Talk:Aberdeen Group

Name

Wikipedia’s manual of style states that, in Wikipedia, company names should be written with an initial capital letter, even if the company themselves write it all-lowercase. A “styled as” note can be put in the introduction explaining how the company style the name. Mauls (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

They should change their manual of style to reflect modern times. The name abrdn is not "styled as" abrdn it is abrdn.--Samesawed (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek a change to the manual of style but any changes are likely reflect community consensus rather than "modern times". See MOS:TMLOWER. Dormskirk (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Abrdn

The name of a company is a proper noun. A proper noun begins with a capital letter. That certain people and companies use ungrammatical constructions does not make them correct. 81.168.78.33 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change of article title

As of today (4th March 2025) the company has changed its name to "aberdeen group plc". I would suggest changing the article title to either "Aberdeen Group" or "Aberdeen Group PLC" to reflect this.

Disclosure: I am an employee of the company. MattBecker82 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As "Aberdeen group" is currently redirecting to an entirely separate page, it would leave "Aberdeen group plc" or possibly "Aberdeen group (Investment Company)" as potential article titles. MattBecker82 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the intention, the name has not changed yet. See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC286832. Dormskirk (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Name change

Following Amakuru’s wholesale reversion of all of my edits yesterday, throwing away a lot of work, I have now brought the article to a point where it reflects the fact that the company has not yet changed its name from abrdn plc to aberdeen group plc, but has already changed its principal trading identity from abrdn to aberdeen. My edits also include a number of minor fixes to other items, so in any case should not simply be reverted en masse.

Please do not do any further wholesale reversions without discussing here first. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well you had moved the article, without consensus, so Amakuru was right to revert the changes. Other article names had already been offered in the talk section above. Dormskirk (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s a fair point. However:

• My main objection was not to Amakuru’s reversion of my move, but rather to the fact that he/she casually reverted all of my other edits by going back to a version of the page from before I started working on it. That is not a reasonable or constructive way to behave.
• I will confess that I hadn’t initially noticed the discussion here regarding the page title, which is my bad. That said, on that topic:
  • We currently have no evidence that “Aberdeen Group” will become the most common name for the organization. As you yourself pointed out, they haven’t actually changed the company name yet.
  • On the other hand, the company’s principal trading identity has already changed to “aberdeen”. This is not only likely to catch on as the most common name immediately, as “abrdn” was widely ridiculed (even if I personally liked it), but people have arguably already been referring to the company as “aberdeen” since 2021, given that “abrdn” is pretty much impossible to pronounce.
  • There is no reason that the article can’t be moved now - to, eg, “Aberdeen (company)” - and then moved again later - to, eg, “Aberdeen Group plc”, if that becomes the most common name. In fact, that would be the correct thing to do.
  • I therefore propose that we move the article to “Aberdeen (company)” as soon as possible. (“investment company” is unnecessary specificity.)

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have no objection to Aberdeen (company), but other names have been proposed above so we need consensus first. As the name of the company has not changed yet, I see no urgency. Dormskirk (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"The 200-year-old company is now called aberdeen group, effectively reversing a decision to rebrand as abrdn in 2021 in a bid to pitch itself as a “modern, agile, digitally-enabled brand.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/world/europe/aberdeen-abrdn-rebrand-vowels.html

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there are two options "aberdeen group" or "aberdeen (company)". Applying the {{Lowercase title}} template will ensure that the first letter of the title is not capitalised. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Taking the different points in turn:

• I’m a big fan of accurately reflecting lower-case company/trade names, so would happily support either of these options on that basis. I was previously under the impression that lower-case page titles were frowned upon on the English-language Wikipedia, but I see eBay has one (but not easyJet).
• “Aberdeen group” currently redirects to Aberdeen Strategy and Research, so, if we went for that option, what would we do about that?
• Unless we are proposing having two different pages, one strictly about aberdeen group, and one strictly about their go-to-market brand aberdeen (the latter effectively being a subset of the former), should we go with the name that is most commonly used? In all recent media coverage, other than that directly reporting their name change announcement, I can’t see anyone that is calling it aberdeen group - all the references seem to be to aberdeen.

