Replication Tables page in BOL doesn't refer to MSMERGE_ARTICLEHISTORY

Hi, Not sure if I should post this here or at connect but I noticed that

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/tsqlref9/html/5696ee73-5d7c-4f26-b7ee-6831c9c3edf7.htm

doesn't include MSMERGE_ARTICLEHISTORY

but that this table is referenced here in BOL

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/rpldata9/html/7d4c67e4-d683-4ba5-81bd-e6ce4f7489bf.htm

Also if anyone is looking at doing anything with the first link I think it would be great if they subdivided these tables into the types of replication and not just into the databases in which they can be found.

I know it's a bit of a difficult one given tables can exist in more than one place but I think that would be helpful.

Cheers, James

That's great feedback. Two things you might want to note:

We update Books Online quite frequently. I'm not sure which release you have, since it isn't embedded within the URL you have here. The issue you're describing might be fixed in a later release. As always, you can find the latest release of Books Online here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx

Secondly, it would help us (and everyone who uses Books Online) if you would make this comment again, using the "Feedback" button on the topic. That works for both the web and the installed version of Books Online, and what it does is open a "bug" to the writer assigned to the topic on that page. That way you'll get a quick response from the writer, who might not be trolling these forums. That isn't to say that you shouldn't post things here; on the contrary, questions in a public forum are a great way to let others who are having the same problem see your comments. It's just that we would like the feedback as well so that we can evaluate the page properly and get you a good response.

We have had older versions of Books Online be corrected in later releases, and in some cases made more clear. As you're pointing out here, not every format or layout is useful for every situation. Sometimes its a matter of competing goals, so it becomes more of a challenge to satisfy multiple audiences/goals in a single topic.

Once again, thanks to everyone who uses SQL Server Books Online and who sends feedback, good or bad. We like to hear when we've done things right, but we also need to make sure our documentation is the best in the world. Since we have so many constraints, from legal to the 9 languages we publish in, it's helpful for us to hear back from the community. I was a DBA for 19 years before I came here, so I know how important it is to have accurate info!