Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

This is a place to discuss feedback for the Related pages beta feature (on mobile or desktop).

Here is a summary of issues raised along with proposed responses:

Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages#Initial Community Feedback

Here is a proposal for moving forward:

Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages#Proposal for moving forward

An RFC asking for feedback to the proposed next steps also here: m:Talk:Requests for comment/Related Pages

How to use this on Desktop as an individual?

3
Opencooper (talkcontribs)

Hello, i'm an enwiki editor interested in using this on desktop so I can be aware of what mobile users are seeing and just general interest/utility. How would I install this for myself (is there an importScript or mw.loader.load line I can add to my common.js)? I used to have this enabled via the Beta features tab so it should technically be possible.

Jdlrobson (talkcontribs)

I think you can do this by just adding the following code to your user scripts:

mw.loader.using('ext.relatedArticles.readMore.bootstrap')

Opencooper (talkcontribs)

Worked like a charm. Thanks a lot!

Reply to "How to use this on Desktop as an individual?"
Johnywhy (talkcontribs)

Eg, i'd like to create a tag, MyTag, and then relate several pages with {{#related:MyTag}}. Is that possible?

I'm guessing it could be done with a common page that they all point to, where the hub page is called "MyTag". Maybe could be a sub-category page.

We want to tag our articles (topic-tags, not revision-tags). And then display "Related Articles", based on those tags.

This article describes a method using SemanticWiki, https://clkoerner.com/2012/08/28/use-semantic-mediawiki-semantic-forms-to-create-a-folksonomy-for-tagging-related-pages/ but that seems a heavy solution, since we don't need any other SemanticWiki features. Would prefer a simpler method.

Can't use Categories, as we're already using Categories as Categories, for organizing and TOC. We consider Categories and Tags to be different concepts. That Folksonomy article agrees. Eg:

  • Category is Fruit.
  • Title is Oranges.
  • Tags are citrus, segmented, juicy, vitamin C, cold prevention, breakfast

Or

  • Category: Books
  • Title: Cien Años de Soledad
  • Tags: Spanish, surrealism, Colombia, magical realism, Latin American

Tags vs. Categories:

  • Non-hierarchical: We use Category as a hierarchical organizing structure. We want articles to appear in only one Category in TOC, but articles can have multiple tags. Tags are non-hierarchical, and can apply across different Categories.
  • Permissions: We want separate permissions for allowing users to add Tags and Categories to an article.
  • Hidden: Tags should be hidden from Extension:CategoryTree. Tags should not be listed in any Special page, Transclude, or MagicWord that lists Categories.
Johnywhy (talkcontribs)

I've built a topic-tagging system, for inline tags, with some nice features like anchors, descriptions, tag-list, and highlighting. Extension:TopicTags

You can view a demo here.

Reply to "Request: Relate by Topic-Tag"
TheTruthCreator (talkcontribs)

At the bottom of the page for the Muffin proxy, there is a link to the edible muffin in the related pages.

Jkatz (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hi. Short articles like this are very challenging for an algorithm, but a proposed change to our algorithm might make a difference: Extension:RelatedArticles/CirrusSearchComparison#Hollywood Library

But no matter what we do, algorithms will occasionally get things wrong, as we so often find with search. Here is a solution that should address the most egregious examples:

Editors can change the suggested articles given by adding up to 3 manually curated examples to this part of the page navigation.

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

For example, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korur_language the related pages have been over-ridden to:

{{#related:Western Oceanic languages}}
{{#related: New Guinea}}
{{#related: Mbula language}}

Let me know if you continue to have trouble.

Seslichathaber (talkcontribs)

inanın hiç bir şey anlamadım ben sesli sohbet sayfasına bakayım dedim ama sayfada hep saçma birşeyler mevcut

This post was hidden by Jkatz (WMF) (history)
Reply to "dhruba guha"
NikolaiNyegaard (talkcontribs)

In my opinion it would be more appealing to have the Related Pages above the sources section, or somewhere in between the paragraphs, so its more available and visible, rather than hiding it at the very bottom of the page.

This post was hidden by Tacsipacsi (history)
Tacsipacsi (talkcontribs)

Putting between two sections is much more difficult than just at the end of the page and also can cause errors (e.g. what to do if there is not exactly one such section or it's just somewhere in the middle of the article). Localization is also more difficult as the software needs to know all possible section titles.

Reply to "Different placement"

Hovercards for related pages would be neat.

7
MammothManni (talkcontribs)

I love hovercards and would like to see the feature implemented for related pages as well.

Melamrawy (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Hi @MammothManni, can you please elaborate a bit on that? You mean you would like related pages cards to resemble those of hovercards?

MammothManni (talkcontribs)

Sorry if I was not clear. I would like to see a hovercard open up if I hover over the suggested related page card that is shown underneath the article. I.e. a short preview of the related page should open up, the same short preview that also pops up if you hover over a link within an article and have the beta-feature "hovercards" activated.

Melamrawy (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I see what you mean now. Basically making the cards more brief and hoverable. This is a design decision @Npangarkar (WMF) that requires research I guess.

MammothManni (talkcontribs)

Basically I want more information about the related page before clicking on it. You could make the card bigger and integrate more info already. Or, and that was my suggestion, just make a small window pop up with more information when you hover over the card.

