Talk:Aberdeen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Various points (had been without subject headings)

Aberdeen is not the capital of Aberdeenshire; the city of Aberdeen is a regional area in itself... an enclave within the regional area of Aberdeenshire.

This article is extremely dated.

Dated 1911 perhaps? "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica."
A complete revision would be welcome. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are all unnecessary the question marks for in the first two paragraphs? Are the facts correct or not? Deus Ex 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Severely biased language and original judgements are used throughout this article. For example, 'splendid architecture', 'of good design', 'the distinction between it and New Aberdeen can no longer be said to exist', 'Aberdeen's popular name of the "Granite City", is justified' and so on. 119 10:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh... what? A couple of nice comments about architecture taken from the 1911EB are hardly a major POV issue; the cities are effectively one and the same (I am utterly confused as to how this is an original judgement; ring up the council or look at a map); it is popularly named that and this is for the somewhat NPOV reason that big chunks of it are made out of granite. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about here... Shimgray 10:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Shimgray here; while some parts may be phrased imperfectly, there should be a real serious dispute before we put the NPOV tag up.--Pharos 11:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that. I personally see nothing wrong with the language of the article in its present form. Raising an issue with the 'Granite City' bit in particular is... well... questionable to say the least; it's not exactly presenting original research or anything.

I would imagine lot of the more flowery language is straight from the 1911 Britannica. This could probably benefit from being brought up to date a bit anyway? As Shimgray says, I don't think it's a huge POV issue, and it's definitely not 'severe'. The disputed POV flag basically says: "This sucks. Its current state this article is pretty much unfit to use at all until people sort things out. Try again later", which is obviously not the case with this. Hence, I've removed the tag, but possibly someone (119, Shimgray?) could constructively improve the bits they don't like? — pmcm 16:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And another thing... you can't just slap a 'disputed!' tag on when nobody's actually had any problems with what you're saying. Possibly nobody would dispute the points you raise, so it should be some sort of cleanup tag if anything. Better still, make the edits you'd like to see (taking careful note of this section of the NPOV page; don't just delete the bits you don't approve of) and ask for feedback on the talk page. Just deciding unilaterally that the article is suddenly disputed is not helpful, nor very encouraging to constructive progress. — pmcm 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've neither time nor expertise to fix this article. pmcm, please don't talk down to me as though a newbie or lecture me on "constructive progress"--it's actually not so constructive. Here are some bits of obviously biased language still in the article:

a feat of extraordinary engineering skill

which commands a fine view of the city

is the fine building of the Union Bank

the originality of genius

most of them of good design

The city is blessed with amenities

The phrases "the distinction between it and New Aberdeen can no longer be said to exist" is stating a judgement as fact. Local government or locals no longer see a distinction? Say that, and cite it. "Aberdeen's popular name of the "Granite City", is justified" explicitly states that this nickname is suitable--that's an opinion. Say that the city is built of granite if you like, but saying the nickname is "justified" is not neutral. 119 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for pointing out the bits you don't like. I'll try to take some time to go over them. The time it took you to find them all, you could have re-phrased them all, or just posted your last post initially in the talk page (possibly with a sort of "would you mind helping" rather than a "this is wrong fix it now" tone?) in the first instance.

Talking down to people, and lecturing them on appropriate language (and inventing disputes all by yourself) doesn't lead to constructive progress. Thanks for the clarification of the inappropriate bits; I do see where you're coming from, I just don't think the brusque manner in which you go about highlighting the issues engenders much hope of getting people to help you out by improving the article. — pmcm 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wards/Districts

I removed the list that was under Distrcits of the City of Aberdeen as it just seemed to be a load of places at random, and some of the later entries were of places outside Aberdeen. I replaced it with the list of electoral wards from the Aberdeen City Council website [1]. A problem here is that many well-known districts of Aberdeen, e.g Ferryhill, Northfield, Kingswells, Milltimber, Rubislaw, Bucksburn, aren't actually council wards. Anyone got any thoughts in what should be done here? Also the actual wards are going to change when we move to a STV system for the next council elections. Catchpole 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice one for this change. Please take care however - I'd replaced a few (e.g. Hilton -> Hilton, Aberdeen) with new links because they had been pointing at ambiguous pages (i.e. where there are several places in the world of that name.) These replacements had been lost by your change. Kierant 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind on this article (I'm not even sure why it is on my watch list) but some of the above comments worry me from a general perspective of updating UK city articles. Firstly the article is named Aberdeen, not Aberdeen (local government area). Local government areas are only one definition of places, and in many cases (I cannot speak for Aberdeen) not a particularly good one. The convention for most cities is to include suburbs if they are regarded as part of the city in general usage and even if outside the formal city boundary. Also local government wards are generally fairly arbitrary; indeed many places (again I cannot speak for Aberdeen) take a deliberate policy not to name their wards after districts but rather use made up names with some local connotation. For that reason WP articles do not normally list wards. Doing so for Aberdeen may be justified by local circumstances, but certainly should not be done to the exclusion of listing districts/suburbs. -- Chris j wood 12:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wards are somewhat ephemeral entities, and all existing wards are scheduled to be replaced with new, much larger wards for 2007 local elections. Re wards of the Highland council area, I have tried to address the problem of listing wards in and through Politics of the Highland council area. Laurel Bush 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Gaelic name

I have removed the use of a gaelic name from the article. Where gaelic is prevalent (on the west, not east cost) place names at rivers tend to be "Inver" rather than "Aber". Gaelic is not spoken or written in the North East and is inappropriate here. Tartan Nutter 09:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic is indeed spoken in the North East, by those who are from the Highlands or Islands, and natives of the area who learnt the language or went through Gaelic Medium education; until recently the Highland parts of the North-East had native Gaelic-speakers. There are Gaelic-speakers who have Aberdeen as a home, and due to the history of Gaelic being spoken in the North East it is perfectly appropriate to have the Gaelic name of the city mentioned. Just because the Gaelic language is now only of some strength in the Hebrides and part of the Western Highlands doesn't mean the language is irrelevant to the rest of the Highlands, or areas outside of the Highlands suchs as the North East lowlands that were once Gaelic-speaking. If the Glasgow and even Edinburgh articles on Wikipedia provide the Gaelic name of the city then it would make sense to also provide this on the Aberdeen article. (Previous writer without signature)

As a Hebridean, I can't think of a single place in the Isle of Lewis whose name begins "Inver". The Gaidhlig name should be included, as should any alternatives in Doric or other native Scots languages --MRM 07:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tivoli Theatre

I have removed the following line from the "Culture" section, as the theatre has been closed since 1963 and is not going to reopen as a theatre any time soon. I have, however creaated a new page for it Tivoli Theatre, Aberdeen.

• Aberdeen Tivoli Theatre (1872) is currently closed but is Aberden's oldest Theatre.

I'm unhappy about that claim, and will be doing some real-world source-checking this afternoon, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anybody has any useful reference material. Please see the Tivoli theatre discussion page for the point I've made (to save confusing the discussion by repeating it here.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: there was indeed an earlier theatre, between Theatre Lane and Marischal Street. (See the Tivoli's talk page for the evidence.)

Also, since the Tivoli article link has now been completely deleted from the Aberdeen article, I've added it to "See also". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the external link... And then I went back and removed the article link in the see also section too. The Tivoli isn't really significant enough - today - to warrant such high profile linking in this article. This is an article about Aberdeen as a whole - not a list of everything remotely connected, there're the categories for that. Plus there's the real sniff of someone (I don't know who, not checked the history) with an agenda here simply trying to linkspam http://www.aberdeentivoli.net/ which just so happens to have been lauched recently... Thanks/wangi 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, wangi. Just for the record (so that nobody comes along and zaps the Tivoli article I've just updated!), I have no connection with the Trust, and saw their website for the first time today. I have however put it as an external link on that page, where it's wholly appropriate. (And if there is an "anti-Tivoli-restoration" organisation, or a website for the building's owner, whatever their intentions, or even a City Council press release on it, that would make nice balance.) Finally, however, I strongly disagree with your complete removal of the link from the Aberdeen page, especially since the Tivoli article now mentions Aberdeen's even earlier theatre in Theatre Lane. But rather than play "inclusion ping-pong", I'm happy to leave it alone for now and request that other people chip in here with opinions. Perhaps a way could be found to flow the link in from somewhere else on the historical part of the article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in the Tivoli article the external link is very appropriate... I was in the process of adding it there but got an edit conflict with you ;)

The article is in Category:Aberdeen, I really can't see the need, importance or recognition of the institution/building to add a link in this, the main Aberdeen article. Sure it's a lovely building inside... and it'd be great if it didn't just rot even more, but that can't be said of many places. Thanks/wangi 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits...

I removed the "Areas of Aberdeen" section as it was redundant due to the Areas of Aberdeen template. Also deleted transport information from the "Background" section, as it is practically a duplicate of the actual "Transport" section. I am concerned by the length of the article and wonder if it would best be split - for example, the "Sport" and "Education" sections... PMJ 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the crops you've made. I'm undecided about the idea of splitting though; this has been done recently with a couple of other city (and university) articles I've noticed and although it does reduce unweildiness in central articles, it can result in off-shoots which have little value and are hard to justify as Wikipedia articles. Perhaps that's actually the problem: how much data does Wikipedia want, and if it wants it, what deserves its own article? This point has been discussed ad nauseam already elsewhere but I'm just concerned that we'd end up having to keep a close eye on the off-shoot articles lest they be nominated for deletion. Sorry for the stream of consciousness, just trying to cover the bases ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

CFD

The related Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Aberdeen constituencies has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--Mais oui! 09:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

City status

I read:
Aberdeen ... is Scotland's third largest city ... and part of the unitary council area named the City of Aberdeen.
And I note the link to City status in the United Kingdom.
I rather suspect it is the unitary council area (or its council) which now has the city status, and it was held previously by the council for the Aberdeen district of the Grampian region. The district, created in 1975, had almost exactly the boundaries of the existing council area, which was created in 1996. Before the district was created the city status would have been held by the council for the "county of city" of Aberdeen, which was somewhat smaller in area than the district. Also, by the way, the current official name of the council area seems to be Aberdeen City, not City of Aberdeen.
Laurel Bush 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Merge in content from Aberdeen City?

The following comments were at Talk:Aberdeen City: (/wangi 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Having had the City of Aberdeen article moved to City of Aberdeen, I am thinking now that, actually, it would be better to merge most of the content into Aberdeen or, rather, to rewrite the latter to make Aberdeen City redundant, except as a redirect.
Aberdeen does seem to need some rewriting, seeming at present to represent some rather confused, confusing notions as to what is and is not the city.
I get the impression that Aberdeen City (formerly City of Aberdeen) may have been intended, originally, as an article about a council, its wards and its political composition, rather than one about a council area. I do feel that Aberdeen should be about the council area (but including history of earlier uses of Aberdeen, City of Aberdeen etc). As regards the council, wards, etc, I suggest an article called, say, Politics of the Aberdeen City council area, modelled perhaps of Politics of the Highland council area, would be the best place for this.
Laurel Bush 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

I disagree - I think the split between an article for the council and an article of the city itself is the best way to approach this. Compare for example with Edinburgh and City of Edinburgh; Glasgow and City of Glasgow; Dundee and City of Dundee - it's the norm. Thanks/wangi 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of the split, but I can not see the 'norm' you describe as an effective means of achieving it. In the examples you cite I am seeing problems and confusions very similar to those I see in the parallel existences of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City.
Contrary to your 'norm' there are Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and Perth and Kinross Council, as well as Politics of the Highland council area. Highland Council is currently a redirect to the Politics of ... article. Laurel Bush 14:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Well wouldn't the logical thing to move Politics of the Highland council area to Highland Council then? It seems to be consistent with the way most UK articles are, with different entries for places and councils, i.e. we have Perth and Kinross for the towns and Perth and Kinross Council for the district. Catchpole 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that we need an article with a clear focus on the Aberdeen or Aberdeen City council area, that Aberdeen is the best place for that focus, and that any article about Aberdeen City Council, or the politics of the council area, should have that focus exlicit in its title. Otherwise we create serious ambiguity and confusion. I am sure I have myself created, already, in many articles, links to Aberdeen City, seeing it as the name of a council area, not a council. Laurel Bush 17:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

It's always seemed to me that it's unhelpful to have Edinburgh and City of Edinburgh; Glasgow and City of Glasgow; and so on. It does make sense to have separate articles about complex local authorities and about political entities such as wards and so on, but it's too confusing for the novice reader, who might look at "City of... (wherever)" and think "What a meagre article about that city." Okay, obviously they all have appropriate internal links to the better article, but I see no reason why we shouldn't rename them en masse to something like "City of wherever Council" – or if the correct name doesn't include the word "Council", then something like "City of wherever (local authority)". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having separate articles for the council and council area. I think the City of Edinburgh article shows it is sensible to have information in the same place. Catchpole 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have just about finished a quick 'demo'. If youre dont like, please revert. Laurel Bush 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

I did just that. The information you added could go into a separate section, I don't think the header of an article on the city needs trivia about council areas and local government history though. Catchpole 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okayyy... looking back at the article which is now lost to a redirect (and I'm wondering how I missed the merge tags and discussion about that... there were some, somewhere, right?) – we don't now have the useful thumbnail map roughly indicating the area, and we don't now have the names of the MSPs in the infobox.

