I don't think wiktionary is in a position to give a specific number like "100" but the figure could be included as part of a citation from an authority like the U. S. Center for Disease Control. Kappa 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this valid at all, without the hyphen? Used at all? In common use? --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
2005, Fred Hirsch, IASLC Textbook of Prevention and Detection of Early Lung Cancer, p 38
... and the age-specific lung cancer death rate does not decline to that of the never smoker.
1991, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Convention, Abstracts of Research Papers, p127
In 1968 subjects classified themselves according to their present smoking behavior as either a smoker, ex-smoker or never smoker.
1990, DIANE Publishing Company, Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General, p197
Line A represents an immediate and complete reversal of the effect of smoking, so that the quitter almost instantly assumes the rate of the never smoker.
These are all from the very first page of the gbc search. Whether "never smoker" or "never-smoker" should be the main entry, and which is the alternative spelling, is up to dispute (and it's a good thing Connel MacKenzie has ignited debate about this); it can't really be disputed that both are used. Language Lover 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Why hello. Wasn't the result of the debate to use relative measure, when a correct form (e.g. never-smoker) is so overwhelmingly prevalent? --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you'll need to provide some sort of evidence that the unhyphenated version is incorrect or non-prevalent. Going through the first forty b.g.c. hits for "never smoker" (which includes both versions), it seems that while there's a strong preference (almost 90/10) for the hyphenated version when the noun is used attributively, there's only a fairly weak preference (not even 60/40) when it's used substantively; so while I do think it makes sense to take never-smoker as the main term and never smoker as a variant of it, I think if you want to eliminate never smoker, you'll have to actually make a case for doing so. So, start talking. —RuakhTALK 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In light of Connel's and Ruakh's research, I switched the role of never smoker and never-smoker so now the former is an alternative spelling of the latter. Thanks, you guys both rock, we can always count on both of you to catch things like this! :D Keep up the good work!!! I did a similar change to ever smoker and ever-smoker. :-) Language Lover 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)