Operator: Primefac ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:18, Thursday, January 30, 2020 ( UTC)
Function overview: Replace invalid numerical representations in {{ CFB Standings Entry}} in accordance with MOS:NUMBERSIGN
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Auto
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: WP:AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Primefac/Archive_26#Bot_request, User_talk:Primefac/Archive_26#Bot_request_(continued), User_talk:Primefac#Bot_request_for_number_signs_(again)
Edit period(s): OTR
Estimated number of pages affected: 500-20k
Namespace(s): Article, Template
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes
Function details: MOS:NUMBERSIGN say that when abbreviating "number" the shorthand No. should be used and not #. This is apparently an issue in transclusions of {{ CFB Standings Entry}}. There are ~4300 templates that call this template, and I suspect that they will represent the majority of the instances of # instead of No.
Just to clarify, is the bot changing "#" to "No." or to {{
abbr|No.|Number}}
? --
Gonnym (
talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
No.
Primefac (
talk) 12:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
When using the abbreviations, write Vol., No., or Nos.. The MoS is pretty clear in how this should be handled. No reason why this cleanup should not fix it completely instead of leaving it for subsequent editors to do the same exact edits. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
{{
abbr|No.|Number}}
so that we follow the whole thing. Of course, to hamstring this whole process I also notice (and somewhat agree) with your comment on my talk about just removing it entirely, but that's (almost) a separate issue.
Primefac (
talk) 15:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
reply{{
abbr|No.|Number}}
, I am willing to mark as Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Please permalink the contribs when done & take your time. --
TheSandDoctor
Talk 20:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
reply
Looks good to me. Approved. Under normal circumstances, I would prefer to leave the close for someone else. However, given the backlog, lack of recent BAG activity (myself included), and the fact that this task is uncontroversial and based on how well the trial went, I am inclined to make an exception for this. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply