Talk:Percentage

message: This is wikipedia, not a math textbook. Expand the article. --172.159.137.89 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No history of % being used? 

message: i like where this article is going. i'd like to see some examples how percentages can be misleading...how two opposite conclusions can be drawn from the same data...how politicians mislead the public. Kingturtle 07:11 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
in math when you ask what is 100% of 10 you get 10. in business when you say this $10 calculator increased by 100% you get $20.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.86.236 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: Percentages are always relative, because they are basically a type of fraction. Just because most people get it wrong, doesn't mean we should condone it. Financial reports always speak of "percent points" or just "points" or say what the rate changed to.  -- Tarquin 16:33, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the "risen by 10%" 

message: Does it require all percentages to be rational numbers? That is to said, can we have sq rt (2)%, pi %, etc.?
As from its definition, it stated that "to express a proportion, a ratio or a fraction as a whole number ...".
Please advice, thank you.
Alan
:In normal use the percent sign is preceded by a number written out in decimal form. Clearly, to actually do that requires that one use a finite decimal expansion, which always gives a rational number. However, it is often a rounded form. There is no reason to assume that this stands for an actually rational number. Take for instance the text: As early as the 19th century BC, Babylonian mathematicians were using π = 25/8, which is within 0.53% of the exact value. It is actually within X % of the actual value, where X = 100 × (1 − 25/(8π)) = 0.5281605675654.... This is an irrational amount. But to give an impression how good the approximation of the Babylonians was, we only need one or two decimals of the infinite expansion. It would be silly to write "100 × (1 − 25/(8π)) %", as this defeats the whole purpose of giving an impression, and is moreover more complicated than the equivalent expression "1 − 25/(8π)".  --LambiamTalk 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have sq. rt. (2)%, pi %, etc.? 

message: Is there to be a space between the procentage, and the per cent sign? In this Wikipedia article, most English news articles, and The Chicago Manual of Style, there is not one, but according to ISO 31-0 (an NIST Special Publication 811 quotes it in secton 7.10.2), there should be a space. Which is the correct notation?
: Unfortunately, as discussed previously in the Manual of Style archives, there's an inconsistency between the overwhelmingly more common English practice of having no space, and that recommended by ISO 31-0.
: Personally, I'm heavily in favour of having no space as I think it looks much better from a typographical perspective. In fact, until I found out about ISO 31-0, I wasn't even aware that it was an issue: as far as I knew, not using a space was simply the correct way to format percentages. I'll try to see if I can dig up any typographical advice on the subject.
: One thing that should be noted is that if people decide to use a space between the number and the percent sign, it must be a non-breaking space, otherwise you'll get scenarios where the number appears at the end of a line of text, and the percent sign on the next line.  Cmdrjameson 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for dropping by and replying! Myself, I definitely prefer without space - it's easier to read, and it never breaks down to two lines, no matter how careless the writer is. The reason I noticed the issue when Cmdrjameson ran his bot was because I'm used to Microsoft Word (back when I still used that) constantly telling me to put a space inbetween, which I constantly refused to do. Perhaps we should just leave it to the style guide and pray this obscure international standard corrects itself in a future revision? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on the discussion above, I've tried to clarify the subject. I've also moved the section from Percentage#Word_and_symbol to Percent_sign#Spacing and added a link from the former to the latter. After all the question of spacing is irrelevant to the concept it has to do with the symbol. --Alf 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for clarification; to me this seems to be an evantgelism in en-WP -- internationally seen the handling in en-WP with the percent sign and space reminds me a bit of this image. Greetings, -- 79.219.14.240 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space or not? 

message: Should these be split up? I notice that an anon has added the punctuation infobox here, but aside from one paragraph the whole article is about the concept, not the symbol. Is there enough content for a separate percent sign article? Ziggurat 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage vs. percent sign 

message: IP 24.131.125.172 added the punctuation infobox, which I find not particularly useful for this article. I removed it once, but it was re-added. Comments? Paul August ☎ 22:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. The solution would be to split up the article on percentage the mathematical concept and percent sign the sign used to represent it, and then add the infobox to the latter only. Ziggurat 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing so now... Ziggurat 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  punctuation infobox? 

message: As I noticed many other articles where the topic was a symbol, letter, or character stated the unicode value of that character, should that not also be listed in this article as well? -Aknorals 10:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the concept of the percentage, not the symbol. For that, you'd be looking for percent sign, which does indeed have the unicode value. Ziggurat 10:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was redirected here from "percent".. I had somehow figured that sense the word "unicode" didn't appear on the page, that the article also included info on the sign, but not the unicode of it...  -Aknorals 12:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh my, perhaps I should have read the first line of text? Sense I browse wikipedia a lot, I sometimes ignore that line unless it's in italics (indicating a different article) -Aknorals 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode? 

message: I'm often hearing of the term 110% in various places (at work and on television). Is this strange mathematical phenomenon mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia? --Rebroad 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not necessarily strange. If something grows by 10%, then afterwards it is 110% of the old value (100% + 10% = 110%). It can also refer to a difference: Suppose your snark hunting licence used to be ₤6,200 for a season, but they raise the price to ₤13,020. Then you can complain about this scandalous and ridiculous price raise by ₤6,820 (₤13,020 − ₤6,200), by saying that the price more than doubled. If you want to be precise, you can say it increased by a whopping 110%. The way you arrive at this number is that 6820/6200 = 1.10, which is 110 times 1/100, or 110%.  --LambiamTalk 12:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I realized you probably were referring to people saying things like: "She is giving it 110 percent." I told them a million times not to exaggerate, but they won't listen. If I hear this one more time I will literally explode. It's called hyperbole, although I think there is a semantic aspect of "beyond the call of duty": where others would be done, she gives it an extra effort.  --LambiamTalk 13:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  110% 

message: I have moved the following text here from the article:
:The number 100 is chosen as an arbitrary standard. It is unclear to even some scientists that 100 is not a factor or coefficient, but a notation. That is to say, percentages are calculated, for example, like this:
::success-% = successes / trials, e.g. 15% = 0.15 = 150/1000
:and not
::success-% = 100 × successes / trials, e.g. 15% = 0.15 is not 100 × 150/1000 = 15 (1500%)
:The latter would actually multiply the result with 100, rather than denote it as a percentage.
I have various problems with this text. First, it was placed (and after I deleted it, re-placed) in the section entitled "Word and symbol", but it is neither about the word (that is, percent), nor about the symbol (%).
My main problem, however, is that even after multiple readings I cannot figure out what the text is attempting to say.
Of course the choice of the number 100 is not "arbitrary". Clearly, 67 would have been a terrible choice, and we'd never have heard of (and certainly not had an article about) persexagintaseptemage. The point of using 100 is that you just shift the decimal point, and don't have to do any difficult multiplications and divisions. Why not 10 or 1000? One of the points of using percentages instead of fractions is that in many cases you can round the percentage to a whole number and not lose too much precision. The multiplier 10 is too small for that, while higher powers of 10 give too many digits. Usually 100 is just right. So it is not arbitrary. It was also not chosen "as a standard"; any standardization took place centuries after percentages became firmly entrenched.
The use of "some" in "some scientists" is a weasel word. Does the author have a bone to pick with a scientist? If this is something notable, we need a reference. Now it may indeed be unclear to some scientists that 100 is not "a factor or coefficient", and guess what: here is one! I just don't know what it is supposed to mean that 100 is or is not "a factor or coefficient, but a notation". Of course "100" is a notation, but it is not just a notation: it is a notation for a number. Whether it is a factor depends on a possible formula in which it occurs. Stating in isolation, without reference to a specific formula, that it is not a factor, is simply meaningless. It is explained in the article that percentages are a way of expressing numbers as fractions of 100. You can explain % as standing for "per 100", or more symbolically "/100", so 15% = 15/100. And that is of course where the name comes from: per cento is Italian for "per 100". In the formula 15/100, clearly 100 is not a factor, and one would be hard-pressed to find "some scientists" who claim otherwise.
The next formula, with the typographically and linguistically horrible "success-%" is hard to follow; if this is supposed to be an example, it does not explain how the variables in the formula are related to the numbers in the example. In any case, if S is the number of successes on a run of T trials, and someone has the task to find the number P such that the percentage of successes is P%, then they should calculate P = (S/T) × 100. For example, if S = 150 and T = 1000, P = (150/1000) × 100 = 15, so then the answer is 15%. There is nothing wrong with this, and the number 100 is clearly a factor in the formula for P. There is nothing wrong with this, and if someone has learned it this way long time ago and wants to brush up by reading our article, the suggestion produced by the second "and not" formula that there is something terribly wrong with this is only confusing.
In the last example it is of course true that 15% is not the same as 15; however, isn't that a strawman?  --LambiamTalk 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather convoluted commentary, but the point is rather simple. Often we see texts with formulas like "conversion = 100 × output/input". This would imply that conversion is 100 times the proportion, rendering formulas like "output = conversion × input" invalid. 100 is not a special number; it is chosen to represent fraction, not actually modify their value. Per cent means "/100", therefore 15% is 15/100 or 0.15. You cannot say that 100 × 15/100 = 15% — the correct formula is 15/100 = 15%. That is to say, converting to percentage doesn't involve a multiplication by a mathematical coefficient of 100. --Vuo 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't X = (X×100)%? Suppose that, instead of the arbitrary number 100, they had chosen 67 a long time ago, and we were stuck with it. Using $ as the symbol for persexagintaseptem, we have that 1 = 67$. Now suppose the task at hand is to express the value 0.597 as a persexagintaseptemage. How should one go about doing that?  --LambiamTalk 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that X = X × 100%. It is correct to write 100% × 15/100 = 15%. Since X × 100% = X × 1 = X, the operator × 100% does not modify the value. It is incorrect to write X = 100 × X. --Vuo 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic text 

