Re^2: Retitle tangents -9000

I keep adding extra info in brackets after the original title, similar to (updated)

This helps keeping track in RAT view.

Trouble is the title inheritance, I think (brainstorming) :

that the first retitle should carry both titles New Title (was: Old Title)
the numbering should continue back to the original root, hence Re^3: New Title (was: Old Title)
the old-title should be automatically stripped in further replies Re^4: New Title
comments like (updated) should be stripped too, it's total nonsense that this is inherited.
in case a sub-thread is promoted to a proper thread the original context and title should be preserved in the root-node (but not the numbering)

I repeat these are theoretical thoughts, I'm sure we won't be able to implement it anyway.

A clean implementation would require an extended data model.

Otherwise this would rely on heuristics to be coded ... which would become ugly when renumbering.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Retitle tangents -9000 Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Retitle tangents -9000 by marto (Cardinal) on Jul 15, 2020 at 16:18 UTC
I can't think of a sensible argument for doing any of this. Users can either just ignore things, make a note to return to the post later if desired (thus maintaining focus), or start a new thread (provided it actually meets the criteria for being posted on the site).	[reply]
Re^4: Retitle tangents -9000 by LanX (Saint) on Jul 15, 2020 at 17:10 UTC
There are 3 different use cases: Indicating ... an (update) Reason: courtesy, fairness (b/c there is no history feature here) a sub thread which is a specialization and not a thread drift like here Re^4: Ternary Quizical behaviour? (Ref vs Alias) , Reason: sensible description in the title a complete thread drift kind of `Sundial-101 again (was: MongoDB)` ° Reason: Total drift, but new title spares us from considering/messaging the cabals > sensible argument for doing any of this Overall reason: we keep re-linking valuable nodes and the title appears automatically, `Ref vs Alias` is a far better title we have node overviews, like best nodes etc. inheriting `(update)` makes no sense at all Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery} °) there are less controversial examples, please don't crucify me for mentioning the should not be named	[reply] [d/l] [select]