Template talk:Lorem ipsum

message: For use where "nonsense" text needs to be inserted.
Urhixidur 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: A longer (and different) version is found in Template:Lorem ipsum dolor.
Urhixidur 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other variations of template

message: Please can someone remove this template from :Category:Templates and place it in :Category:Wikipedia templates instead.  I can't work out how.  --RobertG ♬ talk 15:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I wasn't sure what category to put it in. A lot of new templates use the the template doc page pattern, which means documentation and categories are on a subpage that's transcluded in the main template... in this case, Template:Lorem ipsum/doc. – flamurai (t) 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I would rather use an "original" Lorem ipsum:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequat. Quis aute iure reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint obcaecat cupiditat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum., where no additive characters are used, only those, who appear already in the latin text (but of course not the whole latin text). E.g. instead of "adipiscing" use "adipisci" etc. If we leave it like it is, the "wrong" Lorem ipsum will be spread everywhere, not only in wikipedia. On the german Lorem ipsum site the original text is already used, it is the same as you can see on History and discovery.
--Saippuakauppias 11:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorem ipsum text 

message: This ranks in google searches, which irks me for commercial reasons. However, shouldn't WP templates be excluded from search engines, as their content appears on article pages anyway, where indexing is pertinent? -Charlene  — 88.72.12.159 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indexing by search engines 

message: 26-June-09:  -Wikid77 (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The template was only semi-protected, but I fixed it anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Newline bug from protect-tag

message: 26-June-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and topics (including "Purpose" & "Other variations of template") in date order for 2006. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrofit talk-page year headers

message: Should this template have a category?—Markles 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in :Category:Placeholder templates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category, again 

message: 184.147.183.18 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Template:Lorem ipsum. - Arjayay (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015 

message: This needs safesubst markup, since if you substitute this to get  text with which to work further, you get the entire template markup instead of just the  text.  I've made a few attempts at it, but keep getting gibberish output, no matter where I put the safesubst stuff, so I'm evidently lacking sufficient coffee and focus or something.  Someone who does a lot of complex safesubst'ing will need to have a go at this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish, is this still a legitimate item of interest?  Recent changes for other purposes have simplified the code considerably, so that adding safesubt markup should be a trivial global substitution. However, it will make the code a lot uglier (doesn't it always?) so if it's not needed, let's not. Don't know if you still recall your use case, but would the simpler  work for you? Substing that would be easier, and not particularly ugly. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be nice if both of them would cleanly subst, and not apply cleanup/tracking categorization when not used in mainspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs <code>safesubst</code> 

message: 49.207.217.60 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  13:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020 

message: A possible bug in  code is causing some sandbox test cases to appear to fail, where invoking the sandbox directly does not fail. In particular: revision 1037022234‎ of testcases, shows rev 1037021742‎ of the sandbox *failing* with missing newlines between paragraphs. However, this appears to be an artefact of the  template, because invoking the sandbox directly in ExpandTemplates or from a separate page works fine.  This is one more reason to remove  code and replace it with template .  Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bug in Template:testcase table code 

message: I added test case 7 after seeing on the documentation page that the template is no longer running text together as it should. I think at this point, with at least three different kinds of bugs in production, we need to return the template to its overly nested, pre-zwsp state, and then continue to experiment in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , that's a legit bug, but I'll fix that. It's caused by the zwsp's; the solution is don't emit the zwsp's when they invoke run-together, and that's an easy fix. That's the only bug I'm aware of, and I'm not sure anyone is using that feature.  Please don't roll back the template just yet. See comments above. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text: By the way, the reason that one slipped through when I made my original changes, is that there was never any test case for the run-together-text feature, so when I made my changes and went to the testcases page, when I saw that all cases were working, I assumed that version was good.  As you discovered, that's not the case, due to the missing test case. (And there may be other test cases that are missing as well.) Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I detailed it more in the subsection above, but I'm planning on adding param  as an explicit named param to trigger the "join-everything" function, with param 3 = blank as a second, (and kinda weird) alternate trigger. More on this later. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a better, more deliberate suggestion. I don't like it when blank parameters change a template's behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bigger part of the "join" bug which we haven't explicitly mentioned (so I will now) is that any value for param 2 or 3 triggers the join (or maybe just 3). This is because of the "ifnot (2) and ifnot (3) then (zwsp)" code; so even a quote mark or a parenthesis is non-empty, and blocks the needed newline and it shouldn't. That's a part of the "join" bug as well and if it's serious enough we can roll back (although I'd prefer to see if anyone is squawking, so far crickets?). Adding the explicit join is next; glad you approve. To some extent, I question if anyone really needs "join" functionality, but I think it has to be there now, if only to provide backward-compatibility for a functionality that has already been documented for a long time, and thus is "out of the bag" so to speak. (I've never seen any outside implementation that supported such a join functionality for lorem, so it's a weirdo, but whatever.) Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  As noted elsewhere, this is working now. Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Text doesn't run together anymore

message: One of the rabbit holes we tried to run down, was attempting to fix the template for invalid cases like  (ditto for bold or  text).  I've added a new section on font styling to the /doc page to explain that these produce unpredictable results, and providing alternatives.
The new section is #Notes about font styling. Hopefully, this will help users using this template to find the results they are seeking without running into the same problems. Please review/adjust as you find necessary/helpful.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I have added some testcases. It looks like a bit of tweaking is still needed to display multiple wrapped paragraphs (they currently display all in one big paragraph), but I think this is the right approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  New version with  is live; wrapping still t.b.d. Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrapping now works, with the latest version. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on font styling added to /doc page