Talk:Widow (typesetting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article "Orphan_(typesetting)" disagrees with this one.

Contents 1 How? 2 Okay, once and for all 3 Fundamental misunderstanding 4 Merge with Orphan (typesetting)

[edit] How?

Please specify how it disagrees... articles change, and it's hard to know what you mean. Please also sign your posts thus: 212.44.19.62 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fundamental misunderstanding

Although the incessant repetition of an incorrect definition may eventually make it correct, it is perhaps worth pointing out that a typographical 'widow' traditionally has nothing to do with a paragraph breaking awkwardly across two pages, but instead refers to a short line at the end of a paragraph (eg a single shortish word, the second half of a hyphenated word or a few very short words). (For reference, see Judith Butcher's standard reference work Copy-Editing (3rd edition, CUP, 1992), page 108.) This short line can occur anywhere on the page. What we now tend to refer to as a 'widow' was just another kind of 'orphan'.

Sjmw 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is the way editors in my office use "widow," about five times a day. It's a pity that the most important and useful sense of this word has been lost in the article's attempt to make a useless distinction between orphans at the top or bottom of a page, complete with a cutesy mnemonic for those dim-witted typesetters. (!) I'm requesting expert attention here, I think any professional copy editor would qualify to override the nerdery that's taken over this article and Orphan (typesetting). Nathan 15:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am, in fact, a professional copy editor, and I agree with you two. In my many magazine jobs we have always referred to widows as "a single shortish word, the second half of a hyphenated word or a few very short words" at the end of a paragraph. If one needs a cutesy mnemonic, perhaps it could be something like "paragraphs suddenly die and leave widows all alone."

Anyhow, yes, please change it to the standard definition of widow. More examples of typographical guides using the more common sense of 'widow' are here and here.

Aroundthewayboy

After a bit of research, I have discovered that both terms are in use (odd, since they can but do not necessarily overlap). I edited the article accordingly, to acknowledg both senses of the term. Aroundthewayboy

[edit] Merge with Orphan (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 agree. Darzinho 18:55, 16 January 2007 (GMT)