Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions

External image
Kliban: Converting feet to meters

Unofficial anagram of the Manual of Style (First runner-up: A lemony flatus.)

Percent vs per cent

This stems from a discussion on WP:ERRORS yesterday. MOS:PERCENT currently states "percent (American English) or per cent (British English)", but that's not quite right. I understand American English does mandate 'percent', but British English allows both forms. Dictionaries split equally on which version they prefer: Cambridge percent, Oxford per cent, Collins percent, Macmillan per cent. In all cases they list the other version as a valid variant. Style guides seem to follow either Oxford or Cambridge spellings throughout, though the BBC's style guide encourages the % symbol instead. It appears we should not be prescribing one version as 'British' when both are valid in British English. I suggest a minor tweak to the phrasing:

• either percent (American or British English) or per cent (British English only)

Modest Genius ^talk 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

PS. Can an American English speaker confirm the spacing in that dialect? Modest Genius ^talk 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

per cent would definitely come across as odd in AmEng. Just checked CMS and the entire discussion is about percent vs. % -- apparently per cent (with a space) isn't even on their radar. EEng 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fowler now tells us that in BrE two-word is traditional, one-word is now widely used, and "a 12 per-cent increase" is hyphenated. It then discusses single or plural verbs (15% of the population is/are), notes words are less commonly used than numbers even at the start of a sentence (10 percent not Ten percent), and that BrE doesn't use it as a noun replacing percentage (a large percentage, not a large percent), unlike AmE. HTH. NebY (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the usage as a noun in AmE comes across as colloquial, at least to me. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be surprised to see any American style guide endorsing a large percent of students. Barbarous. EEng 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For American formal usage as a noun, I think "percentage" rather than "percent" is considered correct: a large percentage of students. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Google just claimed to find 224,000 results for "a significant percent"![1] I haven't checked them all but some look quite formal. Somewhat relieved to see about 7,120,000 for a significant percentage. NebY (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So only a small percent say significant percent. EEng 17:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Economist style guide gives no guidance other than under 'Euphemisms" (which it decries): 'Zero-percent [sic] financing' is an interest-free loan. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Idle speculation: "per cent" is not used in American English because it could be misinterpreted as a price, what with US dollars being subdivided into cents. Though the idea of being able to buy anything, let alone multiples of anything, for only one cent is ludicrous these days, it was not always the case and the distinction in American English became enshrined back in those days.
  That said, to address the initial question, I think removing the claim that British English uses the two-word spelling exclusively is wise; the guides cited here show that to be untrue, as does a quick general examination of British English sources in n-grams. If anything, in the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY we should be encouraging the one-word spelling entirely.
  Finally, using "percent" instead of "percentage" where the latter is more grammatically correct from a part-of-speech standpoint is sloppy but not unheard of in American English. I would correct it if I saw it. oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The commonality argument did occur to me (I mentioned it in the ERRORS discussion) but I'm not sure how prescriptive about it the other sections of the MOS should be. I'm happy to defer to the more familiar editors here if they think we should just recommend 'percent' throughout. Modest Genius ^talk 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  My preference is "percent" throughout, per commonality. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:COMMONALITY and the research above (thank you) make a good case for standardizing on percent. Within articles the choice of either the spelled out word or the symbol can go either way, but should be consistent. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a particularly good occasion for WP:COMMONALITY. NebY (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• my preference would be 10 out of 100, and if it is too long, the % sign. then we would get rid of people googling "what percentage is 10 out of 100". as "out of" did not get mentioned here it is maybe not that common, or even worse, confusing? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above indicated a general preference for standardising on 'percent' for WP:COMMONALITY reasons. Can we implement that change? Modest Genius ^talk 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change

I don't think a full request for comment is necessary, but if others disagree, we could do that. How does this language change sound?

The current section on percentages says (in full):

• 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%.
• When expressing the difference between two percentages, do not confuse a percentage change with a change in percentage points.

I propose changing the first bullet point to:

• In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent is commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 percent. Ranges are written ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve percent. Percent is commonly used in American and British English. Avoid per cent on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY.

The other bullet points would not change.

Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The Commonwealth Style Guide recommends "per cent". This should always be the preferred form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would also Oppose. The two-word version is still the more common in the reputable British media. It would also be better to use the symbol when it follows numbers - we manage with $ and £ so can surely cope with %? If WP adopted the symbol, which is widely recognised, then the word ‘percentage’ covers those instances where a noun is required for a written sentence. MapReader (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. A search of various BrE combinations at Google Ngram shows that per cent is still "the most commonly used current variant" in BrE. Nonetheless, percent is also very common in BrE and could surpass per cent in the next decade—in which case common usage would support this change, and the issue could be readdressed at that point. In any case, the current phrasing "percent (American English)" is inaccurate/misleading and ought to be "percent (American and British English)". Doremo (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• I support this proposal. The benefits of commonality outweigh parochial arguments concerning local use. Both will be understood and no one will be confused. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENVAR and 'rule creep'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per John Maynard Friedman, this solution is desperately seeking a problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES in infoboxes

Does MOS:DATETOPRES apply to infoboxes, tables or just prose? If it applies to infoboxes a number of sport projects will need to change their documentation (and many articles) Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is one example. If not, then this should probably be reverted. Either way, the section on this project should probably make the scope clear. Not watching here, so please ping me if you would like me to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Any reason there should be exceptions? Particularly, it states that ...tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.)—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Forgot to ping.—Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot speak for those projects. I raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Infobox style update and so far it appears that they plan to ignore the MoS. Feel free to raise the issue there, and the issue was raised 2019-08, and the handful of editors decided to ignore it then as well. They also suggest to raise it WT:SPORTS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect someone would need to be bold and start the changes, citing the MOS. If any conflicts arise, a notification here would be appropriate for a broader discussion on whether consensus has changed or an exception is warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I was bold and have been reverte4d several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javain_Brown&oldid=prev&diff=1075800824 is the most recent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Walter Görlitz

 – Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You are trying to change how an entire WikiProject operates, and has done with no issues for 16+ years, affecting tens of thousands of articles. GiantSnowman 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that opinion. I am not trying to change the consensus project; I am trying to follow the consensus of a manual of style. This has been raised before and has always looked odd. It took a great deal of effort to get flags removed from infoboxes by this project (and other projects still don't give a toss). You made your position clear in the discussion. Now, change the manual of style. The football project is again out of step with the project as a whole. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS is not compulsory. GiantSnowman 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nor is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES and the broader community consensus seems pretty clear and specifically states "Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982–", which appears to be what this is all about. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

And a second revert here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Egbo&curid=68051344&diff=1075846609&oldid=1075791962

I am not interested in an edit war, and would appreciate support form the broader community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I give up. Let's remove this MoS as no one is interested in supporting it and edits like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javain_Brown&oldid=prev&diff=1081002691 are causing me grief. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have been notified about this discussion given I was quoted, but it's not the kind of courtesy I expect...regardless, I agree with Walter that the MOS should be amended to reflect widespread and long-standing usage (and not the other way around). The 'incomplete-looking constructions' are fine in infoboxes and tables. GiantSnowman 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the baseball, basketball, American football, and ice hockey sports projs use "–present" in its infoboxes. Randomly, so does FA Paul McCartney. I wouldn't remove it for one project.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with keeping it generally, but allowing an exception for the literally tens of thousands of articles which ignore it and have done, unchallenged, for decades. FAs such as Steve Bruce don't use it... GiantSnowman 19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: you were encouraged several times, first in the project's talk page, and each time I reverted you, to come here yet you and your expectation of courtesy was essentially to say that the football project has given the manual of style the middle finger, and for me to fall into line with the project and ignore this prohect. Also, you were not quoted, your actions were linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Rugby Union ([2][3]), Rugby League ([4][5]), Aussie Rules ([6][7]) and GAA ([8][9]) amongst others don't seen to use the 'present' bit. I'd support scrapping the rule for infoboxes as it doesn't appear to be something that is universally used or supported. Number 57 19:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems clear that the projects should meet the MoS's requirement rather than a requirement to change the MoS because a few sports projects object to implementing it. Is this worth an RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is people didn't know it existed. If it's going to be enforced, then someone will need a semi-automated way to do it, as we're talking about tens of thousands of articles. I agree that there should be an RFC about it, though just saying "yes, do it" is completely useless unless a method for doing it is worked out too. Nobody should expect this many manual edits to be carried out. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There aren't tens of thousands of active players with a page, the only ones who would be affected.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There aren't tens of thousands of active players with page- almost all current association footballers, which itself would be thousands of articles I imagine. And then there's at least 4 other sports listed (albeit I imagine they have fewer articles, as the sports have not as many countries with professional leagues). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

As long it's clear that it's only active players that would be affected (whatever that number is). —Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And current managers! GiantSnowman 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear if the resistance to -present is because of the perceived effort involved, or that it's a fundamental problem with –present.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

For me, it's the issue of effort- I believe the most sensible way to do it would be via a bot, but that would need to go through the strenuous bot approvals process. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

For me it's the use of "–present"; it's unnecessary clutter IMO. Number 57 16:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is extremely cluttering DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been using –pres. as this MoS suggests and it is actually narrower than a four-digit year and it makes the construction complete, which is the goal of this MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, how is '2021–' narrower than '2021–pres.'? GiantSnowman 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they mean

2021–pres.

is narrower (maybe just a shade) than is

2021–2022.

EEng 18:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

But, at WP:FOOTBALL at least, we never display the latter. We leave it open. GiantSnowman 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Was there a particular rationale? Or it's just been the practice. —Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I raised it at the project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 151#Infobox style update. It was first discussed in 2019 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 127#MOS:DATETOPRES) where they decided to use the full term but no on bothered to act on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Look, in a church you'll see a tablet:

  OUR PASTORS

  John Smith 1977-1989

  Bob Jones 1989-2006

  George Jensen 2006-

Sooner or later George Jensen will die, or get promoted to bishop, or resign in disgrace because of the Boy Scout thing, and at that point the terminating year will be chiseled in. That's why the final entry is formatted that way in the meantime. But that consideration doesn't apply to our articles. "Wikipedia is not chiseled in stone", you might say. EEng 16:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes - adding 'pres.' adds nothing to articles. No readers are confused by the open ended dates. GiantSnowman 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: How can you assume there is an established standard that conflicts with this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javain_Brown&diff=1083150646&oldid=1083083214 The sooner these lazy, hit a few times too many in the head with a ball, an elbow or other body part, projects get on board the sooner you'll stop being the laughing stock of the whole project. Ignorant, arrogant notability criteria were the first to be overturned and soon your approaches to infoboxes will have to follow suite. Stop edit warring over things in which you're simply wrong about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ERA interpretation dispute

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:ERA: dispute over what "established era style" means.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is now an RfC on the matter. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC Preamble. Generalrelative (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CENTURY and MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:NUMNOTES

• According to MOS:CENTURY: "Centuries and millennia are identified using either "Arabic" numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting)." (note "nineteenth" in words is acceptable)
• But according to MOS:ORDINAL: "For guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth, see § Numbers as figures or words – generally, for single-digit ordinals write first through ninth, not 1st through 9th."
• Still, MOS:ERA gives the following example: "But Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD" ("3rd" instead of "third" seems acceptable)
• Also, according to MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32."

So: should all centuries use the same form (numeral vs word) in an article for consistency and per MOS:NUMNOTES? Or should they respect MOS:ORDINAL? Except when they are in the same sentence ("From the fifth to the 11th century" => "From the 5th to the 11th century" or "From the fifth to the eleventh century")?

Would be great to add a bullet point to MOS:CENTURY to clarify that issue. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"From the fifth to the 11th century" is an abomination. The other two options seem fine, if followed consistently. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A general principle in writing directions, unless you're doing something highly technical like programming a computer, is that directions for a specific situation supersedes general directions. MOS:ORDINAL applies to all ordinal numbers. MOS:CENTURY only applies to centuries. Since the latter is a more specific situation than the former, MOS:CENTURY overrides MOS:ORDINAL. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if MOS:CENTURY overrides MOS:ORDINAL that doesn't solve the problem: should all centuries in an article follow the same convention? (numbers or words) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm shocked that MOS:CENTURY does not say that the choice of numbers or words should be consistent within an article. I've made thousands of edits to make that correction and linked MOS:CENTURY explaining why. I suspect it says it somewhere else and it should be moved into that section. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this point is mentioned anywhere. Or at least I couldn't find it. If this is the convention (but I'm not sure it is) then for sure it should be moved into that section. We should also mention whether the consistency applied to only centuries or also millennia (i.e. can I write "first millennium" somewhere and "12th century" somewhere else). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI: There was a debate about this point in 2007. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The guidance in numnotes should be sufficient. Calidum 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the number of results on Wikipedia (most frequent in bold):

