text:
Medication

A medication (also called medicament, medicine, pharmaceutical drug, medicinal drug or simply drug) is a drug used to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent disease. Drug therapy (pharmacotherapy) is an important part of the medical field and relies on the science of pharmacology for continual advancement and on pharmacy for appropriate management.

Drugs are classified in many ways. One of the key divisions is by level of control, which distinguishes prescription drugs (those that a pharmacist dispenses only on the order of a physician, physician assistant, or qualified nurse) from over-the-counter drugs (those that consumers can order for themselves). Another key distinction is between traditional small molecule drugs, usually derived from chemical synthesis, and biopharmaceuticals, which include recombinant proteins, vaccines, blood products used therapeutically (such as IVIG), gene therapy, monoclonal antibodies and cell therapy (for instance, stem cell therapies). Other ways to classify medicines are by mode of action, route of administration, biological system affected, or therapeutic effects. An elaborate and widely used classification system is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. The World Health Organization keeps a list of essential medicines.

Drug discovery and drug development are complex and expensive endeavors undertaken by pharmaceutical companies, academic scientists, and governments. As a result of this complex path from discovery to commercialization, partnering has become a standard practice for advancing drug candidates through development pipelines. Governments generally regulate what drugs can be marketed, how drugs are marketed, and in some jurisdictions, drug pricing. Controversies have arisen over drug pricing and disposal of used drugs.

Definition
Medication is a medicine or a chemical compound used to treat or cure illness. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, medication is "a substance used in treating a disease or relieving pain".

As defined by the National Cancer Institute, dosage forms of medication can include tablets, capsules, liquids, creams, and patches. Medications can be given in different ways, such as by mouth, by infusion into a vein, or by drops put into the ear or eye. A medication that does not contain an active ingredient and is used in research studies is called a placebo.

In Europe, the term is "medicinal product", and it is defined by EU law as:

 * "Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings; or"
 * "Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action or to making a medical diagnosis."

In the US, a "drug" is:
 * A substance (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.
 * A substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device.
 * A substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.
 * A substance recognized by an official pharmacopeia or formulary.
 * Biological products are included within this definition and are generally covered by the same laws and regulations, but differences exist regarding their manufacturing processes (chemical process versus biological process).

Usage
Drug use among elderly Americans has been studied; in a group of 2,377 people with an average age of 71 surveyed between 2005 and 2006, 84% took at least one prescription drug, 44% took at least one over-the-counter (OTC) drug, and 52% took at least one dietary supplement; in a group of 2245 elderly Americans (average age of 71) surveyed over the period 2010 – 2011, those percentages were 88%, 38%, and 64%.

Classification
One of the key classifications is between traditional small molecule drugs; usually derived from chemical synthesis and biological medical products; which include recombinant proteins, vaccines, blood products used therapeutically (such as IVIG), gene therapy, and cell therapy (for instance, stem cell therapies).

Pharmaceuticals or drugs or medicines are classified into various other groups besides their origin on the basis of pharmacological properties like mode of action and their pharmacological action or activity, such as by chemical properties, mode or route of administration, biological system affected, or therapeutic effects. An elaborate and widely used classification system is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (ATC system). The World Health Organization keeps a list of essential medicines.

A sampling of classes of medicine includes: Pharmaceuticals may also be described as "specialty", independent of other classifications, which is an ill-defined class of drugs that might be difficult to administer, require special handling during administration, require patient monitoring during and immediately after administration, have particular regulatory requirements restricting their use, and are generally expensive relative to other drugs.
 * 1) Antipyretics: reducing fever (pyrexia/pyresis)
 * 2) Analgesics: reducing pain (painkillers)
 * 3) Antimalarial drugs: treating malaria
 * 4) Antibiotics: inhibiting germ growth
 * 5) Antiseptics: prevention of germ growth near burns, cuts,and wounds
 * 6) Mood stabilizers: lithium and valproate
 * 7) Hormone replacements: Premarin
 * 8) Oral contraceptives: Enovid, "biphasic" pill, and "triphasic" pill
 * 9) Stimulants: methylphenidate, amphetamine
 * 10) Tranquilizers: meprobamate, chlorpromazine, reserpine, chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, and alprazolam
 * 11) Statins: lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin

For the digestive system

 * Lower digestive tract: laxatives, antispasmodics, antidiarrhoeals, bile acid sequestrants, opioids.
 * Upper digestive tract: antacids, reflux suppressants, antiflatulents, antidopaminergics, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), H2-receptor antagonists, cytoprotectants, prostaglandin analogues.

For the cardiovascular system

 * Affecting blood pressure/(antihypertensive drugs): ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, α blockers, calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, aldosterone inhibitors.
 * Coagulation: anticoagulants, heparin, antiplatelet drugs, fibrinolytics, anti-hemophilic factors, haemostatic drugs.
 * General: β-receptor blockers ("beta blockers"), calcium channel blockers, diuretics, cardiac glycosides, antiarrhythmics, nitrate, antianginals, vasoconstrictors, vasodilators.
 * HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for lowering LDL cholesterol inhibitors: hypolipidaemic agents.

For the central nervous system
Drugs affecting the central nervous system include psychedelics, hypnotics, anaesthetics, antipsychotics, eugeroics, antidepressants (including tricyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, lithium salts, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)), antiemetics, anticonvulsants/antiepileptics, anxiolytics, barbiturates, movement disorder (e.g., Parkinson's disease) drugs, nootropics, stimulants (including amphetamines), benzodiazepines, cyclopyrrolones, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, cholinergics, anticholinergics, emetics, cannabinoids, and 5-HT (serotonin) antagonists.

For pain
The main classes of painkillers are NSAIDs, opioids, and local anesthetics.

For consciousness (anesthetic drugs)

Some anesthetics include benzodiazepines and barbiturates.

For musculoskeletal disorders
The main categories of drugs for musculoskeletal disorders are: NSAIDs (including COX-2 selective inhibitors), muscle relaxants, neuromuscular drugs, and anticholinesterases.

For the eye

 * Anti-allergy: mast cell inhibitors.
 * Anti-fungal: imidazoles, polyenes.
 * Anti-glaucoma: adrenergic agonists, beta-blockers, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors/hyperosmotics, cholinergics, miotics, parasympathomimetics, prostaglandin agonists/prostaglandin inhibitors, nitroglycerin.
 * Anti-inflammatory: NSAIDs, corticosteroids.
 * Antibacterial: antibiotics, topical antibiotics, sulfa drugs, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones.
 * Antiviral drugs.
 * Diagnostic: topical anesthetics, sympathomimetics, parasympatholytics, mydriatics, cycloplegics.
 * General: adrenergic neurone blocker, astringent.

For the ear, nose, and oropharynx
Antibiotics, sympathomimetics, antihistamines, anticholinergics, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, antiseptics, local anesthetics, antifungals, and cerumenolytics.

For the respiratory system
Bronchodilators, antitussives, mucolytics, decongestants, inhaled and systemic corticosteroids, beta2-adrenergic agonists, anticholinergics, mast cell stabilizers, leukotriene antagonists.

For endocrine problems
Androgens, antiandrogens, estrogens, gonadotropin, corticosteroids, human growth hormone, insulin, antidiabetics (sulfonylureas, biguanides/metformin, thiazolidinediones, insulin), thyroid hormones, antithyroid drugs, calcitonin, diphosphonate, vasopressin analogues.

For the reproductive system or urinary system
Antifungal, alkalinizing agents, quinolones, antibiotics, cholinergics, anticholinergics, antispasmodics, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, selective alpha-1 blockers, sildenafils, fertility medications.

For contraception

 * Hormonal contraception.
 * Ormeloxifene.
 * Spermicide.

For obstetrics and gynecology
NSAIDs, anticholinergics, haemostatic drugs, antifibrinolytics, Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), bone regulators, beta-receptor agonists, follicle stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, LHRH, gamolenic acid, gonadotropin release inhibitor, progestogen, dopamine agonists, oestrogen, prostaglandins, gonadorelin, clomiphene, tamoxifen, diethylstilbestrol.

For the skin
Emollients, anti-pruritics, antifungals, antiseptics, scabicides, pediculicides, tar products, vitamin A derivatives, vitamin D analogues, keratolytics, abrasives, systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics, hormones, desloughing agents, exudate absorbents, fibrinolytics, proteolytics, sunscreens, antiperspirants, corticosteroids, immune modulators.

For infections and infestations
Antibiotics, antifungals, antileprotics, antituberculous drugs, antimalarials, anthelmintics, amoebicides, antivirals, antiprotozoals, probiotics, prebiotics, antitoxins, and antivenoms.

For the immune system
Vaccines, immunoglobulins, immunosuppressants, interferons, and monoclonal antibodies.

For allergic disorders
Anti-allergics, antihistamines, NSAIDs, corticosteroids.

For nutrition
Tonics, electrolytes and mineral preparations (including iron preparations and magnesium preparations), parenteral nutrition, vitamins, anti-obesity drugs, anabolic drugs, haematopoietic drugs, food product drugs.

For neoplastic disorders
Cytotoxic drugs, therapeutic antibodies, sex hormones, aromatase inhibitors, somatostatin inhibitors, recombinant interleukins, G-CSF, erythropoietin.

For diagnostics
Contrast media.

For euthanasia
A euthanaticum is used for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is not permitted by law in many countries, and consequently, medicines will not be licensed for this use in those countries.

Administration

A single drug may contain single or multiple active ingredients.

The administration is the process by which a patient takes medicine. There are three major categories of drug administration: enteral (via the human gastrointestinal tract), injection into the body, and by other routes (dermal, nasal, ophthalmic, otologic, and urogenital).

Oral administration, the most common form of enteral administration, can be performed using various dosage forms including tablets or capsules and liquid such as syrup or suspension. Other ways to take the medication include buccally (placed inside the cheek), sublingually (placed underneath the tongue), eye and ear drops (dropped into the eye or ear), and transdermally (applied to the skin).

They can be administered in one dose, as a bolus. Administration frequencies are often abbreviated from Latin, such as every 8 hours reading Q8H from Quaque VIII Hora. The drug frequencies are often expressed as the number of times a drug is used per day (e.g., four times a day). It may include event-related information (e.g., 1 hour before meals, in the morning, at bedtime), or complimentary to an interval, although equivalent expressions may have different implications (e.g., every 8 hours versus 3 times a day).

Drug discovery
In the fields of medicine, biotechnology, and pharmacology, drug discovery is the process by which new drugs are discovered.

Historically, drugs were discovered by identifying the active ingredient from traditional remedies or by serendipitous discovery. Later chemical libraries of synthetic small molecules, natural products, or extracts were screened in intact cells or whole organisms to identify substances that have a desirable therapeutic effect in a process known as classical pharmacology. Since sequencing of the human genome which allowed rapid cloning and synthesis of large quantities of purified proteins, it has become common practice to use high throughput screening of large compound libraries against isolated biological targets which are hypothesized to be disease-modifying in a process known as reverse pharmacology. Hits from these screens are then tested in cells and then in animals for efficacy. Even more recently, scientists have been able to understand the shape of biological molecules at the atomic level and to use that knowledge to design (see drug design) drug candidates.

Modern drug discovery involves the identification of screening hits, medicinal chemistry, and optimization of those hits to increase the affinity, selectivity (to reduce the potential of side effects), efficacy/potency, metabolic stability (to increase the half-life), and oral bioavailability. Once a compound that fulfills all of these requirements has been identified, it will begin the process of drug development prior to clinical trials. One or more of these steps may, but not necessarily, involve computer-aided drug design.

Despite advances in technology and understanding of biological systems, drug discovery is still a lengthy, "expensive, difficult, and inefficient process" with a low rate of new therapeutic discovery. In 2010, the research and development cost of each new molecular entity (NME) was approximately US$1.8 billion. Drug discovery is done by pharmaceutical companies, sometimes with research assistance from universities. The "final product" of drug discovery is a patent on the potential drug. The drug requires very expensive Phase I, II, and III clinical trials, and most of them fail. Small companies have a critical role, often then selling the rights to larger companies that have the resources to run the clinical trials.

Drug discovery is different from Drug Development. Drug Discovery is often considered the process of identifying new medicine. At the same time, Drug development is delivering a new drug molecule into clinical practice. In its broad definition, this encompasses all steps from the basic research process of finding a suitable molecular target to supporting the drug's commercial launch.

Development
Drug development is the process of bringing a new drug to the market once a lead compound has been identified through the process of drug discovery. It includes pre-clinical research (microorganisms/animals) and clinical trials (on humans) and may include the step of obtaining regulatory approval to market the drug.

Drug Development Process

Discovery: The Drug Development process starts with Discovery, a process of identifying a new medicine.

Development: Chemicals extracted from natural products are used to make pills, capsules, or syrups for oral use. Injections for direct infusion into the blood drops for eyes or ears.

Preclinical research: Drugs go under laboratory or animal testing, to ensure that they can be used on Humans.

Clinical testing: The drug is used on people to confirm that it is safe to use.

FDA Review: drug is sent to FDA before launching the drug into the market.

FDA post-Market Review: The drug is reviewed and monitored by FDA for the safety once it is available to the public.

Regulation
The regulation of drugs varies by jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, they are regulated at the national level by a single agency. In other jurisdictions, they are regulated at the state level, or at both state and national levels by various bodies, as is the case in Australia. The role of therapeutic goods regulation is designed mainly to protect the health and safety of the population. Regulation is aimed at ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of the therapeutic goods which are covered under the scope of the regulation. In most jurisdictions, therapeutic goods must be registered before they are allowed to be marketed. There is usually some degree of restriction on the availability of certain therapeutic goods depending on their risk to consumers.

Depending upon the jurisdiction, drugs may be divided into over-the-counter drugs (OTC) which may be available without special restrictions, and prescription drugs, which must be prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner in accordance with medical guidelines due to the risk of adverse effects and contraindications. The precise distinction between OTC and prescription depends on the legal jurisdiction. A third category, "behind-the-counter" drugs, is implemented in some jurisdictions. These do not require a prescription, but must be kept in the dispensary, not visible to the public, and be sold only by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. Doctors may also prescribe prescription drugs for off-label use – purposes which the drugs were not originally approved for by the regulatory agency. The Classification of Pharmaco-Therapeutic Referrals helps guide the referral process between pharmacists and doctors.