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We can remove the redirect from "Aberdeen group" if there is a consensus to go with that option. Dormskirk (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The name changed on 12 March 2025 according to companies House: see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC286832. I suggest we go with aberdeen group unless there are any further comments. Dormskirk (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Now moved to "aberdeen group" per company announcement. Content to consider any further changes if there is consensus for that. Dormskirk (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, per [1] and also what it says on the website, the group name is clearly "Aberdeen Group" rather than the stylised form used in the trading name "aberdeen". As such, I've moved it to that title and removed the lowercase title template. Hopefully this is not controversial and will draw a line under this. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine with me. Dormskirk (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That part is not controversial, but it's a little frustrating that my original move was reverted and I was told off by Dormskirk for moving in the absence of consensus, yet now Dormskirk has just gone ahead moved the page... in the absence of consensus.

Some people on Wikipedia seem to think these kinds of decisions are super urgent - they are not. If we are going to bother having a discussion at all, let it play out for a week and give people time to contribute. Otherwise, why bother? We don't all check Wikipedia every day.

I still see no evidence that Aberdeen Group is the most common name, so this seems to be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME.

I oppose the recent move, and suggest moving back to abrdn, taking a step back, and letting a discussion about the right name play out over a week or so, rather than one person deciding it is suddenly incredibly urgent solely because of a Companies House company name change. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus: you said "I’m a big fan of accurately reflecting lower-case company/trade names, so would happily support either of these options on that basis." So I moved it to "aberdeen group" which was one of the options I proposed. Did I misunderstand? Dormskirk (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

My first bullet point was indicating that I support accurately reflecting lower-case company/trade names, so what I meant was that I wasn’t ruling out either of those options solely on the basis of their being lower case (which is not everyone’s preferred style).

That said, the world has moved on somewhat since we had that discussion, as it transpires the company has been renamed to Aberdeen Group plc, not aberdeen group plc.

My third bullet point clearly hinted that I prefer the option “aberdeen (company)”, and while I remain open to persuasion, I at least wanted to debate each option, rather than someone just moving immediately to a conclusion without first expressing a clear preference.

If we can pretend for a moment that the page is still called abrdn (so that there is no inertia bias in favour of its current title), why do you think “Aberdeen Group” is the right name and “aberdeen (company)” is not the right name? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The company has caused a lot of confusion by announcing on 3 March 2025 that the name would be aberdeen group (see page 13) and then on 13 March 2025 announcing that the name would be Aberdeen Group (see here). I would be OK with either of these but would be inclined to go with the latter as that was the most recent announcement by the company. Dormskirk (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

But why do you advocate for the inclusion of the "Group" part? As I said, I remain open to persuasion, but I would like to hear someone make the case for why they don't think referring to the company simply as aberdeen (ie, with the page title "aberdeen (company)") is the right option?

As far as I can see, the company themselves mainly use the term aberdeen - eg, here:

https://www.aberdeenplc.com/en-gb/about-us

(I'm not referring to the URL, but rather to the content of that page)

And in the few media references post-rebrand I can't see a single reference to "Aberdeen Group". Kennethmac2000 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I really don't have strong views on this. I was seeking consensus and thought we had consensus. It is you who re-opened the argument. I am OK with any of these options. Dormskirk (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't 'reopen' the argument. That is disingenuous. If you hadn't moved the page with such unnecessary haste, we could still have been having a relaxed discussion about this. Now you have the upper hand because you moved the page to your apparently preferred title (subsequently capitalized by Amakuru) and any further discussion is "reopening the argument".

If you look at the chronology, I made a comment at 19:37 on 12 March. I can see how the first bullet point could have been interpreted as supporting either "aberdeen (company)" or "aberdeen group" (although in fact it was merely designed to express support for accurately reflecting lower-case titles), but the third bullet point clearly expressed a preference for "aberdeen (company)".

You replied to that comment within 10 minutes, saying, "We can remove the redirect from 'Aberdeen group' if there is a consensus to go with that option." Your use of "if there is a consensus" clearly acknowledged that it wasn't yet clear at that point whether there was a consensus.

However, by the following morning, you had then replied to your own comment with the further comment "I suggest we go with aberdeen group unless there are any further comments."

Which you then replied to again within 30 minutes saying that you'd moved the page. Waiting less than 30 minutes for "any further comments" does not seem reasonable.

There is no need for this discussion to have been so fast-moving. We could have let the conversation play out over the course of a few days. In hindsight, perhaps we should have created a formal move proposal, and then there would have been a well-defined 7-day period in which to discuss it. I am open-minded on still doing this now if it would help.

