Talk:Placeholder name

troll

in the computing section, a the word troll is used to imply someone who knows little about computing or the hacker lifestyle. Troll has come to mean someone being purposefully ignorant or inflammatory for amusement. Furthermore, the citation used never mentions 'troll' at all, and, elsewhere in the document (the Jargon File), the more modern definition of trolls as internet jerks appears. I intend to change the phrasing to "J. Random Luser"; a somewhat antiquated but far more accurate portmanteau of "Loser" and "User".

Merge proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Everything worked out OK? A bunch of articles were merged into List of names used as placeholders in English and others weren't. This seems to have been generally accepted. Editors who want more merging or re-spinning-off can start a fresh discussion on the appropriate talk page. Editors concerned about original research can either trim out problem areas or nominate the new list for deletion. Be awesome to each other. Beland (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

---

A proposal to merge John Q. Public into Placeholder name was initiated in April by Special:Contributions/99.238.8.103: the former is one of many examples of the latter. Each article is very short on its own, but contains information that belongs in the other, to the point both articles would become redundant. I'm inclined to agree, and I'm opening this to facilitate discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Support also merge John Doe into it too WikiPro10 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Support merging John Doe into it Support merging into Draft:List of English placeholder names (see more below) and leaving Placeholder name intact because it's not only about names for people. I added a notice at the top of their articles to notify them. Pinging main contributors: @Materialscientist, Serols, KNHaw, Stephan Leeds, and Altenmann: FaviFake (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Support merging John Q. Public, Joe Bloggs, A. N. Other, and Joe Shmoe into John Doe. Note that most of my edits on John Doe were simple vandal reverts, so I don't have all that strong an opinion. Nonetheless, a merge of this type seems to make sense to me. KNHaw ^(talk) 04:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Support and also merge Joe Bloggs and A. N. Other into this some article. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Support merging both of these too. FaviFake (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I now looked at List of placeholder names, and I'm not sure anymore what's the best option. Placeholder name should be about the subject in general, not about placeholder names in English. Most of the articles that have been proposed to merge contain useful information. If we copy all of that into Placeholder name, this article might become bloated and too focused on English placeholder names. Maybe we should merge them into List of placeholder names#English instead? Or if that section would grow too long, maybe create a new article List of English placeholder names? — Chrisahn (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, that's true. I think the easiest solution would be to merge everything into John Doe and leave Placeholder name alone. all of these are exclusive to English and John Doe Is the most common one, so I think it's a good catch-all article. FaviFake (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe Joe Shmoe as well? — Chrisahn (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Definitely that too, it's incredibly short FaviFake (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• support merging all johns does into John Doe, assuming it is the most common one. --Altenmann >talk 15:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest to comb Category:Anonymity pseudonyms for other merge candidates. (and I am tempted to nominate this cat for deletion. What do you think?) --Altenmann >talk 15:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you find any other similar articles that can easily be merged into John Doe feel free to mention them in this discussion! The more the merrier. FaviFake (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• I would like to make a slightly alternative proposal to merge John Q. Public and John Doe into a new John (placeholder name) article, and to merge Joe Bloggs, Joe Shmoe, and Joe's Diner (placeholder name) into a new Joe (placeholder name) article, also including reference to the historical (pre cartoon/toy) usage of "G.I. Joe". BD2412 T 23:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • This leaves out the miserable A. N. Other. Care to explain the advantages of your proposal? (bearing in mind that nearly all mentioned pages must be trimmed of OR and trivia) --Altenmann >talk 01:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    • I think it is interesting that the names the English-speaking world appears to have settled on for placeholder combinations are John and Joe for men and, alliteratively, Jane for women. There are, I suppose, also some Bob variations out there. A. N. Other is just a pun, by comparison. By the way, I would not make John Doe the merge target, due to its peculiar association with unidentified dead bodies. BD2412 T 01:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: We haven't found a really good merge target yet...
  • This article (placeholder name) is about the general concept and would get bloated with all these particular English names.
  • Merging all these other names into John Doe feels a bit off, since users won't expect to find them under that page title.
  • Creating separate pages for "John" and "Joe" also doesn't seem quite right, since all these names are so similar, and the two articles would probably have a lot of redundancy.
  • So far, a list article seems to be the best option. Either List of placeholder names#English or (if that gets too large) something like List of English placeholder names.

  — Chrisahn (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  • I would also note that all of the placeholder names we are talking about here are placeholders for people, rather than places or things. Human placeholder names? Placeholder human names? Placeholder names for people? Specify "English"? BD2412 T 01:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think that list is the best option; most sections are just 1 or 2 paragraphs, while the army of english placeholder names spans even multiple sections. I still stand by merging everything into John Doe. FaviFake (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

    I agree that List of placeholder names would get overwhelmed by all these English names. My main gripe with moving everything into John Doe is that the title of that page would become misleading. The article wouldn't be about the name John Doe, it would be about many placeholder names that are only loosely related. In other words, it would be a list of English placeholder names. Not a particularly pretty title, but precise and correct. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@FaviFake, Thebiguglyalien, KNHaw, and Chrisahn: Please consider the alternative proposal for a new title; John Doe as a target is inappropriate due to its substantial association with unidentified dead bodies. BD2412 T 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You've decided on your own that John Doe is inappropriate. I already told you I disagree with you. Please stop pinging me for no reason. FaviFake (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The association with corpses makes it potentially offensive as a redirect target for placeholder names that are not associated with corpses. An alternative would be to break out a separate article for John Doe (unidentified body).

See John J. Miletich, Investigation: An Introduction (2003), p. 92: JOHN DOE / JANE DOE A dead body that cannot be identified is designated as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe," depending on the sex. BD2412 T 18:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You've decided on your own that John Doe is inappropriate. I already told you I disagree with you. Please stop pinging me for no reason. Kindly see WP:BLUD. FaviFake (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have only pinged you once. If for some reason you are receiving multiple pings, then you are having a technical issue that is outside my control. BD2412 T 18:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking you to stop replying to me trying to convince me of something after I've told you multiple times I disagree with you. FaviFake (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am allowed to respond to arguments with counterarguments and evidence (which, quite frankly, it does not seem that anyone else in this discussion has presented). BD2412 T 18:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I didn't put forth any arguments. And your comment didn't include evidence while I was replying to it. FaviFake (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It does now. BD2412 T 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. FaviFake (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: Yes, there is an association with dead bodies, and it's mentioned in the lead of John Doe, but the rest of the article is mostly about court cases etc. I don't think the association is so strong that it could be considered offensive to move names into that article that are not associated with dead bodies. Also, WP:Wikipedia is not censored and WP:Content disclaimer might apply, at least in some sense. In a nutshell: I don't find the "dead bodies" argument convincing. (But for other reasons, I also think "John Doe" isn't the best merge target.) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

For context, I have created Draft:List of English placeholder names, so editors can see how this would look. The draft includes both placeholder names for people and for locations. Placeholder names for objects or specific items could also conceivably be added. BD2412 T 19:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Great work! Looks good. Another merge source might be Tom, Dick and Harry. Maybe I'll have time to add it to the draft in the next few days, but if someone else does it, I don't mind. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The next step would be to clean the draft from original research. I started with "J. Random Hacker", but I see some others deserve some beating as well. --Altenmann >talk 22:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

<Ugh...> It looks like that thee whole page "Placeholder name" is one great big bad original research, strting frm the very first sentences. And after some search in the internets, I am beginning to be afraid that it would be just as big case of citogenesis cum unwitting plagiarism.--Altenmann >talk 22:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks ok, but there are a few things I'd change:

Collapsed on 09:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC) as I updated the list below

First of all, I don't think we should have two sections in two articles for the same thing:

• Draft:List of English placeholder names § Places
• Placeholder name § Geographical locations

In this case, I think we should merge all the placeholder geographical places below into Placeholder name § Geographical locations and thus remove the entire "Places" section from the draft:

• Joe's Diner (placeholder name)
• Blackacre
• Jock Tamson's bairns (added by me)

Then, we now have 3 different lists of placholder names for people:

• Draft:List of English placeholder names § People (new)
• Placeholder name § People
• List of terms referring to an average person § United Kingdom and List of terms referring to an average person § United States

In this case, we should definitely delete the second section in my list because it's very redundant, and probably also the third sections and point all of them to our new draft.
Then there's the problem of Placeholder name § Military. For these, i think we should move all of them to our new draft and remove the #Military section from Placeholder name. In addition, I think we should merge these into our new draft, possibly under a "MIlitary" section:

• G.I.
• Tommy Atkins

I would also like there to be a clear list of the articles that we want to merge into Draft:List of English placeholder names, the articles we want to mention but not merge, and the articles that aren't included. These are all the articles mentioned in this topic and in the new draft:

• (the previous 3 geographic locations and 2 military names)
• John Doe
• John Q. Public
• Joe Bloggs
• A. N. Other
• Joe Shmoe
• Tom, Dick and Harry
• J. Random Hacker
• Uncle Tom Cobley
• T.C. Mits (added by me)
• Alice and Bob (added by me)

Is this everything?

