Is it a good idea to use nominal phrases in note titles?
Hello from Bangalore, folks!
I've been getting by with a simple hierarchical system of notes inside directories for over a decade. But in 2024 my system became too overwhelming to make sense of, so I spent Christmas week setting up a Zettelkasten in Obsidian. I've experimented with the method before, but I'm making it a core part of my process for the first time.
My primary goal with the Zettelkasten method is to analyze literature that moves me or makes me think. I want to break down the techniques used by professional storytellers, figure out how and why they work, then apply them to my own work. There's also an element of wanting to learn more about myself; if I can figure out why I relate strongly to a specific character or why a certain scene moves me, I can learn something new and potentially surprising about myself.
I have a mountain of old notes collected from books, lectures, workshops, and my own reading that I'm slowly breaking down into zettels, a process that might take me a few weeks or even months. It's difficult work, but I'm already starting to make connections between ideas and works of literature that I didn't see before. As I'm breaking down big, interconnected ideas into smaller pieces, I'm finding that there's great value in meditating on a single concept at a time—sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for a whole day—instead of trying to understand twenty of them at once.
But one problem I keep running into is how to title my zettels.
Let me illustrate with an example. Here's a zettel that talks about how characters who make bad decisions and then suffer the consequences make for compelling protagonists (with links omitted):
Protagonists who make bad decisions and suffer the consequences are compelling. Protagonists can make bad decisions for a variety of reasons: - They lack the necessary information to make good decisions - They are in a state of heightened emotion and act without thinking - They are pushed into a corner by the plot and don't have another choice - Their flaws or weaknesses prevent them from making good decisions No character makes bad decisions on purpose or with malice. [[Every character in a story acts according to their personal belief system]] and makes decisions in good faith. Supporting characters can also make bad decisions, but readers don't let them get away with too much bad behavior because they [[only really have a window into the life of the protagonist]]. [[If any character makes a bad decision and is spared the consequences, the event loses all meaning]].
If I understand the system correctly, best practice dictates that my titles should be one of the following:
- Declarative statements (X is Y)
- Imperative statements (do X instead of Y)
- Questions (why is X like Y?)
So I've come up with the following possible titles:
- "Protagonists who make bad decisions and suffer the consequences are compelling"
- "Compelling protagonists should make bad decisions and suffer the consequences"
- "Protagonists should make bad decisions and suffer the consequences"
But none of those titles seem good enough to me. The problem is that I want to reuse this note in two contexts:
- In a structure note containing a suggested blueprint for writing compelling protagonists
- In a structure note where I'm cataloging all the storytelling techniques used a specific book
The imperative title makes sense in the first context, but not in the second context. The declarative sentence probably makes a little more sense in both contexts, but in the book I'm breaking down the protagonist is actually not compelling at all despite the author using this technique. Somehow the author has made the protagonist feel irritating and immature.
Instinct tells me that this note should be titled simply Protagonists who make bad decisions and suffer the consequences. That way, I'm simply naming the technique/trope, and can use it in any context. But as far as i'm aware, best practice dictates that nouns and nominal phrases make for bad titles.
I don't have enough experience with the method, so I don't really have an instinct for this. Am I overthinking my title? How would you approach this problem?
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
Hi, in Obsidian you can use aliases, so you can adjust a note title into a link a little or completely rewrite it for a perfect fit in more than one context.
It often happens to me that I need to use the same idea expressed in imperative way and in descriptive way into two different linking contexts.
You can consider this strategy.
My instinct is to rewrite
"Protagonists who make bad decisions and suffer the consequences are compelling"
as
"Interesting protagonists suffer from their poor decisions."
The word "interesting" is vague and says nothing about how flawed the protagonist is, as the reader learns in retrospect, once the protagonist steps backward into an active volcano while taking a selfie. The protagonist is interesting, I insist, because I wrote about him, and I only write about interesting characters. In theory.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Make an experiment: Instead of using the title to link in the other contexts, use an alias that is appropriate to the specific context.
I am a Zettler
Thanks everyone! This gives me some clarity.
I'm going to write the zettel based on the context that is most important to me, i.e, producing fiction. That means I'm going to write it as an imperative sentence, because in some ways I'm writing down instructions for future me to follow. I'm thinking:
Protagonists should make bad decisions and suffer the consequences.When I want to use this zettel in a different context—such as the analysis for a book I'm reading—I'll clarify the link using a different link title or an alias.
I'm not a literary critic or academic. My goal is to produce fiction, not merely to analyze it. When I take this into consideration, it makes sense for me to write imperative, prescriptive note titles. Any contradictions between zettels can be resolved using a comparison note.
You may benefit from introducing some form of generalizing or rolling things up to a higher level of abstraction into your note system, with tags or more generic titles.
Either tags or more generalized note titles can help you find relevant notes as the various contexts/use cases arise. A note titled "Compelling Protagonist - Bad Decisions" is sufficient.
Or, a structure note about "Compelling Protagonists" could link to this note.
Tags like #protagonist or #NovelOne or #story would help you aggregate notes by use case.
Hi, I also have some remaining confusion regarding so-call "best practices" for note titles.
First, I'm curious why you think note titles should be declarative statements, imperative statements, or questions, but not nominal phrases.
Did these "best practices" regarding note titles come from a specific source on zettelkasten? If so, perhaps other sources disagree. I've learned that there are many different approaches to using a zettelkasten, so different people are going to have different ideas about "best practices".
For example, Andy Matuschak has several publicly available notes regarding note titles (i.e., "Prefer note titles with complete phrases to sharpen claims", "Evergreen note titles are like APIs", and "Prefer positive note titles to promote systematic theory"). I think these are all interesting ideas about titling notes, but I'm not sure if the advice/claims apply universally across note taking systems.
My approach is simple, maybe flawed: I go with the title that best captures the contents of the note. The way I title a note is entirely dependent on the content of the note itself. Note titles may change depending on if the note contains an argument, metaphor, model, reflection, claim, evidence, refutation, question, etc.
For example, I recently created a note titled "Fogg Behavior Model". Obviously the note contains a model of behavior and the title is nominal. If my future self came across just the title of this note, I think I would have a fair idea regarding the contents of the note.
Also, many people distinguish between structure notes and individual zettels in their note titles.
I want to add that I think these are excellent insights. Thank you for sharing!
I tend to use Matuschak's approach as mentioned by @dylanjr, but I have like Dylan different titles for different types of notes.
as an example from a note named "202406191119 Working with data often means using digital technology to processes it" :
Working with data often means using digital technology to processes it [[202406191119]]
See Also
Here you can see what we could consider three types of notes. "Claims" (e.g., "Working with data..", "Tasks" ("Using digital technology...)", and "Concepts" ("Digital Technology ")
I'm still thinking about titling zettels, so I have a few more links to share now.
First, a search on this forum returned these related discussions/posts:
Also, I remember Andy Matuschak has some suggestions in this video:
One idea in particular from that I found interesting (I haven't done this myself) is to append ", a la [NAME]" to note titles where you haven't fully incorporated an idea as your own.
I also found @Will 's video and related discussion on "How to tie the title with the notes idea" (see the link above) very useful.
Seeing how others "skillfully" title notes (to use vocabulary from Will's video) has been most enlightening.
The problem with rules for the title is that the title is basically a pointer to the content. The mechanism how to increase the likelihood of the title activating the recall process for the content is not well captured by rules or guidelines in my opinion.
Instead, the title is the result of the current best understanding of the note's content.
These are the titles of my last notes for example:
There are 0 statements in those title because I don't make any statements in the notes. They are definitions, explorations, use cases, anecdotes, etc.
But if I'd pick a different set of notes, the picture could be very different with the notes containing a lot of statements. (e.g. when I am working on arguments)
I am a Zettler
It's a great idea to provide some examples, Sascha. Maybe others will chime in? It's fun to see what you are working on, Sascha. Here are my most recent notes. You are right that the titles would have different flavors during different projects. Most of my tilting these days are exploration or antidotal to normalcy, mostly because I'm studying philosophy.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Well put. This feels like "best practice" to me.
Thanks Sascha and @Will for sharing your recent examples. I find seeing them useful.
