Talk:Lorem ipsum

message: 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)
thread_title: Is lorem ipsum always latinlike? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not Mac alone 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The only proper version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The entry may have some major factual errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Visual presentation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lorem ipsum right location in Cicero's original 

message: & Idk quid in anime sit? Djohn254 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non tantum te, 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title: Second paragraph of common text?

message: 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)
thread_title:  "original research" 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symetrical (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  highlighting