• "first millennium" (2,002) vs "1st millennium" (3,520)
• "second millennium" (1,391) vs "2nd millennium" (2,725)
• "first century" (15,600) vs "1st century" (12,900) (there's a mistake here because "twenty-first) century" is counted as a valid result. "the first century" gives 4,671 results and "the 1st century" gives 6,046 results.
• "second century" (3,868) vs "2nd century" (12,080)
• "third century" (3,906) vs "3rd century" (12,970)
• "fourth century" (3,978) vs "4th century" (15,413)
• "ninth century" (3,375) vs "9th century" (16,662)
• "tenth century" (3,170) vs "10th century" (18,499)
• "eleventh century" (3,338) vs "11th century" (23,447)
• "nineteenth century" (47,118) vs "19th century" (273,263)
• "twenty-first century" (8,806) vs "21st century" (322,189)

Also, all articles use the numeric form in their title, for instance 1st century BC, 1st century, 5th century, 1st millennium, Christianity in the 1st century, Socialism of the 21st century.

Should we say that only numbers have to be used for centuries and millennia? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Calidum: NUMNOTES seems to be about values in the same sentence. Does it apply as well to a whole article? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Given @EEng's edit it seems that MOS:NUMNOTES doesn't apply to the whole page. So we still have the problem: should all centuries use figures? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think "... lived at the end of the 3rd century AD" looks awful in running text and much prefer using words which are allowed according to MOS:CENTURY and preferred according to MOS:ORDINAL, subject to some exceptions. MB 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So no consistency throughout an article? (I'm fine with that, I just want to know what the convention is :) ). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I wrote the "all spelled out or all in figures" text years ago, so I thought adding nearby one another would help a little. Certainly all-article consistency wasn't intended. EEng 19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying @EEng. So does it mean that according to the current version of the MOS there's a total freedom when it comes to the form (numeric or words) of centuries and millennia? With one exception: the form should be consistent inside a sentence (but not necessarily in the whole article). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please remember that, though I have repeatedly been offered the crown of King of MOSNUM, I've always modestly refused it. So I'm not in charge.

• • What is the combined effect of all the current provisions scattered here and there (cited by the OP, with one now modified by me as noted)? I'm not sure, too tired to tote it all up.
  • What do I personally think should be acceptable? To my ear, both word form (first century) and digit form (1st century) seem acceptable for all centuries 1 to 21 (and beyond). But I'll y'all battle this one out, I just don't have the time right now. Maybe you can get the BC-AD / BCE-CE guys and gals involved.

  EEng 02:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  "combined effect of all the current provisions scattered here and there": I understand it as "do whatever you want as long as you're consistent inside a sentence". A455bcd9 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:ORDINAL should mention that single-digit centuries are often written as numerals (but that this must be consistently applied in the non-quoted main text of an article. Tony (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Or maybe we can update MOS:CENTURY and say that there are two acceptable options:

  1. All centuries and millennia as numerals;

  2. Single-digit centuries and millennia as words, others as numerals. With the exception set by MOS:NUMNOTES that if single-digit centuries/millennia are nearby double-digit centuries/millennia, the form chosen has to be consistent. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I knew this had been resolved once, but it took me a while to track it down. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 138#Centuries format in September 2012 where the consensus was to write "Centuries not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article." Minor modifications later changed it to "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century), with in-article consistency."

On March 19, 2014, EEng removed that paragraph and replaced it with "Centuries are given in figures (the 18th century BCE, not XVIII century) or words (the eighteenth century BCE)."

This removed the phrase "in-article consistency". That was explained on the talk page at the time by EEng that "The bit about in-article consistency isn't needed because that's a general principle given in the boilerplate at the top of the page."

To make it explicit, I think we should add back "in-article consistency". SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what the problem is here -- [10]. EEng 05:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks it's now clear! I would add a bullet point to say that in titles the numeral form only should be used as it seems to be the practice (e.g. 5th century, 1st millennium, Christianity in the 1st century, Socialism of the 21st century). A455bcd9 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you better raise that at Talk:Article titles first. EEng 15:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Currency: 15 USD vs US$15

Would it be acceptable to write "USD" instead of "US$," in situations where disambiguation is needed for the country but not for the fact that USD refers to currency? Just curious, because I like "USD" better. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MONEY is clear: use the 3-letter codes only when there's no conventional symbol in English usage. EEng 22:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)