Hmm… No. :P Too complicated for me…. Not even mentioning my members, who are much less skilful than me in these things… This means that all the work that now is divided, depends only of me, and I wouldn't like that to happen.

Besides, including a page with redirect module means that this module will be visible also in a page in which I am including the include, which means that I have to add codes for "include a part of a page only", which is also too complicated, since I already have many pages with many include codes, which means that I would have to spend months in adding "include a part of a page only" codes to all pages in which I already have includes… No. I don't think so…

Nope, read my last point:

• You can still include the page and as long as the redirect is in a live template and not the actual page itself, then the redirect won't take effect when using [[include …]]

You put the redirect module into the live template (which is exactly the same as you're suggesting - making a category only semi-private).

Only the page's source code is included, so the redirect module that is inherited from the _template page won't be included.

For the record, I know what you're saying and I admit that the solution I'm suggesting is slightly complicated. However it's not as complicated as you seem to think! :)

Pieter will have to answer on whether making a category private when viewed directly, but public when used in an [[include ...]], is a viable option.

To me, "private" means private always :S

Maybe to add some option "semi-private"?

Only the page's source code is included, so the redirect module that is inherited from the _template page won't be included.

Are you sure? How come that redirect module is not visible in including page, if there is nothing to "tell" the include module what part of include page to include and what part to ignore?

But I do not include infoboxes in live templates, but in each and every article. I also have an include for a photo, and photos are included in all articles… Maybe I don't understand what are you proposing…

For me, a private page that can be included or listed from a public page is not private, and thus makes no sense. If I put personal data on a private page and then discover someone can read this simply by creating a public page with an include… that's a bug, not a feature.

Semi-private, sometimes private, almost private… these concepts are unclear, complex to understand, complex to make, and will cause errors and confusion. So, as a designer, I reject them.

You can today protect included pages from being edited, using permissions. I do not understand what the benefit would be of making them private… is it to prevent people seeing the source, or to hide the fact that they exist at all?

to hide the fact that they exist at all?

This is why. In a normal site, you never see such things. Visitors do not need to know that such pages exist.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong here. It sounds like a perfect solution to your problem would be the ability to change what pages can be found using the search box.

e.g. setting pages in the "admin", "system" and "sandbox" categories so that they can't be found through search and can only be accessed using a link or directly typing in the URL.

No, I cannot do that. Because I have at least 50 includes included in hundreds of pages with this name that now they have, so you can't expect from me to change all of that. On the ohter hand, I don't want them to be visible to visitors, but I do want to find them easily when I want, and for this, I need a list of those pages, which I have and the link to that page is in my top bar menu. You see, I want to hide some pages from my visitors, but at the same time, I don't want to make the work for my members harder. Therefore I cannot expect from them to remember the names of all includes and infoboxes I have there, as well as all the parameters that each of them has. So, the best solution would be that I can put those pages to invisible mode, but that they still can be seen when included somewhere.