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

Scotland Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]