Is there any community owner who uses aliases for user linka? For example: domain.com/username.
Maybe in the same way that /rules leads to /faq.
Is it a problem to create aliases for users? Does it have any problems with the structure of Discourse?
1 Like
This already exists? e.g.:
https://meta.discourse.org/u/merefield/
btw, your username isn’t especially friendly? 
https://meta.discourse.org/u/yhh9xdq7d/
3 Likes
I mean without /u/ in the url
1 Like
The /u/ is unfriendly? I would prioritise friendly usernames first 
You could try extending the Rails router config in a plugin, I guess, but I’m not sure it’s worth the effort?
But what if someone decides to call themselves tos, privacy or faq?!
1 Like
Isn’t there a file for reserved names that nobody can create accounts with? Like admin, faq and stuff like that?
1 Like
Here’s the file you need to override. Try it out:
discourse/routes.rb at main · discourse/discourse (github.com)
If you are not used to writing Rails and plugins, take a look at:
3 Likes
And what if Discourse needs to add a new route and you already have a user named like that?
What is the benefit of leaving out the /u/ part?
5 Likes
There is ease of use for the user if it’s simply domain/username.
Could routes be categorized in the way that usernames are currently? For example: domain/i/faq, domain/i/tos, domain/i/privacy, and top-level would be reserved for usernames: domain/username?
1 Like