Contents

Talk:Lorem ipsum: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:07, 22 March 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Typography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Latin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Are there lorem ipsa for strangers scripts such as Greek or Cyrillic, or even Chinese characters ? 81.185.159.85 (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can get lorem ipsum style filler texts customized to fit the alphabet and common letter frequencies of most languages. The nell 87 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one generator is listed, this would be the best one: http://meettheipsums.com/ (Cat Ipsum, Samuel L Ipsum, Cheese Ipsum...)

For web development we have always used https://www.lipsum.com/ as it can generate paragraphs, words and lists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unphazed2048 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found another:

• Lorem ipsum at loremipsum.io

There is some interesting detail in the home page which, if verified, could be usefully merged into the article. Ditto for www.lipsum.com.

Enquire (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a citation, but I used Aldus PageMaker for many years, beginning in the 80s, on my PC.Jim Stinson (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be stated somewhere in the synopsis that there's no such thing as "lorem ipsum" and the term and the text are badly misused everywhere: there is only one true and proper version---the Latin original that starts with "Sed ut perspiciatis...", and that's the text people should use a a placeholder instead of the bogus "lorem ipsum." If you read the original, you'll even discover that there's no such word "lorem", it is but a part of the real word "dolorem" in the real text; and there are many other missing parts in what people erroneously call "lorem ipsum." Please remember: there is no lorem ipsum whatsoever, it is but a strange mangling of the real thing. Use the proper text, don't fall for bogus terms and incomplete text! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.195.194.100 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

exactly. there is no reason to use fake latin whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That misses the point of the text, which isn't stated in the article (but should be, if someone can find a source for it). It's modified from the original so that it looks more like English without actually being English, such as "adipiscing", with English's common -ing ending, and "exercitation", with English's -tion form. Part of the look is the whitespace between and around words, and actual Latin just wouldn't look right - "ing" at the end of English words is very common, but you don't find letters with descenders like "g" at the end of Latin words. PaulGS (talk)

All three of you are missing the other point of the text: it isn't supposed to make sense. It's only there to take up space to show how words would look in that space. A text with an actual meaning wouldn't be a placeholder, it would simply be a presentation of a particular text. --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be if you don't understand the language - for those who don't know Latin, the original text makes just as much sense as the scrambled version. But you're correct - it's not supposed to make sense, since the whole point is to get the reader to focus on the design, not the content, and text in a language the reader doesn't understand does that. PaulGS (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the story of lorem ipsum, the origins of lorem ipsum are way back in the renaissance, and not the 1960s or before (though, technically, the renaissance IS before the 1960s). Also, according to my University Latin teacher, Dr. Ludlam, the book title is not “On the Extremes of Good and Evil”, but “On the Goals/Ends of Good and Bad Things”. Cicero had to have a long title, where Greek had a very short one (“On Goals”), because Greek ethics had well-established vocabulary. Ronbarak (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, [User:Ronbarak|Ronbarak]]. Which book title are you talking about? I couldn't find any reference to a book called On the Extremes of Good and Evil in the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously has no letters "k", "y", and "w" (which is mentioned in the 1st reference, but not in the article) and generally has almost no descenders and much less ascenders than a real English text, so the leading is perceived differently. Are there any studies how representative it actually is? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was researching on this and the latin source seems to have the wrong numbers. I think it is supposed to be 1.32.10 or something similar, but never 1.10.32 (first number is book, second is section and third is verse number, I guess original editor inverted them). You can check here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Fin.+1.32&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0036 http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/48/10/490-501@1#10

If original editor sees this please provide source or update to reflect right numbers: "1.32" would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.58.104.202 (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

& Idk quid in anime sit? Djohn254 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen numerous claims that the use of the lorem ipsum passage in typesetting samples dates back centuries, possibly as far back as the 1500s, but the article mentions its use only "since at least the 1960s" by LetraSet. The linked source『Lorem ipsum : nouvel état de la question』makes the claim (in French) that it doesn't have a long history at all but originates with LetraSet. The article should probably at least make a reference to the rumoured historicity, if not to refute it then at least to acknowledge its dubiousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.138.126 (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a second paragraph in "a common form of lorem ipsum reads" does not seem to be very common, compared to the first paragraph. The first 32 words of the paragraph in quotes on Google yielded 15300000 results, while the first 32 words of the second paragraph got 27700 results, which is 0.002 times the first paragraph. In addition, the source text section only shows the source for the first paragraph. This makes it seem that a random wikipedia editor used a lorem ipsum generator to make a new paragraph, or something similar. Thus, I shall be removing the second paragraph. If there is evidence that suggests otherwise, you can revert it and please inform me. Thanks! Ajlee2006 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: nvm it's in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lorem_ipsum, which has a lot more paragraphs?????idk but i wil limit the text in the article to the first paragraph for now Ajlee2006 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting the specific words of lipsum in the Cicero passage is not original research. I do not understand why this template would be placed there: it's literally the text. What possible citation could there be for the fact that "dolorem ipsum" does in fact contain the string "lorem ipsum"? Text formatting does not require citations. jp×g🗯️ 20:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the use of highlighting for the corresponding text is unwarranted in this article. Pages for this article in other languages use bolding as opposed to highlighting, and I believe this is more appropriate for the usage case. Personally I find its use here jarring and unnecessary. Given the fact that highlighting is rarely used on wikipedia I think this is the best solution to this issue.