Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Time ranges

The guidance is silent on time ranges. For the 12-hour clock and for a time range not within running prose, if something starts during the am and finishes during pm, it's obvious: 10 am – 3 pm

Within running prose, the endash would be replaced by "to" and the whole thing preceded by "from", but I wonder what to do with time ranges not within running prose. What do we do when both times occur within the morning, say? What should it be?

• 10 am – 11:30 am, or
• 10–11:30 am

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Schwede66 00:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, I think the following are all OK, though offhand I can't decide whether they should be restricted, generally, to tables and other places where brevity is desirable -- whether the service was available 5–7 March seems natural but the hotline was open 9-11 am doesn't.
  • 10–11 am
  • 10 am – 11 am
  • 10:00 – 11:00 am
  • 10:00 am – 11:00 am
  • 10 am – 11:30 am (I think this looks OK)
  • 10:00–11:30 am (but not 10–11:30 am -- somehow looks lopsided -- but I'm not sure on that)

EEng 02:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What seems unnatural about "the hotline was open 9-11 am"? That is exactly how I would say it in my dialect. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you insert hyphens in the first three on purpose? En dash is needed. Tony (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Sloppiness. EEng 04:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it too. But I wouldn't write it in formal running text -- only where space was limited, like a table. EEng 18:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would probably write 9:00 - 11:00 am, but previous discussions here have shown me that others don't see the difference in formality between the two variants that I do. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, in my own writing it would be 09:00 - 11:00 AM. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• The same rule that applies more widely is to space the en dash when one or both items have an internal space, and if neither does to squash the en dash. It's simple. January–March 1980, but January 1980 – March 1981. 10–11 am, but 10 am – 11 am. On am and pm I've always been uncomfortable with the enforced space before the morning/afternoon signifier: in Australia and other countries the space is not inserted. Tony (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with the endash spacing rules, Tony1. The question, though, is whether the "am" part ought to be repeated (my first example) or whether the times are kept together, and we have "am" once? And EEng#s's comments about "10–11:30 am" looking lopsided are interesting. Schwede66 05:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Probably repeating "am" is better, but I'm not sure it's worth legislating about. Tony (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  To me repeating it seems unnecessary. Only it it's from am to pm (or vice versa) you need both, of course. Other than that, putting it at the end is sufficient. Gawaon (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Microgram

The abbreviation mcg for the microgram is commonly used in US medicine. Should we require the use of the standard μ? I'd add a general statement in MOS:INCH about the prefix micro-, including the prefix u and the existing statement about avoiding the abbreviation of the micrometer as μ. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• The SI symbol for the microgram is μg. It is common in medicine (not just in the US) to replace this with mcg to reduce the risk of overdose through confusion with mg. Wikipedia is not in the business of prescribing medicine, and therefore has no need to adopt this confusing departure from standard use of scientific unit symbols.
• In other words, my answer to your question is a categorical 'Yes'.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above, Yes. Avi8tor (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Me too. Gawaon (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

That restriction seems to me to be excessively purist, almost fundamentalist. A good encyclopedia should record what is, as well as (or even instead of) what should be. Yes, SI states μg but in the real world it is not much used, for the obvious risk of confusion in handwriting with mg. Obviously that is a life-threatening risk in medicine but it not much fun in chemistry either.

