I think we all agree that aliases are for synonyms. The difference is that we have different opinions on whether there should be only a page (the source) with content and other aliases pages should not have content.
… what does the concept of aliases mean
To me, aliases are different names pointing to something(s).
- They don’t have to be page titles, a block can have aliases, all the things have names can have aliases.
- The
something
doesn’t have to be physically equal (same content, byte to byte), as long as if they share the same concept. As the quote said:
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck , then it must be a duck
I’ll not call the current system a “separate page” system, it’s a “single page” as long as if you don’t add blocks to the alias page. But it’s ok if you need to add some content to the alias page.
IMO, the current system is not an alias system. It is something else, because it doesn’t do all and only what I described in my first post. You are using the term “alias” to mean something that is not what I mean, and it is not clear to me exactly what functionality defines an alias system for you. Importantly, the current system is not something that is more flexible in comparison to my proposal. It is just different. It allows and disallows different things than the system I’m proposing. What I am not understanding is what you think you are gaining with the current “separate pages” system.
Here is your proposed solution:
- any instance of
[[mice]]
is interpreted as[mice]([[mouse]])
so you can quickly type the link and have it go to the correct place.
It’s the current behavior on logseq.com if you defined mice as an alise of mouse, otherwise, I’ll fix it soon since it’s a bug
- The unlinked references for
mouse
currently shows only hits for “mouse” and not for “mice” or “muis”, but it should link to all text strings that refer to that same concept.
This will be supported but not now because we need to improve the overall search performance first.
What I don’t want is for content from “mouse” and “mice” to differ. Do you? If so, why? Why would you want to have content on page “苹果” that is not on page “apple” and vice-versa? If “apple” and “苹果” are literally the same concept for you, then put the content relating to them on one page. If they are slightly different concepts, have 2 pages and link them. You can connect the information related to those terms easily using page embeds, queries, or regular links.
I might go with the “one page” way if we have a perfect tool that can automatically filter the blocks by their languages (English, Chinese, etc), Block versions might be useful.
Do you really want to be reading back and forth between pages “苹果” and “apple” in 2 years when you go back to them to see if there was any important info in “apple” that’s not in "“苹果” ? That’s what separate pages will force. It might not seem like a big deal now, but when you are building a lifetime notetaking system and start visiting notes months or years after the fact, it will become a nightmare.
Good point! I don’t think of those notes as files, they are just blocks, I don’t have to read back and force between the source page and aliases (if the alias page have some content, but it doesn’t have to), because all the content of the aliases and the source page will be listed on all the related pages. The issue here is how to sort them.