FaviFake (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

You missed List of placeholder names, which is currently up for AfD. This should probably be moved to List of placeholder names by language, as that is what it actually is. Rublamb (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Initially I would've agreed with you, but I think that article is too small to welcome so many English ones. The english ones would take up half or two thirds of List of placeholder names. FaviFake (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I totally agreed and am not suggesting that these collected article be merged into List of placeholder names. I was simply noting that this was another related article. Rublamb (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh right sorry! I misread your reply. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose a merge per WP:No original research and failing WP:NLIST. 1) There are no sources defining the term "placeholder name". For this reason any merge to this article or a "list of placeholder names"/"list of English plaholder names" is WP:OR. 2) These names are not discussed in sources as a group/set so the topic area fails WP:NLIST. Also oppose merging to John Doe which is specifically associated with dead bodies, or to any other article because these are loosely associated names used as placeholders which are not discussed as a set. 4meter4 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per 4meter4. Don't get carried away, placeholders are everywhere, that doesn't mean they all belong in the same article. -- GreenC 02:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Removed merge proposal for Tom, Dick and Harry Special:Diff/1304898285/1305102789. This needs it's own separate merge proposal not just informally thrown into the lot mid-stream in some mega merge discussion where it can't get be properly discussed. This phrase is quite old and has its own histories etc.. it is not merely an example of a placeholder, it has its own cultural aspects. -- GreenC 02:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Merging these terms into John Doe is not necessarily a good fit, given that each phrase has a different history and (slightly) different meaning. The shorter articles could be merged into Placeholde name, List of placeholder names, or Draft:List of names used as placeholders in English, but the former two need to pass an AfD and the latter lacks the sources to prove notability for a stand-alone list at this time. For now, the best solution is to leave these all as separate articles but to work on improving sources, etc. Rublamb (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: Several of the mentioned articles have lots of information. If those articles would be merged, the article Placeholder name would in itself become a placeholder for all those names/expressions that the merge is about. Besides, the different placeholder names have different history and usage – the differences being bigger than the similarities. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per 4meter4's argument:Rochambeau1783 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: since the above discussion is obviously not leading to a consensus to merge content either to this article or to John Doe, I have boldly moved the draft to mainspace at List of names used as placeholders in English, and have merged in the stubbiest separate articles while leaving more substantial ones like John Doe, Tom, Dick and Harry, and Uncle Tom Cobley intact. BD2412 T 18:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  This was the right move, no consensus is coming out of this mess. I've also boldly implemented my suggestion above to merge the 3 placeholders in the section List of English placeholder names § Places into Placeholder name § Geographical locations and #Legal and #Corporations, since nodoby objected and it didn't receive much attention. We shouldn't have two sections in two articles for the same thing.

  List of English placeholder names is now only about proper names of people, while Placeholder name is for everything except proper names of people. Doesn't seem like a terrible outcome. I've also merged the small article J. Random Hacker into List of English placeholder names and moved it from Placeholder name, since it's too small. FaviFake (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  • @FaviFake: I see that you removed the place named from the list, but those appear to have disappeared completely. I am restoring them until there is actually another place to which those redirects can point. Also, I see no consensus (or discussion, really) with respect to Blackacre, and would object to merging the existing page anywhere. BD2412 T 00:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

    @BD2412 Yes! Sorry! I actually just forgot to hit publish... Done now.

    About Blackacre: I was unclear in my message, sorry. What I meant to say was: I moved the summary that was already on the draft into Placeholder name. I left the Blackacre article alone, and the only page I actually merged is J. Random Hacker into List of English placeholder names. I didn't modify other pages. I agree Blackacre is way too large for a bold merge. I've seen you've reverted your revert now that the situation has been sorted out. thanks! FaviFake (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

To recap

I revisited my earlier comment to recap the current status of this merger.

Legend:
 Done means it's fully merged into List of English placeholder names (a.k.a. "draft)
Partly done means it's mentioned in the draft, but the article is still standing.
 Not done means it's not mentioned in the draft and hasn't been merged anywhere.

