Talk:Non-breaking space

Move

Move to non-breaking space.

• I've never seen nonbreaking before; it always has a hyphen.
• Nonbreaking is clearly just a syntatical compound as opposed to a lexical item in its own right.
• The prefix non- generally takes a hyphen.
• Google hits for non-breaking beat those for nonbreaking by 114'000 to 14'500

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 20:13, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

It seems like a clear consensus. I have moved the page now, from Nonbreaking space to Non-breaking space -- Zanaq 4 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

please fix double redirects when you do a move. Plugwash 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

How do you mean? I've checked for incoming links and found none. Should I have done something additionally? Zanaq 8 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)

• addition: now I suddenly see incoming links for nonbreaking space. Maybe I made an error. But there is a redirect on nonbreaking to non-breaking. How can I check for double redirects? Zanaq 8 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

if you look at what links here and you see redirects listed under redirects in the tree rather than at the top level of the tree you have double redirects.

the reason you didn't see any when you checked here is because i already fixed them. my message was not intended to state that it still needed to be done in this case but that whoever made the move needs to check for such things in future. Plugwash

If you've never seen “nonbreaking”, you never researched the topic of hyphenation, and did not read much about typography. For instance, you've never read The Chicago Manual of Style… 81.64.175.153 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking Kanji

How can we make strings of kanji or other Asian characters non-breaking? That is, how can we prevent the browser from breaking between characters at the end of a line? I've tried using zero-width non-breaking spaces (), but it doesn't appear to work. I am cross-posting this from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Dforest 06:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest using <span style="white-space: nowrap">...</span> - I haven't tried it, but it ought to work. JulesH 10:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

EBCDIC varification needed

I just added the entry for EBCDIC in the Encodings section. I only checked that it was indeed 0x41 in CCSIDs 037, 285, and 500. Someone more knowledgeable in EBCDIC than I should check the other varients. If someone could site an authoritative source, that would be even better. Also, I'm not sure that it is indeed called a 'No-Break Space' in EBCDIC.

fixed spaces in composition programs using EBCDIC: In the extended graphics EBCDIC implemented by RCA Graphic Services Division in the early 1970s with PAGE-1 designed to run on 360/370 mainframes for typesetting on the VideoComp, 0x41 was an em space, 0x42 was an en space, 0x43 was an thin space. Those fixed spaces were non-breaking. The RCA GSD coding conventions were carried over by others with similar composition packages (ABCS, P900). Naaman Brown (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.

Talk about making a simple subject complicated. What's with the introduction to this article? What's a RAJA? And why would you want to put nbsps in the middle of a word like that? I'd suggest using an example of two units that should always be kept together, e.g. the two parts of a phone number with area code (in the UK style, which uses a space to separate them, not the US style which I believe uses a hyphen?). JulesH 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I have encountered a problem with non-breaking spaces at the Wikipedia Manual of Style. See here for a presentation of the difficulty, and a kludge solution. Has anyone got a better solution? Please post any suggestions at that location. – Noetica 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Seems it was a problem only with older browers.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For Windows

It seems like the ALT+0160 keystroke works from everywhere in Windows not only for MS PowerPoint © —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.208.38 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ALT+255 does the same thing.Number36 23:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Hard space and Non-breaking space

Weak Oppose Although I've never heard of a "hard space" it does not appear to be the same thing as a non-breaking space. Also, these 2 pages were created by the same editor within minutes of each other so that editor must have intended some distinction (though I'm not really sure what -- find those original versions here and here.) Perhaps {{distinguish}} tags should be added to the top of each page to indicate that there is supposed to be a distinction. Ewlyahoocom 05:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the same thing -- nbsp is a control character and is a way to achieve hard space, but not necessarily vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.60.100 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong support If there is a difference, it is one to which the great majority of users and editors are utterly indifferent. Merge, in everyone's interest.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 06:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Support By all means merge, but be sure to retain the title "Non-breaking_space" since nbsp seems much more common than "hard break". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcp071098 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Merge. Although different, they are often used interchangably and therefore should only be in one article. However, make sure that the difference in definition is highlighted and make sure that the article is found from searches on either term.Aristocrates 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Both articles clearly discuss the same topic but currently have fantasy titles and should be merged into one called no-break space, which has been the well-established technical term for this graphic character for more than a quarter century. Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Markus, while no-break space has been well established in some quarters, in HTML talk, and in style guides and editing generally it goes by the other names at least as often. I strongly supported the move proposed above, and I would strongly support your proposal too: so long as all of these things get treated in one article, which should include an unbiased treatment of terms.