Take a look at Aberdeenshire; surely a user looking at that would want there to be a corresponding article with a similar infobox for the City of Aberdeen authority. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold fire Laurel... You've went ahead and merged those two articles without consensus support and without going through the hoops (WP:RM) - with a number of people not supporting what your planning (i.e. I know that's at least me). I have reverted your changes at Aberdeen City and Aberdeen City Council. Thanks/wangi 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This, in Aberdeen just doesn’t make any sense:
Aberdeen ... is Scotland's third largest city ...
And this, in City of Edinburgh is even more confused and confusing, with city linked to Edinburgh :
City of Edinburgh … comprised of the city itself, there are also a number of villages within the authority area too ...
City is in the article title, City of Edinburgh!
And I note that in City status in the United Kingdom the links are to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, as supposedly about unitary authorities.
Laurel Bush 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Er, are you saying Aberdeen isn't Scotland's third largest city?? I don't see what doesn't make sense. Catchpole 09:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the article about? Or what is it intended to represent? It seems to be in two minds, or trying to be present tense about a local government area, called a county of city, which ceased to exist in 1975 (and was not created until circa 1900).
In 1975 that city was superseded by the larger Aberdeen district of the Grampian region, the district being also a city (and the entity which seems to have inherited the official city title).
The district was also superseded, by a unitary council area, in 1996 - the now existing area, the new inheritor of the city title, with the same boundaries as the former district.
I have yet to work out how exactly the original county of city was composed. Presumably, the royal burgh of Aberdeen, plus the burgh of Old Aberdeen, plus various other bits and pieces. And it is possible boundaries were altered during the 1900 to 1975 period.
I am seeing a lot of work that needs doing to improve the Aberdeen article, but the current co-existence of Aberdeen City seems to make beginning the work quite impossible. I am feeling some sense of frustration.
As regards the specific question above - sorry - I failed to include this in my quote:
... and part of the unitary council area named the City of Aberdeen ...
The issue is the use of city as a link to City status in the United Kingdom and in the title of an article. The entity which now has the status is the unitary council area (or its representative council). It is not a separate entity included within a larger council area.
Laurel Bush 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

"What is the article about?"

Personally I thought that was clear enough until the merge; although with the caveat I've already mentioned that the article which was not about the political authority could have done with a clearer name. The one called Aberdeen was clearly a history and current social, industrial and geographic representation of the city, with the details of politics hived out into the article – a decision probably inspired by the fact that all (I expect) of the other equivalent council areas have an article.

Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to also separate out other parts of the main article so it doesn't get too long. Other towns have lots of sections which begin with " Main article: [[Something specific]] " and then just summarise the topic. In this way, we could have the politics section clearly linking to a "politics of Aberdeen" article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the main article device is very useful. Perhaps you have seen how it is used under "Politics" in "Highland (council area)"
Also, I am thinking I should restate my case:
The "Aberdeen" article is based, currently, on fantasy or fiction, perhaps representing denial of change in 1975, and subsequent change
Nor is there any article containing a reliable focus on the council area, except perhaps "Aberdeen City", which seems intended as an article about the council, not the area
I want "Aberdeen" to fill the void
Otherwise "Aberdeen City" may do so (with, say, "Aberdeen City Council" as an article about the council), and "Aberdeen" will tend to look, increasingly, like it should be a redirect to "Aberdeen City", or a disambiguation page
I repeat: I want "Aberdeen" to pull itself out of a fantasy and to fill the void
Laurel Bush 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm lost by your concerns - what's the problem with the Aberdeen article as it currently stands? What's the fantasy? The Aberdeen City article (which you renamed from City of Aberdeen and might be better named as Aberdeen City Council) should focus only on the council and the mechanics of that body - the Aberdeen article is about the city itself, which is much more than simply a council area. The aberdeen article should have a breif politics or council section which refers to the main article at Aberdeen City. Thanks/wangi 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The following was written at the same time as wangi's comments and was caught out by a simultaneous edit conflict, so apologies for repetition.

Laurel, thanks for taking the trouble to restate the case, but you leave me bemused as to where you're coming from.

You say, "The "Aberdeen" article is based, currently, on fantasy or fiction, perhaps representing denial of change in 1975, and subsequent change" – well, speaking as a homeowner in Aberdeen it seems pretty non-fictional to me, and I don't see any fantasy. The elements which refer to the council may be in question, but that's no reason to trash the whole article.

Do we all agree that the below-listed entities are the items to be written about?

1. Aberdeen; the place in Aberdeenshire, north-east Scotland, with boundaries defined in a way to be determined
2. The local authority of that place as currently constituted (plus or minus some surrounding areas as the case may be)
3. The historical and extinct local authority structures relating to that place plus or minus some surrounding areas

If so, I propose we should have articles named thus:

1. Aberdeen
2. 'Aberdeen City (local government)' (or, outwith the brackets, whatever the correct title of that body is)
3. 'History of the political structures of Aberdeen' (if anybody cares to write it)

The one thing which is missing, and I only mention it because I get the impression you'd like to have an article for it, is an article about the area affected by the local government, but not actually about the government; whether or not that corresponds to the formal city boundary itself. I'm not at all sure that would merit an article, given that there are already articles about Aberdeenshire, and lots of the suburbs and villages and areas in the environs, for example Milltimber, Cults, etc. Additionally there are templates and categories for these places, which fulfil the function of guiding readers to the articles.

Finally, I'm all in favour of a disambiguation page for "Aberdeen City" if you think that would be wise. But it should certainly not be called "Aberdeen" unless you propose to create similar disambiguation pages for every British unitary authority. And I don't think that would be a fun task to attempt.

– Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the boundaries of the local government area are also, exactly, the boundaries of the city
Abereen is both city and council area, but the Aberdeen article seems to insist that the city is some smaller entity within the council area
(So far as know, Scotland has just two cities - as defined in City status in the United Kingdom - which are not also council areas - Inverness and Stirling)
The Aberdeen article might start to make some sense to me if opening paragraphs are shifted into past tense, defining Aberdeen, for the purposes of the article, as something which ceased to exist in 1975
Laurel Bush 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Aha! Thanks, I finally see what you mean ;-) And the latest change to the article looks okay to me. I think it's still worth having a separate "politics" article though, to focus on boundaries and elected representatives, etc. The one other thing I'd say is that there's no guarantee that this situation will remain the case, thanks to the peripatetic nature of Councils, so whatever happens, we should definitely maintain a note that historically it has been different. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers
I had thought of using [[city]] instead of [[City status in the United Kingdom|city]], and I imagine this might become more appropriate if rumours are true that the Scottish Exectutive wants to merge the Aberdeen City council area with the Aberdeenshire council area
Also, I point out (if you can make sense of what follows) that as things stand now the article gives several names for essentially the same area or entity, and one of those names is a link to another article: effectively, therefore, the article invites a second article, Aberdeen City, with content much the same as the Aberdeen article, because the title Aberdeen City does not really set any other boundary to the second article's content
Aberdeen City Council as a link to another article would be better, perhaps as a reference to a "main article" under a short section about the council Laurel Bush 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another point, I wonder how many other articles are using [[Aberdeen City]] or [[City of Aberdeen]] with the implication that the link should be to an article about the city or city area, not about the council
I know of several, and I am not about to go round them 'fixing' the links
For the sake of the use of links in other articles, Aberdeen City and City of Aberdeen should be redirects to Aberdeen
Aberdeen City Council is the place for an article specifically about the council (though personnally I would prefer the subject to be covered by a section in 'Politics of the Aberdeen City council area', which, amongst other things, would relate council area boundaries to constituency boundaries)
Laurel Bush 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

I do not wish to presume too much as regards what should be imported from Aberdeen City and what, as a result, should be changed in Aberdeen
Perhaps I will just (1) re-create Aberdeen City Council, (2) create a small "City Council" section in "Aberdeen" and (3) turn "Aberdeen City" into a redirect to "Aberdeen"
Laurel Bush 09:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would approach it like this:

1. Move Aberdeen City to Aberdeen City Council (using WP:RM)
2. Create a "Council" section in Aberdeen with Aberdeen City Council tagged as the main article (using {{main}})
3. Look at the incoming links to the Aberdeen City redirect and target it to Aberdeen, Aberdeen City Council or aberdeen (disambiguation) as appropriate.

This approach preserves the content and edit history of the current Aberdeen City article, which is a good basis for any work you're planning to do on a council article. Thanks/wangi 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I was sort of wondering whether someone would suggest that procedure. Thinking I should just adopt it. Laurel Bush 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Except I think I should take the steps in the order 2, 1, 3, with some adjustment to the content of "Aberdeen City" between 1 and 3. Laurel Bush 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Or 3-2-1 ;) Only reason I put the move first is because it'll have to go via WP:RM since the move target has an existing edit history - something an admin will need to do. Of course this will take time, so kick that off and you can do #2 and #3 as it progresses. Thanks/wangi 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I won't wade in and make changes, but I'll make a couple of quick points you might want to take into account ...

1. Houston is not a twin city of Aberdeen. The two cities have many links, but Aberdeen has only five twins.

2. The population projections made for the city could be misleading. The General Register for Scotland's figures take a recent short-term trend that has seen population drift to the hinterland and project it over 20 years. All studies taking into account employment and ongoing work to attract inward investment suggest population will fall, but hold above 200,000 - certainly, the GRS prediction was hotly contested by the City Council on publication.

I will try to locate the relevant documents.

Population figures

Latest stats that I can find on the General Register site are mid-2005 population stats, and that is the linked reference for [1] on the page. Have you managed to find a different (more up-to-date) document that refers to the stat of 214,250? I have reverted changes just now as they do not match the reference document give, but if you have one, please make the changes again with the reference link. Seajay 09:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In the Aberdeen (disambiguation) article there are over 30 other Aberdeens listed. Does anyone else think that this page should be moved to a title 'Aberdeen, Scotland'.

This could cause problems for links, but if the disambiguation was moved to the name 'Aberdeen' this will not cause much of a problem, especially if an edit on incoming major links is made straight out.

I do admit to liking the fact that my home town gets a better name than all the other Aberdeens, so perhaps the others contributing think the same... Bobbacon 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no, because Aberdeen is, I suspect, the oldest and the "original" Aberdeen (in the sense of being the inspiration behind the name of many of the others). It's arguable, (and I pray nobody brings up the unscientific number of Google hits) but in a global sense I predict it's the best-known as well.

Other major cities allow the most famous to take the prime article name. See Paris for example. I don't think anybody would reasonably expect that to go to Paris, Texas, or anywhere except the French capital.

Have a look at the debate at Talk:Tyre, Lebanon for some interesting issues surrounding this broad topic. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is the best known Aberdeen of all, and having looked through other arguements I think its best left put, at least until someone else brings it up again for discussion! (sorry for taking so long to reply). Bobbacon 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

King's College

King's College surely merits a more prominent feature on this page than the present picture of the Elphinstone Hall. Please see Flickr.com (search 'king's college aberdeen') if you have the know-how to post a decent image of this spectacular medieval college and source of enormous pride to Aberdonians and former students of the college alike.

Done, image available on wikipedia already, see King's College, Aberdeen Bobbacon 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities

I propose this article should be reorganised as per the WikiProject Cities guidelines. This would involve using the following headings, and creating the major headings below. Comparing Aberdeen to the featured article of Vancouver, it is obvious there is too much information on the page, and it would be better to split into different sections.

• Introduction:
• History
  • major historical events that occurred in city
• Law and government
  • Mayor or City Executive-- current, previous executives
  • representative body?
• Geography
  • Physical geography (area, unique features)
  • Major Parks
  • Transportation
• Economy
  • Major industries/products
  • taxes
• Demographics
  • city population
  • racial/ethnic makeup
  • religious makeup
• Sites of interest
• Education
  • Public
  • Private
  • Colleges and universities
• Sports teams
• Notable natives
• (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
• External links

There will also be the requirement for proper referencing — PMJ 13:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, having looked at the Vancouver article I can see that under each subheading there is a link such as main article: economy of Vancouver in the Economy section for example. I suggest that some new pages are created to move the information into - although some sections such as the climate section obviously is short and will not require its own page.

My suggestions would be pages for:

• 'Transport of Aberdeen' incorporating the transport section, plus the harbour and bridges from the architecture section
• 'Religion of Aberdeen' incorporating the section on churches
• 'Oil Industry of Aberdeen'
• 'Economy and industry of Aberdeen (non-oil related)'
• 'Theatres, museums and galleries in Aberdeen', this could perhaps instead be 'Visitor attractions in Aberdeen'
• 'Parks and open spaces in Aberdeen'
• 'Education in Aberdeen' incorporating schools and universities information, but not libraries

As in the Vancouver article I would put a link at the top of each topic to the relevant main article and then write an overview of each on the actual Aberdeen page. I would suggest no more than two paragraphs for each section on the main page.

