Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 31

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

PrimeBOT 31

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.

Discussion

Just to clarify, is the bot changing "#" to "No." or to {{abbr|No.|Number}}? --Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly checked 25 of the related templates and none of them use {{abbr}}; therefore I would stick with the convention and just use No. Primefac (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really surprising that a page failing to follow one part of MOS:NUMBERSIGN does not follow the other part which says 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]

That's a fair point, and I have no issue replacing # with {{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]

I take that my impression of NUMBERSIGN being a relatively uncontentious part of MOS is correct? I've seen some bitter disputes about MOS enforcement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I'm not sure. There was some heated back-and-forth on a semi-related TFD regarding whether # or "No." should be used in certain circumstances, but to me it read more about the template and not the interpretation of the MOS. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about we play it safe and go with {{abbr|No.|Number}}? What do you think Primefac? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the change to {{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]
Trial complete. Edits. Note that only 1964 (edit 2) and the 2019s (last three edits) contained a #, as all others converted No. per the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 17 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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.