I think a “tiddler without transclusions” is a “plain” or “plain text” tiddler.
A “tiddler with transclusions” is a “dynamic” tiddler. I could live with “composite” … But my first imagination here is a “composite bow” … but that’s probably just me 
I do like “dynamic” tiddlers. I think “dynamic” has a positive meaning in contrast to “complex” or “impure”
I do think “plain text” speaks for itself.
It’s 6-7 syllables long 
And new users don’t know what transclusions are yet. In Obsidian.md, users call our transclusions “embeds”. In Notion, it’s called “synced blocks”. In Workflowy, it’s called “mirrors”.
Great conversation! These are probably good concepts to nail down as they’re so fundamental to the way information is organised in a TiddlyWiki, and the way a TW grows to fit the needs of its user.
I agree with not adding any new uses of “master.” And avoiding anything reminiscent of value judgements (pure, impure). I like “composite” and “compound”.
@DaveGifford also has a good point about the distinction between a template tiddler (often used to massage the contents of a single tiddler) and the fairly common case of a tiddler presenting a filtered list (of titles, or fancier transclusion).
So my current imagination:
…and I’m thinking about template separately, as something serving a slightly different purpose. An index tiddler might use one or more templates in transcluding some content, for example.
Where would a search UI fit in? Anywhere? Or is that “infrastrucure” or “tools” and outside the nomenclature for content tiddlers?
(@DaveGifford transcludlers 
Tempting but… )
Best,
Chris
@pmario - I like the plain tiddler but dynamic tiddler covers everything else!
So, an impure/complex/composite tiddler, an index/master tiddler, … is a dynamic tiddler
Yea, I did love that too, but we would probably need 1 page of docs to describe the new creation of a new non-word.
OK, so how is it easier to “reason” about what any of the other terms are? You’d still need to explain (i.e reason about) them. If they are to learn to use TW then you’ll probably even mention the word “transclusion” in your reason…
“master” is now politically incorrect. That’s why GH changed “Master” to “main”. If an entity owned by a fortune 500 company thinks they should avoid “Master”, we probably should too.
For pure, impure please do not think about judgment!
we have this in engineering/chemistry/material science, … a lot
pure water, impurity, …
In programming this is a well established terminology
It is an interesting issue. IF you were just a reader you’d never know about complex background transclusions if they were active.
TBH, to me, the OP only relates to authoring, not reading. So the language needed should be wholly author-orientated. ???
Just a comment
TT
Of course. But the “trick” is, to find language that doesn’t expose the learner to “experiential blindness” – where the terms chosen leave the learner thinking, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” because they bring nothing of their own experience to the proposed learning experience.
Okay a few more comments. I am enjoying this language stuff too much.
Plain tiddler: very good option
Flat tiddler: very good.
Simple tiddler: good but not quite as good.
Atomic tiddler: I like the semantic idea behind it, but it would need explaining for others more than the other three options.
Composite tiddler: Very good option
Compound tiddler: good
Dynamic tiddler: could make people think of the static html vs dynamic html contrast, and so people might think its meaning has to do with that somehow. Also, dynamic has to do with change and power Composite has to do with mixing tiddlers. So composite fits better.
Pure and impure: I appreciate Mohammad’s comment just now. It makes sense for language in a field with scientists communicating with each other on a professional level. But since end users may not have the training or discipline of scientists like Mohammad, I still think they will knee jerk instinctively hear these terms as good and bad and be led astray while learning the ropes. Even in science, I would guess the word impurity carries a negative charge…
I’ll just add this here in case it inspires someone…
In Java there is the notion of POJO – plain old Java object.
POT? 
Yep, my brain also thought of “purity” in terms of chemistry and geology. We all come from different cultures (meanwhile other notetaking app communities are mostly white) and we approach the English language in different ways. “Purity” and “master” may not be neutral for other people, even if it’s neutral for me (not white) or for you (in STEM).
@Mohammad, I’m purer than Ultra Pure Unstable Water … . For your OP it kinda works, but how do we make it clearer in instructions to authors how to practically write?
@Mohammad I appreciate the attraction of symmetry with functions in programming, but even with a background in materials science I get a strong judgement vibe when I put the word “impure” next to “pure”.
@DaveGifford Impurities can be very useful in materials, but when I’m not thinking in a particular context, I’d still lean toward thinking an impurity was something you’d want to get rid of, as it often is.
I feel we do have strong alternatives that will be more attractive to writers.
Yes, pure is always ok. But impure has strong connotations.
Also, chemistry is stuck with its archaic vocabulary. But we don’t have to be 
Very true. We not dealing with RDAs here. Bring it/her/him on.
[Off topic - yet provoked by opinions expressed in this discussion]
In a world where people gain social status by speaking of behalf of others, somehow attempting to defend them, even when not asked to, there is a need for someone to speak up when things just set off into weirdness. So here I go. This is not meant as a personal insult to anyone, it is just a result from watching in awe as the world gets weirder and weirder. I’m sure some will conclude that I enjoy torturing children wearing a Nazi uniform but, well, I don’t (I stand naked in boots and tie).
Let us NOT be so afraid of terminology that we lose clarity of meaning. “Master” is not a derogatory or insulting term. It is a very well established and useful word in the English language. I’m sure some here even have academic degrees of that level (and you should be proud of using that title). I don’t think “master” is a good term for what we’re after here but that it another matter.
For that matter, “mixed tiddler”, as someone suggested, is also fully OK to use, if that described things well, in spite of associations to the term “mixed” (…or is it not problematic because of the very meaning?). And “simple tiddler” - that word can also be used to insult someone, but let’s keep on using it. We have an objectified animal as a logo, and I like it - and even if I would have some problem with it, then that would be my personal problem and I would have to live with it without demanding others to change. The word “wiki” has cultural connotations but don’t worry - it is quite all right to use it. You’re not “appropriating anyones culture”, you’re just using a word which nobody owns.
Again, this is not meant to offend anyone. I say it with the sole hope of preventing someone in the future from “protesting on behalf of someone else just in case that other group would somehow be sensitive about something”. Life is not a competition about who is the greatest victim. Let’s do actual things and, in this case, let’s come up with the best term to fulfil whatever is asked for.
Certainly not. I am Your Professor, remember?
Although my personal feelings are similar to yours, if a company is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a change, then maybe people working for free should sit up and pay attention. There are many terms besides master we could chose. There is no reason to deliberately pick one that is currently considered pejorative within some groups. Even if, and especially if, those groups are only people being offended on the behalf of others, because they tend to be most vocal.