Topic on Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages/Flow

It was unclear that editors could control the content in read more. This has now been clarified.

I think that the feature must give editors control on which articles are shown on the view and that local wikis must have the possibility to display or not this feature for each of the articles (i.e. using a template linked to Wikidata).

@Jey great point- currently editors can change which articles are shown by adding the following wikitext to the bottom of the page:

{{#related:new page title1}}

{{#related:new page title2}}

{{#related:new page title3}}

Where should this information sit for editors to find it? I think for the best reader experience there should be consistency, which is why the feature is in place and turned on uniformly when enabled.

Thanks @Jkatz (WMF) then articles are indeed editable contrary to what FAQ section suggest. Then again control from local wikis and integration with the "See also" is needed. Also completely in favour of using the tool to provide assistance fo editors building these sections.

If the three suggestions are editable manually, then what is the difference between this feature and th "see also" suggestions, other than that they are larger and appear at the bottom of the page?

If the purpose of this tool is to provide interesting and related things for people to click on when they finish an article, then maybe it should only appear when there is NOT a see also section. Furthermore, when there IS such a section, the tool could be adapted to provide assistance to editors to suggest better items for that section.

But please, don't just make it solve a problem that we already have a solution for.

I see what you mean. As you point out, for pages without 'see also' the value is obvious. For page with 'see also', the value I think it adds is that it is structured and, more importantly, limited. As is the way with something meant to be comprehensive, like an encyclopedia, the see also section can be quite extensive and overwhelming to the casual reader [citation needed beyond anecdote].

To emphasize the structured nature, I think this should clearly be something outside the article--part of the site. I actually think it might serve better if it were more obviously below the article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-YjaiFnAja3YUVpaGY5UFBDYjQ/view?usp=sharing than the way it is now (compare above screenshot to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat)