Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages/Moving to stable

Feature parity
I don't understand what you think makes this feature worth developing just for the mobile site; it would be worth explaining this in detail. An overall goal should be to remove all the custom code from the mobile sites, to ensure maintanability and feature parity; anything that goes against this goal needs a very good rationale.

Comparing the clickthrough rate in desktop and mobile is not useful unless you normalise the numbers by the exposure that the links received. "Pageviews" is a very misleading denominator. Relative to the screen size, the "related pages" area is way bigger in mobile, isn't it? Nemo 19:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that a "mobile-only feature" typically should not exist. There are exceptions, of course, but I do not see this as being one.
 * How are related pages chosen? Can users manually specify related pages on a per-article basis? I consider this functionality a blocker to any widespread deployment. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages answers the manual selection questions, though it sounds like some people don't like this functionality. I get RelatedArticles and PageImages confused/conflated sometimes. The latter does not yet have a parser function. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)