Talk:Aladdin (disambiguation)

Headers

I have put the headers to the standard mos:dab way. For some reason an editor seems hellbent on reverting me ... I look forward to his reasons. Abtract (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "mos:dab way". You have broken 3rr policy, despite the discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Hmmm... I'm not going to read through the entire guideline, but a very quick scan reveals at least one thing of merit in both versions. WP:MOSDAB#Longer lists says that "in X" is better than just "X". On the other hand, WP:MOSDAB#The disambig notice says that rather than multiple disambig templates, only {{disambig}} should be used (which was one of my reasonings for my earlier revert). Regardless, if it's possible, it would be nice if you could both come to some kind of agreement/compromise in this talk page, as to me it seems that neither version is 100% perfect, and you are both editors who want to improve the encyclopedia, really. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The offending user has been blocked. Think it's safe to say that we can conclude with this edit. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can't really see any issue with that particular version, personally. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Title of story and source

As this is a disambiguation page - the full title of the story seems appropriate (as less ambiguous!) - also why mention the 1001 nights at all here if one can't wikilink it!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying the WP:IAR approach, get some editors to agree with you, as the policy says. Now then, what do you not understand? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The editors of the article at Aladdin have decided that that is the name by which the tale is best known (or should have done so!), and the examples at Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic show the standard format that's used for a link from a dab page to the article at the primary usage. The 1001 nights is mentioned, though not linked, to give a bit of identifying context to the primary usage. It doesn't need to be linked, because the sole purpose of the dab page is to get the reader to the "Aladdin" article s/he is looking for. Hope that bit of explanation helps. PamD (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Aladdin IS perhaps the usual name for the story - but it is not very unambiguous (if it were we wouldn't need a disambiguation page, would we? Giving a fuller, less ambiguous (if slightly less common) version of the name of the story seems to me to be helpful. While I think you're being a bit hyper-pedantic at the expense of what a dab page is there for (as you say, to "get the user to the article they are looking for") I frankly can't be bothered spilling any metaphorical ink over such a minor point as this. What DID upset me was the "vandalism" warning I got plastered over my user discussion page! Surely my edit was (even if in conflict with the MOS) eminently in good faith!! A little apology wouldn't go amiss!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Evil wizard Abanazar

Why does Abanazar redirect to this disambiguation page, in which he does not even appear? Surely, in the absence of his own article, no re-direct would be better? Curiously "Abanazer" appears only once at Aladdin, so he must be a modern invention? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Abanazar (or Abenazar?) is the conventional name for the villain in the (British) Pantomime version of the story. Like the Widow Twankey (Aladdin's mother). I agree that this is a funny place for Abanazar to redirect to - Aladdin or Pantomime would both be better, assuming Abanazar warrants a redirect at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight to one person?

Re [1]: no, it's not the most important of questions, but yes, I would like to have an explanation why singling out one not particularly famous person like this is acceptable. To me it seems like a case of undue weight as well as inconsistent. I might have understood it if it had been Aladdin of the lamp, or in the case of Johann Sebastian among all other Bachs. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Um, I was agreeing with you that he should not be named, as he appears in the target list. So not sure why you say "No". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

But you reverted my deletion of him.90.142.52.139 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My last edit was this. Do you want me to revert that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, those words were unnecessary. But can you see that we always agreed that this person should not be named (I was the one editing him away) or do I misunderstand you? 90.142.52.139 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)