Perhaps make it look like wikidata for the basic data stuff, use styles like on the edit edit interface for the templates listing and stuff...

And other things. It should be consistent with such displays elsewhere in the software.

Note: The two linked routes to reach "action=info" pages from the wikis are:

1. The "Toolbox" link in the sidebar
2. The "Number of watchers" link at the top of each history page. eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history

(In reply to comment #2)

2. The "Number of watchers" link at the top of each history page. eg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history

My mistake. MZ reminds me that this is a local tweak at Enwiki (and possibly other wikis), so not at all consistent.

Thoughts:

• How much is available, but not directly shown?

Ie. Do any of the variables in action=info have easily accessible historic details (either already available, or trivial to add) ?
Eg. If we had "number of edits/week" info going back to original creation, we could have a really nice [[sparkline]]...
Is "number of page watchers" historically recorded and accessible?

• Which of the items already have associated visual elements, that could be tied in?

Eg. the Obama article example has 2 levels of page protection, each of which has a colored padlock icon associated with it (listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROTECT )

We're thinking of bringing in the information available on "Page Information" directly on the article page itself.

Can we prioritize the information that is on Page Information? Max you wanna take a stab a that?

I like the idea of sparklines, and would also like to know if we have any historical trends associated with the page watchers, and number of edits data.

(In reply to comment #5)

We're thinking of bringing in the information available on "Page Information"
directly on the article page itself.

Very little of it is relevant to the content itself or of any interest at all to most readers; that which is is generally already shown. Of what isn't, protection information and some information about the age/size of the article (how many edits/authors since when) might be relevant, but that seems like it's about it.

There's quite a bit of other information there.

(In reply to Moiz Syed from comment #5)

We're thinking of bringing in the information available on "Page
Information" directly on the article page itself.

Then you should file a separate bug report. This one is about prettifying the current output. :-)