This template is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I see the # were recently replaced with No. with a reference to the manual of style.
I think the # still makes more sense for the infoboxes. The manual of style is more of a guideline, not a hard rule, and the examples used are more textual in nature. For example if you were writing it out in a sentence then No. makes more sense than #. However given the space limitations of an infobox, I think having the simple # is much better. It also isn't meant to be grammatically correct, it's filled with various symbols already and what not. And on top of that there's the consistentcy issue. At this point there are hundreds of thousands of college football related articles utilizing #'s for poll rankings. I'm not sure if breaking consistency is worth following the suggested style. I do think that the "No." style makes sense when used in sentences in articles though.
Information related to "Template talk:2015 Southeastern Conference football standings" :