The International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations imposes a world law of prohibition of certain drugs. They publish a lengthy list of chemicals and plants whose trade and consumption (where applicable) are forbidden. OTC drugs are sold without restriction as they are considered safe enough that most people will not hurt themselves accidentally by taking it as instructed. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom have a third category of "pharmacy medicines", which can be sold only in registered pharmacies by or under the supervision of a pharmacist.

Medical errors include over-prescription and polypharmacy, mis-prescription, contraindication and lack of detail in dosage and administration instructions. In 2000 the definition of a prescription error was studied using a Delphi method conference; the conference was motivated by ambiguity in what a prescription error is and a need to use a uniform definition in studies.

Drug pricing
In many jurisdictions, drug prices are regulated.

United Kingdom
In the UK, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme is intended to ensure that the National Health Service is able to purchase drugs at reasonable prices. The prices are negotiated between the Department of Health, acting with the authority of Northern Ireland and the UK Government, and the representatives of the Pharmaceutical industry brands, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). For 2017 this payment percentage set by the PPRS will be 4,75%.

Canada
In Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board examines drug pricing and determines if a price is excessive or not. In these circumstances, drug manufacturers must submit a proposed price to the appropriate regulatory agency. Furthermore, "the International Therapeutic Class Comparison Test is responsible for comparing the National Average Transaction Price of the patented drug product under review" different countries that the prices are being compared to are the following: France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Brazil
In Brazil, the prices are regulated through legislation under the name of Medicamento Genérico (generic drugs) since 1999.

India
In India, drug prices are regulated by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority.

United States
In the United States, drug costs are partially unregulated, but instead are the result of negotiations between drug companies and insurance companies.

High prices have been attributed to monopolies given to manufacturers by the government. New drug development costs continue to rise as well. Despite the enormous advances in science and technology, the number of new blockbuster drugs approved by the government per billion dollars spent has halved every 9 years since 1950.

Blockbuster drug
A blockbuster drug is a drug that generates more than $1 billion in revenue for a pharmaceutical company in a single year. Cimetidine was the first drug ever to reach more than $1 billion a year in sales, thus making it the first blockbuster drug.

"In the pharmaceutical industry, a blockbuster drug is one that achieves acceptance by prescribing physicians as a therapeutic standard for, most commonly, a highly prevalent chronic (rather than acute) condition. Patients often take the medicines for long periods."

Prescription drug history
Antibiotics first arrived on the medical scene in 1932 thanks to Gerhard Domagk; and were coined the "wonder drugs". The introduction of the sulfa drugs led to the mortality rate from pneumonia in the U.S. to drop from 0.2% each year to 0.05% by 1939. Antibiotics inhibit the growth or the metabolic activities of bacteria and other microorganisms by a chemical substance of microbial origin. Penicillin, introduced a few years later, provided a broader spectrum of activity compared to sulfa drugs and reduced side effects. Streptomycin, found in 1942, proved to be the first drug effective against the cause of tuberculosis and also came to be the best known of a long series of important antibiotics. A second generation of antibiotics was introduced in the 1940s: aureomycin and chloramphenicol. Aureomycin was the best known of the second generation.

Lithium was discovered in the 19th century for nervous disorders and its possible mood-stabilizing or prophylactic effect; it was cheap and easily produced. As lithium fell out of favor in France, valpromide came into play. This antibiotic was the origin of the drug that eventually created the mood stabilizer category. Valpromide had distinct psychotrophic effects that were of benefit in both the treatment of acute manic states and in the maintenance treatment of manic depression illness. Psychotropics can either be sedative or stimulant; sedatives aim at damping down the extremes of behavior. Stimulants aim at restoring normality by increasing tone. Soon arose the notion of a tranquilizer which was quite different from any sedative or stimulant. The term tranquilizer took over the notions of sedatives and became the dominant term in the West through the 1980s. In Japan, during this time, the term tranquilizer produced the notion of a psyche-stabilizer and the term mood stabilizer vanished.

Premarin (conjugated estrogens, introduced in 1942) and Prempro (a combination estrogen-progestin pill, introduced in 1995) dominated the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) during the 1990s. HRT is not a life-saving drug, nor does it cure any disease. HRT has been prescribed to improve one's quality of life. Doctors prescribe estrogen for their older female patients both to treat short-term menopausal symptoms and to prevent long-term diseases. In the 1960s and early 1970s, more and more physicians began to prescribe estrogen for their female patients. between 1991 and 1999, Premarin was listed as the most popular prescription and best-selling drug in America.

The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by FDA in 1960. Oral contraceptives inhibit ovulation and so prevent conception. Enovid was known to be much more effective than alternatives including the condom and the diaphragm. As early as 1960, oral contraceptives were available in several different strengths by every manufacturer. In the 1980s and 1990s, an increasing number of options arose including, most recently, a new delivery system for the oral contraceptive via a transdermal patch. In 1982, a new version of the Pill was introduced, known as the "biphasic" pill. By 1985, a new triphasic pill was approved. Physicians began to think of the Pill as an excellent means of birth control for young women.

Stimulants such as Ritalin (methylphenidate) came to be pervasive tools for behavior management and modification in young children. Ritalin was first marketed in 1955 for narcolepsy; its potential users were middle-aged and the elderly. It was not until some time in the 1980s along with hyperactivity in children that Ritalin came onto the market. Medical use of methylphenidate is predominantly for symptoms of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Consumption of methylphenidate in the U.S. out-paced all other countries between 1991 and 1999. Significant growth in consumption was also evident in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Norway. Currently, 85% of the world's methylphenidate is consumed in America.

The first minor tranquilizer was Meprobamate. Only fourteen months after it was made available, meprobamate had become the country's largest-selling prescription drug. By 1957, meprobamate had become the fastest-growing drug in history. The popularity of meprobamate paved the way for Librium and Valium, two minor tranquilizers that belonged to a new chemical class of drugs called the benzodiazepines. These were drugs that worked chiefly as anti-anxiety agents and muscle relaxants. The first benzodiazepine was Librium. Three months after it was approved, Librium had become the most prescribed tranquilizer in the nation. Three years later, Valium hit the shelves and was ten times more effective as a muscle relaxant and anti-convulsant. Valium was the most versatile of the minor tranquilizers. Later came the widespread adoption of major tranquilizers such as chlorpromazine and the drug reserpine. In 1970, sales began to decline for Valium and Librium, but sales of new and improved tranquilizers, such as Xanax, introduced in 1981 for the newly created diagnosis of panic disorder, soared.

Mevacor (lovastatin) is the first and most influential statin in the American market. The 1991 launch of Pravachol (pravastatin), the second available in the United States, and the release of Zocor (simvastatin) made Mevacor no longer the only statin on the market. In 1998, Viagra was released as a treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Ancient pharmacology
Using plants and plant substances to treat all kinds of diseases and medical conditions is believed to date back to prehistoric medicine.

The Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus, the oldest known medical text of any kind, dates to about 1800 BC and represents the first documented use of any kind of drug. It and other medical papyri describe Ancient Egyptian medical practices, such as using honey to treat infections and the legs of bee-eaters to treat neck pains.