So yes, we should record μg as the correct SI notation but we must also recognise mcg as the de facto standard. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say "recognise", do you mean we should accept its use as a primary unit, or show it parenthetically as a conversion, or both? And would we always show μg in some way, e.g. 10 mcg (μg), or 10 mcg (10 μg), or the other way round? NebY (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the question is not directed at me, but is it not sufficient to point out in a note that mcg is sometimes used to replace μg, with identical meaning? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean we'd show mcg in the text (or infobox, table, etc) with a footnote mentioning μg, or show μg with a footnote about mcg? On first mention only, or repeatedly? At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how any recognition of mcg would actually work in practice, rather than whethere we should recognise it. NebY (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest using only μg in running text, with a footnote on first use along the lines of "if you encounter mcg outside Wikipedia, it probably means the same thing". I see no need for a conversion, because it's the same unit. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that μg is sufficient within articles. Listing the same unit in two different ways is unnecessary for anyone who knows they are identical and seems liable to cause confusion for people who don't know they are the same. If people are interested in what a μg is, they will arrive at the microgram article which explains the abbreviation. (I also edited the article as I believe there are international differences in use of "mcg".) Mgp28 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree; Mcg already lists the abbreviation so that those who come looking for it have a chance to find it. Other than that, there are often alternative ways of abbreviating things and I can't think of any good reason why this one should warrant an extra note, let alone in every article where the standard abbreviation is used. A more reader-friendly alternative would be to link μg on first usage. Gawaon (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• No. We are not in the business of prescribing weights and measures. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh! I see our Unit choice and order, Unit names and symbols and Specific units sections as unhesitatingly prescriptive. NebY (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Guilty as charged. Let's hope we get a lenient judge. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  We ought to prescribe only when prescription is actually necessary. The default position should be not to prescribe. In particular we should not fall into SI maximalism. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A proposal

So let me spell it out:

• Unit name    Unit symbol     Comment

We should have

• Microgram   μg      The non-SI abbreviation mcg is preferred in medicine and may be more appropriate in some articles, particularly those about medicine.

We should not have

• Microgram   μg      Although the non-SI abbreviation mcg is widely used, it is deprecated on Wikipedia

Is that clear enough? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

That looks good to me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally think this is an unnecessary expansion of MOSNUM (I still see no good reason to depart from SI). However, I can live with something like it if the wording is changed for consistency with Microgram, which presently reads

The abbreviation mcg is preferred for medical information in the United States (US), but prescription writing guidance in the United Kingdom advises that "microgram" should not be abbreviated.

The proposed Comment would need to be reworded for consistency with that position. How about "The non-SI abbreviation mcg is preferred for medical information in the US. The word microgram is not abbreviated for medical information in the UK"? I would also like to see:

• a requirement to link mcg to microgram on first use;
• a recommendation to avoid mixing mcg and μm in the same article.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, since, as far as I can tell, the statement "The non-SI abbreviation mcg is preferred in medicine" is factually wrong, or at least unsourced and doubtful. I assume "The non-SI abbreviation mcg is preferred in medical prescriptions in the US" is true, but broadening from that seems entirely speculative. Do we really have good evidence that it's preferred outside of prescriptions and outside the US? Gawaon (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Some examples from the UK: there's a BBC article Acute, microgram and fart: the everyday words the NHS website chooses to use[1] that has

They would always use the full word “microgram” rather than the abbreviation “mcg”. This has come from the people who prescribe medicine, like doctors and pharmacists, who won’t use the abbreviation because it can cause errors. They don’t want people confusing “microgram” with “milligram”, which is a thousand times the dose!

The NHS's page for the general public Vitamins and minerals[2] has

Micrograms – a microgram is 1 millionth of a gram and is usually written as μg or mcg. 1,000 micrograms is equal to 1 milligram.

International Units, which are sometimes used to measure vitamins A, D and E – and usually written as IU. The conversion of milligrams (mg) and micrograms (μg) into IU depends on the type of vitamin.

The NHS's MoS A to Z of NHS health writing has an entry on microgram:[3]

Write "microgram" in full. We only shorten microgram to mcg or μg if people will find that helpful, for example, if they will see it on their medicines or vitamins packet. In cases like these, we add the following when we first mention micrograms: "The word microgram is sometimes written as mcg or with the symbol μ followed by the letter g (μg)." We explain that it's a symbol so that people who use screen readers understand it when they hear an unexpected sound. We do not use mcg or μg as an abbreviation in text that follows.

NebY (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

None of these establishes that mcg is preferred over μg in the UK. Gawaon (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Just so. I meant these as examples of UK recommendations and practice rather than as establishing that mcg's preferred – sorry I didn't say so. They show an explicit preference for microgram rather than either mcg or μg, and in the second paragraph of the second example we see μg used but not mcg. They certainly don't support the proposed statement "The non-SI abbreviation mcg is preferred in medicine". NebY (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The generic term "medicine" seems inappropriate. Our source in microgram, the US Institute for Safe Medication Practices, is all about medication[4] and μg isn't on the general Do Not Use list of the US Joint Commission.[5] Using μg in medical science probably doesn't present the same risk to patients, and it might not be deprecated in US test results either. Is there any evidence for mcg is preferred in medicine?
  A more precise and internationally applicable MOSNUM recommendation might be worthwhile: For dosages, use microgram(s) in full, not μg or mcg. As it happens, this is already supported by {{Convert}}, where (if one ever wants to convert to grains or some such) an input in mcg or μg is displayed in micrograms by default e.g. {{Convert|10|mcg}} and {{Convert|10|μg}} both give 10 micrograms (0.00015 gr).

NebY (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I would be content with that.

(BTW, I don't understand why anyone would infer from my proposal that we should prefer mcg. I put μg in the 'unit symbol' column and mcg in the comments. As I said way above, we should acknowledge mcg, not deprecate it nor promote it. I had in mind a policy like MOS:ERA. We definitely don't want bots or gnomes going round replacing mcg or even micrograms with μg.)

I had a look at medications here in the UK and all the milligrams say "mg" and all the micrograms say "micrograms". WP:OR of course but good enough to support NebY's proposal.

Also, fwiw, I understand that apothecarys' grains are still used in the US! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Just looked at the nutrition label on a foodstuff. Guess what... it uses "mcg". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Would album/film releases classify as time-sensitive and regularly updated?

Per MOS:SINCE, would album and film releases yet to be released be covered by the aforementioned Manual of Style, and be allowed to use the terminology of upcoming. The example specifically calls out Category:Current events, and releases to be released do not necessarily meet that. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I see "upcoming" or similar phrasing all the time for commercial media works that have been confirmed to likely be released though may not have a firm time frame when they are expected. If the release timeframe is known, then the wording tends to be "is expected/scheduled/planned for release in/on (date)" as to avoid the SINCE issue. But as soon as a date is reported with a reasonable assurance of verifiability, any "upcoming" should be changed. Masem (t) 04:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

So, you would say, for example: Album Title is the upcoming album from Artist, to be released on date by record label. would be improper per the Manual of Style, then? livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I sometimes see that in month-year, it was announced that album title would be released on date. It's a bit wordy and a little less emphatic than our usual practice for well-sourced statements, but it is durable. NebY (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm speaking more in terms of the open to lead paragraphs. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"Upcoming" sure seems fine and unproblematic in such cases. No need to make things more complicated and wordy than they have to be. Gawaon (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

On comparable numbers near each other

Do counts of of different, but related things count as comparable numbers for these purposes? In particular, I'm thinking of when death and injury counts are given for disasters. Would these be comparable or these purposes? Or would that only apply if we were comparing, for instance, death tolls from different events/locations? For instance:

• "The attack killed 3 people and injured 26."
• "The attack killed three people and injured twenty-six."

Or would it be:

• "The attack killed three people and injured 26."

I haven't really seen it done consistently either way. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Opinions will likely differ, and I suspect this is left to editor consensus per article. My personal preference is for the first of your 3 bullets, but I consider the second acceptable if that is preferred by others. The third looks awful, and unnecessarily hard for the reader to parse. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• In my view this is a very silly rule, which I ignore: single digit normally spelled out (unless with an ISO unit, etc); two or more digits numerals. Tony (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Deaths and injuries are usually comparable things, often added together as a single metric, 'Killed or seriously injured' (|KSI). In general I'd use one of your first two examples, but if the numbers were grossly dissimilar, it would be strange to impose consistency ("Only one person was killed but 2,173 were badly injured" is better than either alternative). It would then be more a matter of writing good English, rather than of Wikipedia's style choices, and I'd hope we wouldn't need WP:NUMNOTES to dive into differentiating between comparable things and comparable magnitudes. NebY (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I've even seen it applied differently within the same paragraph (actually edited from one I added): ... killing four people and injuring 88... But a few lines down: ... heavily damaging 30 government and residential buildings ... 5 of which were destroyed. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Three vs. 26 may still be a borderline case but i think with four vs. 88 it's very clear that we are NOT talking about "comparable numbers" anymore, hence writing them differently is very reasonable. You can compare anything if you really want to, but I would understand "comparable" in this context to mean fairly close to each other, which is not the case when they differ by an order of magnitude or more. Gawaon (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I had a misunderstanding in that "comparable" in this sense meant the things being counted were similar in nature. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of "comparable" in Comparable values near one another 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 is comparable in nature, not in value. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In that case there is some ambiguity that should be cleared up. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we need to? The examples you quoted yesterday are fine. Gawaon's right to point to one pair differing by an order of magnitude or more but what would be the significant benefit of determining and laying down a precise boundary? NebY (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you are missing Tornado's point. Some of us are interpreting "comparable" as referring to the nature of the quantities, while others interpret the same word to refer to their value. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

TornadoGLS's initial examples are pairs that are comparable in both senses of quantity - that which is measured, and the amount of it. A later example was of strikingly dissimilar amounts, perhaps another one would be of strikingly dissimilar things. The word "comparable" serves us well in both cases. However, TornadoGLS's initial query was explicitly in terms of different, but related things. It's true that your initial responses didn't address that, but does that mean the MOS has an ambiguity that needs clearing up? NebY (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Dondervoge is right about the point I'm making. I gave an example that was comparable in nature and quantity. But this discussion raised a second matter: the sense of "comparable" is ambiguous as to how it should be if the values are comparable in nature but not in quantity, as in the example of four deaths and 88 injuries. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comparable absolutely means comparable in nature, not in magnitude. I've expanded the range of values in the "ages" example to help make that clear [6]. (I considered changing the example to "5 officers, 32 enlisted men, and 842 civilians" to make the range even wider but I was reminded (by a hidden note I placed in the wikitext twelve years ago!) that I had chosen to use ages as the example exactly because questions about how represent ages come up over and over.) EEng 01:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Tenth or 10th

This MOS says to use "10th". But throughout Wikipedia, we've been using "tenth". GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Where does this MOS say to use 10th? NebY (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

In the Numbers as figures or words section. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't. Indeed, this entire MOS doesn't mention "tenth" or "10th". NebY (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ORDINAL says to follow MOS:NUMERAL, and NUMERAL says "tenth" as "10th" are both generally fine, though there are specific contexts where one would be preferable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Albums

Should we use "11th" & "12th" in the intros of Abbey Road & Let It Be (album)? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend changing away from the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You've twice[7][8] changed eleventh to 11th at Abbey Road and twice[9][10] changed twelfth to 12th at Let It Be (album). The MOS doesn't say you should. Why do you want to? NebY (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking. Which is correct? In world leader bios, we change to numerals after "tenth". GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Why should the MOS stipulate that? Why did you think 11th and 12th better? NebY (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Possibly because we use "11th" in James K. Polk, "15th" in Pierre Trudeau, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Both are correct, and you shouldn't switch between acceptable styles unless you've discussed it and gained consensus for the change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Game numbers

If you have a seven-game series in a sports matchup, and there is no consensus in the sources, would it be game one or game 1 when referring to that game? Conyo14 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

If no other guidance supersedes and sources are inconsistent, then I think we default to MOS:NUMERAL and spell it out: game one. But as you have already implied, we defer to sources. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Two points

• Sources are (almost) irrelevant because we do not defer to sources on matters of presentation. The whole point of MOSNUM is to facilitate uniformity in such matters regardless of sources.
• The outcome depends on context and there's not enough context here to provide a clear choice. My advice is to seek consensus on the article talk page. If that consensus is not forthcoming, consider reporting back here.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Disagree that "sources are irrelevant". If sources discussing, say, MLB World Series games invariably refer to the individual games as "Game 1", "Game 2", etc, insisting that Wikipedia write it out as "game one", "game two" etc because that is how we would typically write those numbers, is unreasonably dogmatic, and gains us nothing other than a reputation for being unrealistically dogmatic. (Or maybe extreme stylistic uniformity makes it easier for editors that run style bots to mass edit thousands of articles, I funny know? I don't agree that's a good reason, anyway). ~2025-42413-82 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we also write stuff like season 3, episode 7, all the time when covering TV series. I think (not sure) that was meanwhile legalized by the MOS, but in any case it's widespread and (in practice) accepted. Gawaon (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Likewise version 2, year 4, item 5 and paragraph 6. If we had to add something to MOS:NUMNOTES, I suppose we might talk of compounds that function as names, or some such. NebY (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Echoing ~2025-42413-82. And we say Super Bowl XLVII because MOS:ROMANNUMERALS says... no, wait... oh yeah, because sources do. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Or in MOS:NUMNOTES terms, because it's a proper name and we follow sources for those. NebY (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Should SAT scores have a comma?

Many articles for schools list a composite SAT score in the text and / or in an infobox as a four-digit number, without a comma. Many newcomer edits I've seen have people adding a comma in an SAT score as in this edit, where "average SAT score for students is 1190" had a comma inserted to make it "1,190".

This style guide from Emory University says to "Use a comma in numbers of 1,000 and above, unless they appear in an address or SAT score", this one from Portland State University saying "SAT scores are an exception: Ripley’s SAT score was 1390." and this one from University of Colorado Boulder that says "Use a comma for numbers with more than three digits unless they represent SAT scores or years.... His combined SAT score was 1235."

Most persuasively, these sources are all from universities, which are all frequent consumers of SAT scores as part of their admissions practices.

Can I suggest that we build this into the Manual of Style for Dates and numbers, that four-digit SAT scores are an exception to the general rule and should NOT have a comma? Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The general rule per MOS:DIGITS is in fact already that commas are not required in four-digit numbers, though they are allowed. ("Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), consistently within any given article.") Gawaon (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Gawaon, yes, in general they are permitted. I am suggesting that a comma NOT be permitted in an SAT score. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

We already do not permit a thousands separator for four-digit years and page numbers. In line with the style guides cited above, we should extend that rule to SAT scores. Joe vom Titan (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Our beloved Manual of Style is already too long and we shouldn't make it any longer unless we must. I agree that years and SAT scores and lots of other things should be formatted without commas, but I don't think we need to make a rule about it. If somebody is going throuh the encyclopedia and adding commas to four digit numbers, they are not following our style and should be corrected, gently. Such discussions can take place on the article's talk page, or if it becomes a behavior problem on their user page. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

We will end up with endless content disputes on article talk pages about whether or not SAT scores should or should not have a comma, when these debates can be resolved with a trivial change and a reference to our beloved MOS that would put an end to the discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Are we having endless content disputes on article talk pages? The bad news is that editors who are inserting commas as a newcomer copy-editing task, as in the diff you provided, aren't likely to be checking WP:MOSNUM anyway; the good news is that they usually accept partial or complete reverts, especially if supported by even a minimal edit summary such as "no commas in SAT scores". NebY (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:MOSBLOAT is indeed my most successful essay. EEng 00:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The only addition I could possibly see as being worthwhile is something like "there are some usages of four digit numbers that are consistently formatted without commas. Commas should not be added to such instances, regardless of the presentation of numbers in general in an article." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Without further explanation as to which numbers are meant (at least by example), I think this could leave the reader confused rather than enlightened. Gawaon (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

True. I should have specified such. After more thought, I believe the difference is that SAT scores, years, addresses and such function more as labels. If you are counting, commas may be used with 4 digit numbers ("1,472 cars were stolen"). If you are labelling, commas should not be used with 4 digit numbers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)