Talk:Thingamajig
From Wikipedia: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☯ 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.
Start a discussion about improving the Thingamajig page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Thingamajig" page.
