My question is in the title of this post, but extends to other referencing commands like \eqref, \citep, \citet (and the like) as well.

  • 2
    I'd say this is somehow a duplicate of Good practice on spacing; it's a subcase of that question, even though this is not obvious from the question. Jan 25, 2011 at 7:56

2 Answers 2


The ~ is a non-breaking space, (not really a symbol) so when you write in your text Table~\ref{mytable} it ensures that the Table part is kept together with the number. This is generally considered to be good for readability.

So that you don't forget, it's often helpful to make macros for references like these:


Then you use \tabref{mytable} and \figref{myfig} in your text.

The refstyle package provides a generalised interface to automatically construct macros like those above.

The cleveref package with its \cref command is even more powerful, since it figures out what type of object your reference refers to and generates the correct text automatically (so you don't need different \ref commands for different reference types.)

If you are independently using the hyperref package, it also provides an \autoref command that works like cleveref's \cref command (and also makes the hyperlink target larger.)

  • 5
    I recommend refstyle or cleveref for handling referencing macros. (As an extention to your macros.) Makes life much easier, I think. Jan 24, 2011 at 21:18
  • 5
    Or you can use the cleveref package and then only call \cref{mytable} instead of Table~\ref{mytable}.
    – Jake
    Jan 24, 2011 at 21:18
  • @Will (and Jake) Thanks for the suggestions about refstyle and cleveref; I've updated my answer.
    – Alan Munn
    Jan 24, 2011 at 21:25
  • 2
    hyperref also has \autoref which performs much the same job.
    – Seamus
    Jan 24, 2011 at 22:39
  • 1
    While ~\cite() makes sense in numeric mode (where citations are "[2]") does it make sense with longer citations? I use it for both in case I ever switch, which seems like a bad thing. Thoughts?
    – TomOnTime
    Apr 22, 2016 at 10:10

The ~ is called a tie because it ties two words together like in Section~\ref{sec:intro}. The tie causes TeX never to break a line at a tie. Hence, Section and the reference will end up together on the same line, making them easy to read. Tying together what belongs together is good practice and is not limited to \ref. Another good use is tying an academic title to a name.

  • 3
    or 75~kg for example
    – user2478
    Jan 24, 2011 at 21:31
  • It is good for salutations like Dr. Mr. etc and also suffixes to name like sr. Jr. I II III etc.
    – Aku
    Jan 25, 2011 at 17:48
  • 1
    should be typeset as Dr.\,Hyronymous~Bosch
    – user2478
    Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
  • @Herbert I think a ` after the dot is better (unless you're using \frenchspacing, but still...); the thin space is too small. Also I don't understand why Hyronymous (Hieronymus really) and Bosch should be tied. H*` is the first name and Bosch the surname, which shouldn't be tied (Otherwise you might as well tie George and Bush and I don't want any ties with them.)
    – user10274
    Feb 28, 2012 at 18:25
  • @Herbert: While many of Knuth's ideas were "good", not all are practiced in the typesetting world outside of the TeX universe. Here are a few of examples: While people never line-break between numbers and units, there is no obvious prohibition against linebreaks between first and middle name or middle name and last name (judging from general practice). \frenchspacing has been the norm in the US (and elsewhere even more so) outside of a typewriter context for many decades. Vertical line stretching is rarely done, if ever. But it certainly makes sense to use ~ for figures and tables. Jun 13, 2012 at 19:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.