Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Line wrapping and units

Is there a sound reason why we require that "...a normal space is used between a number and a unit name" and not a non-breaking space? To me, it looks wrong (doubly so where the figure is a single digit), and I strongly suspect it hinders readability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd, yes. It's also inconsistent with how the MOS treats constructions like "21 million", where MOS:NUMERAL holds that a non-breaking space should be used. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I find all linebreaks between a numeral and any following term ugly, jarring, and confusing but the discussionshave always gone against me.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For a decade I've been meaning to bring order out of the linebreak chaos, but it's a daunting task. EEng 06:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow use of % for percentages in non-technical articles

MOS:PERCENT currently has the following to say:

• In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent. Ranges are written ten to twelve per cent or ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve per cent.
• In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is more common: 3%, not 3 % or three %. Ranges: 10–12%, not 10%–12% or 10 to 12%.

This seems a bit dated to me, as the percent symbol is ubiquitous these days and easily understood not just in technical spaces. Reflecting this, the AP Stylebook changed its advice in 2019 to start advising Use the % sign when paired with a number, with no space, in most cases.

References

I propose that we modify the section to read:

• In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is generally preferred: 3%, not 3 % or three %. Ranges: 10–12%, not 10%–12% or 10 to 12%.
• In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, either the symbol or wording may be used. When using words, use percent (American English) or per cent (British English): 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent. Ranges are written ten to twelve per cent or ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve per cent.

Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)^{Edited 22:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) per Hawkeye's suggestion below.}

• Seems like a sensible relaxation of the MOS to me. pburka (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Some thoughts:
  1. "Writing out" seems an odd wording to me. I think what is meant is "using words"
  2. I advocate that we explicitly state that "three %" is no good and that the % sign is only used with numbers.
  3. Is mixing forms okay? In particular, we have the case of avoiding starting a sentence with a number.
  4. The Australian Style Guide has more restrictions on their use [1] which could be considered
  5. Also, what about the per mille (‰)? Does this apply to it too?
• Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good questions, Hawkeye7. Re (1), yes; I've modified to the proposal to use those words. Re (2), I agree. three % is already in red, so is that covered? Re (3), WP:NUMNOTES elsewhere in the guideline covers not starting sentences with figures, so it would follow to me that any percentages starting a sentence would need to use words, even if the article elsewhere uses figures. Beyond that exception, I'd think we'd want to encourage consistency within an article per MOS:CONSISTENT. Re (4), good to know, but that doesn't change my overall perspective; I wouldn't be surprised to see the Australian Style Guide update their guidance in the near future. Re (5), golly no! That symbol is infinitely less recognizable than %, so very different considerations apply, as we'd need to make sure it's introduced/explained to readers before we'd want to use it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Re (2): three % is already in red, but only for scientific and technical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you can find a way to state that "three %" should never be used anywhere while keeping the section concise, I'll be happy to consider it a friendly amendment. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to "3%" being used for non-technical articles, but for technical articles, "3 %" should be preferred. International standards describing the International System of Quantities (ISO 80000) require a space between the numerical value ("3") and the unit symbol ("%") in technical writing. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether to have a space or not is something that varies between style guides, it seems, but it's been a longstanding convention on Wikipedia to not have the space. Changing it would require modifying a ton of articles; you could try proposing it separately (this proposal is just about percent/per cent vs. %), but I don't see a compelling case to switch that would justify the disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

ISO80000 can go to hell. Percents are unspaced, always. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant to say 100% of the time. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

ISO 8000: The symbol of the unit shall be placed after the numerical value in the expression for a quantity, leaving a space between the numerical value and the unit symbol. It should be noted that this rule also applies to the units per cent, % and per mil, ‰. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My attempt at humor failed. For what it's worth, I agree with the general proposal. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Better leave the humor to the professionals. EEng 02:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: One can permit (without requiring) "3 %" in technical articles without causing an iota of disruption. The compelling case is that the present wording unnecessarily requires editors to depart from ISO 80000. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose that we refactor the section to read:

