Talk:Widows and orphans

This page disagrees with Widow (typesetting) -- Tarquin 08:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposite!

This information is a totally opposite meaning about Widows & Orphans. I have no idea to fix it. I just want to say be careful guys...

I agree the definitions as they are state here are the exact opposite of what I learned back in my school days.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.146.175 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Manual of Style says:

Orphan A short line appearing at the bottom of a page, or a word or part of a word appearing on a line by itself at the end of a paragraph. Orphans can be avoided by changes in wording or spacing that either remove the line or lengthen it.

Widow A short, paragraph-ending line appearing at the top of a page. Widows should be avoided when possible by changes in wording or spacing that either remove the line or lengthen it.
90.184.243.14 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposite... again

Is Bringhurst the "only right" author?

What Tim Harrower says :

• Widow A word or phrase that makes up the last line of the text in a paragraph.
• Orphan A short word or phrase that's carried over to a new column or page; also called a widow.

What Gavin Ambrose and Paul Harris say :

• Widow A lone word at the end of a paragraph.
• Orphan Orphans are the final one or two lines of a paragraph separated from the main paragraph to form a new column.
• Hypho A hyphonated widow that leaves half a word on the final line of a paragraph.

--Lammel (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let’s look to see what Bringhurst says

There seems to be much confusion all round. According to Robert Bringhurst’s, Elements of Typographic style, page 43 and I quote "Never begin a page with the last line of a multi-line paragraph, The typographic terminology is telling. Isolated lines created when paragraphs begin on the last line of a page are known as orphans. They have no past, but they do have a future, and they need not trouble the typographer. The stub-ends left when paragraphs end on the first line of a page are called widows. They have a past but not a future, and they look foreshortened and forlorn. It is the custom – in most, if not in all, the world’s typographic cultures – to give them one additional line for company."

(I would add that the exception is the typesetting of Hebrew bibles where widows are acceptable for traditional reasons)

So in the wiki article it is incorrect to say that orphans should be suppressed. In fact Jan Tschichold states in the Form of the Book page 136, "Some people spurn the first line of a new paragraph at the bottom of a page. It would seem to me, however, that avoiding it can be no more than wishful thinking. ... It is only when paragraphs are leaded, and when there is an empty space above the single last line, that they become obnoxious."

RaphaelFreeman 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, once and for all

Widows are at the top of a page, orphans are at the bottom. I have corrected the definition, moved the (incorrectly named) image to the right page, and added a couple of references. Please do not revert these pages back to the incorrect definitions! 143.252.80.110 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Widow (typesetting)

Large parts of the two articles, and of their talk pages, discuss widows and orphans, and the difference between them. Some content and talk is even exactly duplicated. The articles are intermingled to the extent that both terms, in both articles, are bold faced rather than internally linked to. I think they should both be merged into a new article titled something like Widow and Orphan (typesetting). 132.68.248.39 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is done to everybody's satisfaction. --Taejo|대조 00:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple means for these terms

The confusion that many people have voiced in the past on this talk page is because there are multiple meanings for these terms. One is regarding a left over line that starts or ends a paragraph at the beginning or end of a page. The other is regarding very short lines at the end of paragraphs. I have added the other meaning, with sources, to the intro. If we want to present the terms in more contrast to each other, I wouldn't mind if someone adjusted my text, but I think it is important to mention both definitions.-Andrew c 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have edited to remove a lot of the repetition and hopefully make clear that widow refers to the last line of a paragraph (which may or may not fall at the top of a page) and orphan refers to the first line (which is cut off at the bottom of a page), 143.252.80.100 16:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From Microsoft Word Help

A widow is the last line of a paragraph printed by itself at the top of a page. An orphan is the first line of a paragraph printed by itself at the bottom of a page.

Whence these "rules"?

The article tells us:

Writing guides generally suggest that a manuscript should have no widows and orphans<ref>http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au/pdfs_docs/fitzgerald_writing_gd.pdf, page 6</ref>

Pfft. The assertion that writing guides, plural -- and why writing, and not page composition or typography guides? -- generally suggest this is sourced to a single handout by a single teacher. This does not claim that writing guides, plural, say any such thing. Instead, it flatly says A manuscript should have no widows or orphans. The author doesn't give any reasoning for this, or even any appeal to authority.

I don't buy it. Got any better authority for these (to me, arbitrary and silly) "rules"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Those of us who do typsetting for a living actually do follow this "arbitrary and silly rule". Codified in, e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style

3.11 Overall appearance Each page or, better, each pair of facing pages should be checked for length (see 3.12), vertical spacing, position of running heads and page numbers, and so forth. Conformity to design must be verified. Such apparent impairments as fuzzy type, incomplete letters, and blocks of type that appear lighter or darker than the surrounding text may be due to poor photocopying. If in doubt, the proofreader may query “Type OK?” or “Too dark?” When four or more lines end with a hyphen or the same word, word spacing should be adjusted to prevent such “stacks.” A page should not begin with the last line of a paragraph unless it is full measure and should not end with the first line of a new paragraph. Nor should the last word in any paragraph be broken—that is, hyphenated, with the last part of the word beginning a new line. To correct any of these occurrences, page length may be adjusted. (A very short line at the top of a page is known as a “widow”; a single word or part of a word at the end of a paragraph is an “orphan.”)

Barsoomian (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation or derivation of the term

referring to some typesetting elements as "widows and orphans" has to have been originally a joke/play on words, and this page should have a disambiguation at the top or at least a reference. In law, the concept of "widows and orphans" is an ancient one, referring to estate law concerning those left behind when the "master of the estate" dies. Traditionally, women and children would not be considered competent to run their own affairs, etc., so there was the "court of widows and orphans" to adjudicate their interests when the husband/father died. There are not a lot of reference on the web, but such references do clearly exist. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.66.244 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

haha useless mnemonic

• A widow is left behind, whereas an orphan must go on alone.
• An orphan is left behind, whereas a widow must go on alone.

213.123.192.77 (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Clubs and Widows

Donald Knuth seems to call a widows a widow, but an orphan a »club«, as in the TeX command \clubpenalty. I'd be interested to know why that is, i.e. what's the etymology of that use of the word »club«. --MamaJohnny (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Knuth uses the term in his 1984 TeXbook but it doesn't seem to have spread beyond TeX. Still, relevant enough. --EnOreg (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Collins English Dictionary Digital edition lists it as a British English term:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/club-line

But where Knuth found it (clearly not there, no idea. Maybe one of his British colleagues, e.g., Richard Southall, mentioned it? Fodder for an All Questions Answered session ...

Who cares what this Knuth guy called it (on one occasion)? I've never come across it in almost forty years of professional typesetting, so I've removed it to see what happens.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Second sense?

In the caption to the right, it's stated: "an orphan in the second sense: a very short final line that, because the rest of its line is white, creates an impression of two lines of whitespace between the paragraphs." This second sense is currently not mentioned nor explained anywhere in the article. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)