When we split documents, we have the option to ‘split with selection as title’.
I use this quite a lot. As my documents get long, I select its section headings, and ‘split with selection as title’ to create a series of documents, one for each section, each titled with the heading of the section (which I can then show in screenings via ‘show titles in scrivenings’.
I’m wondering if there is a parallel option for merging documents?
As far as I can see (Manual Section 15.4.2), what currently happens when we merge is that the new document only includes the TEXT of the merged items, losing the titles of all but the first item. If I want the filenames to become section headings I have to re-type them by hand.
What I’d like would be to (optionally) merge documents while KEEPING THEIR FILENAMES AS HEADINGS IN THE NEW MERGED DOCUMENT.
Is this currently possible? If not would it be possible to make it possible?
Thanks!
Helen
When you merge two documents, the two becomes one and can only have one title.
To me it sounds as if you are moving documents, not merging. From your description it sounds as if you have a document with sub-documents, and you want this whole structure to be a part of another document, right?
If so, just drag and drop it where you want it.
Thanks - but that is not quite what I meant. I’ll try to be clearer.
I understand that when I merge documents I get one document with one title - that is what I want to do.
However I don’t want to completely lose the titles - I want the titles to be copied into my document, so I can use them as headings of sections within that document.
I’ve attached two pictures. My question is:
Is it possible to get something like the ‘what I want’ picture instead of the ‘what i get’ picture?
I don’t think so.
Why do you merge them if you essentially want to retain them as a kind of sub-parts in the text?
Why not simply use scrivenings view and display the titles in the text?
I would also like to be able to do this, has anyone figured out a way yet?
It seems like there might be some confusion as to why anyone would want this, I’ll try to clear that up: I have a document with chapters that contain sub-sections, each with their own section heading. Think of it not like a novel but like a non-fiction document where the titles themselves are part of the document and not just something to remind me the writer of what’s inside. The important thing is that the title is part of the text, so I want it. Is there a way to merge two or more documents but keep the titles so that they show up as subtitles, exactly as they look when I set up Scrivenings Mode to show the titles under the dashed subdividing line? And I don’t just want them merged that way in compile either, if there’s a way to do that I could imagine someone misunderstanding my desire to mean that, but instead I’d like to be able to do it right in the editor so that the files are actually merged into one. If anyone has any ideas I’d be grateful, thanks.
There’s no current way to make scrivener do what you want, the way that you want to do it.
If you want to designate some files as “sub-sections with document titles as section headings” during compile, that’s quite doable, in a number of ways… but that’s not what’s been asked for, so I’m not going to push you to change your methods.
The easiest way to do this would be to use the Compile command to merge the files together – with headings – and then re-import the resulting file back into Scrivener.
As people have said, there isn’t an easy way to do this, but I’d just like to explore exactly why you want it. For me, having the title of the section / subsection / subsection etc in the binder and in the header provides all the information I need (combined with showing it in a scrivening if I’m in that mode). What benefits are you getting by duplicating that title in the document itself, when you’re going to have to remove the in-document title when you get to compile anyway (otherwise you lose the benefit of easy automatic numbering etc) and it stops you from being able to move subsections around easily? It’s extra work, so what benefit does it give you to make it worthwhile? (This is a genuine question by the way, not a criticism…)
