Charlie. Perhaps it does not make you lazy, but if for example you use Bombay, then realise its no longer called that, just renaming to Mumbai, Knowing relink updates it everywhere is lazy. Bombay is lost to your wiki.
Renaming it then adding a tiddler for Bombay with a connection to Mumbai and even better if you say this occurred in a particular year, then your wiki gains rather than looses information. In this case I am not saying don't rename, that is your prerogative, I am saying be thoughtful when doing so, and sometime the value is not the easiest thing. For example when I write macros and other solutions I already have a set of standard names based on experience and as a result they just never happen to need renaming. I am not hemmed in in any way with my naming standards, in fact I feel I have more freedom in many ways to move on knowing I can find anything I need again from "first principals" my standards again, and I have more times to name where I want. A macro name needs to be remembered, where was it defined, what are it parameters? I have the desire for the same freedom and flexibility as you, but I also am aware of how forethought and systematic understanding is how we can stand on the "shoulders of Giants" or advance our own ideas. The gentle application of constraints (a recent fashion) promotes discovery and creativity as much as seeking "total freedom from constraints" also can. After all, we are all but struggling against entropy. Tones On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:45:41 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: > 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d3f3cd1b-b596-4e2b-857e-a6cc659bf545n%40googlegroups.com.