In any case, I continue to propose "aberdeen (company)" and thus far have not heard a single argument against this title. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I repeat that I thought we had consensus: you said "I’m a big fan of accurately reflecting lower-case company/trade names, so would happily support either of these options on that basis." So I moved it to "aberdeen group" which was one of the options I proposed. I apologise if I misunderstood your intentions by these words. Dormskirk (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I know that is your view on that specific point because you have already expressed it. However, that unfortunately doesn't move us any further forward.

In addition, you have ignored (at least) two of my other points:

• You went from proposing either "aberdeen group" or "aberdeen (company)" to proposing "aberdeen group" specifically. So far, so good - it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed necessary, for someone to propose one particular option. However, rather than saying, "I suggest we go with aberdeen group unless there are any further comments," and then waiting another couple of days to see if there were indeed any further comments, you moved the page within 30 minutes of that comment! That is not reasonable.
• In any case, I am proposing that we move the page to "aberdeen (company)". Are you OK with that? If so, great. If not, can you explain why you are opposed and why you think "aberdeen group" is the better title?

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have apologised for misunderstanding your intentions, even though I thought they were completely clear. You have chosen not to accept my apology, which you are entitled to do, and claim that my position "is not reasonable". As regards your proposal for a new name, I am aware that you want me to express a view, but I am under no obligation to express a view one way or another (I have already said that I really don't have strong views on this). I am sorry that I cannot help you any further. Dormskirk (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but you are conflating two different points:

1. I have not said that your position regarding misunderstanding my intentions is not reasonable, and I am pleased to accept your apology on that.
2. The separate point, where I am indeed suggesting that you were not reasonable, is the fact that you said, "I suggest we go with aberdeen group unless there are any further comments," and then waited less than 30 minutes for further comments before simply moving the page.

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This has descended into semantics. As I say, I am sorry that I cannot help you any further. Dormskirk (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2025

Aberdeen Group → Aberdeen (company) – Following abrdn's announcement of their name change earlier in March 2025, two proposals were made for how to title this page - "Aberdeen Group" and "Aberdeen (company)" (NB: It is not possible for pages on the English-language Wikipedia to have a title with a lower-case initial letter, notwithstanding the fact that the company uses one in its trading name, aberdeen.) This topic was being discussed on the Talk page, but then, when someone realised that the company had updated their name at the UK's Companies House to Aberdeen Group plc, they decided it was imperative to update the title to Aberdeen Group right away, despite there being no evidence - more or less by definition - that this was the name that is most commonly used for the company (per WP:COMMONNAME). Other than in connection with the name change itself, there has been little to no media coverage referring to the company as "Aberdeen Group", while there has been media coverage which uses the name "Aberdeen" - eg, https://greenstreetnews.com/article/aberdeen-to-offload-e60m-frankfurt-assets/ https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/schroders-and-aberdeen-are-sticking-by-their-investment-management-arms-for-now-9d17e5c5 https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/cc3aff2d-a3ed-5467-be34-1ec2e32fcb2a Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation: When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. Perhaps after more time has passed a repeat COMMONNAME analysis could inform a new RM but even then that would have to be weighed against natural disambiguation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Natural disambiguation is also covered in the Article titles policy at WP:NATURAL. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

No-one has presented any evidence that “Aberdeen Group” is commonly used in English to refer to this company, while I have presented multiple pieces of evidence that “Aberdeen” is used.

If you read the history of how we ended up with “Aberdeen Group” in the first place, someone proposed either “Aberdeen (company)” or “Aberdeen Group”, and then at some point (and without a formal move request) decided to just move the page to “Aberdeen Group” without further discussion.

“Aberdeen Group” is itself not unambiguous, and can also refer to Aberdeen Strategy and Research - see, eg: https://mergr.com/transaction/spiceworks-ziff-davis-acquires-aberdeen-group

Indeed, “Aberdeen Group” was previously a redirect to “Aberdeen Strategy and Research”, and that redirect was removed without consensus.

If, despite the lack of ambiguity in the name “Aberdeen Group”, and the fact that it is not a commonly used name for the company, we still wish to use a page name which includes “Aberdeen Group”, I think the name should actually be “Aberdeen Group (Scottish company)”, to disambiguate from the other Aberdeen Group.