---

We now have 4 different lists of English placeholder names for people:

•  Done Draft: List of English placeholder names
•  Section merged to draft and removed Placeholder name § People
•  Not done List of terms referring to an average person § United Kingdom and #United States directly below it
•  Not done List of placeholder names § English

In this case, I deleted the second section the above list, but probably the third and fourth sections should al be merged into the draft.

---

 Done We shouldn't have two sections in two articles for the same thing: List of English placeholder names § Places and Placeholder name § Geographical locations:

•  Merged and redirected to Placeholder name Joe's Diner (placeholder name)
• Geographical: Not merged, mentioned in Placeholder name Blackacre
• Geographical: Not merged, mentioned in Placeholder name Jock Tamson's bairns (added by me)
• Geographical: Not merged, mentioned in Placeholder name Podunk

---

 Removed section as unsourced Then there's Placeholder name § Military. They have been moved to the draft and the #Military section was removed from Placeholder name.

---

I would also like there to be a clear list of the articles that we are considering for a merger and articles that re related to placeholder names. This is the most comprehensive list i could create:

• Not merged, mentioned in draft John Doe
•  Merged to draft John Q. Public
•  Merged to draft Joe Bloggs
•  Merged to draft A. N. Other
•  Merged to draft Joe Shmoe
• Not merged, mentioned in draft Tom, Dick and Harry
•  Merged everything to draft J. Random Hacker
• Not merged, mentioned in draft Uncle Tom Cobley
• Not merged, mentioned in draft G.I.
• Not merged, mentioned in draft Tommy Atkins
• Not merged, mentioned in draft Alice and Bob
•  Merged to draft Nomen nescio
•  Not done Jock Tamson's bairns
•  Not done Rudolf Lingens (specifically called a placeholder name in the article)
•  Not done Hudjefa, egyptian
• Not merged, mentioned in draft Alan Smithee, pseudonym

---

 Not done And these are the ones that refer more to an everyman instead of a placeholder:

• Not merged, mentioned in draft T.C. Mits (added by me)
• Average Joe
• Commoner
• Man on the Clapham omnibus
• Zé Povinho, everyman in portuguese

---

 Not done These are related to the law and are very long:

• Person having ordinary skill in the art
• Reasonable person
• A moron in a hurry
• However, this is very short and unreferenced: Fictitious defendants.

---

Other possible articles:

• Nonce word
• Placeholder word
• Fictional company
• Fictional brand
  • Independent Studio Services § Fictional brands
  • Marlboro § Morley
• Mohmil
• Category:Anonymity pseudonyms

Of course I don't think they should all be merged, I just needed to create a comprehensive list of all of them. Some are pseudonyms, some are too irrelevant. I boldly merged some of these. FaviFake (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merger of Oceanic Airlines into Placeholder name

Moved to Talk:Fictional company § Proposed merger — FaviFake (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Circular sources

@Rublamb: Many of the sources being added appear to based on our article. This is not good per WP:CIRCULAR. I suggest removing most of these for this reason.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with you assessment. I searched for key phrases and terms in the sources and did not find them in this article. Can you provide a specific example that you think was circular? Rublamb (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

See the AFD comments. The concept comes from Wikipedia. These writers took our invented neologism and wrote on it. Mental floss is notorious for doing this.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a neolgism from Wikipedia; the nom is in error. See source 1, a scholarly work published by Cambridge University Press. It includes an extensive study of placeholder names across more than 20 languages, mostly looking at expressions such as "that women" or "that man", much more general than what is portrayed in Wikipedia. I know the weaknesses in Mental Floss and also how to look for circular references. Not a single example in their list of ten placeholder names were included in either this or the main the article; thus, this is not an example of a circular citation. (Note that I did add some content from these sources to the article, so there is now more alignment.) Rublamb (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rublamb I did see it. The writer doesn't use the term "placeholder names" That topic is about "placeholders for names" ( ie "placeholders" that happen to be for names). It isn't about "placeholder names". There is a difference. I think you are missing the point that this a lexicology issue and the use of words in a novel way. Hence being a neologism. The fact that a few poor sources picked up on wikipedia's badly written article and repeated our made up turn of phrase does not justify an article. 4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The Cambridge University Press book does indeed use the term "placeholder name"; otherwise, I would not have used it as a source. I am looking to see what else I can find. Rublamb (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4: Rublamb is correct. The Cambridge book author specifically states in the article: "I will distinguish between placeholders such as thingamajiggy and placeholder names like John Doe, etc." BD2412 T 15:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