Please don't denigrate other settled usages that happen not to be so appealing to you. Others have their good reasons, as you do. I could just as easily denigrate your own preference as inflexible geek usage! None of that is useful. Anyway, we should distinguish entity and implementation on the one hand and function on the other. And no-break space is an entity in certain systems, yes? It is not a function.

Meanwhile, the articles in question need serious re-writing as well as merging. Also, your expert contribution would be very welcome at current discussion of these things as they affect Wikipedia. See below.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, but the knowledge existent in the deleted page should be included in the aggregating page. They aren't exactly the same thing, but they're similar enough not to justify a different page, IMO — yet, I believe a small section should distinguish them. --portugal (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose -- 'hard space' is a technical mechanism for achieving a non-breaking space, but is not identical. Technical approximations are not the same as intended theoretical ideals. Hard space should definitely link to Non-breaking space, or potentially link to a technical hardspace-specific subsection, but they are not the same. Saltation (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard space OR non-break space OR non-breaking space at Wikipedia: a proposal

A markup proposal has been developed which will be of interest to editors here. There is also current discussion at WT:MOS (see the link at the top of the proposal).

See a full draft of the proposal

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Adobe GoLive

to make a NBSP in GoLive: Press Shift+spacebar (Windows) or Option+spacebar (Mac OS).208.125.235.35 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct name: "no-break space"

The character of interest here has been called in all the coded character-set standards for the last quarter century the "no-break space" and is commonly abbreviated as NBSP (refs: ISO 8859, ISO 10646, Unicode, all the ECMA character-set standards, and two decades of literature on the subject). Can we please stick exactly to this well-established well-defined unambiguous technical term, and not muddy the waters by introducing lots of new fantasy terminology, such as "non-breaking space" or "hard space"? Thanks! Markus Kuhn (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The well-defined unambiguous technical term is: Non-Breaking Space. No-break space is a short-hand introduced no earlier than the late 1960s. I agree with and applaud your other typographical notes on wikipedia regarding spacing, but regretfully I think here you're being over-influenced by current computer practice rather than more common and much longer typographical practice. Saltation (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose to move this page to no-break space, which is how this character is called in ISO 8859, ISO 10646, Unicode, all the ECMA character-set standards, and two decades of literature on the subject. Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Strong verifiable evidence, it seems like it's a strong argument by Markus. --portugal (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The Google test clearly shows that "Non-breaking space" is a well established term. And it seems to be more commonly used than "No-break space". The Google test also shows that "Hard space" is an established but lesser used term. And here is snippet from the official W3C HTML 4.01 Specification, chapter 24, Character entity references in HTML 4:

"nbsp ... no-break space = non-breaking space".

So no, they are not "fantasy terms". Humans tend to use many names for the same thing, and Wikipedia usually reflects that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree No-break space is just a short-hand description introduced in some (not all) computer font documentation dating from no earlier than the late 1960s. Non-breaking space has a century or more longer history than No-break space. By all means, have no-break space redirect here. But to imply to newcomers that no-break space has greater validity than the correct typographical term is inappropriate. Saltation (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. This is something of a Haddocks' Eyes situation - the subject of the article is a hard space, its name (according to the ISO standards) is "NO-BREAK SPACE" (in capitals), and it's called a "Non-breaking space". I think that we should follow common usage. 81.139.233.177 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thin space

I just can't see why the thin space would not be non-breaking (sorry for the double negative), and that consequently someone had to come up with a "NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE" (U+202F) version. If you think about it for a moment,   should be non-breaking, else it does only half of its job. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, i found my answer : a line break may occur immediately after a thin space, which means that it does not get replaced by the line break, but remains there. Hmmm. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unicode character in HTML

