Talk:Widow (typesetting)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[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)