Bobbacon 12:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! It would probably be worth comparing the sections to those in other cities before creating the pages, as there is likely a specific style which is used for consistency — PMJ 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dundee is the closest comparable city to Aberdeen geographically, and it is a featured article so it should be a useful reference for Scotland specific sections. Catchpole 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would probably just call 'Economy and industry of Aberdeen (non-oil related)' - 'Economy of Aberdeen' for consistancy. Would probably be best to name the pages after the relevant categories if possible. The oil industry can be mentioned and then main 'Oil Industry of Aberdeen' or possibly 'Oil Industry in Aberdeen' can be linked to from the articles. Similarly, I'd suggest 'Religion in Aberdeen', 'Transport in Aberdeen' and 'Culture in Aberdeen' for consistancy with other articles and the category. May also be worth having a 'Sport in Aberdeen' article, or simply a link to Aberdeen F.C. etc. Phew! — PMJ 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(Removed links to previous suggestions to avoid confusion/starting of wrong title) The Dundee article does seem to be more akin to the needs of Aberdeen due to proximity and relative size. Vancouver is for a much bigger city. I think different features should be taken from both.

I like the idea of a sport in Aberdeen article. I the near future I will create a golf course in Aberdeen article, so a Sport in Aberdeen article would be good to encompass that and Aberdeen FC, Cover Rangers etc...

From what other people have suggested and looking at other articles I agree we need a template style for consistency, the best option seems to be type of article in/of Aberdeen.

Before creating new articles I think we need a consensus on what should go into each page. Right now for example, bridges are in the Architecture and Built Environment section, which is indeed correct but it could equally be put into Transport in Aberdeen as a new article. To avoid these arguments, I suggest that those sections for migration be argued on next to suggested titles (which I have listed below).

Of the below suggestions, I like the idea of a tourism article as many reading the article will be tourists and it would be useful to give an overview of what to do for those who don't want to know the entire history. Due to the existence of wikitravel I propose such a page should complement (the advert free but commercial wiki) and not compete with it. If a tourism page could not be supported however, then it could be put into the culture article (which is my preference- though I have listed them separately below).

I also cannot decide on a title for a Parks and Gardens article. The best I can think of is Green Spaces and Walkways in Aberdeen. I think it would be appropriate to add open areas (which are not green spaces) such as the Deeside Way or the the Formartine and Buchan Way as well as parks and gardens.

In the article there are politics details in the Present Day Aberdeen and the Aberdeen City Council sections. I propose taking out both sections and replacing them with a Government and Politics section (like Dundee) with the twinned cities included in this section. The creation of a Politics of Aberdeen article could then also be created. I think this would look neater.

suggested article titles and sections to move to new page:

• Transport in Aberdeen: Bridges; Harbour; Transport
• Religion in Aberdeen: Churches
• Oil Industry in Aberdeen: Industry- only oil related details. This page has a large scope with time.
• Economy of Aberdeen: Industry- non-oil related details; Retail
• Green Spaces and Walkways in Aberdeen; Parks and Open Spaces
• Education in Aberdeen; Education- broken up into 'University', 'Colleges', 'Secondary' and 'Private School' sections
• Culture in Aberdeen/'Tourism in Aberdeen'; Culture- excluding Doric which should remain in the main article and excluding Parks and Open Spaces which would have its own article
• Politics in Aberdeen; Aberdeen City Council; Political Composition; Present Day Aberdeen
• Sport in Aberdeen; Sport- with references to Parks and Open Spaces where sports can be played (ie Westburn Park tennis centre)

Bobbacon 11:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These seem like sensible suggestions, which should make the article a lot more user-friendly - Personally, I'd say go with Culture in Aberdeen, then see how it goes regards 'Tourism in Aberdeen' in the future. — PMJ 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done what I think needs doing in relation to this discussion topic. Sport in Aberdeen will need more work as it currently is quite sparse. The main articles table of contents is longer than featured cities i've looked at (seems that 12-15 is standard). Do others involved think that the article movements are agreeable/are there problems? With a bit more work I think this article could be considered for featured article nomination. Bobbacon 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I requested a peer review of this article. The results and first post are Wikipedia:Peer review/Aberdeen. I have added a copyedit tag as copyediting was the first suggestion... my copyediting isn't great! Bobbacon 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done a substantial bit of copyediting but there's certainly still a bit more cleaning up to do. I've left a few duplicate internal links in place where they're in fresh sections and are actively helpful, but in terms of prose there was a lot of duplication of phrases (such as "situated between two rivers" kind of stuff) and I suspect there will be more that could be culled. I've also made some changes to the layout of the culture section which was a bit oddly divided to my mind — actually I seem to recall doing much the same thing several months ago, but we got back into a situation where the definition of culture was a bit odd. Surely media and dialect are part of culture? Nice to see that lumpy old list of attractions gone though.

On Marischal College, I think there's still too much detail given that there is a separate article; what do you guys think? – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the culture section around before since it was really long and I felt it need a bit of division to break it up on the page. Looking at it now that its cut down I think it looks quite neat but with one exception... open spaces. A while back I couldn't decide and I still can't where it should be placed. It is certainly a cultural area, but due to the cities heritage with the Britain in Bloom etc.. I can't decide if it merits its own section or not, so I am not going to touch it for now, do others agree?

Marischal College I think is mentioned twice, once in education, once in architecture, I think some tags (such as the link to the first largest granite building) are unnecessary (I have removed this- I added it in response to a peer review comment but I think it does look out of place now looking it at). I will leave any other editing on the subject up to others.

I was looking at other wikipedia entrys on Aberdeen, particularly the Czech entry and found out that Aberdeen is twinned with Houston (backed up by the Sister cities of Houston article. I am sure there are other details in these articles that are useful so if anyone else speaks other languages?.. we might be able to gleen some other useful information.

I have cut out the retail section and merged it into the 'Economy' and 'Future developments in Aberdeen' sections. The reasons being that having two future developments sections feels awkward within the article, the section was relatively small and because other articles do not generally have a retail section.

I think there may also be a case for a Geography in Aberdeen article in future, although as of yet I don't think there is enough detail to justify it. I am going to see what I can find on the Denburn, Westburn and other subterranean water as a start. Bobbacon 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's looking much better with the sections merged — I'd considered merging them too, but decided not to "improve" them in the hope that they might eventually disappear! ;) I don't particularly want to be the champion of this cause but I really don't think it's appropriate to have this kind of future speculation stuff at all. We're writing about Aberdeen as it is, and what made it what it is. Anything could happen in the future so it's potentially misleading to describe plans which may change as budgets and politics meander. And "news" items belong on WikiNews. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, I began a future developments in Aberdeen page after finding a page about the new bypass and added it since there was already stuff about retail. I think the box about 'infrastructure' developments looks a bit untidy in the end, and if this article is aiming for featured status (which i hope it is) then it can't have any features that are likely to be too changable in the future. I have therefore moved the section, but retained a link in the 'see also' section.

