Talk:Lolita

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Lolita

Rfd-sense: The title and the protagonist of a controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov. I don't think we keep such senses. Note that there is lowercase lolita für the general sense. -- Liliana • 05:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The connection of the two is appropriately explained in the etymology section of "lolita". --Hekaheka 06:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, by way of comparison Oliver doesn't have the Dickens sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We do have that: Oliver Twist (but I strongly oppose that entry too). Equinox ◑ 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the stage show based on the book is called Oliver, and we don't have that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The citation belongs to the given name definition. There were six definitions in 2008, and I wiped out four without a discussion.--Makaokalani 16:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: If this sense is deleted, the relevant categories should be removed also. (Which, once again, is an argument for keeping sense-specific categories on the sense lines.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per bullshitLucifer 10:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Lolita

Common noun: "A situation resembling the plot of the novel Lolita...(etc.)". However, the two given citations are for "Lolita syndrome" and "Lolita complex". Can this really be used alone: that situation was a total Lolita? Equinox ◑ 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it; it's probably better to define it some other way: but how? {{n-g|In compounds, referring to the novel Lolita in which [...]}}? Or I suppose it depends on whether there are enough spaced compounds or phrases where "Lolita" functions as a word (another is google books:"a Lolita situation") that we want to cover it at Lolita in some way... - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is about as nonsensical as defining a sense for Oedipus of “A situation resembling that of the protagonist of the tragedy Oedipus Rex” in order to explain the term “Oedipus complex”. I think that in Lolita syndrome and Lolita complex we see the attributive use of sense 2, although I think it is unnecessary specific to relate this to sexual pursuit by adults; it suffices that to them the girl has sexual allure, as in other attributive uses: “a Lolita figure”; “a Lolita smile”.  --Lambiam 22:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a question for verification. I think it is probably best handled by removing this definition and adding a usage note about the attributive use of the noun. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is an RFV question because there is a sense that I think isn't correct. I don't think we even need a usage note necessarily, just the usual list of "derived terms" (~ syndrome, ~ complex). I can find a few other less common phrases (e.g. "a reversal of the Lolita situation") but these could probably be interpreted as references to the title of the novel, along the lines of "a kind of Beatles quartet". Equinox ◑ 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To work as an attestation of the challenged sense, we need uses similar to “He found himself in a difficult Lolita”, or “How was he going to extricate himself from this Lolita?”  --Lambiam 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• See MWOnline's long note, with supporting citations, about this. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This seems to raise the wider issue of whether such noun senses should be captured, as I suspect many nouns can be informally used in this way: “She didn’t want to find herself in a Lewinsky”, “he’s gone and done a Weinstein”, “Whatever you do, don’t put your company in an Enron”, and so on. I suppose one way of analysing such uses is that they are merely attributive uses of the noun with the word situation implied. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That may be a question for many terms, but I think Lolita/lolita is not one of them:

• The defense argued that Betty was a “Lolita,” the teenage seductress of the much older ... to rely on alleged seductive demeanor and dress to prove his point: “There are some girls who are Lolitas,” he said.
• The Lolitas of today are spoilt, but as in any case they are allowed everything they want, they have no desire to seem older than they are.
• “Yeah, they're little Lolitas,” she'd said. “Thirty-eight little Lolitas. One of these days, you're going to come home, and I'm going to have them all out on the table, all waiting to be admired and petted.”
• One of the defense attorneys described the victim as a “ Lolita ” who wanted to have sex with her attackers.

There are a lot of examples. I'll add these to the entry after I get vaccinated (today). DCDuring (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In your examples Lolita refers to a young woman, not to a "situation". Equinox ◑ 22:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the existing definition stinks. I thought I was responding to sgconlaw's point, but I read it too hastily. I think we should have a definition along the lines of MWOnline's, which also fits the citations above. I think we could rely on metonymy to cover what the existing definition has. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)