message: Anyone know the history of per cent?  When was it first used?--Drgs100 (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of per cent 

message: to inconsistent usage, it is not always clear from the context what a percentage is relative to. When speaking of a "10% rise" or a "10% fall" in a quantity, the usual interpretation is that this is relative to the initial value of that quantity. For example, if an item is initially priced at $200 and the price rises 10% (an increase of $20), the new price will be $220. Note that this final price is 110% of the initial price (100% + 10% = 110%).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.149.57 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment removed from page

message: 100% is the total and it is always wrong to express a percentage greater than this or to use a calculation that will yield greater than 1(00%). Per Cent means per 100 and anything greater is wrong, it is a mathematical term for a ratio calculation where the largest value is always the total (100%).
"Percentages larger than 100 can be meant literally (such as "a family must earn at least 125% over the poverty line to sponsor a spouse visa")."
is exactly the kind of statement that is quite wrong and also utterly misleading, what does this mean - poverty line + 25% or poverty line + 125% (which is what it actually states)?
If you invest 100 dollars, euros, or whatever and get 200 back then the growth is 50% (100 / 200) since of the new total 200 half (i.e. 100) was your original investment and not part of the growth. If a company has 100 dollars / euros turnover and some years later this has risen to 1,000 then the growth is 90% (900/1000). You could also say ten fold growth but percentage should never exceed 100 by definition. DesmondW (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section "comment removed from page" above answers your question.  "Percentage should never exceed 100" is wrong, both in common usage (which you can argue), and in mathematical usage (which you should not).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

text: And I've removed the example you're referring to as misleading.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% 

message: The anon may not have had a good reason for deleting the section, but I do.  The example "125% over the poverty line" is just wrong, even in common usage; it would be "125% of the poverty line".  "125% over the poverty line" means "225% of the poverty line".  The remaining valid sentence might be moved to the lede, but it doesn't deserve it's own section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportion 

message: A student of mine had an experimental report with a table that illustrated different changes in temperatures, and in the rightmost column he expressed the change in percent relatively to an initial temperature. I asked him to change units from °C (Celsius) to K (Kelvin), on reference and table, then he also altered his conclusions; the temperature changes went from being "incredible" to "insignificant" :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.104.253 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant references, and relevant use of percentage 

message: I just want to say who ever wrote this article good job it was very helpful and well thought out I appreciate it very much thanks urName (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: For clarification reasons, I think it might be worth giving an example of the inconsistent usage of percentage addition by common calculators.
* Google, or Excel:
50 + 10% = 50 + (10/100) = 50.1
* Soulver (Mac), or Microsoft Calculator (Win7):
50 + 10% = 50 + (50*10/100) = 55
Interestingly, unlike the others, Microsoft calculator does this for multiplication:
50 * 10% = 50 * (50*10/100) = 250
The other calcs result in 5. Enough to drive a logician crazy ;) I think the only long-term solution for mankind would be to define new operators to suit all occasions (or at least get everyone away from percentages and learn that adding 10% is like multiplying by 1.1) --Skytopia (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent usage of percentage system 

message: Hello everybody. Could you please tell me which version is correct for a negative percentage? For a decrease of 20%: (20)% or (20%)? I would prefer the latter as % is not an unit. Thank you. 136.8.33.71 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Percentages 

message: I am surprised that no one at Wikipedia has seen this problem.  
Percentages are a comparison of two variables.  It is possible for one to have a container that contains 40% alcohol however it is not possible to have a container with 113% alcohol.  The reason for this is obvious, that is the two variables are "alcohol" and "no alcohol" and when we get to 100% alcohol we no longer have a percentage of alcohol for the 100% figure has meaning only in the prospect of "no alcohol".  This is true for all percentages no matter what the material or condition that is being compared. The prospect of comparison is not comparison and percentages are a comparison as are all rates.
I understand that percentages are a fraction, as the article says, however they can never be a compound fraction for when ever the comparison gets to the unit then it is no longer a comparison. The prospect of comparison is not comparison but a 3rd variable and you are only allowed two variables in percentages.  It is a common mistake (not always a mistake but sometimes a scam) to add words to a comparison like "next" thinking that the word "next" is not a variable but it is a variable based in time.  Any time you are presented with a "percentage" that is over 100% the person who generated it has included a third variable for if they had not done that the values it represents would have been included in the values of the initial percentage. Look for the third variable and you will find the fraud.
It is too bad that Wikipedia has indulged in truthiness in this article for we have enough teaches indulging in this lie.
:I have taken the liberty to move your comment to the end as is the custom on Wikipedia talk pages. I am sorry to hear that my investments can never grow to more than 100% of their current value ... perhaps I should consider a different broker. In any event, we only report on what is available in reliable secondary sources, so if you can find your point of view written in a reliable secondary source we can consider it. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No heading 

message: Percentages are a rate and nothing more.  Percentages are a rate constructed out of two dependent variables and only two dependent variables.  Dependent variables are as a coin toss in that you have one or the other, either heads or tails, dead or alive, alcohol or non-alcohol. When one says "per 100" one has limited the number to 100 units and because of the dependent variables their are no fractional parts to percentages. This is the same as saying "10 chances in 100" for their are no fractional parts in "chances" either. Percentages can be expressed as a fraction but not as either a complex or a compound fraction. It is understood that if you describe percentages as a fraction of 10/100 then you also have a fraction of 90/100.
Percentages are descriptive of data.  They can not be add, subtracted, divided or multiplied.  One can not average percentages.  The only way the description can be changed is if the data is changed.
Lets take an example of two containers of alcohol. One container has 10% alcohol in it and the other 90% alcohol in it.  If we mix the two containers together can one know the percentage of alcohol in the mixed container?  The answer is clearly "no" for we must know the size of the containers. One container could be a cup the other a 55 gallon drum.  The only case where you might suggest it possible is if the containers are the same size which one would have to know.  One must work from the data which is always the case with percentages.
Their are only 99 percentages. The reason for this is two fold. 
one: One can not have fractional parts to percentages. 
two: 0% has the same value as 100%.
Both 0% and 100% do not have two dependent variables so they are not a rate and percentages are only a rate at least until they change the meaning of the word "Per". 
The assertion bellow from this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Many things are "common" but they have nothing to do with Math.
"percentage values may often be limited to lie between 0 and 100, there is no mathematical restriction and percentages may take on other values.[2] For example, it is common to refer to 111% or −35%, especially for percent changes and comparisons."
As it was said in the movie "The Producers" "you can never have anything more then 100 percent".  That is Math  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwdar (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages can not have fractional parts - look at the Math 

