drlowell wrote:

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.

aculver wrote:

This is intended. You can put <noinclude></noinclude> around the
[[Category:whatever]] in Brooklyn Bridge to prevent them from being included.

drlowell wrote:

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.

robchur wrote:

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.

drlowell wrote:

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.

drlowell wrote:

I disagree. But it's clear that I'm alone in my opinion. Thanks for
spending time looking at this.