Talk:Lolita (disambiguation)

Personal names, etc.

The personal names do not belong on this disambiguation page. Per the MoS: People who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name. Lolita Lebrón was not frequently referred to as Lolita, and it's not even Amy Fisher's name. As for Gothic Lolita, the title is unambiguous; no one will type in or click on "Lolita" looking for that. It should be easy enough to find from the more general Lolita fashion article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK that's a reasonable argument on Lebrón, and I don't have any counter knowledge so agreed.

Long Island Lolita however is famous (its the name of a movie). I could easily see for someone searching for Fisher under that title. (Sort of like more people know "Batman" than "Bruce Wayne"). I've rewritten the link.

Finally on Lolita -> Gothic Lolita there I disagree. A Japanese person translating gosuri will think gothic first if loligoth then Lolita first. Worse if they think Kurololi then they end up with something like "black lolita". I'm adding some stuff to the page on this subject. Wikipedia's coverage is excellent. jbolden1517^Talk 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that disambig pages are not indices or directories, they are for redirecting readers when the same title can have multiple meanings. All of the Lolita fashion subpages should go; as the MoS says: Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). I think the main article "Lolita fashion" should be here; someone might type in "Lolita" looking for that. But if they were looking for the more specific articles like "Gothic Lolita", they would not only type "Lolita".

And no one is going to type in or click on "Lolita" looking for Amy Fisher. Typing in "Long Island Lolita" already redirects you to Fisher's article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are so insistent on making this issue. Anyway, you are thinking in English. Read my response above. Take Kurololi and explain how am I gonna get to the english "Gothic Lolita" from that? jbolden1517^Talk 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, we don't need to worry about entries if they are only ambiguous in other languages (and it doesn't seem particularly ambiguous anyway; "Lolita" only forms part of the titles in either language, and therefore they don't need to be listed here). "Kurololi" should redirect to whatever article is appropriate; if it itself is ambiguous then perhaps it should be a disambig page instead. And I'm not trying to make this an issue, I'm trying to get the page to conform to the manual of style. I do this at many dab pages; they need to be kept in style as much as any other pages. The bottom line is, this page should only list entries someone might expect to find if they typed in "Lolita". This isn't a search index for every page at Wikipedia that happens to have "Lolita" in the name. It fits the MoS guidelines pretty well now, I think it should be left alone.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary topic

Currently Nabokov's novel is located at Lolita. It is therefore currently the primary topic of that name, and is linked at the top per WP:MOSDAB. If anyone feels it should not be the primary topic, then suggest a move at WP:MOVE, but for now it goes at the top at Lolita (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Having the primary topic at the top is a recommendation, not a rule set on stone that must be followed always. Like in this case, "Lolita, diminutive of Lola and Dolores" should be first, since everything else is a derivative of that, including the novel (a story about a girl named Dolores and nicknamed Lolita". --FateClub 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Though the rule isn't set in stone, it reflects that a consensus has been achieved to follow it in most cases, and there should be a good reason if we are to go against it. In this case, I think the novel is pretty clearly the thing most people will be searching for when they type in "Lolita". At any rate, because the novel is where it is, users will not come to this disambig page by accident, but by clicking the link or typing in "Lolita disambiguation". So the novel should be listed at the top, away from the entries that are actually ambiguous. It shouldn't be different unless the novel is moved to another title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the rule isn't set in stone and that is to be followed in most cases and that "It shouldn't be different unless the novel is moved to another title" (in fact, I have been unconcerned, with the location or title of the article). What should be displayed at the topic is what "Lolita" is (not what most people think it is and are more likely to search), a name which (incidentally) was used as the name of a novel because the character in it has that name. And everything that has been named after "Lolita", including the novel, including the central character in the novel, and of course, including all those notable people who are named "Lolita". --FateClub 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation page is to distinguish articles that can have the same title. This is a disambiguation page (it even has (disambiguation) in the title), not an article on the name Lolita; its purpose is to direct readers to the articles they're searching for. Since most people will type in "Lolita" searching for the novel, they're not likely to come to this page by accident, so it needs to be at the top. If you want to create a page on the name go ahead, but it shouldn't be called "Lolita (disambiguation)". If you want this page moved to "Lolita", you know what to do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to create an article on the name Lolita, what I want to do is improve the Lolita (disambiguation) page. Now David points to the King, however the David (disambiguation) page does not say "David was a King of Israel", what is says is "David (name), a common given name in many languages". That is sort of like I would like this page to be. --FateClub 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that page is wrong too, as current consensus stands. If pages are going to have the format you're suggesting, then the MOS needs to deal with it. You should bring it up there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But then again, the MoS contains recommendations, not rules set on stone. So those pages may not necessarily be wrong. --FateClub 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the MoS should be followed in virtually any case. There are expections, but what you're proposing is not an exception but a different format entirely. If we are to use it extensivelly there needs to be consensus to do so, and the MoS would need to be changed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty active in WP:EL. And the rule we always tell people is that guidelines should not be used to harm the encyclopedia. They provide general rules but that consensus on pages takes precedence. Quality is generally held over consistency. I felt you were being overly strict and making this page less useful with the deletions of Amy Fisher and the Lolita fashion subsection. While I could care less about the Lolita name issue vs. Lolita book I don't see any reason not to let this page develop naturally. Most disambiguation pages never get much attention at all. A page that actually has several interested editors makes a unique test case for MoS issues. I think the article should develop and we see what works or doesn't. We might want to bring those ideas back to the MoS. Guidelines are not policies. They are meant to be "all things being equal". Policies are along the "unless you are absolutely certain..." jbolden1517^Talk 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to implement a non-standard format, please first explain why the non-standard format aids usability and establish that other editors agree it will be beneficial in this case. I've left a note at the MoS:D talk page requesting input from interested third parties; in the meantime the page should be formatted in accordance with exsting guidelines. --Muchness 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the Lola and Dolores references are down the page further than they might, I think the page works well as a dab page. Someone looking for any of the non-primary Lolita articles will be able to find it easily and, if they have some experience with enough close-to-standard dab pages, will know to skip the primary article at the top. Someone looking for the meaning/uses of the name could either click through the wiktionary link or check out Lola or Dolores. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and especially on dab pages - making it so lowers the effectiveness of the page for its encyclopedic work. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the points brought up by Muchness and Jwy. A style guideline is meant to be followed in most cases, unless there is a good reason not to. Disambig pages serve a particular purpose, and the changes away from the guideline do not aid them in their function.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The good reason is that on 3 separate issues the MoS is getting in the way of presenting information in the way that editors of the page feel is most informative to our readers. That's the reason. I think at this point being in compliance with the MoS is outweighed by the damage the MoS is doing to the format of the article. This article seems to want to develop in the direction of a "list of uses of Lolita" / "information about Lolita" article. In which case that's a healthy development and we should stop strangling it. Maybe this page shouldn't be a disambiguation page and 6 months from now it won't be (or it will have forked). We won't know what will happen if we keep reverting every development because a guideline is dictating content in a way that is harmful.