I have also done some tidying of various minor stuff as suggested by the auto-peer review bot WP:PRA/F07#Aberdeen. It's suggestions were quite informative for a bot! Bobbacon 12:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubbed and Dangerous

This is a kung-fu film made in Aberdeen, the reference was removed for being a 'home movie'. I think it should be added to firstly add credence to the 'film' part of the article and also since it is an important film (in relation to Aberdeen's almost zero film industry).

I have found the following references:

• Review from 'KungFuCinema.com'
• Internet Movie Database page
• Amazon.com where it is for sale (so someone must be watching it)
• Trailer (admittedly, the acting does look rubbish... but the kung-fu is the reason people watch it)

Director (Ara Paiaya):

• Internet Movie Database article
• About Aberdeen biography

Does anyone else agree with me or should it be left out? Bobbacon 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there was a wikipedia article on Ara or any of his movies then you could make a case. I've seen Dubbed and Dangerous (a few of my old school friends "act" in it) and I can't agree it's worth a mention. Catchpole 10:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no other responses I shall leave it out then... Bobbacon 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Universities

It is not fair to state that aberdeen had as many universities as the whole of England in the sixteenth century. At that time Oxford and Cambridge consisted of many colleges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.141.80 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 March 2007.

Isn't this a verifiable claim? (In the sense that it's practically a quote from the University prospectus.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt that England has always had far more colleges than Aberdeen, so practically speaking it could handle many more students but the claim that it had two large multi-college universities at the end of the 16th century is just as verifiable as the claim that Aberdeen had two small single-college universities at that same time. Fairness doesn't really come into it. It's more a matter of civic pride. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the city should be rightly proud of its institutions. Nevertheless, I have removed the sentence that Aberdeen had as many universities as the whole of England in the sixteenth century. I do not think that Aberdeen had two universities (as opposed to colleges) until the twentieth century. Oxford and Cambridge Universities each have had more than two colleges since at least the 13th century and very likely earlier.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.47.152 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 March 2007.

There's a misunderstanding in the anon's comment about the meaning of "college" and "university"; Aberdeen's two colleges were quite clearly, legally and practically, universities. But I don't know enough about the history of Oxbridge to say much about them, and I'm not sufficiently convinced that the seemingly controversial phrase is worth having in the article to return it there. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I have set up an archive page to reduce the length of this discussion page (previously 54kb). I have moved everything into date orders etc.. and cleaned up dead links within discussions (on the off chance of new pages being created from them). I hope this is agreeable. Bobbacon 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics

Strictly speaking this should be on the discussion pages of the articles involved, but I will discuss it here first as it is an Aberdeen article.

I propose merging Aberdeen City Council into Politics in Aberdeen, like that of the Dundee daughter article Politics of Dundee, where Dundee City Council and the national politics are merged. My reasons are that currently both articles are relatively small and merging them will give one single place for politics in the city as a whole rather than having two articles.

Is there any other consensus/agreement/disagreement? Bobbacon 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything to reduce potential confusion seems like a good idea. But I'd much prefer if the whole conjoined article could be called "Politics of Aberdeen" so it didn't seem to preclude external relations. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles into a new page Politics of Aberdeen. Bobbacon 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Media

"Aberdeen has a long publishing and broadcast history, with Scotland oldest newspaper the Press and Journal.."

I thought the Glasgow Herald was the oldest newspaper in the English speaking world? Mark 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the authoritive source that is this encyclopedia(!) the P&J can be traced back to 1748, while the Glasgow Herald dates from 1783. Catchpole 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Road Quality

This article does not mention, anywhere, the appalling quality of the roads in Aberdeen. (Bagpipes1 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

The Aberdeen Coast

This photo appears to be of the coast around Stonehaven, and is therefore not really very relevant, or is at least misleadingly titled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberdeen_coast.JPG Tommfuller (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Is it not a viable insert, due to the close proximity of the term used in association with the city in either football & non-football sections of life, that Aberdonians get the unfortunate nickname of "sheepshaggers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.106.178 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image licencing

Having checked all images on the main Aberdeen page I have found that images; Image:PressAndJournalFrontPage.gif and Image:New acc logo.gif do not have licencing that will allow them to be transferred to wikimedia commons and Image:Aberdeen-coa.png has a tag that allows its use in Wikipedia but has restrictions.

Public domain image would be better if availalbe, particulalry with the coat of arms due to its extensive use in the Wikipedia project. Bobbacon 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aberdeen/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B An article with reasonable fact referencing, but requires a good copy edit and formatting revision. Alan.ca 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Aberdeen Castle

Aberdeen Castle has been created- there may be discrepencies and important information missing. I have listed problems on the discussion page of the article if anyone can help. I have taken it as far as I can for now. Bobbacon 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

An Aberdeen to-do list, with ideas on what needs to be done has been created. I invite other contributers to re-rank the order of importantance and add new tasks, to give the list more legitimacy- what I think is important is not necessarily what others think! The page can be found at Talk:Aberdeen/Aberdeen to do list and at the left hand side link. Bobbacon 07:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Aberdeen

I have created the page Etymology of Aberdeen. It references to a (clean) dating site which bizarrely has the best internet etymology! I think it is copied from somewhere so while it is referenced I have changed it a lot so it should be ok. I think this page has potential for further detail. Bobbacon 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

referencing to unworthy sites (the dating one) have been removed. Bobbacon 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

does this one liner really need it's own section? Piperdown 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You should remove the Urban Dictionary reference as it is anything but a reliable source.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence: The modern name Aberdeen literally means between the Dee (the other local river) and Don. is extremely misleading. 'Aberdeen' clearly doesn't mean that; the article itself explains that 'Aber-' stands for 'confluence'. 'Aberdeen' is a development of 'Aberdon' or something equivalent. Its development to its modern form may well have been influenced by the name of the Dee, and you are entitled to note this possibility, but the sentence as it stands is so misleading that if someone doesn't remove it soon, I will.Costesseyboy (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree on something like "The modern name probably/possibly derives from "Aberdon" (confluence or mouth of the Don), but it could be from "Aber-Devona", a name for one or both of the Rivers Don and Dee."? It might be worth dismissing the more obvious "mouth of the Dee". Further detail could be added to a Note or Footnote. Is there a reliable source for the Devona statement? Finavon (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IPA Transcription

I am cleaning out my talk page, these are suggested IPA transcriptions:

• Something along the lines of /abɚdin/ (SAMPA: /ab@`din/), but don't take that as set in stone or anything.
• In an English accent, for example, it would be /æbədiːn/ (SAMPA: /{b@di:n/), or thereabouts.

