Talk:Aberdeen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Aberdeen is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) This article needs referencing, per WP:CITE. --Mais oui! 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

This article is part of the WikiProject on Cities which aims to improve and standardize articles on cities, towns, and other municipalities of the world. Make suggestions for improving multiple articles on these subjects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities.

Contents 1 Tivoli Theatre 2 Various points (had been without subject headings) 3 Neutrality dispute 4 Wards/Districts 5 Gaelic name 6 Edits... 7 CFD 8 City status 9 Merge in content from Aberdeen City?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] CFD

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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.