Talk:Placeholder name/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origin

Can we have some citations on the origin of the word? Google doesn't seem to come up with any other page using the word. 66.92.237.111 14:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am looking into that. I learned the word and concept in a linguistics lecture back in the 1980s. I suspect Kurt Vonnegut, but Google is useless there because there's another science fiction writer named Pat Cadigan, so Google will yield thousands of unhelpful links. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To eliminate pages about Pat Cadigan, you can add -"Pat Cadigan" to your search string. I tried searches like cadigan thingamajig -"pat cadigan", and cadigan doohickey -"pat cadigan" and didn't find anything. -- Ponder 16:15, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I have at least been able to find it in print. (Vol II issue 3, Dec. '75 Verbatim: the Language Quarterly, "You Know What" by A. W. Read). -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the Verbatim online archives don't go back so far, would you give an extract from the article that would explain its origin and etymology, if it contains such details? --Kay Dekker 18:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no etymology; only a one line reference to "thingamajig, who's-is-face, deeliebobber and other cadigans." I'm beginning to suspect that "cadigan" was originally a fairly obscure cadigan in itself. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Obscure or even nonce, perhaps. It's not in either edition of Grose that I possess, nor in Fowler. I wonder if Read is still alive and would be amenable to answering an inquiry? I'll put out a search request on Unusual Words where I'm Admin in case any of them know of any other occurrences. --Kay Dekker 19:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given that there are no evident online uses, that we have (as of this time) one citation, that there is (as yet) no etymology and that Googled Cadigans outnumber Kadigans by roughly 73,000 to 100, would it be permissible for Wikipedia to prefer the k-spelling? Such a useful word oughtn't to languish in obscurity. --Kay Dekker 18:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I surely would have no objection. Will dig around some more in printed slang dictionaries to see if I can find more references. It does appear to be quite obscure at this point. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor puzzlement here: if the only source so far is the Read citation, which uses only 'cadigan', where did the the k-version come from? --Kay Dekker 00:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether some sort of Romance etymology might be behind this. The Spanish word el que-te-dije is mentioned already, and you have perhaps related words in French registers like quedale. I am wondering if it might properly be quedigan; what started this was when I was cleaning out some of my old class notes. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quedigan meaning what they say in Spanish? Aha! You may indeed have something there. I'll prod my Spanish-speakers to see if that's plausible. --Kay Dekker 01:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Technically, I think digan is subjunctive; "what they might say. . ." Still, this is the best lead yet, as far as I can tell. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably; my Spanish is scant and decayed. I've sent the Read citation to the OED for consideration, suggesting quedigan as a possible origin. --Kay Dekker 14:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Digan" is indeed third-person plural present subjunctive. If I had to guess with no data, I'd guess that Read had a friend named Cadigan who often used mollyclobbers like that. —JerryFriedman 19:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In (Scots) Gaelic "cuideigin" means "someone". Could there be a connection here with both the word and the name?--Bnathyuw 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other kadigans

Would 'paraphernalia', in the non-technical sense of 'unspecified accoutrements' as opposed to 'personal property retained by a bride upon marriage', count as a kadigan? I've heard it so used, and used it so myself. --Kay Dekker 18:25, 13 December 2004 (UTC)

Use of Kadigan in this article

Given the shaky authority for the term Cadigan / Kadigan (and the fact that it's almost entirely unused outside this article) why are we using it (rather than, say "placeholder") in this article? - Paul 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Foo

Does the word "Foo" qualify? Would it be a plural form ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo Is "cadigan" related to "metasyntactic variable" ?

Metasyntactic variables are used to refer to chunks of program syntax -- for instance, "In C, you can write if (foo) { bar; } to do bar if foo is true; the equivalent in Lisp is (when foo bar)."

This usage does not imply that any particular string could stand in for foo and bar; indeed, it would be remarkable to find a given string bar that would work in both C and Lisp. Thus, foo and bar here refer not to particular pieces of code, but rather to the roles played by the code -- here, foo means "some boolean condition" while bar means "some code which will be run if foo is true". --FOo 00:14, 14 December 2004 (UTC)

Blivet

A blivet seems to be the name of a specific contraption, does it still qualifies as a cadigan?

