This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles
Soapbox edits
These edits are mostly sourced to a questionnaire and are primarily based around soapboxing against the new site. For example the entire paragraph starting "Perhaps even more controversially" is sourced to
this article, which is actually shorter than the paragraph in question.
@
Jmorrison230582:@
Rrothwell: The incorrect location was still showing, even though the lines were commented out, so I've now removed the lines altogether and replaced them with the correct location. A different style of map is now displaying, but at least it shows the correct location. If anyone needs to see the previous version they can find it in the article history. --
188.28.158.163 (
talk)
15:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"nearly 5000 complaints"
Hey. An IP address (who unfortunately I therefore cannot ping)
added some content suggesting that there have been 5,000 objections to these stadium plans. They cite
this document trove on the
Aberdeen City Council's website. However, the "nearly 5000" number appears to just be counting the raw number of documents in that trove, of which many are not objections (and instead the plans themselves, comments from e.g.
Police Scotland and
RSPB), and some of the public comments are actually in support. So unless and until this information is distilled by a third party source willing to tally the actual objections, I don't think it ought to be included. —
fox17:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Requested move 24 December 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem is, when this article was created in 2008, there was no confirmation over where it would be, so it would have been much too presumptuous to presume what it would be called. So New Aberdeen Stadium was appropriate as the title for the topic, although personally I'd not have capitalised 'stadium' to make it clearer that wasn't the name itself - I have now replaced a few 'S's with 's's elsewhere in the lead for that reason as you're correct that it was never what it was going to be officially titled. Even now, although there are firm plans for Kingsford, they haven't actually started building it yet as far as I know. And they might end up having it sponsored prior to completion, i.e an Ashburton Grove/Emirates Stadium situation, so it would never be widely known as Kingsford when finished. At this stage I'd be more in favour of a redirect from Kingsford Stadium to New Aberdeen Stadium, possibly with a jump straight to #Kingsford proposal.
Crowsus (
talk) 10:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. —
Amakuru (
talk)
13:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. I would be happy with a move to "New Aberdeen stadium" with a lower case "s" so as not to imply this is a formal name. Better would be "New Aberdeen football stadium" or "New Aberdeen F.C. stadium" so that it's obvious what kind of stadium it is. --
188.30.156.58 (
talk)
12:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd think it would be named as Kingsford Stadium in an Evening Express article which the chairman said when finishing in 2023. With the capital S thing, some external links have it capitalised while others don't. Therefore, at this moment I'm 50/50 on this move.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh dear! Everyone thinks it should be moved to somewhere different! Well my chief argument is with the present title - that capital "s" makes it appear a formal name when it isn't. But I don't think "Proposed Aberdeen stadium" would be appropriate. Although the main stadium isn't expected to be finished until 2023, the first phase, the training facility called Cormack Park, is now finished and opened in October 2019, so I think this counts as more than just "proposed". Crowsus points out that when this article was started the location hadn't been decided, but that's no reason not to move it to "Kingsford Stadium" now that the location is settled. And if as Crowsus suggests the stadium takes on the name of a sponsor when it is completed, then the article can be renamed at that time. For now, whilst the stadium complex is called "Kingsford Stadium", that still seems for me the best name for our article. --
188.30.156.58 (
talk)
11:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Please look again more carefully. The term "New Aberdeen Stadium" does not occur in either of the examples you give. The first example has "New Aberdeen stadium" in its headline, the "n" uppercase because it's at the beginning, but the "s" lowercase. In the body of the article it uses "Kingsford stadium" and "new stadium", neither with a capital "s", so not asserting a name. Your second example has "new Aberdeen stadium" in the headline, both the "n" and the "s" lowercase. In the body of the article it uses "Kingsford Stadium", so does imply that this is a name. I don't think your assertion that you get thousands of ghits is valid because as far as I am aware Google does not permit case-sensitive search. --
188.30.156.58 (
talk)
12:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.