This article says, "In HTML, a non-breaking space is created by replacing the space with &nbsp;." That is not the only way of doing it. You can also just insert the Unicode character directly in the page, if your editor supports your target Unicode encoding method (usually UTF-8 for Roman alphabet scripts). This saves typing and uses 4 fewer bytes. On the other hand, it makes the encoding harder to understand, because visually a non-breaking space looks like a normal space. Bostoner (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces for 'automatic' formatting of class plans and recipe files

I have removed the sentences "Non-breaking space can also be used to automatically change formatting in a document. This is useful for things like class plans and recipe files where the description of a cell or line may be different from the actual text or title" because it is vague and ambiguous, and provides no clear information. Romit3 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Encoding in ASCII

The chart currently says "Not available" for ASCII. Alt code "Alt 255", which enters a hexadecimal "FF", works as a non-breaking space in Wikitext on my display - isn't this considered to be an ASCII function? Or does its display depend on the operating system? I'm using Windows XP. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking back now at earlier edits, I see that last year another editor had entered "0160" as a different ASCII code for a non-breaking space, but was reverted back to "Not available". This also works as an alt code, so why the insistence on maintaining "Not available" for ASCII in the chart? I suppose the question is whether hex FF is universally interpreted as a non-breaking space across different operating systems. Even if not, for MS DOS and DOS-based Windows, "Not available" is simply untrue. (255 is the actual call for FF; 0160 is an HTML workaround.) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been bold and gone ahead, replacing the incorrect ASCII "Not available" with Hex FF; and also simply reversed the sequence of 255 and 0160 in the table below. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The non-breaking space is not available in ASCII, since ASCII only covers code 0-127 (0-7F hex). It is available in several versions of Extended ASCII such as CP437 and Latin-1 (CP1252), but that is already mentioned. FF hex is not universally recognised as NBSP. A0 hex / 160 dec is more common. Alt-255 is Microsoft-only, but there does exist other operating systems and software vendors. --BIL (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for the explanation. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Usage in French

Currently, the article mentions the use of a non-breaking space before double punctuation specifically in Canadian French, whereas the parallel article in the French Wikipedia mentions it for French French, and in fact states Canadian French only employs it for a more limited set of punctuation. I tend to trust the French article on this one; can someone verify this and/or edit the article accordingly? 2A02:8109:9200:7F58:4A9:E0F6:B6D9:1FD0 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

'As of' discussion - nbsp expert help needed

@Daniel G., Macrakis, and Matthiaspaul: As recent editors of this article, you may be able to help with the too-wide nbsp problem, which exists as of 21 June 2022 at the {{As of}} page. Please discuss this directly at Template talk:As of#Template introduces too much space? if you can help. Boud (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Warning against copying the Infobox symbol for the no-break space.

I'm sure that many users, like me, copy and paste, into documents we're writing, non-keyboard symbols from the respective Wikipedia Infoboxes. Thus, I'll go to the Section sign article if I need a §, to Prime (symbol) when mentioning a 10′ pole, to Multiplication sign for 2×4 lumber etc. As I have found out to my sorrow. this does not work smoothly for the no-break space, as the light blue color gets carried along with the space. I am accordingly warning others not to try this; instead, they should consult Non-breaking space § Keyboard entry methods for alternatives. Peter Brown (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I agree that this is valid and useful information, which is why I captured it in a footnote rather than just revert it outright. But I really don't see that it is valid to include it in the main text of the article and especially not in the lead, specifically because it is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. The article is about the Non-breaking space, it is not about methods to get one into your document (per WP:NOTGUIDE).

I wonder if perhaps we can compromise by adding a line to §Keyboard entry methods ? (ctrl+c, ctrl+v). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Just to intercept the obvious response... The material at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC says that a more specific reason must be given so specifically, WP:NOTGUIDE). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

and templates can be used in the situations mentioned above, especially with Convert – The Grid (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah... Template:Convert says (concerning Length | Imperial & US customary | foot): Use of ′ and ″ symbols violates MOS:NUM so is not provided. I think that Peter was just illustrating his point. But that aside, may I take it that you agree with the principle I have stated? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I was just adding to it. – The Grid (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)