Hey, thank you for the quick update!
Fair enough, I understand that this is the status-quo right now, maybe aliases were even planned to behave like this from the start, for all I know.
But your argument does not sit well with me:
Well, this might be more common but only because the other way (the one I wanted) doesn’t work =).
Here’s my take on this. Again, feel free to ignore my rant entirely: I will definitely find some workaround for my issue, I just wanted to verify my understanding of aliasing functionality. But maybe my reasoning will convince you not to dismiss the possibility of making aliases even more useful, so here goes.
I, for one, prefer to name my notes with titles that are descriptive: this convention makes all Obsidian features that display note titles − file explorer, backlinks pane, search and so on − practically useful. This observation also extends to other plugins as well (Dataview, OQL), but this is irrelevant for my argument.
In fact I am ready to bet that most people prefer this naming convention as well, even though there might be some hardcore ZK fans who insist on using pure numeric note ID, I’m sure.
This shows that using only the citekey as a note title is not quite practical, and also makes two latter examples you provided sub-optimal.
That leaves us with the canonical form of [[descriptive-note-name|alias-name]]. To complicate the matter, you can also make links as ``[[descriptive-note-name|alternative-link-text]]`, which looks the same but has nothing to do with note aliases.
In any case, such a link already renders in preview mode as alias-name or alternative-link-text, and the note title is not displayed. Half the battle!
Moreover, in both the autocompletion dropdown and the quick switcher dialog the aliases are properly displayed, which suggests that they are already considered as link targets, even though you can’t link to them directly and have to use the [[note|alias]] syntax.
IMO, all that’s left to enable pure naked-alias type linking is to make note aliases first-class citizens, really equal to note titles, by making them link targets proper. This breaks zero use cases AFAICT (unless you depend on aliases not being unique, but why???), and allows a couple of previously impossible ones. Mine, for example =)
This might be so, but doesn’t this non-uniqueness make them confusing?
Honestly I can’t think of any use case that depends on this non-uniqueness (it’s just me though, I’m sure there are other opinions). Why would anyone want to use the same alias to link to two different notes? Doesn’t just the alternative link text (which is not an alias!) suffice? Also, tags might or might not serve as a substitute here: tags aren’t notes, so you can’t link to them directly, but tagging two or more notes with the same tag allows them to be found together.
Anyway, that’s all I’ve got to say about that ©.