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Well, you would consider that a page is (potentially) outdated if it hasn't been edited in 365 days OR it has the outdated template.