Talk:Aberdeen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Aberdeen has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Scotland
 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)

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)
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

Director (Ara Paiaya):

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Images

There may be problems with copyright on images in this article, that will need to be changed before it can be a featured article. I am not sure what to do about it so I hoped someone else might be able to help.

I created the infobox image Image:Aberdeenmapandarms.png from a creative commons map (Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR) (with dot).png and the logo Image:Aberdeen-coa.png), which I am not sure is fair use or not (especially since I edited it into the map). I don't know if this is OK or not, but if not I think another fair use coat of arms image will need to be found, I can recreate the map image easily enough with a new logo. I don't know of any ways to acquire a fair use logo of the city. When the auto peer review bot went over this article (Wikipedia:Peer review/Aberdeen) it flagged the infobox image as a problem.

Of the images, three others may have problems, though again I am unsure. These are Image:North Sea Oil Platforms.jpg, Image:PressAndJournalFrontPage.gif and Image:New acc logo.gif. Bobbacon 12:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/e/Talk%7EAberdeen_393f.html"