Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Manual of Style/Appendix 4: Deal diagram examples

Card spacing, Use of 'T' or '10'

We should agree whether to use spacing in hand diagrams. Personally, I find the versions without spacing more readable (as I render the suits as "words" rather than as "sets"), but I wouldn't insist on that. Apart from the personal perferences, arguments in favor of no-spacing are:

More articles currently doesn't use spacing
When presented inline, a line break might occur at the middle of the suit; without spacing, it would only be possible on suit boundaries. Consider:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ♠ 6 3 2 ♥ A K J 9 6 ♦ 8 7 5 2 ♣ 4 veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

versus

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ♠ 632 ♥ AKJ96 ♦ 8752 ♣ 4 veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Comments? Duja 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced if it also works with the 10 present. Let's see:

Ave Larry! Ignorantia legis non excusat! Cuiusvis homo bridgis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare ♠ 6 3 2 ♥ A K 10 8 6 ♦ 10 7 5 2 ♣ 4. Quod erat demonstrandum. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

versus

Ave Larry! Ignorantia legis non excusat! Cuiusvis homo bridgis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare ♠ 632 ♥ AK1086 ♦ 10752 ♣ 4. Quod erat demonstrandum. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Hmmm.. less obvious I would say. Would work if the 10 is represented as T. But that is ugly. Leave it to others to decide. JocK 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line break will not occur if there's no space between. In addition, one could spell out "non-breaking space" using   HTML code, but that's really too tedious to be of practical use. Duja 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with JocK: T instead of 10 is ugly. As to spacing, I have no preference, although for inline it's clearly an issue and consistency of appearance is important. Cambion makes an interesting point regarding perceived suit length, but I still hate T, and no one would type Desilite commilitones, nisi ♠ 6 3 2 ♥ A K 1 0 8 6 ♦ 10 7 5 2 ♣ 4 vultis aquilam hostibus prodere. (BTW, I've never understood why we call it "greeking" when it's Latin.) Xlmvp 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in with "T-haters". I didn't hear about "greeking"—I know it's called Lorem ipsum. Ah, Greeking redirects there. Duja 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer the unspaced setup and I also think using T is better than 10 - T takes up one character and means that a casual glance will give the correct suit length. (eg AQ97, AQT7, AQ107; the latter looks like 5 cards until you notice that it is the ten in there) Cambion 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cambion on this one. I'm a newb, and I am not officially a contributor to the project (yet), but bridge diagrams with 10 that aren't clearly spaced drive me nuts. Poker books/diagrams have moved to the T instead of 10 format. As Cambion points out, it allows a much better representation of comparitive suit length. It also throws the ten in with the honors rather than with the spots, which can be argued as a good or bad thing. --TsuKata 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of devising a usable '10' here, such as would cut the spacing between the two digits? It can be done with CSS, using a negative pixel value for 'letter-spacing', but would probably need to be done as a special image insert (template?) instead, to be viewable most places. The 'T' is jarring in a numerical setting, and just doesn't have the recognition of AKQJ, almost seems presumptuous of it. (I assume this would be considered original something, but not research.) FutharkRed 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]