Talk:Aberdeen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2007Peer reviewReviewed

Aberdeen Castle[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 redpropagandadeeds 16:13, 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)
  • "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 redpropagandadeeds 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[edit]

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)

AberdeenAberdeen 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 redpropagandadeeds 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 redpropagandadeeds 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..[1] 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)
  • 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, TFOWRThis 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[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Craig Sadler?[edit]

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

Orphaned references in Aberdeen[edit]

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. 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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

checkY 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.

☒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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)[edit]

Can any Wikipedians in Aberdeen throw light on this discussion?

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Suggestion[edit]

Add to See also

Old Aberdeen

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Aberdeen Killoh (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we need a link to Old Aberdeen in the See also section, as it's crowded already and Old Aberdeen is mentioned and linked to in a few different places in the main article. That being said in general for such a small change, I suggest being WP:BOLD and just adding it in. You'll get things done a lot quicker that way! NemesisAT (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)