# splitting off new threads



## Gavril

Hello,

Often, I need to split an existing thread off into a new one, because a question has come up that isn't directly germane to the original post. (I think this isn't too uncommon for WR in general: threads become "off-topic" on a fairly regular basis.) The only ways I can see to do this are 

1) to copy any relevant content from the old thread, exit the old thread, and start a new one (this becomes time consuming if I split off threads regularly)

2) to request that an administrator split a new thread off from the old one

Is there a more straightforward way of splitting off a new thread that I haven't noticed? E.g., is there a menu option, button or check-box that I can select when making a post that will place this post into a new thread?

If not, I'd very much like to suggest that Wordreference create a specific menu option/button that allows users to choose whether they want a post to go into a new thread, or keep it in an existing one. (This option could be disabled/grayed-out when a post has already been replied to.)

Thank you


----------



## Cagey

> 1) to copy any relevant content from the old thread, exit the old  thread, and start a new one (this becomes time consuming if I split off  threads regularly)


You should start a new thread when you have a new question.  It is helpful to include a link to the original thread as a cross reference. 

Splitting a thread after a new question has received answers is time-consuming.  Moderators may not always be willing to do it, and you run the risk that the question with the responses will be deleted.  

I realize that it may not always be clear whether the question is new topic or an extension of the existing discussion, but we ask you to do your best to avoid introducing a new topic.  

(In other words, we would like you to avoid creating the need to split threads.)


----------



## Gavril

Cagey said:


> You should start a new thread when you have a new question.  It is helpful to include a link to the original thread as a cross reference.
> 
> Splitting a thread after a new question has received answers is time-consuming.  Moderators may not always be willing to do it, and you run the risk that the question with the responses will be deleted.
> 
> I realize that it may not always be clear whether the question is new topic or an extension of the existing discussion, but we ask you to do your best to avoid introducing a new topic.
> 
> (In other words, we would like you to avoid creating the need to split threads.)



With all due respect, I think this is an unreasonable request. You need only look at forums where the on-topic policy isn't enforced (or ones where it's enforced more liberally) to see how easily discussions of one topic diverge/digress into discussions of another.

I think it would make everyone's life easier if, before submitting a post, there were a menu option/check-box (titled "Split off into new thread", or similar) that you could select in order to create a new thread starting with that post.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Gavril said:


> You need only look at forums where the on-topic policy isn't enforced



The one-topic policy is enforced in every forum, as it's clearly worded and requested by the WR rule #2.



> *One topic per thread / No chatting.*
> Stay on the topic of the first post in each thread.
> *Ask about only one topic in each thread. If you have more than one  question, open a thread for each. *
> If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the question  posed in the first post of the thread, open a new thread.
> If you wish to talk about an unrelated subject or make an unrelated comment to  another member, use the forum’s private message (PM) feature. No chatting.
> Open only one thread for each question. Do not duplicate threads.


----------



## Gavril

Paulfromitaly said:


> The one-topic policy is enforced in every forum, as it's clearly worded and requested by the WR rule #2.



I wasn't talking only about WR forums. And, some WR forums are laxer than others in this respect.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Gavril said:


> I wasn't talking only about WR forums. And, some WR forums are laxer than others in this respect.


I'm sorry, I thought you meant different WR forums.
I'm sure other forums may have different policies, however the WR policy is definitely "one question/topic for each thread", which is not that bad if you take into account that you may open as many threads as you wish 
That's also the best way to have a thread title that is always relevant to the thread topic, which is very important when you want to run a thread title search.


----------



## Gavril

Paulfromitaly said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you meant different WR forums.
> I'm sure other forums may have different policies, however the WR policy is definitely "one question/topic for each thread", which is not that bad if you take into account that you may open as many threads as you wish
> That's also the best way to have a thread title that is always relevant to the thread topic, which is very important when you want to run a thread title search.



I don't disagree with the WR policy of one topic per thread. However, if you look at WR forums, I think you'll see that people (myself included) very often have trouble following this policy, given how easily side topics can arise from an original topic.

I think the policy of one topic per thread would be easier to follow if there were a built-in option for creating a new thread when you respond to an existing thread (see my last two posts). That way, if a person is typing a response to a question and realizes that some or all of his response belongs in a new thread, he can easily initiate this new thread without having to do any cutting, pasting, opening of new browser tabs/windows, etc.

Another advantage of this system would be that the writer of the earlier post (the post that the new thread is a response to) would be automatically alerted of the new thread, and be more likely to contribute to it.


----------



## Loob

Gavril, are you asking about replying to off-topic questions?  If so, the answer, I think, is "don't reply to off-topic questions"


----------



## Gavril

Loob said:


> Gavril, are you asking about replying to off-topic questions?  If so, the answer, I think, is "don't reply to off-topic questions"



No, I'm talking about replies that contain off-topic questions -- I'm proposing what I think is a more efficient way of splitting these replies off into their own threads.


----------



## jann

The vBulletin software that runs these forums is a commerically-available package, not something designed by WR.  It has some built-in flexibility and customizeability, but what you describe would require a programmar to make coding changes to the actual "bones" of the software package.  (And they would not be easy changes!)

When the moderators take a side discussion and split it into a second thread after the fact, it's time-consuming.  We'd really prefer not to have to do this.  But we understand that sometimes things just happen that way and a split becomes necessary. That said, it might take us a while to get around to it, and in the meantime we might need to e.g., hide the thread from view, etc.  When we do split a discussion, you'll note that we generally manage to create a logical and comprehensible "first" post for the new thread... and to do so, we often add one or perhaps two quotations from messages in the old thread, plus a link back to the old thread.

If you want to _initiate_ a spin-off discussion, you can do the same thing:  simply quote the relevant message from the old thread as part of post #1 in the new discussion* you want to launch.  

If the spin-off discussion has _already begun_, there are a number of contributions, and it's becoming very clear that it needs its own thread, then *PLEASE* click the report triangle and ask the moderators to split the thread as soon as possible.   Please also refrain from replying in the thread until it does get split. The fewer replies there are about the spin-off question, the easier it will be for us to split the thread, the sooner we'll be able to take care of it, and the more coherent the two daughter threads will be.


*How-to hint: click "reply with quote" or use the "multiquote" feature  in the old thread to capture the relevant messages in the quick reply  window.  "Select all" and "copy" this text, but do not submit the post.   Then go to a new tab or a new browser window, and create a new thread.   Paste the copied text into the body of your post.  Trim the quoted messages to delete out any  irrelevant bits, type your own comment/question, and submit your new  thread.  The small blue arrow that appears next to the words "originally  posted by" for the quoted message within your post is a clickable link  back to the old thread.  If you're worried people won't understand, you can also provide an actual link back to the old thread.  Then in the old thread, you may wish to edit one of your existing messages to add a link to your new discussion.  Or if you also continue to participate in an on-topic discussion in the old thread, you could add a P.S. to one of your replies to say that you've created a new thread for a spin-off question.


----------