This term cannot have been "our invented neologism" if it was used as early as 1999, and yet here is: Hazell, Naedine Joy (October 24, 1999). "News From The Agitated Skies". Hartford Courant. pp. F2 – via newspapers.com. That was back when jetBlue was still floating on its placeholder name, New Air, and before Southwest came into the picture. BD2412 T 15:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Vague language

Oh GUYS! This is big! this is HUGE! Digging the internets I run into a completely missed vast linguistic subject, "Vague language" and I made an initial stab into it. And here I hit the mother lode! So I put my stake into "Placeholder word" and got some shovels of gold out of it. Now we have a rock-solid target for many things discussed above. I am so excited, I cannot neither read nor write. I invite everybody to join the dig, now that you know which words to look for. Unfortunately it does not resolve the issue of "placeholder name". At least not immediately. Apologies for shouting. It is my personal "Eureka!" moment. --Altenmann >talk 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have come around to the position that "Placeholder name" is compliant with Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title, which states: "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles". Clearly there is not a well-established alternative to describe the phenomenon of names that are placeholders, and we are not required to go to a less concise formulation than that. BD2412 T 23:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It still does not resolve the issue of lack of references to prove that the topic does exist. Unlike "Pontius Pilate's wife" or List of birds. But here is a catch-22: if the topic does exist, then most probbably it will be named ... placeholder name :-)--Altenmann >talk 23:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. In any case, after recent thorough weeding, the article does not look as suspicious as it was several days ago. --Altenmann >talk 23:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to prove that the phrase exists to prove that placeholders exist, and some placeholders are names. That is what the cited policy stands for. BD2412 T 00:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I say nothing about the phrase. You have to assert notability of a topic. Tall tree, historical account, forgotten town, dead fish, crazy doctor, short word, basic idea, silly joke, generous lawyer, retired policeman, high temperature, impossible feat,... They fit your reading of the policy. Trees exist some trees are tall. Lawyers exist. Some lawyers are generous, doctors exist, and some say psychiatrists become a tad crazy... --Altenmann >talk 01:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If all of the sources described the wife of Pontius Pilate with the phrase "wife of Pontius Pilate", would we be required to name our article that, instead of the more concise arrangement with identical meaning? BD2412 T 01:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend to read the about poem "Haddocks' Eyes" and stop confusing the subject and the name of the subject. It appears you do not see the distinction. I keep talking about subject and you chastise me about its name. I have nothing about descriptive name of a subject, provided you can prove that it exists and notable. It the past we had a huge number of AfDs about the ilk of List of songs about weather, List of songs about tequila, List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians and scores more. --Altenmann >talk 01:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If the subject was titled "Use of names as placeholders", what objection would you have left? BD2412 T 01:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

<sigh>no objection We are good at wikilawyering, aren't we?:-) Yes, this title does not look suspicious. And indeed we can readily find sources that are phrased thusly, e.g., "Often, plaintiff lawyers use these provisions to include so-called “John Doe” defendants as placeholders" or "'John Doe' and 'Richard Roe' were often used as placeholders in fictitious disputes". "'Larry Botts' merely functions <...> as a generic placeholder for the prototypical underprivileged African-American youth". I believe it was already mentioned somewhere here that sources indeed describe "Johd Doe" as "placeholder" and not as "placeholder name". So this title will kill the citogenesis already occurring in the internets. --Altenmann >talk 03:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I reject the validity of citogenesis concerns here. The articulation of a clearly existing real world phenomenon on Wikipedia does not foreclose anyone else from thereafter writing about it independently. For example, Timor-Leste recently became a country, so no one had ever previously written an examination of the rivers of Timor-Leste, because there was no such category of things. Nevertheless, we have List of rivers of Timor-Leste. BD2412 T 03:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem of citogenesis here is not that someone else writes, but with our way of sloppy referencing, when someone was ready to cite a comic writer as a reference. There is no way this comic did a linguistic research, just pinched from wikipedia or from someone else who ripped off wikipedia. Yes, there is a "clearly existing phenomenon" we already agreed upon it; but it does not have a name yet. As for "list of rivers", the issue is already covered in our regulations: to have a "list of Foos" it is sufficient to be sure that "Foos" is a researched subject. For comparison, the problem with the List of songs about tequila I mentioned above is not that nobody in RS compiled exactly such list, but because nobody researched songs about tequila. Now, you wrote "no one had ever previously written an examination of the rivers of Timor-Leste" - well, if it were so, then where did the numerous references found in the article come from? Such as " River Catchments and Marine Productivity in Timor Leste: Caraulun and Laclo Catchments; South and North Coasts – Final Report" --Altenmann >talk 04:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no sign, that this usage of "placeholder name", or this one, or this one, or this one, or this, despite their dates, draw at all from Wikipedia. If we agree that "placeholders" exist (which, apparently you do, because you yourself just wrote an article on Placeholder words), and we agree that some placeholders are names, then we do not need particularly high-level sources to justify merely listing placeholders that are names. BD2412 T 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