message: Percentages are like Bits, that is they are binaries.  You have either 0 or 1 in bits and you have in percentages either dead or alive, head or tails, part alcohol or part non alcohol.  When ever you create a rate following per by only a number then you are creating an "either or situation" which means it is a binary. A rate must have only two variables and when you have only a number after the per you have an implied second variable that is the opposite of the first variable.
One can not have a fraction of a binary.  When one stipulates a number of unites like 100 then one is restricted to 100 unites.  If one wishes to create a binary of 110 unites then one must stipulate 110 unites. 
You can not average percentages which means you can not add, subtract, multiply or divide percentages.
You can only have a maximum of 99% for 100% and 0% are the same value in that you no longer have two variables. 100% alcohol is 0% non alcohol.
It is a indictment of our educational system in the US that so many people provide such erroneous information about percentages as this "talk back" attests too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwdar (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments such as this are binaries, like trash. Either you can keep them around to smell up the house or you can toss them to get some clean air. Wikipedia policy says that I should be civil and not taunt an obviously confused individual for making some totally inane remarks, but I can not just stand by and let any innocents believe that there is any value in this malarkey. I could have just tossed this out as it has no connection to improving this page, nor any connection to reality, but I'm afraid that this editor will just come back yet again (this is his fourth attempt) with his trash, so maybe another tact may be in order.--Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages are Binaries 

message: This item wrongly states "a percentage is a number or ratio expressed as a fraction of 100."
A ratio requires two variables for as a fraction has two parts so do rates have two variables. Percentages are a rate in 100 unites and not per 100 unites.
One must know the difference between "10 percent alcohol" and "10 parts alcohol per 90 parts alcohol" for if one states 10% one has created a rate of "10 parts per 90 Parts" by the fact that 10+90=100. The first assertion is "10 parts in 100 parts" while the second assertion is "10 parts per 90 parts" and the two assertions are not the same though the values are seen by many as the same. In the first one you assert only one variable so the second variable is implicit while in the second one you assert two variables. If I say 10% alcohol then I have in 100 unites either "alcohol" or "non-alcohol" which is a binary having 100 unites.
If I say 10% are sick I am asserting more then a rate. I am asserting a rate in 100 unites. The two variables of the rate are "sick", the explicit variable, and "well", the implicit variable, in 100 unites. If I mix a solution of "10 parts alcohol per 100 parts non-alcohol" then I have 110 parts in the solution and this is a rate of "10 per 100". If I limit the rate to 100 parts and I assert only one variably the other variable must be implicit and I their for have created a binary. Their are no fractional parts to a binary. Percentages are binaries because they express only one variable.
Simple example concerning 100 units. If one has a pie and cuts it into 100 parts then one cuts one of those parts in half then one no longer has 100 parts in the pie thus it is with percentages for they can have only 100 parts. I also ask people to mix for me a 10.1% solution of alcohol given only a 100 parts, for it can not be done.
Percentages can not be averaged. Percentages can not have fractional parts. Percentages have only 99 unites for they are a rate which requires two variables and at 100% you have only one variable. Percentages are correctly stated as Per in 100 parts.
Marshall D'Arcy (mwda)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwdar (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia requires the use of reliable secondary sources to verify its material. In order to even discuss the above sillyness, you would have to find such sources. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percent is Per in cent 

message: Hello, in example 2 the result off 0.06 is suddenly 6%. The obvious explanation, to multiply 0.06 with 100, is actualy forgotten to explain in this example for which the example is not complete.
quote 'by a fraction of 0.15/2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is a 6% increase. '
is more clear as
'by a fraction of 0.15/2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage and after multiplying with 100, this is a 6% increase.'
or
'by a fraction of 0.15/2.50 = 0.06. After multiplying with 100 it will be expressed as a percentage, this is a 6% increase.'
My examples are not the best english, true, but you do forget to mention it in the EXAMPLE...cb
85.149.83.125 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 2

