Zach H. wrote:
I have no desire to have a header, this is more for
reporting purposes as
one might understand that having old data in a knowledge base article could
be bad :) but i do see the logic, i will adjust my SQL to only review the
current version's rev_timestamp. I also follow your logic on having the bot
edit the page and place the template on it {{outdate}} but my only fear is
it will make and follow up reporting indicate that the page has been edited
within the given 365 day time frame. I will have to present this to the team
and see if this is an acceptable compromise.
Thanks for all the input Brion you have been very helpful and also thanks
for being a MediaWiki super hero!
Zach H.
Well, you would consider that a page is (potentially) outdated if it
hasn't been edited in 365 days OR it has the outdated template.