Talk:Loli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Slang

If someone wants to show a reliable source that says the specific age range "loli" refers to, be my guest. Otherwise we are forced to keep the meaning here general. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:21, 31 Jan 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rfc: Internet slang loli definition problems

Does the word "loli" mean only prepubescent girls, or does it also include pubescent girls? I've always seen the earlier; the word "jailbait" is used to describe pubescent girls under the age of consent. 81.234.213.165 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a logical argument. Just because "jailbait" refers to the latter doesn't mean "loli" can't also refer to it. There are many words for both. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:38, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a reliable source to the definition of Internet slang. In this case the fact that you have differing opinions doesn't make either of you wrong as loli is used commonly in both senses. Catnarok (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Loli" clearly derives from Lolita, whose title character is 12 at the beginning of the book and 17 at its end (15 at the end of the period of sexual abuse). The novel's protagonist is attracted to nymphets, who range in age from 9 to 14. These age ranges clearly include pubescent girls. John M Baker (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slang definitions don't belong on disambiguation pages – the sole purpose of a disambiguation page is to resolve ambiguity when multiple articles are associated with a given term (see WP:D). If "Loli" as a slang term meets Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion for articles on neologisms, interested parties might want to create an article and link it from this page; if there's a definition on Wiktionary, you can link to it from this page with a {{wiktionary}} template per the disambiguation page manual of style. But as it stands, the slang definition is serving no disambiguation purpose and I've removed it in accordance with Wikipedia's disambiguation page guidelines. --Muchness (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Muchness is right. I suggest removing the Rfc tag. John M Baker (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. We have many disambig pages that note other uses besides those for which articles exist. It seems in the best interests of the reader to do so. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but in a page that could be (mis)taken for a list of all possible uses, it would be more responsible to include short summaries of other common uses. Especially here since this word is most commonly used in a manner for which we have no article (when spelled this way). A Wiktionary link is useful but still off-site. Wikipedia itself should be providing information that's so crucial to this word/topic. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Generally, the reason we have disambiguation pages that include short summaries of other uses is because they've been added by editors who aren't fully cognizant of WP's disambiguation page conventions; the fact that there are disambiguation pages in need of cleanup elsewhere on the project doesn't mean we should compound the problem by adding nonstandard formatting to this page (the "what about article x" argument may be pertinent here). If it's your belief that disambiguation pages should include information in addition to ambiguous articles, the best place to propose this guideline change is on the MOS:D talk page. --Muchness (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I obviously disagree but we don't need a guideline to specifically allow this, or anything really. My argument isn't "other crap exists" but rather "this has been done here and in many other places for a reason". User actions, ie. "the way things are", overrides guidelines and policies, because it is already a show of consensus. Discussion over guidelines is secondary. Policies and guidelines are meant to reflect general practices, and not the other way around. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:48, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page guidelines do reflect general practices; they've been formulated through discussion, consensus, and documenting best practices. The most common reason slang definitions are added to a disambiguation page is that the editor is unaware of the page's intended function, i.e., to disambiguate articles. Your argument that "it would be more responsible to include short summaries of other common uses" amounts to a redefinition of disambiguation page conventions, and has implications that fall beyond the scope of this RFC (potentially affecting every dab page on WP, not to mention every editor working on dab pages); these non-trivial implications are the reason I suggested upthread that the MOS:D talk page would be a better place to raise this concern. Putting aside the issue that it has yet to be demonstrated that "Loli" as internet slang meets Wikipedia's threshold for coverage of neologisms, I don't think it's appropriate to add content than runs counter to conventions which were formulated through extensive project space discussion, without first establishing on the relevant talk page(s) that there's either a) consensus that the guidelines no longer document best practice and need to be changed, or b) a case to ignore the guidelines in this instance. --Muchness (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the slang issue which is a reason to leave this out, I'll say once again that consensus is built through practice first and discussion/guidelines/policies second. The fact is that dab pages generally function as I've described (I don't have proof, except to say I've been here a long time and can personally attest to it). You can say everyone who contributed to that mode of thinking by adding an entry without a link to a dab page was wrong and acting against consensus, but that's flawed thinking, and a conflicting argument; if this is how it's done then by definition it can't be against consensus. If the guidelines etc. need to be redefined to agree with the current practice, so be it, but we don't need to (and shouldn't) go around changing all the dab pages in the meantime. Agan: practice first, policy second. The purpose/definition of dab pages may have already changed -- the fact that no one explicitly said it yet is inconsequential. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
This RFC is veering off course from the initial dispute to a meta-discussion, so I'll add this reply to state my position more clearly and leave it at that, with apologies to other editors for the off-topic post. My opinion is that consensus reflects an on-going dialectic involving practice, discussion, and guidelines/policies, and I don't see an advantage to giving precedence to one aspect. I have worked regularly on disambiguation pages for some time now, and I have not observed the addition of dictionary definitions as a significant phenomenon. It's true that many of the most useful guidelines and policies evolve organically, but when recurring themes are identified, in my opinion the most constructive course of action is not to automatically promote the emerging practice as a de facto standard, but to raise the issue on the relevent project space talk pages, so that experienced and knowledgeable parties can discuss how to address it and whether to amend the applicable policies and guidelines. --Muchness (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Muchness has it right. Dictdefs (and especially slang dictdefs) belong on wiktionary. That other dab pages have dictdefs is a case for cleanup, not for the encouragement of more dictdefs. – sgeureka t•c 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I (and the dab page guidelines) agree with Muchness and Sgeureka. If the dab word is primarily a slang word, a short definition of that one use might be included in the short intro para, but otherwise slang (and other) definitions should be left in Wiktionary, which would then be linked from the dab page as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Rfc tag (for "the word "loli" mean only prepubescent girls, or does it also include pubescent girls?") because, while discussion continues, the original Rfc appears to be moot. John M Baker (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup topics

