Talk:Lolita (disambiguation)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page Protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Given name at the top 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Lolita Lolita]]