Well, TiddlyTweeter said "SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE," so I can't take the kudos for that.
I can't imagine how relink could make anybody lazy. I want relink to handle it because I prefer focus on churning the intertwingled thoughts as tiddlers without the sticks-in-the-wheels, wheels-in-the-mud, that is getting the title right toute-suite. Good enough title immediately, tweak to perfection iteratively/incrementally. Sure, there may be times, as per one's needs, in which changing a tiddler title is semantically bad, or bad for link rot, or bad for some other reason, or a combination of reasons. Do as makes sense for you and what you're doing (how you function, the purpose of a particular tiddler or a whole tiddlywiki). - For the great majority of what I do and how I function, tiddler titles that must never change would drive me off the deep end. - For some things, I really do not want the tiddler titles to ever change, because I use (in these scenarios) tiddler titles strictly as one would use sequence (or system-generated) numbers for primary keys in a database. These are very niche organizational/presentation purposes of mine. - For how I function, I can't imagine any other scenario in which I would want titles to stay fixed-no-matter-what. Bleurk. I'd much prefer multiple tiddlers and handy-dandy transclusions to handle implicit knowledge. On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > This is where I think relink can make people lazy. The unique key to a > tiddler is the title, but it is so easy to change the key, which is a > powerful benefit but there are a subset of situations where changing the > key needs further thought. > > If relink just "handles it", we may just forget the impact of a change, > Apart even from external links there is a historical event involved in > Bombay to Mumbai. As Charlie said SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE, This change > supports my approach which is to avoid loosing information. In this case if > you simply renamed you loose the old name. So if renaming results in lost > of information further steps should be taken. > > Perhaps logging renames in a data tiddler that is searchable would offer a > level of record, so that a search returns something like *Mumbai (Bombay)* > if this was confirmed, or *Mumbai (Bombay)? *if not confirmed. Perhaps > we could use Mario's alias plugin or similar tools to somewhat automate > this. I doubt capturing all title renames even over a long period would > consume much space. > > Tones > > On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 00:04:14 UTC+10 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Right! >> >> But there is SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE at work knowing that Mumbai IS >> Bombay >> >> Do these transforms inform the user of what is going on an why? >> >> Just asking for a friend, >> TT >> >> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 15:03:34 UTC+2 PMario wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC+2 springer wrote: >>> >>> And as much as you may "choose my tiddler names well enough when needed >>>> so they need not change in future", renaming a tiddler is not always a >>>> matter of realizing that you failed to have foresight the first time >>>> around. (My reason for invoking the Bombay to Mumbai change -- >>>> >>> >>> I think changes like this are easy to handle, without breaking "old" >>> permalinks. There is no problem if you change Bombay to Mumbai and also >>> change all links to be Mumbai. ... As long as you keep 1 tiddler named >>> Bombay. It could contain eg: >>> >>> Now [[Mumbai]] since 1995. >>> >>> If you have a look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai >>> ... The first thing it says is: "Bombay redirects here" >>> >>> just a thought. >>> -mario >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/58eb8bc3-b203-495b-b4f2-e60d3851f6aen%40googlegroups.com.