message: I have posted many times but it seems that no one can understand the obvious when it comes to percentages.
 Percentages are a "ratio expressed as a fraction of 100" is a wrong statement.
Ratios are not fractions and can not be expressed as fractions.  Ratios are an equivalency or they are like an equation. One is saying if "this is" then "that is".  If one says 10% are dead then one is also saying 90% are alive or 10 people dead per 90 people alive, that is if we have 10 dead people then we also have 90 alive people.  That is, one has either dead or alive in 100 unites, which is a binary.  Ratios using "dependent variables" not "independent variables" must be binaries. One must have two variables and only two variables in a rate. If one expresses one self in terms of percentages one has asserted only one variable which means the second variable must be opposite the asserted variable creating either/or, which is a binary.
Example:
Let us say that we have invested $100 and got a 50% return.
I then ask "how much did we get back"?
The first thing that most do is say to themselves what is 50% "OF" $100 in other words they see the problem as a fraction of 50/100. The problem with this is that "of" is not "per" or rates are not fractions.
The rate at 50% is 50 Per 50 for a ratio of 1 to 1. A 50% return on a $100 investment would then be $100.
Rates are not fractions and any one in Mathematics should know this. "Of" is not "Per"
The person or persons who wrote this article in Wikipedia is wrong, wrong and wrong.
Marshall D'Arcy
9/26/20  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwdar (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong for Percentages are Binaries and can not be expressed as fractions 

message: One of the greatest rules in Mathematics of all the rules in Mathematics is, put simply, that if you are concerned with the relationship of pieces in a pie you must have a pie. So many person are unaware of this rule and even refuse to consider it in their mathematical calculations.
Let us consider percentages. We should all know that percentages are like a pie with 100 pieces which of course means that one must have a pie. The first thing to look at when considering percentages is “where is the pie“. You would think that this is obvious but the way people operate is never obvious.
If one says 10% of the people are sick then I first must ask “where is the pie“.  
Some one might suggest that the pie is all the people in the town of “This and That“. I would think that now we have a pie called all the people living in the town of “This and That” so that I can not only know how many are sick but how many are well.
OK this is obvious one might suggest so I will now ask the question “what is a 50% “return” on a $100 “investment““. Most will say $50 however they never think to ask “where is the pie”.  One should see that there is no pie in this assertion. One might suggest that the $100 is the pie however what then does one do with the “return“.  Clearly the “return” is not part of the “investment“ so it can not be part of the pie. The truth is that “return” on “investment” are “independent variables” in a rate, that is they are like “miles per gallon” and can fluctuate independently of each other. Percentages are “dependent variables“ and percentages has to have a pie.
In this example one can only ask “if I have $100 and of that money 50% is a return” then one could say that the return is equal to $50 for the pie is now $100.
EVERY TIME YOU SEE A PERCENTAGE ONE MUST ASK “WHERE IS THE PIE“.
Marshall W. D'Arcy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwdar (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics and Pie 

message: The fractions appear to be incorrectly formatted, a bug with "" and sfrac. For example, for 45%, instead of 45 (numerator) appearing above the line over 100 (denominator), it appears over a "/"
Please change "" to "" until the conflict between "" and sfrac is resolved.
Please also change all "sfrac" to "frac" within the pre-set formatting language here for now. Ceratopseer (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'll leave the other sfrac templates in for now though as they're much more readable than frac and it doesn't seem broken with out the original conflict. Volteer1 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Actually, there's a better (but very clunky) workaround that I've placed there now that should fix the problem for now. Volteer1 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021 

message: Dunn et al (2021). The paper is behind a paywall. Someone should nominate this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done all of you 

message: tgd 27.63.60.203 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of percentage 

message: t 74.101.120.202 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  how 

message: Например телескоп Хаббла .. с которой стороны смотреть на инфляцию и на пенсию ?
Со стартового стола !! )))
🧐🤸 85.140.9.142 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Podozreetelynaya tube" - nazыvayetza ..  

message: Add a link to an online percentage calculator (e.g. https://percentage-calculator.app) Tomek rr84 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If we do that, then people will come and fight over whether this or that website should be included. QuietCicada  chirp 16:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024