Category talk:ArticleHistory error

'''Please do not add any text to the page Category:ArticleHistory error. This is deliberately left as a redlink so that it is easy to see on pages on which occurs.'''

This category is automatically populated by ArticleHistory, when it is called with incorrect parameters.

When there are pages in this category, they will be listed under the following sortkeys on the Category page, depending on the type of error:
 * $:, ,   or   is specified, but   isn't.
 * # :There is an error message in the box.
 * (alphabetical):This can have multiple causes. If there is no error message in the box, it is one of the following problems:
 * or  defined
 * defined
 * defined
 * invalid
 * invalid

Suggestion
I suggest we create this category page. Then we have the possibility to add different sort keys for different kinds of errors, and add an explanation to the top to show what each kind of error is. (You might like to look at CAT:STUBFIX for an example of what I mean.) Then editors who are patrolling this category would know exactly what the error was before they arrive at the page and can probably fix the error more quickly. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Without the redlink, the average editor is never going to notice that they've made a mistake, shunting more cleanup onto the estimated 4–5 of us who do monitor the category. As is, the category is kept down to near-zero pages most of the time, so a sort key wouldn't be helpful enough to outweigh that.
 * I'd prefer to see the same intent carried out through an explanatory error message within the individual page's ArticleHistory output: this would help those of us monitoring the cat, and should increase the likelihood of the average editor noticing and being able to fix their own error. Maralia (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you change the template to detect errors and give a nice big red warning message, like many others do. People are far more likely to notice that than a red category at the bottom of the page. Then you can correctly mark it as a hidden maintenance category as well. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We have many such categories, and they fit in a schema - they are documented, more or less, members of categories themselves and so forth.  Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Has there been any progress on this? I'd proceed with the task, but I don't want to interfere with the work of someone more involved. --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I 'spose I'm dense, but I haven't determined what is being proposed here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)