Lolita and Lolicon don't mention being known as "Loli", so those entries should be removed or moved to a "See also" section. Similarly with Lollipop, although here I would just link to Lolly (disambiguation) instead. Gothic Lolita should link through the Loli-Goth redirect instead of the direct link, to match the dab title. I'd normally just make the cleanup edits, but holding off pending the above discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm conflicted, as even though it's slang and not contained in any RS that I can find, the fact is that the damn word IS slang and IS used EXTREMELY often online. I see it come up often in a consistent percentage of search results, and could probably synthesize a ton of references. I'm going to vote IAR here. I think if it hasn't already been defined somewhere then it will be very soon, and in the meantime, we should define it (somewhere) and cite the not-so-reliable sources for the time being. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:33, 22 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're voting on. I didn't suggest any of the entries should be removed. Several of them should be moved to "See also". If the "damn word" (I'm not sure which word/entry you're referring to) "IS slang and IS used EXTREMELY often online", wouldn't it merit mention on the linked article, whichever article that is? -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there evidence that loli is used to refer to Lolicon, Gothic Lolita, and Lollipop? I don't think we should look for anything too formal here, just reasonable evidence (Google searches or whatever) that people actually use loli that way. If they do, I think we should keep the links. We probably should add one for nymphet too, since many people use loli or lolita in that sense. (A link to nymphet would also be a handy way of resolving the above discussion.) I don't think anyone uses loli to mean Lolita, but a cross-reference would be appropriate. John M Baker (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"loli" is used to refer to "lolita", but not "Lolita", as "lolita" (the non-proper noun) has taken on the same meaning as "nymphet" -- a lolita is a precociously seductive girl, and that one's even got a legit dictionary listing; I see no use of "loli" to actually refer to the title of Nabakov's book. The only question is what "loli" refers to in internet slang, if anything, and I agree (of course as I already stated as much) that a google search is probably enough evidence to support slang usage. It is used most often to refer to lolicon, and less often (but still substantially) to refer to a lolita/nymphet (the two uses are often difficult to differentiate between, since they are so related -- both basically refer to sexualized youth). The spelling "loli" isn't used much, if ever, to refer to a lollipop, as that's usually spelled "lolly". To John: If it's used often as slang, it might not merit mention in an article since that usage can't currently be backed up with a source -- however the nature of dab pages as listings of all significant usages, plus the fact that dab pages are not "articles" per se, plus the fact that the slang usage is the primary usage, makes me think that a simple listing on the dab page is enough for now. But perhaps an included link to lolicon, lolita, and/or nymphet would also be appropriate. It should be worded with no degree of certainty though -- something like "often used on the internet as a slang short-form of lolita..." (notice the linked article) or something along those lines. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:08, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure which Wikipedia article you're advocating for inclusion or retention on the dab page. Definitions (including slang definitions) should go on Wiktionary (which would also be linked from the dab page). The nature of dab pages is not to list all significant uses, but to disambiguate Wikipedia articles. I'll take a pass at cleaning up the dab list (without removing any of the entries), and maybe that will help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No article. I thought that was rather clear. And it would appear we disagree over the nature of dab pages. I hope that clarifies things for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:20, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)
If it's the nature of dab pages in question, please check WP:D and WP:MOSDAB (and, somewhat, WP:NOT#DICT. By consensus, dab pages are not lists of meanings (dictionary definitions), but navigational aids to disambiguate Wikipedia articles that could otherwise share the same title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I know what they were originally and as defined by policy, but the current nature of dab pages, in my opinion, is different. They've evolved into something else. As I've been arguing above. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:51, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC)