Talk:Thingamajig

From Deletion_log_archive/September_2003:


 * 04:17, 11 Sep 2003 Tannin deleted "Thingamajig" (content was: 'A gadget, an apparatus of uncertain purpose, a contraption')

Although this dictionary definition has been improved on by the current version, it's still really a semantic discussion--what a word means--rather than a dissertation on the nature of thingamajigness or gadgethood or whatever, which I think Wikipedia would benefit from.

I originally proposed adapting the entry in its current form to a Wiktionary entry, but the main author doesn't want to do this. --Minority Report 00:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because a topic could be included in Wiktionary doesn't mean it should be. I disagree with a move to Wiktionary on two grounds - first, the present article is far more than a dicdef. It's longer than most stubs, many of which could also theoretically be includeed in Wiktionary. Second, Wiktionary and Wikipedia are very poorly linked. While many non-users of Wikipedia have at least heard of it, the same cannot be said for Wiktionary. (When was the last time you saw a news article on Wiktionary or WikiQuotes?) Moreover, that "thingamajigness" is not discussed hardly disqualifies this topic as article-suitable. There are plenty of articles about objects in Wiki. And no, this page should not be merged with "gadget", for the reason given in the article. "Gadget" is a generic name for an object whose name is known. A garage door opener is a gadget. A whatchamacallit, by definition, refers to an object whose name is =not= known. Denni &#9775; 01:46, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

To link to Wiktionary, just do this: Wiktionary definition of the word flower. To claim that they're poorly linked is simply incorrec As I understand it, Wiktionary is simply a different namespace within Wikimedia.

Length of an article doesn't make a dictionary entry into an encyclopedia entry. If you're talking about the meaning of a word, you're writing a dictionary entry. The key here is that you make a semantic distinction between a "Thingamajig" and a gadget, on the basis of whether the user is aware of the object's real name.

Now the article on Gadget could probably benefit from a sentence or two, perhaps even a paragraph, explaining that people who don't know what a particular gadget is called, or even whether it has a name, sometimes refer to it as a "thingamajig" or a "doohickey." This would tend to round out an already quite useful encyclopedia article. What you can't do, really, is justify passing off this word definition as a separate entity, worthy of an entry of its own.

If you don't consider a merge with gadget, the next step will be to perform the merge myself and then nominate this article for deletion, citing your refusal to consider the alternatives.

--Minority Report 02:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion: merge with cadigan instead.
 * An excellent suggestion, and done. Denni &#9775; 02:16, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)