Npangarkar (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@MammothManni Hey, this sounds like a good idea, we can expand the related pages card on hover. the bigger issue is we are still figuring out the value of related pages on desktop. you mentioned hovercards, so I'm assuming you are talking wikipedia on desktop (Vector) there have been discussions about removing related pages feature from Vector. @Melamrawy (WMF) can we look into the progress of consultation around that?

MammothManni (talkcontribs)

@Npangarkar (WMF) Yes, I am using Vector and only talking about the desktop version.

Reply to "Hovercards for related pages would be neat."
Ruud Koot (talkcontribs)
Jkatz (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Ruud Koot if it's based on calculated similarity rather than editor bias, is it still an NPOV violation? It is not favoritism...if these were authors, I don't think we would feel the same way.

Ruud Koot (talkcontribs)

Yes, because everything about the presentation of these results tries to make the picks look like an objective selection instead of a number of best-effort search results (most notably them being displayed without a request from the reader, close to other hand-picked navigational content). This would be very different if these results were just the top results on several pages of search results, displayed after a user-initiated query. Context, presentation, and user expectation matters.

When the algorithms selects, say, classic authors this may not always be harmful, but when it starts picking commercial companies or political parties it certainly is. See also Search engine manipulation effect.

Jkatz (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Okay, thanks for the additional context.

Reply to "Example of an NPOV violation"
Melamrawy (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Please check the moving to stable plan and proposal here. Thanks

Reply to "Moving to stable"
MPS1992 (talkcontribs)

The English Wikipedia article "Anita Krajnic case" is about a female animal rights activist campaigning for the rights of pigs. The related pages feature innocently recommends "Pig-faced women" as related. Probably the latter being a Featured Article contributes to this choice. But this is the kind of result that will cause someone to make the assumption that this choice is a humorous Wikipedia editorial commentary about the BLP who is the subject of the case, and that it targets her because she is female. Results like this are a timebomb waiting to explode in a spectacular fashion similar to the "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Female Novelists" debacle. English Wikipedia has a fairly high number of Featured Articles whose "amusing" aspects are open to misinterpretation or offence in this way, "Gropecunt Lane" is just one example.

Jkatz (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. To put it lightly, this is far from the message our software should be conveying to the readers of Wikipedia and I appreciate your sensitivity to how this looks externally, as well. Your guess that the featured article status has something to do with it is correct! Incidentally, we are actually removing "featured status" from the selection criteria, because it was leading to too many pop articles dominating the suggestions of obscure pages. This will launch when we rollout to all mobile users (though, the current plan is to remove this beta feature from desktop) as detailed here.

As to specific instances like this, we have created a way for conscientious editors to override misleading or offensive suggestions by inserting new suggestions. Copying from our FAQ:

...editors can change the suggested articles given by adding up to 3 manually curated examples to this part of the page navigation.

{{#related:new page title1}}

{{#related:new page title2}}

{{#related:new page title3}}

For example:

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korur_language the related pages have been over-ridden to:

{{#related:Western Oceanic languages}}

{{#related: New Guinea}}

{{#related: Mbula language}}

I wouldn't presume to override the result for you, but let me know if I can help in another way!

Reply to "BLP / feminism / something issue"

Unrelated (funny) related page on DEWP

5
Reaper35 (talkcontribs)

I just want to mention that on the German article De:Cracker (Gebäck) (same as En:Cracker (food) ) has as related page De:Crack (Droge) . I wouldn't say that these two objects are really related, beside similar names. Well, it made me laugh, thank you anyway. ;)

(I'm interested in how you going to fix things like this, just as I'm a hobby programmer.)

FriedhelmW (talkcontribs)

I bet this will not be fixed. You have to override it manually using the {{#related: xyz}} parser function.

Gestumblindi (talkcontribs)

Got your comment somehow broken? Or isn't it displayed correctly for me? It seems that the names of (or links to) the (Wikipedia?) articles you intended to mention are missing from your post? Edit: I started a topic about this issue here.

Seb35 (talkcontribs)

The syntax was broken, I just fixed it. Wikitext was [[De:Cracker (Gabäck)]] which is an interwiki link, I changed to [[:De:Cracker (Gabäck)]].

Reaper35 (talkcontribs)

Thank you. Well, I tried to type [[:de:... but the visual editor automatically changed/added the link in another way than I expected. It was my first post using this new topic feature. After I posted it I saw my post how I expected it to be - but I haven't reloaded the page, so I only saw the JavaScripts result.

Reply to "Unrelated (funny) related page on DEWP"

Another more serious NPOV issue

1
Pudeo (talkcontribs)

I just read an article about a Soviet-funded Cold War era front organization and it gave "Israel" in it despite no apparent connection, other than sometimes Jews are said to be overpresented in those movements :-) Pretty contentious.

Another example: let's say the UK Independence Party article gave "Fascism" in the Related pages. That would be a NPOV violation as well, it's only something the sharpest critics of the party would say.

Everyone who's been in the English Wikipedia for longer knows there has been edit-warring over "See also" sections. This does not that those POV issues into account.

Reply to "Another more serious NPOV issue"