38,176
edits
Bulbapedia talk:Manual of style: Difference between revisions
m
→Spelling/numerals for numbers
| Line 465: | Line 465: | ||
I don't know what stylebooks Bulbapedia tends to go by, as it seems kind of based on admins' whimsy, but for what it's worth, the relevant passages from the AP Stylebook: "'''Numerals''' In general, spell out one through nine ... Use figures for 10 and above ... Times: Spell out numbers less than 10 standing alone and in modifiers: ''I'll be there in five minutes. ... An eight-hour day. The two-minute warning.''" APA [http://www.una.edu/writingcenter/docs/Writing-Resources/The%20Rules%20Regarding%20the%20Use%20Numerals%20in%20APA%20and%20MLA%20styles.pdf agrees with AP] that it should be one through nine spelled out, 10 and above in figures. MLA (same link as APA) agrees with you that parallel units should use parallel writing styles. I can't find a solid source on Chicago style, but Googling seems to suggest that it spells out everything from 99 and below, which is completely against Bulbapedia style (as virtually any pageview can make clear) so that's a moot point. Strunk and White don't seem to have a specific rule about it in ''The Elements of Style'', so that's another moot point. Those are all the major professional stylebooks I can think of. Just throwing all this information out there so the staff has more data with which to make an informed decision. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | I don't know what stylebooks Bulbapedia tends to go by, as it seems kind of based on admins' whimsy, but for what it's worth, the relevant passages from the AP Stylebook: "'''Numerals''' In general, spell out one through nine ... Use figures for 10 and above ... Times: Spell out numbers less than 10 standing alone and in modifiers: ''I'll be there in five minutes. ... An eight-hour day. The two-minute warning.''" APA [http://www.una.edu/writingcenter/docs/Writing-Resources/The%20Rules%20Regarding%20the%20Use%20Numerals%20in%20APA%20and%20MLA%20styles.pdf agrees with AP] that it should be one through nine spelled out, 10 and above in figures. MLA (same link as APA) agrees with you that parallel units should use parallel writing styles. I can't find a solid source on Chicago style, but Googling seems to suggest that it spells out everything from 99 and below, which is completely against Bulbapedia style (as virtually any pageview can make clear) so that's a moot point. Strunk and White don't seem to have a specific rule about it in ''The Elements of Style'', so that's another moot point. Those are all the major professional stylebooks I can think of. Just throwing all this information out there so the staff has more data with which to make an informed decision. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
:As for my view, there are some places where spelling out small numbers will look awkward. Examples include levels, quantities marked as "x#", route numbers, and card numbers. Also, I agree there has to be parallel writing styles; otherwise, a page may appear confusing as to what style is best. I'll see what the rest of the staff thinks. [[User:Berrenta|Berrenta]] ([[User talk:Berrenta|talk]]) 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | :As for my view, there are some places where spelling out small numbers will look awkward. Examples include levels, quantities marked as "x#", route numbers, and card numbers. Also, I agree there has to be parallel writing styles; otherwise, a page may appear confusing as to what style is best. I'll see what the rest of the staff thinks. [[User:Berrenta|Berrenta]] ([[User talk:Berrenta|talk]]) 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
::I pretty much agree with the above as far as for a general rule of thumb, one through nine should be spelt out, ten and higher should use figures. However I'm also a bit flexible on this rule and wouldn't mind to see that number extended up to twenty, this is with stand alone numbers of course. When it comes to the nitty gritty though, WP:MOSNUM is a good stand in as a professional resource. This isn't to say as stated by Berrenta there are exceptions to the rule, we aren't going to go around changing Route 1 to Route One and we aren't going to change XY001 to XYOne. Some instances just have to work off a case by case basis, as far as the Berry Fields page, I agree the numbers should be in numeral form as we spell out 24, as in line with point three in WP:MOSNUM. --[[User:Spriteit|Spriteit]] ([[User talk:Spriteit|talk]]) 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | |||