A map would be very nice...
- It would be amazing.
Note to User:126.96.36.199 re: abbreviations
From the WV Manual of Style: "we have a mild preference for separating the number from its associated unit by a single space, but: Don't go wild copy editing different formatting (unless you're seriously underemployed) To avoid the unit of measurement that "belongs" to a measurement being "orphaned" from its associated unit when it wraps to a following line, separate the pair with a non breaking space character " " rather than a simple space, eg: "4500 km" will display 4500 km. You can also use the template nowrap to achieve the same, eg: 4500 km". Some, myself included, find that adding " " to be a major pain. But we do not like orphaned units either. So the move seems to be to go to the format "xxkm", no space. Seligne (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Note to User:Seligne re: abbreviations
From the WV Manual of Style: "preference for separating the number from its associated unit by a single space". Also, this is accepted convention:
- "A space is left between the numerical value and unit symbol (25 kg, but not 25-kg or 25kg)." (ref.: http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/si-conventions/)
- "There is a space between the numerical value and unit symbol, even when the value is used in an adjectival sense, except in the case of superscript units for plane angle." (ref.: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html)
- "Always put a space between the number and unit, e.g., 203.65 m, 457 um" (ref.: http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWabbr.html)
- "When we write the value of measurement, we always leave a space between the number and the unit." (ref.: 'Chemistry: Matter and Its Changes.' J.E.Brady & F.Senese. Wiley & Sons. 5th edition. 2008)
So, the format "xxkm", no space is against convention.