Talk:Aberdeen City Council

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland Low‑importance Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

City of Aberdeen or Aberdeen City?

Is it City of Aberdeen? Or Aberdeen City, as in this council website? Aberdeen City is currently a redirect to Aberdeen. Laurel Bush 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

And it is Aberdeen City in the crest copied in the article. I believe City of Aberdeen was the official name of the Aberdeen district of the Grampian region (1975 to 1996) and of the smaller "county of city" which was merged into the district in 1975. Laurel Bush 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

Seems to me now it was City of Aberdeen in 1994 legislation, but the council itself has chosen, instead, Aberdeen City, which is used also in later Boundary Commission reports. Laurel Bush 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

And whoe EXACTLY is Laurel Bush, and what authority does she have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.36.102 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

City of Aberdeen → Aberdeen City: The article is about a local government council area, and "Aberdeen City" seems to be the current official name. Laurel Bush 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"

Page moved by Kjkolb, 08:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC). Laurel Bush 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Strongly oppose because this is part of a series of articles. Please note that I am writing this after the change has already happened, and am rather disappointed to see it happened without "merge" tags being added, nor any other votes or comments being left here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• What series? What sort of entity is the series intended to be about? Laurel Bush 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC).

Merge into Aberdeen?

Please discuss at: Talk:Aberdeen#Merge in content from Aberdeen City? (/wangi 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was previously moved. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PageName → Aberdeen City Council : The article appears to be about, and intended to be about, the city council, not the city or the city area : Laurel Bush 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I should have pointed out, in my reason above, that there seems to be some agreement at "Talk:Aberdeen#Merge in content from Aberdeen City?" that, after the move, "Aberdeen City" should become a redirect to "Aberdeen". Laurel Bush 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Survey and discussion

• Support per discussion at Talk:Aberdeen#Merge in content from Aberdeen City?. Thanks/wangi 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Usgnus 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Name change

I note the reference to a name change which seems to have occurred before council and council area were in official existence (but later than the date of the act under which they would be created). Was the name changed by the district council, prior to its own abolition? Laurel Bush 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

I think it was done by the "shadow" unitary council, elected in May 1995, who came into their powers in April 1996. Must have been one of the first things they did. Lozleader 16:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was the 'shadow' council, then I guess the name change did not become effective until April 1996. Also, it would have been working under the 1994 act, not the 1973 act. Laurel Bush 09:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

You'd think so wouldn't you? But see note 2 here: Owain (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Schedule of the 1994 Act dealing with repeals, , Section 23 of the 1973 Act was not repealed, so presumably it is still the mechanism for name changes. Lozleader 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Info box

I note the info box does not mention the Gordon Westminster constituency, which includes a northern portion of the city area, but also includes a large chunk of Aberdeenshire. And the list of MSPs looks problematic, in that there is no reference to additional (list) members who also represent the city area, as part of the North East Scotland electoral region. Laurel Bush 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

I note the recent change to the info box title. The box is about rather more than the council, however, including info about MPs and MSPs. Is it really the right box? Laurel Bush 13:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

Also, seems to me the 'one pattern fits all' (template dependent) info box just doesnt work, or tries to do too much, because (1) there is too much variabilty in the relationships between council area boundaries, constituency boundaries (Holyrood and Westminster) and electoral region boundaries (Holyrood), and (2) some council areas are also cities. Besides, the template is designed for articles about council areas, not councils. Seems to me the article needs a simpler info box, tailor made for the article. Laurel Bush 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC).

Sorry. Seems not to be the template dependent info box I was thinking of. Still tries to do too much, especially in references to MPs and MSPs, which are not council figures as such. Laurel Bush 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC).

Or was I right first time? It is template dependent? Laurel Bush 09:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

Aberdeen City Council

Council logo The logo uses a "simplified" version of the Coat of Arms

Aberdeen City Shown as one of the council areas of Scotland

Council control Liberal Democrats and Conservative coalition

Council website http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/

I am thinking I should break the template link and prune seriously, to produce something as shown right.Laurel Bush 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

I am tweaking the suggested infobox (right) to make it more relevant to a council which represents a city. Laurel Bush 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aberdeen City Council. 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/20060109233442/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1443312002 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1443312002

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aberdeen City Council. 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/20070127122545/http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/your-area/scotelections2007.cfm to http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/your-area/scotelections2007.cfm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose that be Politics of Aberdeen merged into Aberdeen City Council. The article name to be used is open to debate, personally I am more familiar with the West Coast convention which use Glasgow City Council with Politics of Glasgow as a redirect; however, I see that the article covering Dundee is Politics of Dundee with Dundee City Council as a redirect. Edinburgh currently also has both a Politics article and a City Council article, which again seems unnecessary and I will be making the same suggestion on those pages.

Much of the content in the two articles (neither of which is particularly large, despite the {{Very long}} hatnote which has been appended to the Politics article; it is only 25,000 bytes, much of which is easily-readable tables and their formatting codes) is repeated, or relates to matters which could be covered under the same article. Some of the content of the Politics article refers to national events such as the 2014 Referendum, but it correctly focuses to Aberdeen voting patterns so its inclusion would be justified in an article mainly on the local authority.

I will mention this suggestion on WP:SCOTLAND for further input. Crowsus (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that these large local authorities merit their own articles. If West Lothian Council and Midlothian Council's merit having their own articles, then Edinburgh and Aberdeen should have their own separate articles. One solution could be that the Politics of Edinburgh article has a:

Main article: The City of Edinburgh Council

link to the main article, therefore solving the duplication in that article? Angryskies (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is a West Lothian Council article (and its absolutely correct that there should be one for each extant local authority), but there isn't an additional Politics of West Lothian article covering the same topics. Really there should be consistency across the four cities, so the question is whether we need eight articles or four. The political history and recent statistical information for Dundee and Glasgow seem to be adequately served by one article so I'm not sure why Edinburgh and Aberdeen need two? Crowsus (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Having considered this, I am now of the opinion that the presence of two articles is valid, and wish to withdraw the proposal; I will instead look to make/seek improvements to the Glasgow article with a view to splitting it similarly into historical and current articles; with sufficient content it would be justified as exists for the other cities, but I would say that the content is not at the required standard and breadth to separate at present. Crowsus (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)