User:N-true is not Aberdonian, but that is what he thought when I asked for help (a while back). Bobbacon 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Restored to Aberdeen. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen (Scottish city) → Aberdeen — Article was at Aberdeen but was moved, and Aberdeen turned into a redirect to a DAB page. There was, so far as I can see, no prior discussion regarding the move. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Sergiogr (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, major moves like this shouldn't happen without discussion. SFC9394 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The move was obviously not done very well; not only no discussion, but it broke access to Aberdeen for a while (since the redirect page linked on the dab page went back to itself). Also, is "(Scottish city)" justified, since most such locations would have "(Scotland)" or "(United Kingdom)"? Finally, but most importantly, the precedent set by other ambiguous city names such as Paris, Birmingham, and London applies to Aberdeen, which is surely the best-known internationally due to the oil industry. – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed. Links to a disambiguation page should be fixed, rather than one article moved to the ambiguous base name so some links are correct and never mind the others. Aberdeen, Scotland has nowhere near the size or notability of Paris or London, and more relevant precedents are Weymouth and Santa Fe. Per those precedents, move Aberdeen (disambiguation) to Aberdeen. --Una Smith (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• By the way Category:Place name disambiguation pages has over 21,000 place name disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Paris" is the name of at least 20 cities, among other things, but our article on the capital of France is still located at Paris. That's because it's considered the primary topic for the term. That's exactly the case here. The difference between Aberdeen and Santa Fe is that none of the many places called Santa Fe is not "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia" named Santa Fe. Jafeluv (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - should be moved back for proper discussion. "Scottish City" is ridiculous, would be in favour of "(Scotland)". MRM (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the move. The city is clearly the primary topic here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I have speedily moved the page, not because I consider this discussion closed, but because the previous move was disruptive (breaking existing redirects and links). If there is a consensus to change the title at the end of this discussion (although the trend seems to be to keep it as is), then that's fine as long as the change is carried out in a less disruptive manner. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That was my thinking behind requesting a move (i.e. back to Aberdeen, and thanks for doing that by the way!) I'd prefer the article to be kept at "Aberdeen" as it's the primary topic. If that wasn't possible I'd prefer "Aberdeen, Scotland". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen → Aberdeen city or Aberdeen, Scotland
Aberdeen (disambiguation) → Aberdeen --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Disagreement re if the Scottish city is the primary topic of "Aberdeen" is evidence that the city is not the principal topic. Additional evidence comes from Google hits: they show the primary topic of "Aberdeen" is a football club. Second is the city in Scotland (often referred to as "Aberdeen city"), followed by a business firm, Aberdeen city's airport, a city in Maryland USA, a newspaper in South Dakota USA, etc. When I disambiguated the ~1000 links to Weymouth, many had something to do with Weymouth, Dorset but there was a more appropriate link such as Weymouth Bay and Weymouth Harbour, Dorset. Putting the disambiguation page at Weymouth rather than at Weymouth (disambiguation) makes it fast and efficient to find and fix links to the ambiguous base name. Given the many articles listed on Aberdeen (disambiguation) that are related to Aberdeen in Scotland, no doubt incoming links to Aberdeen do need to be disambiguated in the same way. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you specify who besides you has disagreed about the city being the primary topic? I can see no such thing in the last move request or elsewhere on this talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Zhangdeming boldly moved the article, evidently to make way for the dab page. Zhangdeming was wrong not to ask first, but from what I see Zhangdeming had good reasons for doing it. --Una Smith (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The city of Aberdeen is the primary topic. Google hits are evidence of online popularity, not of significance. It sounds very much as if Weymouth is being mishandled at the moment. Note also that finding and fixing "links to the ambiguous base name" quickly and efficiently may be convenient for WP editors but it is irrelevant and may well be inefficient for our readers who form the majority of WP users. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I get slightly different results from Google: first is "a football club", second is "a university". The football club is Aberdeen's SPL club, the university is Aberdeen's oldest university. I am unconvinced by the argument that a city's main football club outranking the city in a Google search for the city's name is proof that the city isn't the primary topic - it's a testament to the popularity of football in Aberdeen, yes, but not much else. Surely the goal here is to decide whether we need to DAB between geographic locations? Adding football clubs into the mix is not relevant to this goal (no pun intended...) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ghits are bogus here: the primary usage in a neutral context is obviously the Scottish city, as one of the principle cities of northern Europe for centuries. There is little evidence that there is "disagreement" for the primary usage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, certainly Google results are easily misused or misunderstood depending on the search terms and options used. Weymouth is indeed a bad example to cite because it was a fairly hard-reached !consensus if memory serves. Most importantly, ask anyone about Aberdeen except a die-hard fan of the band Nirvana or someone who lives in one of the other places using the name (always thanks to the Scottish one, I'd bet), and the Scottish "oil capital" is the one they'll know — people from Texas to Norway have strong ties to it. Then there's the 500-year-old University... clearly the primary topic. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Off topic trivia: the 500-year old university was actually two ancient universities that merged in the 19th century; until the 19th century Aberdeen had as many universities as England. Actually, I guess that last part is kind of relevant to the discussion at hand... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The company, football club and university are all named after the city. Aberdeen in Scotland is the original one. The previous move was done out of misplaced enthusiasm. MRM (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi I have only a passing interest, as my mother was born in Aberdeen, and it was at Aberdeen Royal infirmary that she met my father to be. However the reason I have joined this discussion is because thew propsed change or move is curently residing in Malformed requests because the is no mention in the request as to where Aberdeen should be moved to. dolfrog (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I've corrected the markup. The template only takes one suggested target, so I put Aberdeen city there. The proposed targets are listed directly below the template anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fine where it is, the city is the primary usage of the word and thus should be the first place people go to. Disambigs are best used where there is even spread of equally used terms. To follow the "more than one use" argument to its conclusion would leave wikipedia with a disambig page for almost every word. SFC9394 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The city is the primary topic. The football club is called Aberdeen F.C., and is obviously named after the city. Jafeluv (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• And how many links to Aberdeen intend to link to Aberdeen F.C.? Disambiguating new links to Weymouth today, I fixed one that intended to link to Weymouth F.C..[2] Aberdeen F.C. gets over 10,000 hits per month, most months, and Google searches on Aberdeen return the football club as the top hit. So what fraction of the page views on Aberdeen are misdirected readers who want Aberdeen F.C.? Probably a lot, considering that Aberdeen (disambiguation) itself gets over 1,700 hits per month. It should be getting none. The only article linking to it is Aberdeen. That tells me there is a massive problem with the incoming links to Aberdeen; those incoming links need to be disambiguated. To do it right, now and in the future, the disambiguation page should be at the ambiguous base name. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just for comparison, Paris (disambiguation) gets about 5,000 hits per month. There's no massive problem here. Pretty much anyone looking for the football club knows that Aberdeen is the name of the city, so it's not exactly an astonishing result for a reader to end up in the city article when searching for "aberdeen". Jafeluv (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• The page view ratio is 1.7% for Paris (5202/301146), 2.3 for London (4594/200905) and 5.2 for Aberdeen (1773/33952). That is 3 times higher. Paris is vastly more notable than Aberdeen, and I think a city less notable than Paris (less "primary") does not merit such a high ratio of dab to "primary" page views. --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article should be "Aberdeen" - it is famous! No need for "City" extension, people will end up thinking it is a page for Aberdeen City in Australia or USA--Medic [ talk ] 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some web sites about the city in Scotland refer to it as "Aberdeen city": aberdeencityandshire.com aberdeencity.gov.uk --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The first website is about Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire - hence the whimsical "city and shire". The second website is about the city council, which is called "Aberdeen City Council" - hence "AberdeenCity.gov.uk". I do see see a need to disambiguate between the city and the shire; fortunately, the shire is called Aberdeenshire, neatly solving the problem. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion at WT:DPL. Also, there was no template informing editors of an open move request on the dab's talk page. Dekimasuよ! 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Got to this late so all of the reasons have been covered above. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aberdeen City - Collage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Aberdeen City - Collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Location