Ancient Babylonian medicine demonstrated the use of medication in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. Medicinal creams and pills were employed as treatments.

On the Indian subcontinent, the Atharvaveda, a sacred text of Hinduism whose core dates from the second millennium BC, although the hymns recorded in it are believed to be older, is the first Indic text dealing with medicine. It describes plant-based drugs to counter diseases. The earliest foundations of ayurveda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices, together with a massive addition of theoretical conceptualizations, new nosologies and new therapies dating from about 400 BC onwards. The student of Āyurveda was expected to know ten arts that were indispensable in the preparation and application of his medicines: distillation, operative skills, cooking, horticulture, metallurgy, sugar manufacture, pharmacy, analysis and separation of minerals, compounding of metals, and preparation of alkalis.

The Hippocratic Oath for physicians, attributed to fifth century BC Greece, refers to the existence of "deadly drugs", and ancient Greek physicians imported drugs from Egypt and elsewhere. The pharmacopoeia De materia medica, written between 50 and 70 CE by the Greek physician Pedanius Dioscorides, was widely read for more than 1,500 years.

Medieval pharmacology
Al-Kindi's ninth century AD book, De Gradibus and Ibn Sina (Avicenna)'s The Canon of Medicine, covers a range of drugs known to the practice of medicine in the medieval Islamic world.

Medieval medicine of Western Europe saw advances in surgery compared to previously, but few truly effective drugs existed, beyond opium (found in such extremely popular drugs as the "Great Rest" of the Antidotarium Nicolai at the time) and quinine. Folklore cures and potentially poisonous metal-based compounds were popular treatments. Theodoric Borgognoni, (1205–1296), one of the most significant surgeons of the medieval period, responsible for introducing and promoting important surgical advances including basic antiseptic practice and the use of anaesthetics. Garcia de Orta described some herbal treatments that were used.

Modern pharmacology
For most of the 19th century, drugs were not highly effective, leading Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. to famously comment in 1842 that "if all medicines in the world were thrown into the sea, it would be all the better for mankind and all the worse for the fishes".

During the First World War, Alexis Carrel and Henry Dakin developed the Carrel-Dakin method of treating wounds with an irrigation, Dakin's solution, a germicide which helped prevent gangrene.

In the inter-war period, the first anti-bacterial agents such as the sulpha antibiotics were developed. The Second World War saw the introduction of widespread and effective antimicrobial therapy with the development and mass production of penicillin antibiotics, made possible by the pressures of the war and the collaboration of British scientists with the American pharmaceutical industry.

Medicines commonly used by the late 1920s included aspirin, codeine, and morphine for pain; digitalis, nitroglycerin, and quinine for heart disorders, and insulin for diabetes. Other drugs included antitoxins, a few biological vaccines, and a few synthetic drugs. In the 1930s, antibiotics emerged: first sulfa drugs, then penicillin and other antibiotics. Drugs increasingly became "the center of medical practice". In the 1950s, other drugs emerged including corticosteroids for inflammation, rauvolfia alkaloids as tranquilizers and antihypertensives, antihistamines for nasal allergies, xanthines for asthma, and typical antipsychotics for psychosis. As of 2007, thousands of approved drugs have been developed. Increasingly, biotechnology is used to discover biopharmaceuticals. Recently, multi-disciplinary approaches have yielded a wealth of new data on the development of novel antibiotics and antibacterials and on the use of biological agents for antibacterial therapy.

In the 1950s, new psychiatric drugs, notably the antipsychotic chlorpromazine, were designed in laboratories and slowly came into preferred use. Although often accepted as an advance in some ways, there was some opposition, due to serious adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia. Patients often opposed psychiatry and refused or stopped taking the drugs when not subject to psychiatric control.

Governments have been heavily involved in the regulation of drug development and drug sales. In the U.S., the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration, and the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required manufacturers to file new drugs with the FDA. The 1951 Humphrey-Durham Amendment required certain drugs to be sold by prescription. In 1962, a subsequent amendment required new drugs to be tested for efficacy and safety in clinical trials.

Until the 1970s, drug prices were not a major concern for doctors and patients. As more drugs became prescribed for chronic illnesses, however, costs became burdensome, and by the 1970s nearly every U.S. state required or encouraged the substitution of generic drugs for higher-priced brand names. This also led to the 2006 U.S. law, Medicare Part D, which offers Medicare coverage for drugs.

As of 2008, the United States is the leader in medical research, including pharmaceutical development. U.S. drug prices are among the highest in the world, and drug innovation is correspondingly high. In 2000, U.S.-based firms developed 29 of the 75 top-selling drugs; firms from the second-largest market, Japan, developed eight, and the United Kingdom contributed 10. France, which imposes price controls, developed three. Throughout the 1990s, outcomes were similar.

Controversies
Controversies concerning pharmaceutical drugs include patient access to drugs under development and not yet approved, pricing, and environmental issues.

Access to unapproved drugs
Governments worldwide have created provisions for granting access to drugs prior to approval for patients who have exhausted all alternative treatment options and do not match clinical trial entry criteria. Often grouped under the labels of compassionate use, expanded access, or named patient supply, these programs are governed by rules which vary by country defining access criteria, data collection, promotion, and control of drug distribution.

Within the United States, pre-approval demand is generally met through treatment IND (investigational new drug) applications (INDs), or single-patient INDs. These mechanisms, which fall under the label of expanded access programs, provide access to drugs for groups of patients or individuals residing in the US. Outside the US, Named Patient Programs provide controlled, pre-approval access to drugs in response to requests by physicians on behalf of specific, or "named", patients before those medicines are licensed in the patient's home country. Through these programs, patients are able to access drugs in late-stage clinical trials or approved in other countries for a genuine, unmet medical need, before those drugs have been licensed in the patient's home country.

Patients who have not been able to get access to drugs in development have organized and advocated for greater access. In the United States, ACT UP formed in the 1980s, and eventually formed its Treatment Action Group in part to pressure the US government to put more resources into discovering treatments for AIDS and then to speed release of drugs that were under development.

The Abigail Alliance was established in November 2001 by Frank Burroughs in memory of his daughter, Abigail. The Alliance seeks broader availability of investigational drugs on behalf of terminally ill patients.

In 2013, BioMarin Pharmaceutical was at the center of a high-profile debate regarding expanded access of cancer patients to experimental drugs.

Access to medicines and drug pricing
Essential medicines, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), are "those drugs that satisfy the health care needs of the majority of the population; they should therefore be available at all times in adequate amounts and in appropriate dosage forms, at a price the community can afford." Recent studies have found that most of the medicines on the WHO essential medicines list, outside of the field of HIV drugs, are not patented in the developing world, and that lack of widespread access to these medicines arise from issues fundamental to economic development – lack of infrastructure and poverty. Médecins Sans Frontières also runs a Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines campaign, which includes advocacy for greater resources to be devoted to currently untreatable diseases that primarily occur in the developing world. The Access to Medicine Index tracks how well pharmaceutical companies make their products available in the developing world.

World Trade Organization negotiations in the 1990s, including the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration, have centered on issues at the intersection of international trade in pharmaceuticals and intellectual property rights, with developed world nations seeking strong intellectual property rights to protect investments made to develop new drugs, and developing world nations seeking to promote their generic pharmaceuticals industries and their ability to make medicine available to their people via compulsory licenses.

