1

Two related questions:

I think atm I feel that the best and easiest way to avoid widows and orphans is to let the affected pages differ a little in size. Almost no one would recognise it and -- even if -- it might look better than having empty space because of breaking the page earlier to get yet another line on the next page etc.

  1. So what are the arguments against this approach?
  2. Notwithstanding these arguments, how could I automatically achieve it? Maybe even by a global command in the preamble?
ClintEastwood
  • 6,577
  • 4
    See Squeeze some more lines on the current page. – Werner Apr 09 '13 at 06:31
  • I can't tell from your write-up if you've already set the parameters \clubpenalty10000 and \widowpenalty10000? Conversely, do you have a reason for not setting these parameters to (essentially) infinity? – Mico Apr 09 '13 at 06:55
  • Somewhere -- I think probably even here on tex.sx -- I've read a very convincig comment beginning with "do you really know what you do when you use these commands??" and ending with "they should at any rate be avoided, if you want a good result!!" Thus, I am looking for alternatives. Besides, if these commands were the answer to everything regarding widows and orphans, they would probably be more automatically employed. – ClintEastwood Apr 09 '13 at 07:04
  • @Mico : Ahhh and by the way: these commands treat a widowed line by adding another line from the previous page -- a result which is (if at all) only a slight improvement. I seek a way for avoiding widows altogether by increasing that previous page. Similarly with orphans. – ClintEastwood Apr 09 '13 at 07:19
  • add \raggedbottom. – yannisl Apr 09 '13 at 07:49
  • 3
    @ClintEastwood setting the penalties doesn't move any text it just makes it infinitely bad to break at at that point. what else happens depends on other things such as available stretchy glue on the page. As Yiannis indicated if you use raggedbottom then pages will be allowed to run short which is actually the same as your request of allowing them to run long if you increase the default length. – David Carlisle Apr 09 '13 at 08:32
  • @ClintEastwood - I completely disagree with the claim that changing the widow and orphan penalty parameters "should at any rate be avoided, if you want a good result." Can you give a more precise reference to source of this claim? Avoiding widows and orphans is, of course, just one of several stylistic criteria for good layout. If there's an overriding need to keep some material on a given page, then the use of \enlargethispage (with positive or negative argument) is an important tool in the LaTeX toolbox, and it should be used as appropriate. – Mico Apr 09 '13 at 08:58
  • @Mico : I will try to find that comment. It did, however, not claim that widows and orphans should not be avoided, but that they should be avoided by a method other than increasing these three parameters. – ClintEastwood Apr 09 '13 at 10:14
  • @David Carlisle : ahh. ok. and what is the command for increasing the default length? Do I have to add that comment at each location in the text or once in the preamble? This might be what I am looking for. – ClintEastwood Apr 09 '13 at 10:15
  • 2
    \addtolength\textheight\baselineskip changes the default and \enlargethispage{\baselineskip} changes one page – David Carlisle Apr 09 '13 at 10:18
  • @DavidCarlisle : Am I right that \addtolength\textheight\baselineskip increases the lenght of every page? – ClintEastwood Apr 09 '13 at 10:30
  • @ClintEastwood yes – David Carlisle Apr 09 '13 at 10:32
  • @ClintEastwood -- if your text contains a lot of math, section headings, or other elements where stretch and shrink are employed, sometimes a smaller value for \addtolength\textheight, sometimes as little .2\baselineskip, will do the job over a large enough span of pages. – barbara beeton Apr 09 '13 at 12:33
  • This is at least in-part covered by the question I've duped to: the issue of typographic desirability is wide, opinion-based and possibly off-topic too! – Joseph Wright Aug 12 '13 at 19:55

0 Answers0