And I see no sign that the source you cited are scholar discussions of the term. These are just usage examples and you cannot base a wikipedia article solely on usage examples. What is more, our article discusses generic placeholder names, while the sources you cited apparently refer to ad hoc placeholder names, i.e., arbitrary temporary names to be replaced once the proper name is chosen. This usage matches the political meaning of the term "placeholder", a person who formally occupies a vacant position until the actual appointment is done. --Altenmann >talk 20:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S. in the above examples one may easily substitute the term "placeholder name" with "temporary name" without loss of meaning. And I can easily find scores of sources that use the term "temporary name" (What? No Wikipedia article??? Hold my beer...) --Altenmann >talk 20:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

There are two separate tracks of discussion being conflated here. There is the question of whether the phenomenon exists, and the separate question of what the title of an article on the phenomenon should be. There are sufficient sources cited using the phrase, "placeholder name" to describe these. This is no different than finding formal sources referring to a notable person as "William Schmidt", but finding sufficient mention in casual sources to title the article "Bill Schmidt". BD2412 T 21:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct. I have no objections to the article Draft:List of names used as placeholders in English or, to the point, Names used as placeholders, but I object to the vague statement "the phenomenon exists" in context of this discussion. In terms of Wikipedia, if a subject is not significantly covered in reliable sources then there can be no article. I already gave multitude of counter-examples to your logic, see the red links "Tall tree", etc. clother to tyhe beginning of this section. All of them exist, so what? I see the article lede was refbombed, but when the dust settles I am coming onto it. --Altenmann >talk 22:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That is very much an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. "Tall tree" could plausibly redirect to Tree height measurement or List of tallest trees or Tall Trees Productions. "Dead fish" could plausibly redirect to Fish kill. "Historical account", "Forgotten town", and "Crazy doctor" all have plausible uses as titles. The only question then becomes whether whatever they might point to would actually be better titled by that name. BD2412 T 23:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

And Placeholder name can be plausibly moved/redirected to Names used as placeholders. Yes, we redirect nonnotable subjects somewhere all the time, and it does not change the fact that dead fish is not a subject, not to say that fish kill is not the same as dead fish in my pond because my idiot neighbor uses too much fertilizer for her roses. --Altenmann >talk 23:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you withdraw the AfD and open an RM, then? BD2412 T 23:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. After you convince the nom, you may request a snowball close from an uninvolved admin. --Altenmann >talk 23:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Odegaard, Nancy; Crouse, Gerry Wagner (February 20, 2023). "A Visual Dictionary of Decorative and Domestic Arts". Rowman & Littlefield – via Google Books.: "It is not uncommon to forget or not know specific terms for parts. Placeholder names that come to mind during these times include thingy, thingamajig, thingamabob, doohickey, doodad, whatchamacallit, whatsit, gizmo, or widget. Although some placeholder names have been used for centuries, they seem to produce ongoing variations that remain in colloquial conversation". BD2412 T 01:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, in professional literature, as I finally figured out, these are called "placeholder words" since at least 1996, with lots of research in the past 20 years. I guess decorative designers read only Wikipedia :-) --Altenmann >talk 05:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Names are a usually a kind of word, yes? According to Webster's Dictionary, at least, a "name" is "word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing" or "a word or symbol used in logic to designate an entity". BD2412 T 14:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

haha. "thingamabob" is a "distinct designation", sure thing. You are just having fun in this chat, right? I am fine with finding The Truth in "placeholder word" and no longer care about the fate of this page here. After writing one really useful article nobody cares to expand, I am back to writing more of them obscure ones, such as Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos on Mikhalitsa or HaReut Museum, not to say about Yoqubov, Moshe Edri or Motiejūnas. Take care. --Altenmann >talk 17:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have provided a source, and have been providing sources. I have yet to see a source provided supporting the contrary. BD2412 T 18:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)