Some have raised ethical objections specifically with respect to pharmaceutical patents and the high prices for drugs that they enable their proprietors to charge, which poor people around the world, cannot afford. Critics also question the rationale that exclusive patent rights and the resulting high prices are required for pharmaceutical companies to recoup the large investments needed for research and development. One study concluded that marketing expenditures for new drugs often doubled the amount that was allocated for research and development. Other critics claim that patent settlements would be costly for consumers, the health care system, and state and federal governments because it would result in delaying access to lower cost generic medicines.

Novartis fought a protracted battle with the government of India over the patenting of its drug, Gleevec, in India, which ended up in a Supreme Court in a case known as Novartis v. Union of India & Others. The Supreme Court ruled narrowly against Novartis, but opponents of patenting drugs claimed it as a major victory.

Environmental issues
Pharmaceutical medications are commonly described as "ubiquitous" in nearly every type of environmental medium (i.e. lakes, rivers, streams, estuaries, seawater, and soil) worldwide. Their chemical components are typically present at relatively low concentrations in the ng/L to μg/L ranges. The primary avenue for medications reaching the environment are through the effluent of wastewater treatment plants, both from industrial plants during production, and from municipal plants after consumption. Agricultural pollution is another significant source derived from the prevalence of antibiotic use in livestock.

Scientists generally divide environmental impacts of a chemical into three primary categories: persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity. Since medications are inherently bio-active, most are naturally degradable in the environment, however they are classified as "pseudopersistent" because they are constantly being replenished from their sources. These Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutants (EPPPs) rarely reach toxic concentrations in the environment, however they have been known to bioaccumulate in some species. Their effects have been observed to compound gradually across food webs, rather than becoming acute, leading to their classification by the US Geological Survey as "Ecological Disrupting Compounds."

title: Medication


text:
Talk:Reykjavík

REMOVED FAKE CLIMATIC DATA
That fake ridicolous and absurd climatic data with an average year temperature below 0C and record low of -29C was removed, because it's clearly not from Reykjavik. It even contradicts the information written above.

This data is correct: https://notendur.hi.is/oi/climate_in_iceland.htm

Reykjavik yearly average temperature is around 5C not below 0C. It's amazing that joke and ridicolous and fake data has lasted for so long time. It's a real shame for Wikipedia.

Expensive according to whom?
I am wondering about this quote: "Beer, however, is expensive: half a litre of beer in an Icelandic bar can cost between 600 and 850 krónur (approx. $4.60 to $6.55 or €3.80 to €5.38 or £3.20 to £4.50 as of June 2010)."

By what standard is that expensive? By Icelandic standards? By American standards?

Paying $4.60 - $6.55 for a pint of beer would not be expensive by Canadian standards, for example, so I am wondering what standard is being used here. Asnider (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes I just thought about that. It seems relatively in-line with Canadian / UK / Northern European (and many other places) prices to me. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/oct/06/average-cost-pint-bitter-good-pub-guide seems to suggest the average costs more than the low range here. This might be a hold-over from a time when Iceland's currency was worth twice as much as it is now. For instance, I was in Reykjavik in 2005, and the exchange rate was around 60 ISK to 1 CAD. At those rates, 850 is quite a bit. But since their currency has gone the way of the ZWL, the prices have come down to a more normal level. However, if that's an old reference, it's possible that the price of beer has risen in response to the value of the currency (maybe a pint costs 1200 - 1700 ISK now). A bit of clarification there is needed. As it stands, 600 ISK is 2.95 GBP as well. This has costs from various countries http://www.pintprice.com/. I recommend taking the line out of the article, it's pretty much useless anyway. 99.236.234.224 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes (2004)
Okay. I made a few changes, added a few new sections and material so that this page would contain the same sections as the page about Akureyri does. Added:
 * Economy
 * Sites of interest
 * Colleges and universities (with complete lists of colleges and universities)
 * Sports teams (with complete list of sports teams)

and a new Administration section.

--Ómar Kjartan Yasin
 * Changed colleges into gymnasia, which is correct. --165.123.138.170 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting of 1986 (discussed 2004)
The page

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iceland

claims that the Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting was held in 1986. What is correct?
 * '86 --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:02, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

High-seat pillars (2004)
The introduction claims that the first settler chose the spot "after his high-seat pillars had washed upon the shore". What exactly are "high-seat pillars"? I presume this is a translation issue, but it means absolutely nothing to me. Does anyone know what is meant? - IMSoP 23:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I added that bit and made a link to a stub called "Öndvegissúlur" (the Icelantic name for these things) witch should give the reader some idea what this meant.KiloGramm 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

High seat pillars are the two pillars by the back of a high seat in a Viking ship. The high seat was the seat of the chief. These pillars were related to nordic mythology and were probably meant to protect the chief and the crew from the elements. I'v not come across any other english term to describe this and I feel "high-seat pillars" to be quite descriptive. - Biekko 12:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "Pillars of Importace" is the direct translation, but perhaps the meaning of the word has changed ower the years.KiloGramm 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I see - perhaps that explanation could be noted in the article and/or something linked from it, for those as baffled as I was. - IMSoP 15:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm workning on rewriting the whole Reykjavík article and I might try to make this clearer there. - Biekko 16:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New article (2004)
I've rewritten and expanded this article, I think this form of the article also allows for more future expansions. Anyone is of course encouraged to revise the article and make improvements and expansions. I am yet to write the administration and infrastructure passages but they are coming. Biekko 18:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since Akureyri now has a fact sheet, there should be one for Reykjavík as well. I've copied the Akureyri one here and shall paste into the article when ready.

The article claims reykjavik means Bay of Smoke, I heard though, that it is named after Viking York, Javik am I totally mistaken?

I'm afraid you are :) Bjornkri 22:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might be confusing the City of York's (UK) Jorvik Viking Centre, and Reykjavic. (Barry m 04:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Stærsta smáborg í heimi?
Where does this nickname come from? Does it have any official standing? Me and my friends generally refer to the city as Borg óttans (e. City of fear) or Sódóma :) --Bjarki 12:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Aaahh, Scandinavian Sin... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway

2005
The phonetic description at the top of the page is not IPA, though it says it is.

 * I have changed it to IPA. Krun 18:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And I've changed it to what I think is slightly more readable IPA :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

2007: /c/ vs /kj/
My apologies for my recent /c/-deleting edit. I had never seen /c/ in IPA before, meaning something akin to /kj/. But Help:IPA just schooled me. — ¾-10 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No severe congestion?
Congestion is one of the matters the city dwellers complain most about and what do they say is to blame? The fact that the city is spread out! Especially the way it is spread out with residential areas mostly disconnected from industrial and commercial areas. This means that most people can't walk or ride a bicycle to their workplace and have no choice but to use their car (The bus system is rather unpopular because in this "car friendly city" the buses are stuck during rush hour). There are also parts of the city that are not particularly well served by the traffic system such as the city center and the city's eastern suburbs (whose outlets to the wide multilane highways are often congested). Maybe the inhabitants haven't seen much real congestion like the ones that occur in big cities like New York but listen: Reykjavík is NOT a big city even if it may have the heart of a big city. And i think there is a strong case to consider it as having severe congestion. The point I'm making is that the view represented on this issue in the article is highly debatable. - Andrés Böðvarsson --85.220.121.53 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Daylight/sunlight
"sunlight" changed to "daylight" as Reykjavik does not recieve four hours of sunlight in mid-winter. Rather it recieves four hours of daylight. You can still have daylight without sun. For example the length of day on the shortest day of the year (21st December) is 4 hours and 7 minutes. It would need to be sunny every day for the sunlight hours to be equal to daylight hours, which it most certainly isn't in Reykjavik, mid-winter!