Dictionary.com suggests that it is used as a cadigan. -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:54, 13 December 2004 (UTC)

Joke?

Is anyone sure if this article is for real?

It seems like a joke to me. Jeff Knaggs 14:36, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Does anyone think the Wiktionary link is useful and that such links should be added to the other cadigans as well?

Yes and no. You linked to the Turkish Wiktionary which most readers of the English Wikipedia will not be able to read at all. It would be best to link English to English. The Turkish Wikipedia would obviously link to the Turkish Wiktionary though. — Hippietrail 00:46, 6 January 2005 (UTC)

Nihilartikel?

WARNING: The term "cadigan" or "kadigan" as defined above does not seem to occur in any standard reference work (unless you count Wiki), and is of questionable autheniticity. If you use it, don't count on being understood.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 January 2005 (UTC)

Nihilartikel?

I got here because this was linked from Nihilartikel. I have to say, that link may be all too appropriate. I have strong doubts as to whether an article belongs in Wikipedia if:

1. The article needs to say "WARNING: The term 'cadigan' or 'kadigan' as defined above does not seem to occur in any standard reference work (unless you count Wiki), and is of questionable autheniticity. If you use it, don't count on being understood."
2. The article is neither common knowledge nor does it contain a single citation either for the definition of the term "cadigan" nor for any of the examples given. I do see one supposed citation here on the talk page. Can someone indicate what that article says? And whether any of the content of our article actually reflects that cited article?

-- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I like the information that has been collected here. I have only found one reference for this, and my assumption that the word was fairly common seems not to be the case. I am beginning to wonder whether a different title might be appropriate, and if so what that would be. -- Smerdis of Tlön 06:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead and moved the article title to placeholder name. I have not endeavoured to replace "cadigan" in the article, but simply referred it to Dr. David Annis, from whose lips I learned the word; it may be an idiosyncratic coinage but it's too handy not to use. FWIW, the one printed citation (I no longer have it in front of me) is consistent with what the article says, but only lists something like "doohickey and other cadigans" and so forth. I remember reading an extensive article all about "cadigans" somewhere that discussed these words as a class, but I have not been able to put my finger on it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 6 January 2005 (UTC)

Given the move, I will delete the link from Nihilartikel. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Lo! another reference

On Oct 9, 2004, in an online ballet forum, Mel Johnson wrote:

A lot depends on the teacher's schooling. If she were trained up in RAD, then she'd most likely call a half-turn toward the back foot a détourné. Other schools have different names for it, including the kadigan version, "This thingy." (demonstrates) [1]

This would appear to be exactly congruent with the word I learned. This citation antedates the start of this article by a couple of months. It seems I am not going insane. (That goes too far. But it does show that my belief in the existence of this word is not one of my hallucinations.) -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hurrah! I'm vastly relieved that you're not hallucinating the word. Do you think it might be worth contacting Mel and asking her or him where she or he got the word from? If so and it turns up trumps, I'll add it to my earlier OED submission for the word. --Kay Dekker 00:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh w00t! By dint of Googlery I managed to find a mail address for Mel Johnson and wrote asking him if he could help us with the cadigan-hunt. He replied exceedingly promptly:

I believe that my first encounter with the term came in reading Willard R. Espy's An Almanac of Words at Play, Clarkson Potter, publ. 1979. I shall have to resort to my basement "stacks" in order to pull the book up to provide added detail, but I have seen in other publications, too. I shall write again when I have found some more examples of writers who have used the term.

Sir William S. Gilbert provides a nice group of exemplars, although he surely did not call them kadigans, in the last verse of the "Little List" song in The Mikado, viz: "...And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind, such as, whatchamaycallem, thingamebob, and likewise...well, never mind, And tut-tut-tut and what's-his-name, and also you-know-who...."

So we have a most obliging helper, a pointer to Espy (I don't have a copy; does anyone here?), a promise of citations, and a reference to The Mikado. Isn't life grand? --Kay Dekker 02:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More kadiganerie from our helpful Mr Johnson! Googling for kadigan AND Espy retrieves another ballet discussion, this time from November 2004, in which kadigans in ballet terminology and the reality of the term itself are discussed: What's its proper name?