Alternatively, “Aberdeen (company)” would appear to be the more pragmatic choice, since Aberdeen Strategy and Research/Aberdeen Group is commonly referred to in sources as “Aberdeen Strategy & Research” (rather than simply “Aberdeen”). Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aberdeen (company) is ambiguous, so we need to clarify which of those is intended. Using the actual name of the group, Aberdeen Group, seems the best solution all around.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Three companies are listed at Aberdeen (disambiguation):

  • The first and second are effectively the same company, the second being a precursor of the first.
  • The third is commonly referred to in sources as “Aberdeen Strategy & Research”, not “Aberdeen”.

  If disambiguation is still felt to be required (because of the existing of Aberdeen Strategy & Research, aka Aberdeen Group - see, eg: https://mergr.com/transaction/spiceworks-ziff-davis-acquires-aberdeen-group), “Aberdeen (Scottish company)” would provide such disambiguation. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The original move from “Abrdn” to “Aberdeen Group” (and removal of the redirect of “Aberdeen Group” to “Aberdeen Strategy and Research”) was done hastily, without consensus, and, most importantly, outside of the formal move request process.

I didn’t revert this move to avoid an edit war, but now it seems that Aberdeen Group may win ‘by default’, even though there may not be a consensus for either option. We would be rewarding going outside the move request process.

If there remains a lack of consensus, the fair and reasonable thing to do here would seem to be to move the page back to Abrdn until such times as a consensus for its future name can be achieved. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not "winning by default" - two editors have opposed the move you proposed, preferring to retain this title, while you're the only editor who wants it to be "Aberdeen (company)" or "Abrdn" (a name not even in use any more). We go with the title preferred by consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The only reason the page is currently called “Aberdeen Group” is because I chose not to start an edit war when the page was moved to that name without consensus, with less than 30 minutes for objections to be made, and on top of an existing redirect.

As you are well aware, this whole situation arises out of the company’s announcement in March that it was changing both its legal and trading names. Before that, the page was called “Abrdn”.

It would be the fair and reasonable thing to do to move the page back to the name “Abrdn”, and then for the original mover to make their own formal move request to move it to “Aberdeen Group”.

Otherwise, we are actively penalising people for _not_ starting edit wars. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Aberdeen (company) as incomplete disambiguation with the former Aberdeen Group, Inc. Oppose keeping this at the current name Aberdeen Group as this is incomplete disambiguation with AberdeenGroup (not to be confused with aberdeen group. I'm a little sick of marketing gurus trying to get cute by disambiguation with CamelCase or all lowercase or alphabet soup abrdn but what can you do. I was in the process of acting in my administrative capacity to disambiguate links until I was stopped by unappreciated reverts (see wheel warring). The idea that this is clearly primary topic for "Aberdeen Group" is belied by the evidence:
  1. Electronic data interchange
  2. Free-trade zone
  3. Freelancer
  4. Electronic signature
  5. Vendor management system

  That's as far as I got before I was obligated to drop the ball. I believe there are several more of these, but now they're hiding again, among a forest of navigation-template links. Special:WhatLinksHere/Aberdeen Strategy and Research. Now we'll have to wait for someone else to pick up the ball. Probably another non-administrator page-mover who may or may not understand what they're doing. We can't use page views to measure for primary topic, as long as there are still bad links to the wrong topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for your input.

  Would you support my new proposal to move this page back to the status quo ante name of Abrdn until we can find a genuine consensus on the appropriate way forward? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. Let's just first get the remaining links disambiguated, then you can request a move to your preferred form of disambiguation, be it official legal name Aberdeen Group plc, some parenthetical such as Aberdeen Group (Scotland-based company), or something else. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Morning @Wbm1058:, I hope you're well. First of all, I'm rather sad that you've accused me of "wheel warring" above, given that we've always been Wikifriends and indeed you nominated me at RFA. As far as I'm aware, performing a single revert of another user's actions back to the status quo isn't wheel warring, that would only be if someone reinstated an admin action after it had been reverted already. Secondly, I think procedurally my revert was correct. This RM has been active for a month already, with the starting name as "Aberdeen Group"... it is not usual process to make a move of the page under discussion during the running of the RM before it is closed, at least without a clear and solid consensus that an "interim" move is required. That's not the case here, with two opposes from myself and Myceteae, the consensus seems to rather favour the current name. You could propose "Aberdeen Group plc" as an alternative option for where to move if you wanted, but not as a unilateral action. Finally, on the primary topic question, I think the pageview analysis shows rather clearly that readers regard this topic as the primary by common usage, the views of Aberdeen Group are more than 17× those of Aberdeen Strategy and Research; this is more particularly relevant given that the latter company isn't even called that any more. I don't think there is any need to disambiguate and the current title does the job very well, particularly as it satisfies WP:NATURALDIS and is the name used on the company web page and in recent sources. Moving back to "Abrdn" sounds like the worst possible option, given that the name has clearly been dropped. Anyway, let's see where it goes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  PS - I've handled the remaining incoming links intended for the Strategy and Research company, now there's just one, and that refers to the present page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  As mentioned above, the only reason the page is currently called “Aberdeen Group” is because I chose not to start an edit war when the page was moved to that name without consensus, with less than 30 minutes for objections to be made, and on top of an existing redirect.

