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 Zach H.Well, you would consider that a page is (potentially) outdated if it hasn't been edited in 365 days OR it has the outdated template. _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