I wonder whether Espy (1979) got 'cadigan' from Read (1975) or elsewhere? Johnson consistently uses the k-form, but Read uses the c-form. It really does feel that the game's now afoot, doesn't it? --Kay Dekker 02:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is good news. Next time I am at one of the libraries I will see if they have the Espy book to hand. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The local public library didn't have Espy's book to hand; I have it on interlibrary loan. I went ahead and added Espy as a reference, though; I did find yet another prited source: Flexner and Wentworth's Dictionary of American Slang contains kadigin and defines it as a synonym for thingamajig. I added that as a reference also. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re kadigin: Googling retrieved this: http://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=77868_2_1

Now if we can find someone who can do Russian to tell us what we're looking at there - and it certainly does seem to be our beast (kadigin-thingamajig; kajody; rinctum) then that may help even more. It ramifies, does it not? --Kay Dekker 01:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing interesting, really - it's a page from a Russian-English dictionary translating a word, which means, among other things, device. So the following translations are included, marked as slang: kadigin-thingamajig; kajody; rinctum.

More goodness! Googling for kajody retrieves http://www.deathstar.org/~krlipka/ps/things/thoughts/cant.html and cites Justice Inc. Sourcebook (Role-playing detectives and superheroes in the 1920's and 1930's) as the source for the word. Could kajody (= 'thingamajig') be related to kadigan? Rinctum is apparently slang for the anus/rectum, which might be referred to coyly as a thingamajig... or am I rushing ahead? --Kay Dekker 01:54, 13 January 2005 (UTC)

Smurf language's central feature

The Smurf language is famous for its all-purpose term smurf, which has no fixed meaning, and can serve in most of the grammatical places in a sentence, often multiple times in the same sentence.

I'm not sure whether this merits mention in the article itself, or whether smurf as a term or just one of the definitions of smurf is a cadigan in the Smurf language, but perhaps it is worth mentioning on the discussion page.

+sj + 09:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be in the article, under fictitious placeholder?Paul Dehaye 05:11, 17 April 2005 (UTC)

Number cadigans

Several particular numbers -- 17 chief among them -- occupy a kadigan-like status, especially among programmers. I speak from personal experience, but I also recall seeing a website that discussed the matter. The post hoc reasoning is that 17 is the smallest prime number not otherwise "interesting". Of course, any number that is a multiple of any other inherits some of its mana. But 17 has none:

• Each single-digit number is fraught with symbolism any way you look at it.
• 11 is two identical digits in a row (the first such occurance)
• 13 is a baker's dozen (and in some cultures "bad" luck)

-- but 17 has no special meaning. It's often used in a sense way outside any actual number of items, as in: "Okay, it works for 1 (simultaneous) user; it works for 2 users; it works for 3 users. Will it work for 17 users?"

I've also heard 123 used when referring in a kadigan-like manner to a generic 3-digit number, as: "So, I chased that order halfway across town, but when I got there, Cab number 123 had already picked them up."

These usages meet the test for kadigans in that they refer to something unknown in a specific way. Contrast: "I wouldn't go there in a thousand years" or "It's 50 yards from the corner." The user of 17 (in this sense) is not making an approximation of a measure that is really 16 or 15 or 10 or 20; indeed, the number is chosen in opposition to "round" numbers.

I cannot find a source quickly; 17 is a fairly small number and appears in absolutely every context. I can't think how to narrow the search. — Xiong (talk) 04:27, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

In the Arabian Nights, the numbers 1001 (nights) and 40 (thieves) seem to be cadigan numbers for "many".--Niels Ø 06:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Both numbers seem chosen with the opposite intent of 17 -- for maximum, rather than minimum psychological impact. A thousand and one is, to a simple man, just one more than the largest possible number; and to one who fears even 1 or 2 thieves, 40 is terrifying. (I'd like to see if there are any other instances of 40 in Arab folklore; I own a book on the subject but I don't have it with me.)