Nick M 15th of April 2006

New category for the nordic/scandinavian capitals?
I would like to suggest a new category for the capital cities of Scandinavia/the Nordic, including Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, Reykjavik and Stockholm. (I've posted this message on the talk page for each city.) Comments, anyone? /M.O (u) (t) 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What's your justification for such an article? I don't see the point if each capital has their own individual Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.54.123 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Beginning of the article
I think that the very beginning of this article isn't good enough. For example, it says that the hours of sunlight Reykjavik receives differ greatly between summer and winter, but is that what you're looking for when you want information about Reykjavik itself. It sure is unique, but I'd say that this information should come later in the introduction, while other information, such as a summary of its history and information about its population should come in first. Although Reykjavik is a small city and might not look very interesting at first sight, it is the capital of Iceland and is very important as the financial and governmental centre of the country. What I'm trying to say is that I believe this introduction might be a little more comprehensive but still of course only a short summary for the rest of the article. - 85.220.74.213 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation bug
Superscripted h applied from German version! They are right. This was missing, making me think the j is 100% silent but it is NOT. The extremely weak h must be in to represent the j; it must not be omitted. Perfectly audible on the sample. -andy 80.129.74.36 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the difference between [c] and [k] with the difference between and  (it is [c] and not [k] since it is spelled Reykjavík and not Reykavík but it is  and not  because it in sourthern Iceland and so is "linmælt" (don't think there is an English word for this) Stefán 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, you are right! Yes I seem to have confused the [c] with an ordinary "c" or "k". But after I heard the sound samples, I'm about sure that there is no english word pronounced with a [c], am I even right? If so, does anyone of you guys know in which language that sound is used too? -andy 91.32.75.66 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, [c] is not used in English. Haukur 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sound file with the pronunciation is whack, I can't hear anything nor does it play the whole file. I'm going to re-record with both approached Icelandic version and Englishized one. 75.72.162.175 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I rolled that back. The earlier file works fine for me and your attempt did not sound like that of a native speaker. Haukur 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not meant to be. The previous speaker also indicated she was from New York so, I guess maybe she's really good. 75.72.162.175 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Regarding /c/ in English: According to Help:IPA, the initial of English cute is close enough to help an English-speaker understand what is meant (even if it is not equivalent to Icelandic /c/ or Turkish /c/). It is something akin to /kj/. — ¾-10 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Added picture of Only Train in Iceland..Thought it would emphasis About Iceland, and it was a good picture too lol... If you don't think it belongs then take it out (write on my talk page if you do though please). I had trouble getting it in a good spot (my wikicode knowledge isn't that good), so If you think it would look better in another place within the article, feel free to re-arrange it. GBenemy ( talk •  it.wiki  •  bot ) 08:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Recording
I am thinking of recording this page. Are Icelanders okei with an American English speaker recording their article? .:DavuMaya:. 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. This is the English Wikipedia and spoken articles should be recorded by natural English speakers. Perhaps an Icelander should do it first though so you have some guidance regarding pronunciation of Icelandic names? --Bjarki 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful because tho I know how to pronounce the names, I always hear it a bit different from a speaker. Someone did once say "all words have an anglicized version" but I hate doing that :) I can always direct you guys to the preview of the file to check it for accuracy. .:DavuMaya:. 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How in the world do I say Elliðaá? And the corresponding valley name? Is it EFT-ti-tha-ou? .:DavuMaya:. 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

fails to cite its sources...?
Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to have sources? And cite them? And, if not, have a nice big flag that says "This article fails to cite its sources"? Because this one doesn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.220.138 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized there are 0 citations on this page. .:DavuMaya:. 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Time zone?
I came here to find out what time zone Reykjavik is in. Could someone add that to the article? --Doradus (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to the page of Iceland.--2.245.66.112 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

English pronunciation
There is currently no English pronunciation of the name of the city given here. One might be added in accordance with the manual of style. Has this already been discussed and a consensus reached against it? --Cam (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it is pronounced as spelled, or close to ? "Rey" (R+ a "ey" diftong, with a clear "y-vowel") + "kja" + "veek" ? (It's just a guess) Boeing720 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now English pronunciation is given in the beginning of the article: "/ˈreɪkjəvɪk, -viːk/ RAYK-yə-vik, RAYK-yə-veek". Burzuchius (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Icelandic I (diacritic in the name)
Hi folks. It seems to me that the special Icelandic "í" should not be used in this name, as the name is used commonly in English without the diacritic (diagonal mark on top to differentiate it from the normal (in English) "i"), by sources from the academic to the mundane. I'm not going to try to make the change without some sort of consensus, but this seems to be a pretty clear case, to me. Feedback?AshleyMorton (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 * No reason to. I'd bet that a lot of these people just don't want to bother with the extra steps to make diacritics on the keyboard. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm against this move. In my opinion spelling it without the diacritic is simply incorrect. BodvarBjarki (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was surprised that the article's title contains the diacritic. We don't call Mexico City 'México City', etc. Is the form with the diacritic really the common name in English publications? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. We don't have that letter. You are free to use the Icelandic alphabet in the Icelandic Wikipedia. I won't go over there and object if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.121 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Jón Gnarr isn't mayor yet
Jón Gnarr isn't mayor yet, we should wait until he is elected formally by the city council. Hanna Birna is the current mayor. See http://www.reykjavik.is/. gumol (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