Is it seriously nearer to London than Glasgow is? 403 miles? Zagubov (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said seriously so ? No, it’s not. From London to Glasgow it is a 350 miles distance.--speak to Doctor Strange 04:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs in this article

The article on Aberdeen has a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that make for a choppy and shopping list-like read. I'm going to have a go and consolidating as many as I can into proper paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackofhearts101 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Craig Sadler?

Martin.sneesby (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Aberdeen

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Aberdeen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EB":

• From History of Aberdeen: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Aberdeen". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. pp. 27–28. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.
• From Aberdeenshire: Hoiberg, Dale H., ed. (2010). "Aberdeenshire". Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. I: A-ak Bayes (15th ed.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-1-59339-837-8.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic

I'm not really familiar with much about scotland, but if scots is mentioned as a language of Aberdeen, shouldn't also be appropriate to add Scottish Gaelic? My understanding was scots was more common in southern Scotland, while Scottish gaelic was mostly spoken in the North. Weebro55 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110812021945/http://aberdeencivicsociety.org.uk:80/whats-new/the-old-burghs-of-aberdeen/ to http://aberdeencivicsociety.org.uk/whats-new/the-old-burghs-of-aberdeen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100817084521/http://www.newscientist.com:80/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041222032252/http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk:80/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235 to http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=16277782&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061207054314/http://www.british-publishing.com:80/Pages/AberdeenOG/fact.html to http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/AberdeenOG/fact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113075307/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/marischal_museum/visiting_contacting.shtml to http://www.abdn.ac.uk/marischal_museum/visiting_contacting.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309101130/http://www.beechgrove.co.uk/home/Default.asp to http://www.beechgrove.co.uk/home/Default.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111004193921/http://www.scotlandrl.com/article/aberdeen-grammar-school-do-the.html to http://www.scotlandrl.com/article/aberdeen-grammar-school-do-the.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303033951/http://cricketscotland.com/ScottishCupFinal09 to http://cricketscotland.com/ScottishCupFinal09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141218150024/http://aberdeenfloorball.org.uk/ to http://www.aberdeenfloorball.org.uk/

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100817084521/http://www.newscientist.com:80/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222070752/http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/8059892 to http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/8059892

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140323002320/http://www.southendweather.net/eu120325.txt to http://www.southendweather.net/eu120325.txt
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140202113753/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140202113753/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html to http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524852.500-a-scientists-guide-to-scotland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614184703/https://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/05mype-cahb-t9.pdf to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/05mype-cahb-t9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212346/https://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Household&mainLevel=CouncilArea&mainArea=Aberdeen+City&mainText=&mainTextExplicitMatch=null&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null to http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Household&mainLevel=CouncilArea&mainArea=Aberdeen+City&mainText=&mainTextExplicitMatch=null&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213314/https://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Education&mainLevel=CouncilArea&mainArea=Aberdeen+City&mainText=&mainTextExplicitMatch=null&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null to http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Education&mainLevel=CouncilArea&mainArea=Aberdeen+City&mainText=&mainTextExplicitMatch=null&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/13/justin-rose-wins-scottish-open

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4i2i Communications (2nd nomination)

Can any Wikipedians in Aberdeen throw light on this discussion?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4i2i Communications (2nd nomination)

Silly, insignificant little company, or worthy of coverage? Mais oui! (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=54200&sID=53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516225524/http://www.dsl.ac.uk/getent4.php?plen=2982&startset=1934221&dtext=sndn&query=FURRY_BOOT_CITY to http://www.dsl.ac.uk/getent4.php?plen=2982&startset=1934221&dtext=sndn&query=FURRY_BOOT_CITY
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140117042633/http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/home/home.asp to http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/home/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aberdeentivoli.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207094529/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/historic/museum/ to http://www.abdn.ac.uk/historic/museum/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/13/justin-rose-wins-scottish-open
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aberdeeninvestlivevisit.co.uk/Visit/TwinningAberdeen/Aberdeens-Twin-Cities/Aberdeens-Twin-Cities.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205025539/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/central/abdn/ to http://www.abdn.ac.uk/central/abdn/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403194640/http://www.aberdeen-harbour.co.uk/history.html to http://www.aberdeen-harbour.co.uk/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014115545/http://www.aberdeeninvestlivevisit.co.uk/Invest/Facts-and-Literature/Invest-Facts-and-Literature.aspx to http://www.aberdeeninvestlivevisit.co.uk/Invest/Facts-and-Literature/Invest-Facts-and-Literature.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225172708/http://aberdeenfairtrade.website.orange.co.uk/ to http://aberdeenfairtrade.website.orange.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917031002/http://www.thedebater.org/about/ to http://www.thedebater.org/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701091235/http://www.thedoricfestival.com/ to http://www.thedoricfestival.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503205630/http://www.highlandfootballleague.com/clubs/showclub.php?id=4 to http://www.highlandfootballleague.com/clubs/showclub.php?id=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aberdeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305153715/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/escotland/7100_1km/MaxTemp_Average_1971-2000_7.gif to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/escotland/7100_1km/MaxTemp_Average_1971-2000_7.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019064853/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/craibstone.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/craibstone.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926170944/http://www.armymuseums.org.uk/amot-search/default.asp?Category=Amot&Service=Museum-Display&reference=0000000037 to http://www.armymuseums.org.uk/amot-search/default.asp?Category=Amot&Service=Museum-Display&reference=0000000037

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)