Yes, I hope! I feel like I'm still getting the hang of it, so I'll just share a few titles of notes I think are appropriately named:
I don't think it's been discussed much (if at all) on these forums (I did a quick search with no results), but over at r/zettelkasten there's mention of "question-driven" zettelkastens, which require all note titles to be phrased as questions.
It might sound limiting (and I think it is) but it's also a matter of "asking the right questions", which I find interesting enough that I might experiment with a question-driven ZK this year.
I add this just to present another alternative practice for note titling, not to start a new discussion on "question-driven" ZK's, which I think would require it's own thread.
@dylanjr, on the forums, there is at least one long thread on the creation of question notes and some talk about questions as titles.
1.72% of the titles in my ZK are questions. Not many. Most reference articles and books featuring questions in their titles. Sometimes, a question will trigger a reminder of my "best understanding of the note's content." A question as a title is particularly helpful if the note answers the question. The question, then, is rhetorical.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
The highlight points to a typical problem: Each note and each area of your Zettelkasten (and any system) has its own internal logic that is in part universal and in part individual.
These kinds of flowchart are seductive, since they appeal to the illusion that you can templatise/taylorise the process of knowledge work. In part, this is just my speculation, the appeal comes fromt he left side of the brain which thinks like beaurocrat.
Reading this paper should be a good antidote to the self-beaurocratisation which kills creativity: https://www.lifescied.org/doi/pdf/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276
Some notes contain static information, some broader knowledge, some are question driven, etc. If you limit yourself to one note design, you limit your thinking to the same degree.
I am a Zettler
@Will Thank you for sharing the discussion on questions in note titles. Also, I love the statistics you can generate from your ZK.
It still seems like I'm the first person here to specifically bring up the "question-driven" approach to zettelkasten.
Looking at my archive through "question-driven" lenses, I see that I can easily write a rhetorical question that the note's content answers for most of my notes (if I wanted to).
(Assumption: I think what I'm writing applied to notes intended as Zettel in a Zettelkasten, therefore how to create the titles of ideas, thoughts,... that notes represent, but it can easily be extended to notes in general. Notes, ideas, thoughts , zettels can be considered interchangeable in this text).
I am convinced that, having to write the titles of our notes, we must have as our main compass Andy Matuschak's principle already linked above: the titles are the APIs (i.e. the interface) of our notes.
For me this principle is very simple to apply, but only because I, as a software developer and engineer, have been studying and working with the concepts of APIs and interfaces for several decades :-)
If you have software development experience, yes, the short answer is you can write titles for notes using the same thinking process you adopt for interface, class, API development.
But how can I tell a person that they must consider the note titles as an API, without them knowing what the hell an API is, or an interface is, and even more so how to build these effectively :-)
I'll try.
Maggie Appleton, if I remember correctly, once used a metaphor to say that an API is like a waiter: a mean through which we interact with a provider to use a service.
Using the waiter metaphor may perhaps mislead in this context, but the key point for me is the word interact.
We use titles as the main "handle" for using notes for our purposes.
Before understanding how to write titles, each of us must understand how he intend to use them and what are the qualities that, in these uses, make them effective.
I'll give a few small examples, which do not cover all the examples of possible interaction with my notes.
These three cases strongly depend on the fact that the title of a note represents the entire note itself. They are precisely the interface with the note.
In summary, I have the wished title if it forms a simplified but expressive enough representation of my whole note, if it makes my note effective in forming relationships with other notes, if it makes my note easily findable over time, if it is consistent with the qualities (atomicity, concept orientation, ...) that I eventually look for in my zettels.
Once I figure out what title qualities I want to achieve, I'm close to knowing how to write them.
I do a test, I evaluate if it works for the purpose I want to achieve, if it doesn't work I try to improve it, and then I can try to develop some implementation principles, heuristics, rule of thumbs from my practice.
One of these in particular could be what has already been expressed, the idea of writing titles in imperative form when the imperative paradigm is effective in my context (I do it too when it's useful), or in question form if I find the questions evocative.
It's not about applying rigid rules ("every"... "only"...), but about developing a craftsman's skill. You must first of all understand what you want from your titles, then find your own practices to obtain the desired qualities.
