Writer -> Styles -> Edit Style -> Text Flow There are the following options at the bottom of the page: Options - [ ] Do not split paragraph - [ ] Keep with next paragraph - Orphan control _2_ lines - Widow control _2_ lines "Orphan" and "Widow" are typesetter terms which are well known in the typesetting sphere, but unknown and confusing to the average user. Instead of using these terms, we should use descriptive terms. Note that Word, InDesign avoid using the terms "Orphan" and "Widow" too. I would suggest reorganizing/renaming the options as follows: Options - [ ] Keep with next paragraph Don't split paragraph - [ ] All lines in the paragraph - Beginning of paragraph : _2_ lines - End of paragraph: _2_ lines
Sounds fine, but I think better maintain between parenthesis the original words.
(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #1) > Sounds fine, but I think better maintain between parenthesis the original > words. +1 for retaining them in parenthesis, and there will need to be adjustment to the help article(s).
Either I repeatedly forgot to save or BZ is refusing my input. This topic has been discussed recently in bug 156109 (together with a slight redesign). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 156109 ***
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > This topic has been discussed recently in bug 156109 (together with a slight > redesign). > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 156109 *** I don't quite follow the idea (turning into reality from time to time, this being not the first), to take a bug asking for something *different* (tdf#156109), and reuse it for another request - and mark that other request as its duplicate. Please! The OP in tdf#156109 had *never* asked for a rename. They may have absolutely no desire to rename these; you don't even know, maybe they would *oppose* this new idea. But you effectively destroy that request. It would be OK to close it WF if so decided - but this action masks, hides the request; in the end, it could pretend to *implement* that request... Please do not!
(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #1) > Sounds fine, but I think better maintain between parenthesis the original > words. Would a tooltip with the original words also be ok?
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #4) > The OP in tdf#156109 had *never* asked for a rename. Really? Even if not, it is the same topic. And I see no benefit in bloating the bugtracker.
(In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt (allotropia) from comment #5) > Would a tooltip with the original words also be ok? Just a note, that tooltips in dialogs are only shown when extended tooltips are enabled in options (off by default).
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > (In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt (allotropia) from comment #5) > > Would a tooltip with the original words also be ok? > > Just a note, that tooltips in dialogs are only shown when extended tooltips > are enabled in options (off by default). Works for me also with extended tips disabled. Patch is up here: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/155769
(In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt (allotropia) from comment #8) > Patch is up here: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/155769 Would be nice if you also add some indentation to the orphan/widow options as discussed in the non-duplicate.
(In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt (allotropia) from comment #8) > Works for me also with extended tips disabled. I confirm - seems like my memory is failing me :-D
> Note that Word, InDesign avoid using the terms "Orphan" and "Widow" too. What do they use instead?
Created attachment 189012 [details] Widow/Orphan Control in Wird 2016 (In reply to jan d from comment #11) > > Note that Word, InDesign avoid using the terms "Orphan" and "Widow" too. > > What do they use instead? No idea about InDesign; and no idea about newer Word; but here is the Widow/Orphan Control checkbox in Word 2016.
> Please! The OP in tdf#156109 had *never* asked for a rename. They may have > absolutely no desire to rename these; you don't even know, maybe they would > *oppose* this new idea. But you effectively destroy that request. It would > be OK to close it WF if so decided - but this action masks, hides the > request; in the end, it could pretend to *implement* that request... > > Please do not! I am that OP, and that is not true. I share the exact opinion of the OP of this bug. Somewhere in #156109, I wrote these words, which are exactly the topic of this item: Kazinator> Orphan and Widow are some kind of typesetting jargon whose metaphor not Kazinator> everyone might understand[.] This like when the UI in Android phones warns the user that a SD card was not unmounted before being removed, expecting the population to be familiar with Unix jargon and commands. :) However, it is true that I did not make terminology the focus of #156109. The terminology, as such, is fine. Software can play a role in teaching users concepts and terminology. You can have "widow" and "orphan" if there is some tooltip, "learn more ..." link or whatever where they can get an explanation what that means. If you're a domain expert writing software, you can use its user interface and documentation to educate users in that domain (alongside having the software perform it "payload" tasks). You don't have to dumb down all the terminology so that other domain experts are confused or find it ridiculous, and you don't have to alienate users who don't understand the jargon. Where do you draw the line between typesetting jargon that is acceptable to Joe Sixpack and that is too advanced? How about "hanging indentation", "margin", "justification", "drop caps", "kerning" ...
(In reply to Kazinator from comment #13) > > Please! The OP in tdf#156109 had *never* asked for a rename. They may have > > absolutely no desire to rename these; you don't even know, maybe they would > > *oppose* this new idea. But you effectively destroy that request. It would > > be OK to close it WF if so decided - but this action masks, hides the > > request; in the end, it could pretend to *implement* that request... > > > > Please do not! > > I am that OP, and that is not true. I share the exact opinion of the OP of > this bug. Somewhere in #156109, I wrote these words, which are exactly the > topic of this item: > > Kazinator> Orphan and Widow are some kind of typesetting jargon whose > metaphor not > Kazinator> everyone might understand[.] The point was not that you will *definitely* oppose. The point was: that bug was about a *different* thing. We *should never* merge bugs like that: even now, when you wrote that you agree with this bug, your original one does not become a dupe of this one: they have different ideas. In other words: in a year, someone comes, who agrees with, say, tdf#156795, but disagrees with tdf#156109. As long as such a scenario is possible, these are *different* bugs; with a potential of *different* further destiny (e.g., one might get questioned, discussed, reverted at some point, while another could stay). So *they are NOT "the same topic"*. And merging them creates havoc, makes bugzilla unmanageable. Thinking that merging them keeps bugzilla "neat" destroys its value as a tool of tracking ideas, bugs, and so on. Please note, that at no point I disagree with either of the ideas myself - I'm actually neutral. I only post data points that I know, like the Word screemshot, or the (false) memory of a setting needed for the dialog tooltip ;)
Created attachment 189018 [details] Indesign Widow/Orphan options (In reply to jan d from comment #11) > > Note that Word, InDesign avoid using the terms "Orphan" and "Widow" too. > > What do they use instead? "Keep lines together" (See screenshot in attachment).
Created attachment 189019 [details] Suggested changes in LO This is my try to implement the term change and the improvements from bug 156109. The tooltips are as follows: "Number of lines, that will be kept together at the beginning of the paragraph (orphan control)." "Number of lines, that will be kept together at the end of the paragraph (widow control)."
Samuel Mehrbrodt committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/47edf86a62784aa275de7cc89df01a4fcd4e90c8 tdf#156795, tdf#156109 Avoid typesetter language: orphan, widow control It will be available in 24.2.0. The patch should be included in the daily builds available at https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
(In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt (allotropia) from comment #0) > I would suggest reorganizing/renaming the options as follows: My suggestion: Options [ ] Keep with next paragraph [ ] Split paragraph Minimum amount of lines to be kept together: - At the bottom of the previous column/page: _2_ lines - At the top of the next column/page: _2_ lines Wording taken from: https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/00/00000005.html?&DbPAR=SHARED#hd_id3166423 I have reopened the bug. Sorry if not done in the proper way.
(In reply to LeroyG from comment #18) > My suggestion: > > Options > [ ] Keep with next paragraph > > [ ] Split paragraph > Minimum amount of lines to be kept together: > - At the bottom of the previous column/page: _2_ lines > - At the top of the next column/page: _2_ lines (In reply to Heiko Tietze from bug 156109 comment #7) > (In reply to Kazinator from comment #6) > > I think when we have pared down three choices down to two, we can revert > > back to a checkbox: > > > > [x] Allow paragraph to be split > > [ ] Orphan control [ ] > > [ ] Widow control [ ] > > [x] Keep with next paragraph Aside from the changed labels this was agreed on / suggested in the other ticket. Just to mention the indentation.
Please discuss additional changes in the Design Meeting. If need be, change the UI file directly.