Talk:Lorem ipsum (unsourced)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


are there any translations?

I Second that... does anybody have a translation? Benashbe 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'll add it in tomorrow. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely forgot about this. Actually, no translation is possible; this is corrupted nonsense derived from Cicero's De finibus bonorum et malorum. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:09:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

w:Lorem_ipsum#English_translation quotes a 1914 translation, no? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Stratemeyer Syndicate 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1914 translation is of the passage from De finibus bonorum et malorum. The lorem ipsum text is derived from this, but it is not an exact copy. The changes are not valid Latin and thus, as noted above, render the text to be nonsense.

unsigned comment by JerryE (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2008.

Is this the original text?[edit]

Is this really the original text, not some randomly generated pseudo-latin? gives a different "standard Lorem Ipsum passage" uses a random generator, so it's not the 'original' text.
Read the above section, 'Translations'. It explains that this is pretty much nonsense text now, used to quickly & easily fill-in or substitute for normal text for various reasons. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Why at English Wikisource? I suppose it was intended to look like Latin, not English. Infovarius (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably to not confuse search purposes. For instance, if I used text from "A Tale of Two Cities" as filler text in many templates this may be counter intuitive to our search engine and other search engines. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here?[edit]

I do not understand why this page exists. The text is not English, and should be on laWS or mulWS depending on whether the former accepts pseudo-Latin or not... and furthermore, the text presented here is not the usual "lorem ipsum" text but appears to be a randomly-generated text based on it. Unless someone has a very good reason for me to leave it alone, I will export it to mulWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is neither Latin nor multilingual. It is gibberish, not actually in any language, but it is used in English-language contexts in publishing as temporary filler. Because it originated in English publishing, and is not a part of any other language, we host it here. If you propose to move it, please open a full discussion at WS:PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Gibberish and not-any-language belongs on mulWS also. I will post on WS:PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Beleg Tâl, it is used for English publishing and English-readers users. Indeed, English authors use sometimes other languages in their writings and it is english writing because is directed to English readers. -- 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Title Conversion of "Lorem ipsum" to "Context" proposed.[edit]

The description of this definition "content" is a defining description describing a multiple possibilities of a form of "content" (Graphical, text, audio, musical, video, etc). Although since the title words "Lorem ipsum" are part of the description and not just a proper word, I am proposing that a new word to take it's title place instead with this descriptive "context" in it's place. The word "content" defines any substance or material whether written or material is the substance within the area container. (Example: The contents of the body text has written content within it") ie, The term "content" doesn't explain or describe what is written inside the body text area. It only tells that they're contents as being a descriptive word but is vague. This means it could have photos, audio links, music, videos, text, etc within the "content" area.

If the title word is changed from "Lorem ipsum" to "Context" (New word)

Description: A form of (text) content that is an authorized show "written content" that helps define and project a visual impression to allow a person to understand what the "context" is for. (Outline Formats, Body Text areas, a sign being created for a business, a website's "About" section, A news reporter's proposed story with new format for the newspaper editor. The word "Context" directly defines "text" formatting only as a word or words describing a portion of "content". This allows the person to understand that there are no graphic, musical, audio, video, adulterated, negative, etc content. Only text. It comes from the word "Content" but "Context" extracts everything else that is not in textual format.

The "English" gibberish written for "Lorem ipsum" as a description is only showing an example of what "Context" could be within the area it's inserted into (Title area, body text area, etc.) to fill out a portion of an area to give an overall visual impression of what is being presented to the person /s reviewing it. The gibberish is made up text that doesn't offend any person because no language is being presented that can be translated and understood. The text is simply there as "filler" substance to give a visual impression to the those who review it. This "Context" could represent actual text but may not have been approved text for presentation or legal commercial use. (Example: Website (About Section), "The company was founded September 9th, 1999 when the..." Visually it fills out an container area that may be a fixed or non fixed area (Responsive or nonresponsive) to show what the container would look like after you filled the area of words to give an overall visual impression to the page or format. The actual biography of the company is being presented in this case for the reviewer to view an overall visual impression of what the website could look like with "Context" or "Content".

"Lorem ipsum" is just the first two words of a highly recognizable beginning of gibberish that comes from many areas of the world as "filler text" but is not a word in itself. Therefore I came up with a word that could be understandable and defines exactly what the description of the word would be by way of an "example of textual filler" such as "Lorem ipsum".

Williamebales (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)WEB

The text on this page is usually known by the title "Lorem ipsum", and not as "Content" or "Context", so moving the page would be confusing, unnecessary, and counter-intuitive. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


What is the source of this Lorem ipsum version? If a source cannot be identified, then there should be no objection to tagging this page with {{no source}} and investigating it for {{no license}} as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source, content, etc[edit]

@EncycloPetey:, now that we have determined that "Lorem ipsum" in general is hostable despite our usual policies on scope, and now that we also have a sourced, published version of the "lorem ipsum" text, do you have any reasons why we should keep this page, whose version of "lorem ipsum" is unsourced, unlicensed, and based on above discussions appears to be randomly generated? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We just had a community discussion on this issue. Let it rest. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)