You eloquently described how to use titling as a tool for thinking. A good title announces a good idea boldly and clearly. A note’s title is its partner: the two shape and refine each other through reflection and development. A well-crafted title reflects a well-developed idea, and the process of titling forces us to examine our thoughts more closely. This dynamic strengthens the tie between a note and its title.
Something about this reminds me of Richard Feynman and how he judged if he understood an idea well enough.
While there are no strict rules for creating titles, certain practices can help you craft better or weaker ones. Mastering the art of titling is a journey with only a few clear paths. Enhancing the title not only clarifies the idea behind the note but also elevates the title itself—now that's a stroke of genius.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
This thread keeps getting more interesting
I'm responding specifically to @Sascha now.
I agree. But I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that certain universal requirements of the individual components (e.g., requiring "all note titles to be phrased as questions") are problematic.
Let me elaborate.
I believe you are saying:
1. A system consists of individual components.
2. Each individual component contributes to the overall function of the system.
3. Naturally, each individual component "has its own internal logic that is in part universal and in part individual."
If that is the case, how does that lead to the conclusion that universal requirements of individual components are problematic?
For example, consider that a chair is a system—it consists of individual components (i.e., the legs, rungs, seat, and backrest) that each contribute to the overall function of the chair. What is preventing me from saying, "All the parts of a wooden chair must be made out of wood."? Or is this comparison flawed?
I'm not saying that the requirements can be arbitrary or inhibiting. Instead, I suggest that any universal requirement for individual components must serve the overall function of the system.
Of course, you can still say the requirement that all titles be formatted as a question is not a very good requirement. I am just suggesting you may need different reasons to say so. Or perhaps I am mistaken.
To put it another way:
I ask this in the spirit of good faith argumentation, of course
Yeah, I don't really like that flowchart.That said, allow me push back one more time.
You suggest that the process of knowledge work cannot be captured by a template. In a sense, I agree. However, it depends both on the context of that knowledge work and on what you mean by "template".
In the context of my ZK, there is a certain level of "templatization" that applies to every note. (Note: My approach to ZKM is a close copy of your approach.)
Some obvious aspects of my template:
I hope I am not "making a mountain out of a mole hill".
I've only scratched the surface of this paper, from which it seems several useful conclusions about knowledge work can be drawn.
One thing is that it does seem to provide a more useful framework (i.e., the 29 problem-solving questions) for asking questions within a ZK.
I agree. I don't want to endorse the "question-driven" approach. I am merely curious how it works in practice. I assume the approach is limiting in certain aspects. But I haven't tried it personally.
I'd say because the rule constrains creativity and options for no good reason (constraining many templates -> one template). My structure notes to topics don't follow a question template, and if I were to rephrase them as such they would be less useful, and actually cease to represent the concept they do otherwise.
Zettler
I think it all depends on how strict, meticulous and detailed, rigid, mandatory you make your rules and templates
It's a balance between having consistency and avoiding seeing our mind suffocated when it thinks and the potential difficulties in managing particular cases.
It's a balance between freedom and rules into our notes.
I use templates for my notes, but over time I've tried to keep them loose enough.
Regarding Sascha statement, for example, "the title is the result of the current best understanding of the note's content" is a compass rather a requirement. It is loose enough to be applied in a universal way, and can be contextualized in specific case. I can develop a question note in a different way than a claim note, but both can be developed under the same compass.
A rule that begins with "all notes..." has a very big scope. If its body is a very strict and mandatory requirement, can potential be problematic to apply in practice.
Another important thing to consider is the level of the requirement. High-level requirements have application dynamics very different from low-level requirements.
Trying to make the things clear, when you write an article you must follow punctuation rules with very different freedom compared to the freedom to form your sentences. They adhere to different levels. Sascha "rule" (I still prefer call it compass, anyway) is pretty distant from punctuation rules.
Ahh, well perhaps the note titling rule of the question-driven approach to ZK is not a very good rule, but I don't think you've really addressed the point I'm specifically making here. Later in my response, I say this:
"Of course, you can still say the requirement that all titles be formatted as a question is not a very good requirement. I am just suggesting you may need different reasons to say so."