  It would be the fair and reasonable thing to do to move the page back to the name “Abrdn” for now. This would clearly be a temporary name until consensus could been reached on the go-forward name.

  Otherwise, the inference of your comments is that I should have immediately reverted the move to “Aberdeen Group”, risking an edit war.

  PS Regarding the page views, I wouldn’t discount that a lot of the activity for Aberdeen Group is those of us involved in this debate and various other edits of the page following the company’s name and trading identity change.

  PPS Still, despite all of this debate, no-one has presented any evidence that “Aberdeen Group” is commonly used in English to refer to this company, while I have presented multiple pieces of evidence that “Aberdeen” is used. (A small number of hits on a Wikipedia page for “Aberdeen Group”, which, in any case, is the only option available, is not such evidence.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Aberdeen Group" is what they call themselves, in the header of their webpage.[2] It's also what some media sources said was their new name in the wake of the ditching of abrdn - [3][4][5] I think everyone can agree on the fundamentals of this case - Aberdeen (or maybe even aberdeen) would be the ideal name, but clearly it can't occupy the basename. And while Aberdeen (company) would be a good choice, it suffers from the issue of partial disambiguation, and WP:INCDAB says that while occasionally we can use a parenthetical name even where other entities exist with the same title, see for example Thriller (album), generally speaking you need a high bar for that. As for reverting to abrdn, that would serve no purpose whatsoever. Literally nobody thinks that should be the name, and it's been ditched by the company themselves and sources, so moving back to that would be simply disrupting reader experience just because we can't agree what the new long-term title should be. See WP:NOGOODOPTIONS.

  Anyway, in the interests of compromise, while I personally think "Aberdeen Group" is the best title per WP:NATURALDIS, if there isn't support for retaining that then I could also get behind moving to Aberdeen (company) as per the nomination. I think this enitty is a very clear primary topic over Aberdeen Strategy and Research, and as you say that isn't so often just called Aberdeen only, so personally I could put my qualms about partial disambiguation aside in this instance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are aware that completing the disambiguation was made easy for you because Dormskirk was willing to self revert their revert of my edit, something that you didn't do? wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for your constructive comments.

  I assume we would all agree that (a) what the company call themselves isn’t the deciding factor, and (b) media references to the company’s name change announcement don’t give us particularly great evidence about what the company is commonly called (ie, what it is called outside of coverage specifically relating to its name change). I provided some links to media coverage of the company after its name change, and those all used simply “Aberdeen”.

  Anyway, are we moving towards a position where we can agree on “Aberdeen (company)”?

  (In the interests of finding common ground if someone doesn’t like “Aberdeen (company)”, I would also be fine with “Aberdeen (Scottish company)”. The reason I suggest “Scottish company” is that the UK has three separate jurisdictions in which one can register a company, and Scotland is one of the three.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Are you willing to withdraw your opposition to the move request and support a move to Aberdeen (company) Amakuru?

  While, as I said, I appreciated your constructive comments, on this we need an element of precision - either you are now able to support the move request, or you are not. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Kennethmac2000: well I would be happy to support the move to Aberdeen (company) if that would help move the discussion along and achieve consensus. If any RM closer sees this they can assume that I would be OK with that scenario. But given the other !votes in this section, an Oppose from Myceteae and Wbm1058's preference for Aberdeen Group plc, with no other votes supporting Aberdeen (company) it doesn't seem like that option has the legs at this moment in time. To be clear, I'm fine with Aberdeen Group and I'm fine with Aberdeen (company).  — Amakuru (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks.

