@KHammerstein: I've moved this to Should Have as I'm unsure of where this has come from. Is this a Must Have?

@phuedx Should have is fine for now. We definitely want to give readers access to similar articles eventually. We should wrap up header, sticky footer and menu styling updates first?

@JKatzWMF can you weigh in/clarify the numerical outcome for this and testing/rollout plan?

@Jdlrobson I edited the EPIC description to fit Reading's new EPIC standards. I included metrics and measurement goals. One question: I know we had talked about over-writable read-more. Is that still the case? If not, let me know and I will edit accordingly.

@JKatzWMF: Yes. My first pass at this uses the related articles available via RelatedArticles. I'll soon have it falling back to the "morelike" API if there aren't any set.

Sorry to jump on the question @Jdlrobson!

In T94906#1879806, @Jdlrobson wrote:

I'm declaring victory on this goal. Let's look at the data over the next month and work out the next steps - whether that be pushing feature to stable / killing it / iterating on it.

I assume "victory" refers to deployment of the feature (on mobile web beta only, right?), not yet the associated quarterly goal which also stipulated a "5% increase in links clicked". Which by the way does not match the success metric specified above in this task: "%CTR (click through rate, clicks/views) is >10%." Which one is it?

Regarding the third user story, what is the schema for this instrumentation?

@Tbayer, I think you are right regarding vicotry.

We can't measure the associated quarterly goal so we should use the 10% click through number*.

*Actually, on mobile we could look at referrals in the web logs between beta and stable and compare the ratio, before and after the related articles roadmap...let me know if you're up for that.

The schema for measuring the third user story is: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schema:RelatedArticles

(I happened upon these questions, but generally only see things I am tagged in)

Just figured out why I suddenly started seeing Related Articles below the category line. I love it - great feature - but would like to have more control over what articles pop-up. Also, can it be alternating with each load? Thanks for the new toy!! ~~~~

Atsme: so interesting! If we keep it generated by a machine, than rotating the articles is more achievable (and an interesting idea we hadn't considered). However, we have also made it so that editors can select the articles they would like to show up by adding this tag to the page:

{{#related:new page title1}}
{{#related:new page title2}}
{{#related:new page title3}}

Hi, I created a new ticket T122260 to track the move from related articles in beta to stable
Are you guys okay with using that as a separate task? I think we should recognize that this goal was accomplished in Q2

In T94906#1900064, @JKatzWMF wrote:

Hi, I created a new ticket T122260 to track the move from related articles in beta to stable
Are you guys okay with using that as a separate task? I think we should recognize that this goal was accomplished in Q2

Sure. This task tracked the Q2 goal of releasing this feature as an MFβ/beta feature, which we've done.

Thanks @phuedx and @JKatzWMF that makes more sense :)

This has to be deactivated for the German Wikipedia ASAP (and never should have been activated) since the German WP does have editoral rules with which this tool does not comply, namely w:de:Wikipedia:Themenring. Why you never ask before you invent such a tool (which in measures of sense does not deliver any useful content as well)

Why do you not accept, that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic project and not a playground for developpers?????

In T94906#2026084, @Matthiasb wrote:

This has to be deactivated for the German Wikipedia ASAP (and never should have been activated) since the German WP does have editoral rules with which this tool does not comply, namely w:de:Wikipedia:Themenring.

That's nonsense. Speaking as one of the authors of the page that you quote, it does not apply to this situation at all.
A more suitable comparison would be "Siehe auch" (see also) links, which have been an established practice on the German Wikipedia since at least 2003 - see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assoziative_Verweise .

In T94906#2026284, @Tbayer wrote:

That's nonsense. Speaking as one of the authors of the page that you quote, it does not apply to this situation at all.

Off course this is the case. This is a classical Themenring. It does no matter wether such an unwanted navigation element is created by a temlate or by software.

A more suitable comparison would be "Siehe auch" (see also) links, which have been an established practice on the German Wikipedia since at least 2003 - see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assoziative_Verweise .

Also under this rule the extension would be unwanted, since Assoziative Verweise are only allowed if they link to a continuative artile, e.g. in the article on the river Rhine to the List of rivers in Germany. A link to let's say Mannheim or Kölner Dom (which both are located directly on its banks) would be unwanted. And the latter is the principle this extension works.

Also Wikipedia:Assoziative Verweise and/or common sense are discouraging the inclusion of links to articles already linked earlier in the text.