A Word, Please: The No. 1 reason for numeral inconsistency

A reader named Loretta recently wrote to me after making a very astute observation.

In an article about Emmy contenders, Loretta came across this passage: “‘Louie’ aired 14 episodes, ‘Orange’ telecast 13 and ‘Veep’ had 10. ‘Silicon Valley’ aired just eight.”

Then Loretta saw this: “The eight-episode “True Detective” and … the 10-episode ‘Fargo.’”

The inconsistency had her puzzled: “Is there is a rule regarding when to use the actual number or its name?” Loretta asked. “Why there isn’t consistency in its use? Is it just for the sake of variety?”

In other words, Loretta wanted to know why 10, 13 and 14 were numerals while eight was spelled out.

Her guess that this could have been for variety’s sake strikes me as particularly interesting. From where Loretta sat, that could seem like the most logical explanation.

But from where I sit, it’s a revolutionary and far-out idea. That’s because, as we copy editors know, publishing styles abhor variety. Unlike writing itself, in which variety can be a virtue, the style principles that govern matters such as number writing are mostly about consistency.

You’ll never see an article that calls the same person “Wilson” and “Mr. Wilson” and “John.” You’ll never see an article that abbreviates United States both with and without periods. You’ll never see an article with both “donut” and “doughnut.” That’s because, in style matters, consistency is king — and variety is anything but a virtue.

So, no, variety doesn’t explain those numbers.

Even more puzzling: If Loretta had been reading a book, she would have seen all those numbers, not just 10, 13 and 14, spelled out. That is, a book might have written about TV shows with “eight, nine, ten or eleven episodes.”

What could be the logical explanation for this? Here it is: It’s not about logic. These are simply publishing conventions — style rules — that differ for news media and book publishing.

Associated Press style, which most news outlets follow, says, in general, spell out numbers less than 10, but use numerals for 10 and up. Why? They don’t say. But we can guess: Newspapers, historically, had to crank out many thousands of copies a day, squeezing in as much information as possible. So the people who ran newspapers back when these style rules were developed didn’t want to waste paper and ink writing out terms like “one hundred and twenty-seven” when you can say it with just three characters.

So why not apply the same rule to numbers less than 10? That’s not clear, but we can guess it’s in line with the principle that words that represent actual sounds are more easily digested by readers than other types of symbols (this would also explain why ampersands are frowned on in running text and why, at the publications I edit, a dash or hyphen cannot stand in for the word “to” or “through” in ranges like “April 11 to 15”).

But that’s just the basic news-style rule. There are plenty of exceptions, including for ages and measurements, both of which use numerals in all instances: a 5-year-old child, for example. So the only way to follow AP style precisely is to reference a copy of that guidebook.

As for book publishing, which never had to worry about the costs of printing 100,000 copies a day, their rule is in line with the idea that words are better. But they make an exception when the number would be too clunky spelled out.

For example, “There were just two hundred positions available for the 8,853 applicants who applied in 1998.” Try spelling that out and you’ll see why Chicago Style makes exceptions for oddball numbers that can’t be summed up in a few words the way “two hundred” can.

So when you see numbers written out in an inconsistent way, don’t look for the logic. It happens just because those are the rules.

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at [email protected].