When I say that I don't see how Sascha's statement leads to the conclusion that certain universal requirements of the individual components are problematic, I mean that I am confused how any universal requirement of the individual components of a system is problematic (not necessarily the requirement I shared).
I believe Sascha has suggested that because systems consists of individual components with their own internal logic that is in part individual and in part universal, then universal "rules" governing the individual components are problematic. To me, that seems like a logical fallacy. Or perhaps there are logic steps missing that I don't intuitively understand.
I thought this about structure notes at first too, but I actually think you could creatively title a structure note as a question (e.g., "What is Human Behavior?" could be a structure note on human behavior). Now, would the title be less useful formatted as a question, as you suggest? I'd say it depends.
The comparison is perfectly illustrating my point. If the function of the chair is to provide an optimal position, the requirement of every part being out of wood is orthogonal to the desired function. I am not a chair-expert, but there are better non-wood cushions than wood cushions.
Making every note title a question by a forcing function of the system, you'd introduce such an orthogonal requirement.
Questions are one aspect/tool/whatever of the whole thinking arsenal. The Zettelkasten Method provides a scaffolding for the complete thinking arsenal. If you fix the form of the title, you basically reduce your toolbox to a hammer.
This is my point: The question title fixation is inhibiting. Not exactly arbitrary, but orthogonal.
You are right. I was incomplete in my communication.
Only if the most compressed version of the note is a statement about reality or a known reference (a claim about a fictional world for a writer is functionally the same, the truth-maker is just not the actual reality but a fictional one).
A model, for example, doesn't make claims about reality, but relates given elements to each other in a particular way.
Apart from the technical aspect, note titles would grow annoyingly long were a shorter title would provide equal information but in a more condensed version.
The title of the second most current note in my Zettelkasten is "Principle key workouts instead of training in zones". The content of the note is a description of how the principle guides the training layout and the background reasoning, which most likely will be refactored when I expand the rough explanation currently present to a more formal justification.
The note title as a claim would be "Using key workouts to guide the training planing has advantages over power zoning" which is even too short to capture the actual claim which cannot be understood without reasoning.
If I want my title to be just a good enough signifier of the content, the (first) short version is enough and even better, since the pseudo reification makes it easier for my mind to grasp it. If I wanted to submit the titles-as-claims-rule, the title would be incomplete anyway, and I'd have to shorten it to make it a good enough signifier for the content. So, I couldn't achieve to sharpen the title to a good enough claim: Even the simple content of the note is too complex.
So, in the case of the above note, considering both styles of titles, I merely could achieve to recall the content from the title anyway. Together with the function of the title to just do that, there is little to no reason to bloat the title to a claim.
In addition, all these rules stifle the thinking, since they submit your mind to a certain way of thinking. It is yet another formality you have to pay attention to and occupy capacities of your mind that should be directed towards the actual task at hand.
A last comparison: Let's say you want to train your endurance, and I'll tell you that running is superior to cycling, you could create a rule for endurance training: All endurance training must be running. But what if you have f'd up knees or live up north so you'd freeze your nose off?
It seems like a silly example, but this is what Peter Attia for example does to himself: He is, self-admitting, obsessed with control and correctness of his zone 2 training (low intensity steady-state endurance training) that he does it on the bike erg (whenever he can) and even tests his lactate all the time to make sure that he sticks to the (wrong!) prescription. There are layers of analysis to his approach more. But by introducing an obligation, even when it is not completely orthogonal, stifles the necessary creativity and openness to reach the optimal solution.
Such rules are for situations in which the path to the solution is pretty much established or there are rational reasons to base one's decisions on that assumption: e.g. you don't know any better and just submit to an authority that you trust. (Which should be a conscious decision in itself)
Isn't this the whole reason of a forum of like-minded people? To the giant, the mountain is just a hill, to the dwarf the hill is a tiny mountain, the bird doesn't understand the difference, the ant either. But to us, the hills and the mountains are just our tools to learn if we are giants, dwarfs, birds or ants.
But you don't. I think the fallacy you are making is that you over-generalised my statements by arguing against the general statement that there should be any general guidelines of note design. I failed to precisely communicate the specifics of my reasoning.
Or to be more boldly and start with a hypothesis.
I am a Zettler