'Bay of Smokes'
In English, the noun smoke is 'uncountable' - it doesn't normally have a plural (& when it does, it is usually an informal term for cigarettes). So even if the 'smoke' in the name Reykjavik is/was plural in Icelandic (I take it the dropped '-r' shows this, although that is not explicit from the article) the plural doesn't translate well into English & in fact reads very oddly. Can I suggest removing the final '-s' and, if necessary, explaining that it derives from a plural (although I see no particular reason for mentioning it)? - Costesseyboy (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The noun "smoke" isn't uncountable if it is used to mean "a thing that makes smoke", which it is here. ("Smoker", as in "black smoker", is the same idea.) I think "Bay of Smokes" is an excellent term because it is read as "bay full of places that emit smoke." "Bay of Smoke" implies that it's the equivalent of a foggy place, full of smoke that could come from a single source. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I've never come across 'smoke' meaning 'a thing that makes smoke' (other than the informal usage already mentioned) and neither has my dictionary; the only other meaning for 'smokes' it mentions is 'instances or spells of smoking [tobacco etc]'. To say that "it is read" in the way you say may be true in your case, but I'd say that's something that cannot be asserted more generally. And it is a misconception that 'Bay of Smoke' necessarily implies that the smoke, or steam, comes or "could come" from a single place - the use of an uncountable or 'mass' noun does not imply singularity in any literal (real world) sense, and the use of 'smoke' here implies nothing at all about the number of sources of the steam or smoke. 'Bay of Smokes' is neither grammatical nor idiomatic and because it violates those norms it sounds very odd.86.156.0.104 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The south bay of Los Angeles uses it Bay of Smokes the same way, as a translation of the Spanish name . You'll also find the "smokes" version has been used for the English translation of the Icelandic for a long time; it's not a wikipedia invention. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you insist. Perhaps American English is less clear on this point. To me it makes the entry read as if written by someone who does not understand English well, when the deletion of one letter could have improved it immeasurably. I still reject your semantic argument. Costesseyboy (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The lovely and/or annoying thing about English is that it's so flexible, and happily tosses out rules if it seems like a good idea. To me, "Bay of Smokes" is both more poetic and more meaningful than "Bay of Smoke". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I myself am American and find the pluralised version of the name to be much better, so it's not a matter of ENGVAR. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, like I said, maybe it sounds ok to an American, but not to me. Languages change all the time but my English hasn't changed to the point where I routinely use mass nouns in the plural.Costesseyboy (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) By the way, the fact that some people have thought Bahia de los Fumos can be translated the same way doesn't make it right. A plural in one language isn't always plural in another. In French, a funeral service is plural - you wouldn't want to replicate that in English, would you?Costesseyboy (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In English, the definition of "what's OK" is pretty flexible - more so than in French, certainly. So the fact that everybody in a section of the L.A. basin uses the term *does* make it OK. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

But English isn't infinitely flexible, however many poor translations of place names you can cite. Let's assume some Americans, like you, find 'Smokes' acceptable, because they know of the Bahia de los Fumos or for some other reason. Would they find 'Bay of Smoke' incomprehensible? No. Whereas I strongly suspect that to most competent speakers of English elsewhere in the world, 'Bay of Smokes' reads & sounds like a mistake or a joke. So which is preferable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costesseyboy (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 * And if you check Wikipedia on Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo you will see the correct English translation for Bahia de los Fumos: 'Bay of Smoke'.86.157.202.182 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia - in the real world, it's written as "Bay of Smokes" on signs, etc. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any "competent" English-speaker would ever look at "Bay of Smokes" in this article and think "Bay of Cigarettes" or some other such nonsense. I'd assume that most people are not so bogged down in functional fixedness to not comprehend what is meant by "Smokes" here: multiple sources of smoke. "Smoke" singular gives an image of one cohesive mass of of suspended particles, like fog. But if you have actually visited Iceland, you will know that this is not what is being referred to. "Smokes" plural more accurately represents the geothermal vents that dot the landscape, each sending out their own plume of smoke, not forming one uncountable mass. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a further note about usage, "Valley of Smokes" is not uncommon when referring to an area with lots of wildfires (a good parallel to the geysers of Iceland), while there's also "Valley of 10,000 smokes" and the term "land of smokes", in this case  referring to Yellowstone, an excellent parallel. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd, your misconception that the correct usage would give the impression of a single mass. When a building is on fire & is said to be 'full of smoke', do we think all the smoke must therefore come from a single source - and if not, we must use the plural? Of course not. But it seems that to you Americans, 'Smokes' is good English, and that means the rest of us have to put up with it, although it is not a form we use and the singular would be clearly understood by all.Costesseyboy (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity,Lothar von Richthofen, are you an American? (I am.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's amazing that we Americans managed to fool some British folks into naming "Edge of Smokes Wood". Such power we have! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm an American. But really, picking on nationalities here is exceptionally petty.
 * If a building is "full of smoke", the smoke in question is in one single mass. The geothermal vents in Iceland do not emit vapours that form one single mass. But if you really are going to continue niggling everyone on this very minor point, perhaps we can reach a compromise wording like "Bay of Smoke Plumes" (though such a wording is very cumbersome). The so-called "proper usage", however grammatically correct it may be, is simply inaccurate. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) I'm not 'picking on nationality': I'm accepting that American English contains various usages that are less acceptable in other forms of the language (maybe you weren't aware of that) & suggesting that a more widely accepted form would be preferable. Thanks for impugning my integrity though. (2) I don't know Smokes Wood, Kent, but suspect it's a possessive form - woods are often called after (or 'named for', as you might say) individuals. Irrelevant though. (3) As you know, smoke in a burning building will typically come from a number of sources. (4) 'Bay of Smoke' is not inaccurate. You seem to think the use of a so-called mass noun in the singular implies a single physical mass (why? tea, sugar & rice are all mass nouns) & that because it is plural in Icelandic (which has not actually been established, to my knowledge) it must be in English. Not so. (5) Although I honestly cannot see why you refuse to accept 'Smoke', if you really think a plural is essential, why not 'Bay of Fumes', since that is a countable noun? (5) Trivial? You may not be aware how incredibly critical many people are of Wikipedia - unfairly, of course. Articles in poor English with questionable usages really don't help (& by that I'm not criticising the rest of this article).86.170.90.13 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I have stupidly ignored the key point here: This isn't my translation, this is the translation that is commonly used, and has been commonly used for decades, in English-language periodicals (not just American ones). That's why it belongs in this article, not because a couple editors like the way it sounds (although I do). Check this Google Books search to see what I mean - it found 25 or so travel and academic and popular works, dating back to 1914, that use "Bay of Smokes" as the English translation of the city name. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * However, to complicate things, a different Google Book search finds a roughly equivalent collection of publications that use the "S-free" form, including one dating to 1838: . And at least one gives it the alternate name "The Smoky Bay" ... so perhaps we should give some a couple of choices? But maybe that would be clutter without much purpose. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The translation has been changed, by an editor who (judging from his/her editing history) knows Icelandic, to "Cove of Smoke" as a more accurate translation. This is a term ("cove" vs. "bay" I mean) which is not, so far as I can find via Google Books search, used in English-language publications - so I was thinking of adding an aside along the lines "often called 'Bay of Smokes'", but perhaps this horse, dead or otherwise, has been beaten too much already. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi David — You're correct in both cases. It is my native language, and my edit was lacking: If it's a dominant custom to use Bay then that should be used. Thanks for pointing this out. I also think it has to be accompanied by a sidenote like you propose; but rather have a note that states: "(direct translation cove, yet frequently referred to as the Bay of Smoke.)" — but we need to state who refers to it that way (eg. mainly USA? Do you have any links at hand?). And on the plural matter: I favor either "Smoky Bay" or "Smoke Bay" over using a plural form of smoke. But I'm not overly zealous in that. We should turn up trustworthy references to settle what its custom form will become on Wikipedia. How does all this sound? I hope we're closing in on an agreement on all matters. ---hthth (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you agree that the article is undeniably better, at least for now, when changed according to our agreements above. I've made the changes and added a few citation needed clauses for good measure, since this is something we seriously need to improve the article. We'll figure things out in good time. ---hthth (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've belatedly tweaked it a bit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Per capita car ownership in Iceland is among the highest in the world at roughly 522 vehicles per 1,000 residents
So what does "roughly" mean here?

There are, or there are not, 522 vehicles per 1,000 residents?