Isn't it the case that in the Bible that Jesus' "40 days and 40 nights" in the wild are a similar case, being derived from the hebrew word meaning both "40" and "many"? Would it therefore qualify 40 as a number kadigan?

81.178.123.156 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm agreeing with you; as you say, both numbers are chosen to convey the idea of "many". I think 17, and kadigans in general, are more neutral. But then, there are certainly derogatory kadigans, so why not superlative ones?

Does anybody know the answer, or are we making history here? — Xiong (talk) 14:48, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I tend to use "eleventy-three" in my own speech as an unspecified placeholder number. Google seems to confirm that "eleventy"-something is fairly widespread. ([2]) -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eleventy is a good example; it's clearly not any specific number. Here's some usage of "eleventeen" apart from the name of a pop music group: [3], [4] — Xiong (talk) 01:12, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

JRR Tolkein in "Lord of the Rings" [published 1954] used Bilbo Baggins' eleventy-first birthday celebrations to get the story moving. This seems to have been intended as a specific actual number (111), though jocular/fictional in style - Paul 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall learning in french that's there's a particular number that is used this way, particularly to mean "more than I'd like". 37 (trente-sept) comes to mind ("I have to fill out 37 forms", "there were 37 people in line ahead of me"), but I'm having a hard time looking it up. Can anyone confirm?

BFE

Is BFE really mainly a Midwest thing? I've lived in Florida most of my life and everyone knows and uses the term. Granted, they probably have more use for it in the Midwest, but... ;-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:25, 16 March 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish, anybody?

Does Loch really mean hole in Yiddish? I know it does in German, but Hebrew slang is more likely to be derived from Yiddish. - Lev 21:24, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

Linked from tool

If you follow the link on "tool" to "cadigans", you will see that the two entries are not quite in contradiction, but that there is confusion Paul Dehaye 05:32, 17 April 2005 (UTC)

Dutch

Huppelepup or huppelepup is also used as a placeholder name. The English equivalent is 'whatsitsname". 212.123.160.11 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish

I doubt some of the Spanish items:

• Quidam seems too erudite to be in actual use.
• Tapas has a specific meaning. I removed it.
• I'd say that no-sé-qué is the most used but Cómo-se-llama and Que-te-dije seem to me too English-like.

Cómo-se-llame or Lo-qué-sea are actually used placeholders in Spain's spanish.

And what about "vaina?" My Venezuelan grandfather says it.

Vaina is also used extensively in the Dominican Republic. They also use Fulano de Tal there for people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.104.5.2 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carajo is also used in Spain's spanish. Is a Galician rude word for penis.--85.61.25.129 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabic

For Arabic, I'm sure this is in use, but whether or not it is a Kadigan I'm not certain. Bani Adam بني ادم (singular: Son of adam). Obvious variations I would include if this was a kadigan (feminine, plural forms, etc...). It is used to refer to anonymous unnamed people-ostensibly everyone is a decendent of Adam- does that qualify it as a kadigan? Angrynight 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Placenames

FROM ARTICLE: *Wop-wop(s) in Australia and New Zealand

I have never heard of Wop Wop (in Australia). It is Woop Woop.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa01 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As a form of address

Does this sense of "placeholder" include forms used in the second person? Like "mac", "missus", "skipper" (last two common in Newfoundland), etc. SigPig 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

John Henry

Would 'John Henry' (used to refer to a signature, as in, "sign your John Henry here") be a placeholder name?--Anchoress 07:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The usual expression is John Hancock, and it isn't a placeholder -- just a colloquial expression for "signature". --FOo 09:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool!--Anchoress 10:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kadigan's limited geographic scope

The term "kadigan" is an Americanism entirely unknown in the United Kingdom and I suspect little known elsewhere either. This being so, should this article really make extensive use of it, given the subject is not an entirely US based concept? Shouldn't the headings be "Placeholder names in ..." rather than "Kadigans in ..."? David | Talk 08:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree; I think it's mostly left over from a time when the article was named Kadigan or Cadigan. So go ahead...--Niels Ø 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lieschen Müller

