Splitting a Topic and Appending Below a New Post

[stoo23]

Hi all,
Perhaps I'm 'fooling' myself but I'm sure I managed to do this Ages ago ...... but Try as I Might the other day, I could Not make it happen.

I had a Topic, that had 'derailed' and gone somewhat Off Topic, with a Lot of posts.

I wanted to keep the first 4 or 5 posts and Split and Move/Merge the remainder/following posts to a New Topic .... BUT .... to Describe WHY and to give the Last statement that the first 'Split' post continued, I wanted to Create a Descriptive Post to 'Append' all the Split posts below of.

Annoyingly, it didn't seem to matter What I did or How I went about it, it kept putting my New post at the End of all the Split Posts !!!

Is there a way of doing this ??
What IS the correct Process ??

Thanks, in advance
Stewart

[GL700Wing]

AFAIK when multiple topics are merged the messages are displayed in either message number order or chronological order (I can't remember which) with the result that in the scenarios you described the new single message topic you are creating will be always be displayed at the end of the topic containing the split derailed messages.

One possible workaround is:
1. Split the derailed messages to a new topic (and specify the relevant new topic subject as part of this process); and
2. Edit the first message in the new topic and add a note to the beginning with the relevant description/explanation (you could add a horizontal line or two to separate this text from the original message text that follows it).

[stoo23]

AFAIK when multiple topics are merged the messages are displayed in either message number order or chronological order (I can't remember which) with the result that in the scenarios you described the new single message topic you are creating will be always be displayed at the end of the topic containing the split derailed messages.

Well, that is certainly what was happening.
I was just convinced I HAD done it before,.... (Mind you, it was quite some time ago), so I could Obviously, be misleading myself,.. LOL

One possible workaround is:
1. Split the derailed messages to a new topic (and specify the relevant new topic subject as part of this process); and
2. Edit the first message in the new topic and add a note to the beginning with the relevant description/explanation (you could add a horizontal line or two to separate this text from the original message text that follows it).

  ... and THAT, .... is Exactly, what I eventually did     
Thanks for the reply .... but it WOULD be a great 'Feature' if it Could be done ... somehow !!
Cheers 

[Kindred]

it can not be done with the current design of the SMF messages in the database.

SMF displays posts in a thread in order of message ID -- and this is baked in - there is no easy way to change that -- so there is no way to insert a post into the middle of a thread ---  and when you merge posts into another thread, they will get "cycled" in between the original posts, per the ID.

[stoo23]

Understood .... as 'suggested' above, I WAS obviously misleading myself,...   

Thanks for the added ... Confirmation 

[stoo23]

So, ... further to this and having thought about it,..... I'm thinking that Perhaps a 'Solution', might be to Create a Bunch of Named/Numbered 'Blank' Single entry Posts, ..... in an Unused area of the Forum, (like a Testing or Admin' section, which could simply Lay there waiting to be used as required.

Obviously, if everything is OK at the time, they would (in theory) be useful Later, when Both the Date and Topic ID of any future threads that required similar action, would Allow these 'Blank' posts Headers to Sit at the top, as Their ID would, (in theory), be before any new Topic ID's,.. YES

[Sesquipedalian]

That would be pain in the butt to maintain. Just edit the first post in the newly split topic to add something like this:

Split from <link to previous topic>

[stoo23]

Well, to be honest I can't really see it as a Pain,.. it would simply be a bunch of 'Blank' singular Unused Posts, with Temporary Names ... but I take your Point.

Both options are,.. viable

Cheers