Talk:tincidunt

Requests for verification - kept
This does not appear in my Classical dictionaries, but that does not mean it isn't a word in New Latin. The problem is that many of the 206 Google cites (linked on the page) are dubious. One of the cites I looked at was otherwise in German, with tincidunt: in the middle of it. Many others I looked at seem to be books about software packages, but written in Latin!? I am very confused by all this. Do we have a neologism here? A protologism? Or soomething else? --EncycloPetey 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) To RFD it goes.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not in my Latin dictionary either - and I can't even figure out what verb is might be a form of. SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Every bgc result (IINM) is in a lorem ipsum. (There must be some software used by all these authors that generates a lorem ipsum including the word tincidunt.)&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So do we delete this, or keep it, since so many books have it, but with a note that it's not a word and has no meaning?&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm don't think it meets the current CFI, except perhaps for the “general rule” that “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.”link Indeed, that seems to be the reason this entry was created: an anonymous editor found it in lorem-ipsum text generated by a certain lorem-ipsum–generating Web site, and despite knowing the purpose of the site, seemed to believe that it was a real word (which does make sense, seeing as the original lorem ipsum was a corrupted version of an actual Latin text, and one might well expect words in lorem-ipsum text to be real Latin words). So, move to RFD and ponder the nature of meaning. :-) —Ruakh TALK 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for deletion - deleted
This does not appear in my Classical dictionaries, but that does not mean it isn't a word in New Latin. The problem is that many of the 206 Google cites (linked on the page) are dubious. One of the cites I looked at was otherwise in German, with tincidunt: in the middle of it. Many others I looked at seem to be books about software packages, but written in Latin!? I am very confused by all this. Do we have a neologism here? A protologism? Or soomething else? --EncycloPetey 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) '''Preceding is from RFV. Please continue discussion here.'''&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not in my Latin dictionary either - and I can't even figure out what verb is might be a form of. SemperBlotto 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Every bgc result (IINM) is in a lorem ipsum. (There must be some software used by all these authors that generates a lorem ipsum including the word tincidunt.)&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So do we delete this, or keep it, since so many books have it, but with a note that it's not a word and has no meaning?&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm don't think it meets the current CFI, except perhaps for the “general rule” that “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.”link Indeed, that seems to be the reason this entry was created: an anonymous editor found it in lorem-ipsum text generated by a certain lorem-ipsum–generating Web site, and despite knowing the purpose of the site, seemed to believe that it was a real word (which does make sense, seeing as the original lorem ipsum was a corrupted version of an actual Latin text, and one might well expect words in lorem-ipsum text to be real Latin words). So, move to RFD and ponder the nature of meaning. :-) —Ruakh TALK 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as it is used and someone may want to find out what it means (or in this case refers to). sewnmouthsecret 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep . to be nice to users who might not be familiar with lorem ipsum, as Ruakh suggested. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is at least one other way of being nice, so I take back my keep vote until the finessing more-or-less within-the-rules approach suggested below is evaluated. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments. (1) It's obviously meant to look like Latin (especially considering the text always found around it). But it's not Latin. If we keep this, what language header do we use? (2) and what part of speech? (3) I suspect that there are many other terms in tincidunt's class: non-words that are frequently found in lorem-ipsum text. If we keep this, presumably we'll keep all such.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lorem ipsum entry calls "lorem ipsum" an English noun. It does not have any attestation.
 * Perhaps we could finesse the problem. Perhaps we could include "text" including "tincidunt" (not now present in the entry) in the "lorem ipsum" article. That way at least the search engine would lead a user to a place that gave an explanation. (BTW, it would be nice if we could also find at least one real usage example for "lorem ipsum" as a noun. It would also be nice if we had some discussion there about the term on its talk page.) DCDuring TALK 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found a few cites of "lorem ipsum" being used as a noun for attestation. I have also found a short nonsense quote in which it is used with "tincidunt", which I have inserted in the lorem ipsum entry. Once the article gets re-indexed, it should direct search to that entry as well as "tincidunt". That would make our decisions about "tincidunt" and the precedent it might set a little easier. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A search for "tincidunt" would find the cited noun entry "lorem ipsum", which is used in English. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought one of the key points of lorem ipsum is that it is ==Translingual== . -- Visviva 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to such altering of lorem ipsum. I was just interested in whether we could stick to the form of our practice about PoS and citation, preferably both for lorem ipsum and tincidunt. We seem to be able to do it for lorem ipsum under one of English or Translingual header. I see how by finesse to include in search "tincidunt" and many other frequently occuring pseudo-words without having to have new entries for them, but I don't see how they can be entries under our existing rules. Nor do I particularly want to if search would take a user to an informative lrem ipsum entry. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that "lorem ipsum" itself is probably a valid English term, but that the words (or word-like objects) which occur in lorem ipsum passages are best regarded as translingual. IMO the same arguments that apply to having entries for nonsense Hangul sylables that have never been used to convey meaning -- which the community recently decided was desirable -- would apply at least as strongly to lorem ipsum words, which at least are used for some purpose.  Given the structure of Wiktionary, I would say that if we are going to cover such words in mainspace, they should each be given their own entry.  If not, they could simply be listed in Appendix:Lorem ipsum. -- Visviva 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An appendix is only useful if you know what you are looking for or at least realize that are appendices to search. It's one drawback to citation space. There are many more users who don't know than who do. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed formatting slightly (my goof). Fair enough, but if these are worthy of mainspace inclusion -- and they certainly do provide some user value, if only to let the user know that this is not a real word -- I think they really do need their own individual entries.  -- Visviva 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

look
 * I don't, because they're never used as words. They're nonsense text that appear in a single, specific (albeit widely circulated) "text".  The text is in pseudo-Latin, which is not a language and has no ISO code.  The individual "words" are never used in Latin nor in any other language I know of. --EncycloPetey 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would make them any worse than random Hangul syllables which are never used to convey meaning, but which the community unanimously decided were desirable because someone might want to know that they are not words (or something like that). At least there is plausible reason to think that someone might actually imagine that tincidunt (et al.) are words, and need to be disabused of the notion.  -- Visviva 10:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The differences are: (1) Hangul syllables are used to assemble words. So, just as we have entries for the letters of the Roman alphabet, we have entries for Hangul syllables. (2) Hangul syllables have a language header; tincidunt does not because it is not used in any language. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, EncycloPetey (15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)). All the cites are from the same widely distributed lorem ipsum. So they're not independent, right?—msh210 ℠ 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Failed search leads to [[lorem ipsum]], which addresses my sole concern, also possibly the similar concern expressed above by User:Sewnmouthsecret. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - only found in lorem ipsum, searching for it now leads to lorem ipsum. We could add an if needed. --Jackofclubs 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)