  Given wbm1058’s view that “Aberdeen (company)” would be incomplete disambiguation, what about “Aberdeen (Scottish company)”?

  Could we all get behind that? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Company" is incomplete disambiguation. I'm fine with Aberdeen (investment company), which distinguishes from Aberdeen (marketing intelligence company) and is consistent with its definition in the article's lead sentence. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  There. I created the redirect Aberdeen (marketing intelligence company). Note that the lead sentence of the target article simply calls that company "Aberdeen" too. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Should go without saying, but Aberdeen (Scottish company) works for me too. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  In addition to the five links I disambiguated (listed above), there were thirteen others. I don't understand how anyone can seriously claim "a very clear primary topic" in the face of such evidence – eighteen wikilinks – to a different topic! wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Could we all support a move to Aberdeen (Scottish company) instead, given the points about incomplete disambiguation that have been made about both Aberdeen (company) and Aberdeen Group? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For more input to the suggestion by Kenneth Mac. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm torn. I would reluctantly support Aberdeen (Scottish company). I would prefer Aberdeen Group plc but it appears this has been abandoned by other editors. Aberdeen Group plc aligns with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)#Disambiguation and WP:NATURAL, contains both common names ("Aberdeen" and "Aberdeen Group"), and is unambiguous. The best course of action may be to not move and re-assess in 1–3 months. Regardless of the outcome, I would have no objection to a good-faith repeat RM fairly soon after closing. Some reasonable editors may conclude there are still no good options here, with returning to the recent stable title Abrdn being among the worst available options. It's near-impossible to make a common name assessment in the months immediately following a corporate name change. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that it’s near-impossible to make a common name assessment in the months immediately following a corporate name change.

  However, the move from Abrdn to Aberdeen Group was done with haste without a move request. I was tempted to revert this move, but didn’t for fear of starting an edit war, and now the person who preferred that name has got their preferred name while we all spend hours on the talk page debating the pros and cons of different alternatives.

  For the record, I think Aberdeen Group plc is better than Aberdeen Group, since at least, as far as we’re aware, there is no other Aberdeen Group plc (though I am open to being corrected on that). My observation, though, is that “Aberdeen” is being used by the media and others more than “Aberdeen Group” to refer to the company, and so a name reflecting that (such as Aberdeen (Scottish company)) would still be preferable. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  My assessment that Aberdeen Group plc is the best available title is based on an assessment of multiple factors and policies and guidelines, as summarized above, not just COMMONNAME. Aberdeen and Aberdeen Group are both quite common but are, to varying degrees, ambiguous, though not everyone agrees that ambiguity is a problem for Aberdeen Group because another, better title is available for the other company sometimes called "Aberdeen Group". Certainly, adding Group does not make this any less recognizable, and there is equal or greater support for simply maintaining Aberdeen Group as for the parenthetical (Scottish company). When the most common name is not available for whatever reason, a reasonably common and recognizable alternative is appropriate, natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and the full name or legal name is common solution. I agree that the undiscussed move in the middle of an ongoing discussion was inappropriate, and you did the right thing opening a formal discussion. I can't support moving it back to Abrdn on the principle that this was the last stable title, because we've now had the discussion and no one thinks that is the appropriate title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still fine with Aberdeen Group plc, since I moved the page to that title. I didn't abandon that; my move was reverted by another administrator. Aberdeen (Scottish company) works for me as a second option. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  My order of preference is:
  Aberdeen Group = Aberdeen Group plc >> Aberdeen (Scottish Company) >>> Aberberdeen (company)
  I actually have a slight preference for Aberdeen Group. The objections are reasonable, though I'm not totally convinced, and Aberdeen Group plc is a good compromise. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Since Aberdeen Group plc is objectively better than Aberdeen Group (for reasons that can be found in this thread), shall we all agree to move the page there for now?

  Discussions about a name involving a parenthetical disambiguation of Aberdeen can still happen in the future under a separate move request, if folks so desire. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  I trust the closer can see that at least 3/4 of participants coalesced on Aberdeen Group plc after much back and forth. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Hipal I note that you have tagged the article that references are missing basic information. The referencing looks pretty good to me. Please can you give a bit more guidance as to which references are inadequate. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added a few missing access dates and names of journalists. Hopefully the tag can be removed now. Dormskirk (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)