We had asked FateClub for a good justification and his David example was one. On wikipedia practice defines policy. Hunger (disambiguation) could use clean up, aeon (disambiguation) could use cleanup (just to pick two others I've done work on). Of all the disambiguation pages why are you focusing your attention on one where people are actually objecting to the MoS? Who do you believe is not finding the right article they were looking for because the first name and not the novel is listed first? jbolden1517^Talk 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hang on. We are all trying to make Wikipedia better. I purposesly did NOT refer to the manual of style, but to some of its underlying concepts as I think they are sound. The purposes of a dab page tend to be counter to a FULL information page. Your solution is CLOSE to what I would do: Create a separate page Lolita (surname). I would recommend that's how you proceed. Then the dab page works and those that want deeper understanding of the name have the information in one more click. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protected

Due to edit warring, including a page move, I have protected this article for a period of 1 week. Once the protection expires, I expect that cooler heads will prevail. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given name at the top

It's true that the novel is the primary topic for this dab page, but the name Lolita being a form of Dolores is as important, and should be mentioned at the top, though I would be fine with it in a separate sentence. Without this, there is no easy way to get from Lolita to Dolores, and this is an important and useful connection. People who have not read the book should be able to navigate wikilinks to get to the full name of the heroine. People looking at Lolita (disambiguation) should see a link at or near the top that takes them to the full name article. EAE (Holla!) 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If Lolita is identified as a diminutive of Dolores, it should be separate from the novel, and it should be noted that since publication of the novel, Dolores is rarely, if ever, shortened to Lolita. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That should not be noted, because it is original research, and is not supported by citations from reliable sources. Lolita IS a diminutive of Dolores, and if you want to challenge that claim, I'll happily find you a reliable source confirming this. I'm not sure what you mean by "If Lolita is identified as a diminutive of Dolores, it should be separate from the novel". EAE (Holla!) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line of a disambiguation page is reserved for linking to the primary topic, if any exists; this is to maximize the page's navigational efficiency and usability. "Lolita" as a diminutive of Dolores is not the current primary meaning for Lolita; per MOS:D it's not appropriate or necessary to link to Dolores in the primary topic line. --Muchness (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Muchness is exactly right. The book's the de facto primary use right now, and goes above the other uses. It doesn't matter where the novel got its name, it's still the primary encyclopedic use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the book is absolutely the primary usage. But it seems that the name itself could perhaps be higher on the page? It's currently below the town of Lolita, Texas; below an 8-year-old French pop song, below six episodes of anime from 1984. Not sure where to put it exactly, but just mentioning this as an idea. --JayHenry (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about reorganizing the list into People, Places, Films, Other with the name link as the first entry under People? EAE (Holla!) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Both films are now more notable than the name. Leave film at the top, then names. Ward3001 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ward because the films are also directly related to the novel. So Novel, Films, People (name at top), places, other? Maybe moving the anime into other, because it's not really a film. --23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHenry (talk • contribs)

Lolita Lolita

In case anyone doubts. Would like to make article but searching sources for this is near-impossible. 64.228.90.1 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)