Last modified: 2006-04-13 23:34:36 UTC
Example from URL (April 13, 2006): B Brooklyn Bridge User:Shlomke/sandbox C Castle Clinton User User:Shlomke/sandbox copied the content from the Brooklyn Bridge article (including the Category links at the bottom) into his Sandbox for edit on March 05. Since then a link to User:Shlomke/sandbox has appeared on each of the 9 live Category pages included in his editing draft of the Brooklyn Bridge article. Not sure if this is a design flaw or an anomaly in the "business rules" but I'm sure that you don't want pages in the User namespace to be indexed by the Category List engines.
Didn't mean to triage Severity...it's not my place to determine the importance of a bug on your site. My faux pas. Sorry.
This is intended. You can put <noinclude></noinclude> around the [[Category:whatever]] in Brooklyn Bridge to prevent them from being included.
Sorry, just tested your suggestion and it doesn't work. I copied the content from the [[Grace Church]] article (including the Category Links) to my User:Drlowell page and added <noinclude></noinclude> tags (you may look at the source in the versions if you like). After each save my User page appeared on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Registered_Historic_Places_in_New_York G User:Drlowell Grace Church Grant's Tomb H Hamilton Grange National Memorial I'm certain this is not intended. Please work through the example step by step to see for yourself. I will revert my user page so it's not being picked up by the Category page generator. BTW - Thanks for the qick response.
If an unescaped* [[Category:Foo]] tag exists on a page, it is categorised; this is intended behaviour. * as in, not wrapped in a tag that will cause it to be ignored or stripped out of the markup at parse time
<noinclude> affects includes, not copying. It's normal and desireable to be able to categorize user pages, this is regularly done.
Am I being unclear? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shlomke is following the websites editing advice which suggests making our edits on a Sandbox page so it doesn't interfere with the live articles in the Main:namespace. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shlomke/Sandbox. I'm certain that he/she didn't intend to have their Sandbox page indexed on 9 Category pages when they started editing the Brooklyn Bridge atricle on March 05, 2006. However, because they copied the full content of the article (including the Category links) their Sandbox page is now being indexed in several places in the Main:namespace. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Registered_Historic_Places_in_New_York and look directly below the Brooklyn Brige link. I'm suret the engine or process that picks up the tag for the categories works as intended. <U>The process is flawed</U>. I think <U>it is a design oversight</U>. Should the Editing guidelines be update to warn Users not to copy the category links to their Sandbox pages? Or should someone try to get the policy changed to avoid indexing pages from the User:namespace in the Main:namespace? Or should I just start smoking crack again?
It is deliberate, useful, and used that you can categorize user pages. This is normal. This is not a bug. This is not a flaw. This is not a design oversight.
I disagree. But it's clear that I'm alone in my opinion. Thanks for spending time looking at this.
