First one is more concise, second one keeps it in the order it appears in in the track.
I asked around in the Discord server and opinions on this seem pretty split. Some think the first is easier to read and some think the second is. Some say the first should be used for conciseness while some say the second better presents the information as it shows up in the track.
Personally I don't care either way as long as it's consistent across the page, which currently it really isn't, so I wanted to get opinions from Discussions as well so we can settle on one and standardize it. I guess I can make a poll too, but feel free to comment.
- Example 1
- Example 2
In any case, when there's separate instances of a given part that aren't separated by another part, we shouldn't be repeating the part number between each of them, that's completely unneccessary. (Like look at Six Flowers in Flower Man for instance- right now it's like this:
Either way it should be changed, but with example 1 we'd be putting all the part 1 timestamps together and the part 2 one after, and with example 2 we'd just be removing the unneccessary "(part 1)"s after the 0:24-0:54 and 2:24-2:47 timestamps. (Most of the page already does this correctly)