• In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is generally preferred.
• In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, either the symbol or wording may be used.
• When using words, use percent (American English) or per cent (British English): 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent. Ranges are written 10–12%, ten to twelve per cent or ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve per cent, 10%–12% or 10 to 12%. Use numbers and not words with the percentage sign three percent or 3% not three %.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to allow the symbol % in any article (technical or not), as long as the symbol goes with digits and percent always goes with written out numbers and that the article is consistent (exception allowed for digits and % always acceptable in tables and infoboxes). Don't care about space vs non-space (I'm Australian but that style guide is for Australians writing to Australians and therefore is not binding to a worldwide audience). Likewise, following ISO is nice (and even preferred) but it will not confuse people. I suspect general readers will probably think the per mille (‰) is a weird per cent symbol and get it wrong - avoid !  Stepho  talk  00:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree we should allow non-technical articles to use %. I am fine with either Sdkb's or Hawkeye7's wording. (‰, if anyone wants to use it, should be a separate discussion; it's much less used AFAICT.) -sche (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Implemented the change, as we seem to have broad agreement here. I made a few further tweaks to the wording, as I think it's nice to put examples right beside the associated rule when possible, but nothing that changes the substance. Feel free to adjust it further if you can improve it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

$x USD/£x GBP

A few articles employ a notation where a currency sign and a corresponding ISO 3-letter code both appear in the same figure. Should it be explicitly disallowed? DeeDeeEn (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you show us some examples? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This diff has me specifically editing an instance of the notation. This section involves two currencies in such format. DeeDeeEn (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The D in USD stands for dollar and the P in GBP stands for pound. Which makes $50 USD stand for 50 dollars United States dollars and £50 GBP stand for 50 pounds Great Britain pounds. In both examples this is duplicitous and should be avoided. We can use the symbol or the 3 letter code but not both.

A good way to avoid the problem is to use one of the {{USD}}, {{GBP}} or {{currency}} templates.  Stepho  talk  06:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections. However, I am proposing that this problem be explicitly addressed in the Manual of Style. DeeDeeEn (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

FYO stylemanual.gov.au, Imperial College London, regards, Govvy (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The latter site doesn't seem to mention the topic at hand at all. Good to know that there is one style manual explicitly mentioning this though. DeeDeeEn (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

These codes do not infact stand for anything, they aren't abbreviations. "USD" only resembles an abbreviation, whereas "GBP" isn't an abbreviation of any term at all ("Great Britain pound" is a backronym). Personally I think that "$" and "£" on their own with no additions are widely enough understood to refer to US dollars and sterling that the ISO codes are unnecessary in the vast majority of circumstances. 92.12.143.145 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Ban-evasion by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That can be said for the pound sterling. However, the MoS has already stated how "$" does not just stand for the US dollar.

Additionally, this topic isn't about which of the two to use; it's whether the use of both should be mentioned in the MoS. DeeDeeEn (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@DeeDeeEn: that's an LTA who, as the master accounts username suggests, is obsessed with currency and also The Troubles for some reason. ISP is usually TalkTalk and he's previously left disruptive messages here from that same /21 range here (see archived discussion). Some other TalkTalk ranges involved include 92.21.248.0/21 and 92.9.0.0/21. Given the broadness of the mobile ranges available more is likely forthcoming. Just revert, collapse, or strike posts as appropriate, but otherwise ignore and don't engage. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not have prior information about the long-term abuser. I therefore treated the IP user without taking any of the above into account. Thank you for taking the time to mention me, however. DeeDeeEn (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I was just letting you know for the next time it happens. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CURRENCY gives explicitly our style guidance for these currencies. As with the rest of the MOS, we don't tend to list all of the ways that people can get it wrong. So no need to add yet another rule, just remove the error as you would any kind of spelling or grammatical error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, $x USD is, though established to be incorrect, widely commonplace. I couldn't see a point where I would be forbidden to repeat the currency name; however, thank you for your reminder. DeeDeeEn (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have never seen it but I assume you have done, enough to make for you to feel justified in raising here. If your edits to correct it are being reverted on the basis that the MOS doesn't deprecate it, then yes, we need to say so. Has anybody else seen it? (Google won't use it as a search argument.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I, fortunately, have never been reverted due to a style problem regarding this notation. However, it is used frequent enough that I believe proposing this is a fair idea.

I still await others' comments. DeeDeeEn (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You have unanimous agreement here (including mine) that writing the dollar sign followed by USD (or the pound sign followed by GBP) is incorrect. I suggest you edit with that unanimous agreement in mind. If you find others revert you (after you have referred them to this discussion) I would support a change to the MoS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. This would render syntaxes like $x USD, USD $x or USD$x unacceptable.

I shall follow this up with an update the next time someone contests my edits. DeeDeeEn (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Thank you for checking in. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)