Lieschen Müller is a widely used placeholder name in German for a person with no or little technical skills. Another upcoming placeholder name for this especially in the IT sector is Otto Normaluser (derived from Otto Normalverbraucher). It you like you can add it to the section of German placeholder names.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.121.27 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

About 3/4 of the "Metasyntactic variable" article actually belongs to "Placeholder name". `'mikka (t) 05:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Metasyntactic variable is specific to technical situations, while Placeholder name is a generic term for a variety of things ("cadigans"), which includes Metasyntactic variables as well as other stuff. Merging Metasyntactic variable into Placeholder name would either require a very large article (with a lot of terms specific to programmers) or require that a lot of the information in Metasyntactic variable to be removed. So, not especially needed. Example - foo vs. thingamajig. You would never use "foo" outside of a programming context, and you'd rarely, if ever, use "thingamajig" in a programming explanation. Most of the stuff in Metasyntactic variable is programmer-specific, like foo, or otherwise especially technical. ~ zachol 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't support a merge, but I don't believe a metasyntactic variable is intrinsicly technical in nature. We use them all the time. I think what needs to happen is to create a clear distinction between the two and keep the correct content in the correct article. The way I understand it, a metasyntactic variable is usually a hypothetical name used in example situations and don't refer to real instances of things. On the other hand, cadigans refer to real things, but are used when the exact/specific/technical name is not known or doesn't matter. Is this how the rest of you understand it?

Example: "Salesman John Doe goes to Anytown USA to sell his Acme product." is an example of metasyntactic variables

whereas: "I got the thingamabob stuck in the whatchamacallit. Can you get what’s-his-name to come look at it?" is an example of cadigans.

I'm not sure where the term "Placeholder name" would come in. Cadigans are placeholder names, but can placeholder names be anything else, or not? Is "placeholder name" perhaps an umbrella term for both metasyntactic varibles and cadigans??? What do you think? 4.252.4.197 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - Kurt

Merge from John Doe

The 'John and Jane Doe' article seems to be a placeholder for an article that should be named 'Placeholder names for people', the eponymous American names being one such of these. I propose a merger into this article of the bulk of content in the John Doe article that is not directly relating to the title. Either that, or else to rename the John Doe article as mentioned above. At present though, things are unsatisfactory. Thoughts ? Discuss.--jrleighton 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• No opinion. However, if you do merge John and Jane Doe, you should also merge Joe Bloggs and John Q. Public and any similar names. 129.98.212.164 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge part, per suggestion. There are a large number of articles for the specific placeholder names (see Category:collective pseudonyms). So merge the international part only (with a very obvious link) and leave John and Jane Doe to be specifically about those names. For size, might need to create Placeholder names for people or Collective pseudonyms as a daughter article to "Placeholder name". JackyR | Talk 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge section, but leave articles seperate. ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese

"Onde o Diabo perdeu as botas"??? That's so un-christian... Given the religiousness of Brasil, this is hardly ever used (I never heard it)... I ussually hear to places things such as "onde Judas perdeu as botas" (where Judas lost his boots), "onde Judas perdeu as meias" (where Judas lost his sockings, after where he lost his boots) and Caixa-prego (Box-nail, 'Nail box' or 'Nails box' would be 'Caixa de prego'/'Caixa de pregos', it really is miswritten like this) or even Vila Papel (Paper Village/Paperville), Vila Lobó (dunno what Lobó means)... 200.230.213.152 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Section:Placeholder names as a form of address - Gender, Race, etc.

In the section Placeholder names as a form of address, we include terms which specifically designate a member to be of a particular gender. It seems that listing other group memberships would be consistent with such usage. The first two types of groups I can think of are race and religion. Is addressing someone as "brother" any different from addressing someone as "nigga"? It seems to make sense to refer to placeholder names for such, however, then we end up with the conundrum of discussing when who says what, what is often implied or inferred, as well as in what registers/dialects the terms would be used (although that has been consistently done well throughout the article). samwaltz 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to expand the usages based on dictionary cites. Brother, for example, can be used as a form of address:

• between two black men (often with the possessive "my");
• to a member of a religious community of monks
• to a fellow member of a particular organization with a fraternal philosophy, such as Freemasonry or a labour union
• to a fellow member of a congregation of particular Protestant denominations (often pluralized brethren)
• to another male in general, akin to buddy or pal: "Brother, can you spare a dime?"

Note that these are all addressed to males; one does not generally call a woman "brother". An exception might be "brethren": I think in the sense mentioned it is deemed to include women in the congregation (altho' some seem to use "brethren and sistren").

"Brother" differs substantially from "nigga" in that: 1. brother is not race-specific; it's use in English as a form of address goes back to the 17th century; and 2. when used by a white person it's normally perceived as a racist epithet.

This info needs to be there, or it's just a listcruft; I think it worth noting when/where/by whom/to whom it is used, else it's just a list of words. One needs to know what exactly the placeholder is holding the place of, and why. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I think I totally begged the question there. I think where a term is not universal (like "friend"), it should be listed if it is restricted by sex ("brother" vs "sister"), race ("nigga"), age ("skipper" vs "son"), deference ("sir", "boss"), etc. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cites

There's a dearth of cites; I'm going to (over the next few geological epochs) try and cute the English kadigans from dictionaries. Those I cannot find a ref to, I'll add the {{Fact}} tag. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 15:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations

What's the purpose of the section on abbreviations? Is it misplaced? It doesn't seem to fit the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Germany - Cologne

I quote: "In Cologne, Otto (which can also refer to a gadget) and Gerdi are popular used names for men/boys and women/girls with unknown firstname." Where does this information come from? I'm from Cologne and I've never encountered this usage. And I'm especially surprised about the female name "Gerdi" which I have never heard of. It might well be the case that some people do use these names in the way mentioned but I would argue that it cannot be very common. Or I would have heard of it at least once or twice.--AoSpades 10:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Colloquial number placeholders

Anybody got references for these common terms?

• arseload
• British assload
• butt-ton
• shit-ton
• fuckton
• metric fuckton

JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say delete the lot of them - and a lot more of the content on this page while we're at it. WP:NOT#DICT. Snalwibma (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MERGE proposal — mergewith "placeholder" article

The "placeholder" article is currently substandard, but has a title of more general application than the "placeholder name" article. Should the contents of "placeholder name" therefore be merged into "placeholder"? 203.198.237.30 03:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• support should be merged asap, all data here is duplicated there, a much better place. Abtract (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  Not all content is duplicated yet, that's why I reverted the redirect, and added the merge tags. – None of the content from the second paragraph at Placeholder appears here yet, nor do most of the See also links. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Merge the content here first, then possibly rename/move this page later on (so that the edit history remains attached to the original location). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support the merge, to end up with an improved article at placeholder. And tidy up what is presently at placeholder name - there's quite a lot of junk there. Snalwibma (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Against merging: The disambiguation page is justifiable; this article is only about the placeholder name, if you merge the disambiguation into it, (1) the title of this article won't be accurate any longer and (2) a reader possibly doesn't find the other meanings or doesn't find them that easy as he/she does now. --Carbenium (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian

Actually, the stem 'byb' in a given example of a placeholder Lithuanian location name (Kalabybiškis) has nothing to do with the scientific Lithuanian name for penis, which is 'varpa'. The root word of this stem, 'bybis' or 'bybys' is profane and should be translated as 'dick' or 'cock'. I tried to fix this, but my edit was reverted. Anyway, this placeholder name is not used often (as the article suggests) and, obviously, is never used formally, so I doubt it should belong to this article at all. 79.132.163.146 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, this word is more used in meaning "backward or remote area", rather as ordinary placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.213.118 (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Are Arabic Fulan and Hebrew Ploni cognates?

does anyone know if Fulan from the Arabic is a cognate of Ploni from the Hebrew? in Hebrew f and p are the same letter and the two languages are very similar. Perhaps Fulan comes from Ploni, a term that was used at least back in Mishnaic times to indicate placeholder name. Valley2city 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's merge this with placeholder name. It sounds like the edible and comprehendible thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hambonez (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese

An alternative Japanese cadigan is nantoka (insert hiragana here), as in the swimmer Piitaa ban den nantoka-nantoka-bando. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 September 2005

