Can we please have the ability to mention/link to a type (rather than just linking to an entity or a specific view)?
Sometimes, I want to write an explanation of how to use an app, and want to mention a type, rather than a single instance or a specific table/board.
It might link nicely with some of the issues discussed here:
What should happen when you click on a mentioned Type?
Thatās a very valid question, and I forgot to explain in my request what I am thinking about!
I think (almost) every user of an app should be able to see a āhome pageā for that app, with a description of the appās functionality (see this: Add "Description" area to apps created from Scratch ) including a relationship diagram, showing how types relate to each other (see this: Breadcrumb on Entity card to show location in Hierarchy )
As discussed in the ābreadcrumbā thread, one could access a ājump-listā of all entities of a given type, without having to create a specific table view (which uses up real estate in the side bar).
My thought is that it should be possible in documents (and rich-text fields) to #mention a type (or even an app) which when clicked upon takes you to the ājump-listā for that type (or the āhome pageā for the app).
Iām not surprised that you werenāt able to completely understand all of that unspoken intent in my original request 
Hope it makes more sense now!
I think this is a great example @Chr1sG of the larger concepts around overall structure of the data in Fibery - and any Work Management app for that matter.
As I move along with Fibery, which I think is the best solution to interacting work entities than anything else out there, I think about my experience up till now - way too much time spent in other apps, for better or worse, but I got well-acquainted with quite a few. The experience with Fibery has had me thinking for a while about the best solution to āgroupingā data vs. ārelating.ā As I have been thinking this through, we got a great article by @antoniokov explaining this very concept elegantly:
Anton is talking about the approach of all the apps out there, and I think with this point Chris you are hitting on the issue of the āgroupsā of entities and their value in the overall scheme of things.
Right now we have a huge step in the right directly because in Fibery we can already relate to Views, Docs, basically everything except Apps and Types if Iām not mistaken.
****As a side, Iād love to see a small widget on Views/Whiteboards/Docs listing references, perhaps an upcoming feature?
I agree it would be very useful to be able to reference those āentitiesā - which I think they are in a sense - across Fibery. Iāve found this need as well. And thank you for the reference to my question about location of an Entity within its Type or App for reference. This is right along the need for some kind of āhome baseā dashboard, etc. that you describe. Being able to mention these āareasā for lack of a better term for now I think is key. And if we gave them some metadata, they could start to resemble āfoldersā or āgroupsā at a higher level of hierarchy, and I think that would be very useful, too.
As a closing point, I noticed that Coda, among all other apps out there, letās you reference just about anything - sections, Table Views, etc. Granted, there is no bi-directional or anything else useful around that feature, but it is an example of this. Unlike Notion, where everything is a page, Coda is letting you reference every āthingā inside Coda, and there are many different entities - Pages, sections, rows, Tables, Table views, etc.
Hope that made sense and Cheers!