Isn't there also a honyarara? I saw it on an NHK quiz show, for the blank in a sentence. I consider NHK to be canonical. I assume it would be written ほんやらら. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.199.178 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Other languages section split to separate article

The "placeholder names in other languages" section was consuming almost 70% of the article's content, so I moved it to a separate article. JIP | Talk 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys aren't necessarily male

In the mid-western US, the terms "you guys", "those guys", etc. does not immediately indicate that the group being referred to is all men. It's a collective that can be used to refer to any group of people. Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope of terms as defined in opening paragraph

The opening paragraph defines the term (and thus the scope) of the article as follows:

Placeholder names are words that can refer to objects or people whose names are either temporarily forgotten, irrelevant or unknown in the context in which it is being discussed.

So, this page should contain terms that are used when the real name is forgotten, unimportant, or unknown. IMO this does not include terms where the real name IS known but the speaker is being evasive. Therefore such terms as "up the chimney" or "went to hell in a hack" are not placeholder names -- just sardonic retorts. I suggest they be removed. (I'd remove them myself, but I got reverted, so I guess this really seemingly obvious point needs to be hashed out here.) - 174.46.204.210 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Section for things

There's no section for placeholders referring to things such as thingamajig and whatchamacallit - they are mentioned in two different prefatory remarks, attesting to their ICONIC status, but they don't have their own section.

Netrapt (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, money. A "dollar-three-eighty" and other nonsense constructions are used for indeterminate values. 72.177.123.145 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Eric

Distinction in use

Shouldn't there be more distinction drawn between words used to refer to specific antecedants (like thingy, whatsit, dude, etc.) and words used as hypothetical examples of something, but with no particular antecedant in mind, (e.g. a metasyntactic variable), like foobar [programming], Vic [police], John Doe, 555-1234, 123 Main St., Anytown, etc? 65.0.212.213 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Doohickey

Doohickey is used similar to thingamajig and was in the article a year ago. Not sure where would be best to fit it in. Just noting it's abscence. 124.169.210.244 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

I've noticed a few placeholder names that are missing that may be added. Some for people include "tough guy" (specifically used to address someone familiar) and "whats-his-bucket" (or "whats-her-bucket," for a female). One for an unknown object is "whatchamacallit." Zeke64 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Zeke64

Picked from the net

File:Medium mock driver license.jpg

May be intresting. --Itu (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicknack

Nicknack redirects to this page, but only occurs on the page in the redirection notification (with a link out to the James Bond character). Since the implication is that the page is somehow relevant to the term, perhaps it should be included in whichever is the relevant list? 109.156.42.4 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed section about Hon.

I removed the entire section about Hon. There are no sources, or references for it. It read like a personal essay. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Elbonia etc.

Elbonia is, I believe, restricted to the comic strip "Dilbert" and not widely used as a placeholder. Anyway, the number of names which have been coined in fiction or otherwise and are widely recognized is huge. Utopia, Erewhon and Lilliput through Mu, Atlantis and Oz, and beyond. See Fictional country. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't like to get into edit wars, particularly when don't have any strong opinion on a subject, but (1) Is "curse-word-stan" all that common? And the real -Stans are not Middle Eastern, but Central Asian (and South Asian). (2) Once again, the list of place names for exotic locales is nearly endless: Xanadu, Shangli-La, El Dorado, Ultima Thule, Avalon, ... TomS TDotO (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Canuckistan" (sometimes qualified with the adjective "Soviet") is fairly common, "Londonistan" less so though it has a certainly popularity with fruitbats like Melanie Phillips. I am perplexed by the absence of the wonderful word "wossname" from the article, though. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is mention of "what's-his-name". Is it worth mentioning variations like "whatsitsname" and "wossname"? As far as I understand, "Canuckistan" and "Londonistan" are meant as insults to a particular, real place, not as a placeholder. Sort of like "People's Republic of (city that you don't like)". TomS TDotO (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

je ne sais quoi

Is je ne sais quoi really used as a placeholder? I understand it to mean a quality that by its nature cannot be described, rather than an unknown. —Tamfang (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)