There's nothing rough about it, surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.22.57 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The 39th of January?
"The temperature has not dropped to below −20 °C (−4 °F) since 39 January 1971." I kinda doubt that date is accurate. Someone who knows the actual date should probably correct that, or simply remove the day altogether ("since January 1971"). Callid13 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sound file
I don't know Icelandic, but for [c], the sound file has too much [k]. Are you sure it's not [kʲ]? Or is the sound file not precise?--2.245.66.112 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's complicated, but several scholars seem to agree that [c] is correct... if perchance you know German, maybe this discussion over in German Wikipedia will interest you... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
The history section has some very close paraphrasing, maybe even enough to be a copyvio, of the book Travel Iceland, see here. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 14:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 * It's obviously the other way round - that's a cheaply made e-book full of material from Wikipedia resp. Wikimedia Commons (the photographs), compare e.g. also Reykjavik Art Museum or Skagafjörður or everything else in this book... There are literally thousands of books like this by various publishers (some also sell printed collections of Wikipedia articles, not always clearly labeled as such)... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

quote
did you know that over 85 percent of people in iceland didn't watch the super bowl this year?? or last year??And the vast vast majority of people in Iceland doesn't watch american football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:27E:244B:8C4A:E6F4:657F (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Icelanders would watch the Super Bowl. It is incredibly boring and completely irrelevant to us. I guess most Icelanders have never even heard of it. American football and baseball are not considered interesting sports in Iceland and probably the rest of the world. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect you're responding to a feeble joke of some kind. Like saying "99.9% of Americans didn't watch the world handball championship" since that sport isn't played in the US. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Reykjavík. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080901210249/http://www.questia.com:80/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=GWNJYhhJ9lt0MbY6X86ny7Z6LKLhJbqnBs8QyfG9sGJx6JvRT1qN!-1963512867?docId=5001321944 to http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=GWNJYhhJ9lt0MbY6X86ny7Z6LKLhJbqnBs8QyfG9sGJx6JvRT1qN!-1963512867?docId=5001321944

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Reykjavík
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Reykjavík City" vs. "Reykjavík"
What's the rationale behind putting "Reykjavík City" in the infobox instead of just "Reykjavík"? I don't understand why the "city" part would need to be added. I don't recall any other cities' infoboxes having 'city' added to the name. (Except for names like New York City and Quebec City, where there's a distinction.) Thanks. Uncle Alf (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree. I don't see what putting "City" there adds.  It is not a normal part of the name in English (neither is the diacritic for that matter).  New York City and Quebec City are exceptions - but the articles are also at New York City and Quebec City, whereas this one is at Reykjavík. Kahastok talk 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The template is called Infobox Icelandic municipality and refers to the administrative division (municipality) whereas the name of the article refers to the geographic area – the two obviously overlap. In Icelandic, when vaguely refering to the area, one says Reykjavík but when refering to the municipality one says Reykjavíkurborg (Reykjavik City). We also have an article on the Reykjavík City Council (not Reykjavík Council). Whether one says Reykjavík City or City of Reykjavík is a matter of choice but the former is closer to Icelandic. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 * We aren't writing in Icelandic or in a direct and literal translation of Icelandic. We are writing in English.  The way Icelandic distinguishes between the urban area and municipality is not relevant.

 * In English, the distinction you describe is not communicated by changing "Reykjavik" to "Reykjavik City". Precedent on other articles also goes against adding "City": what you describe is not fundamentally a different situation to any one of a large number of other cities throughout the world, very few of which are disambiguated as you describe.  The only cities for which we add the word "City" are those where it is already commonly used to disambiguate in English, e.g. Quebec City, New York City.

 * That we refer to Reykjavik City Council is not relevant - "City Council" is a common construction in English, and does not imply that the city's name should end with the word "City". For example, Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council. Kahastok talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting changing the title of the article, just the parameter in the municipality template. I don't understand your language point. Are you implying that accuracy gets lost in translation to English? Disambiguation is not a feature of the Icelandic language. I know what the policy is regarding article titles: administrative terms (city, town, village etc.) are typically lost except where there is a potential for confusion, such as with New York (the state) and New York City. You are incorrect in applying the article naming policy on a parameter about the municipality itself and its formal name (i.e. not colloquial name nor general area name). It’s not a matter of translation but correctness. I should know, I created the municipality template myself. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Your statement "Disambiguation is not a feature of the Icelandic language" contradicts your earlier statement "In Icelandic, when vaguely refering to the area, one says Reykjavík but when refering to the municipality one says Reykjavíkurborg (Reykjavik City)."

 * I am not confusing this with the article titles policy. But this is not a fundamentally different point.  That you created the municipality template is not significant, and consistency with articles on cities outside Iceland is no less important than consistency with articles on cities within Iceland.

 * In English "Reykjavik City" does not imply that we are talking about the municipality as opposed to the urban area. The precise distinction in meaning you describe in the Icelandic is lost when you translate to English.  There is no significant difference in meaning in English implied between "Reykjavik" and "Reykjavik City" in this context.  "City" is simply redundant.  Which is why people are questioning it and is one of the reasons why no other article - other than those like New York and Quebec which are very different situations - uses "City" in this context. Kahastok talk 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been clearer and said "in Iceland" and not "in Icelandic" but that doesn't matter now. "Reykjavik City" doesn't have to imply anything specific in English or any other language. I didn't put "City" in the name because I thought that would signal something useful for English-speakers, such as to imply that it referred to a municipality. I did it because all of the other data related directly to the municipality as an administrative division and so naturally it made sense to me that the formal name be given. The fact that it is in a municipality-related template should imply that, not the "City" part by itself. I don't see why a non-native shouldn't know that the municipality has its own name which is similar but different from the geographic area. A rule should be applicable to all situations but if we had a geographic area known as "X" being ruled by a municipality known as "Y" then calling the municipality "X" wouldn't just be imprecise but factually incorrect. There is a compromise I think is reasonable however and that is to keep the heading at the top as "Reykjavík" but to add another parameter corresponding to a label somewhere below saying "Municipal name" or something. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New Weatherbox
I needed updated data for Reykjavik's climate, and since the weatherbox here is ancient, I pieced an updated one together using the official monthly data. While not referencing an official publication, and using a funky time period, they'd be using the same methods in order to release their updated climate normals in 2021 or whenever they get around to it. I will leave it here and you can use it if you want to. I don't want to get into territorial battles with the people who regularly take care of this page.

Everything is updated, apart from the number of rainy days, which they don't track in the monthly data it seems. The extremes have been updated using everything since 1990, since I assumed that the 1961-1990 normals reflected all data on file up to that point.

Synon0 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"among the cleanest, greenest, and safest cities in the world"
I'm not questioning clean or safe - but greenest ? I once learned that there are no trees on Iceland. Perhaps planted ones - but no woods. Are there lots of parks (with planted threes) in Reykjavik ? And if not, how come it's so green ? It's a question only. Boeing720 (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it refers to green grass. Lots of green fields. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Number of seats on the City Council
The number of seats on the city council is different than the number listed on the Wikipedia page for it Dogblock (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No government currently?
Why is there nothing in the government section of the infobox? Is it anarchy? :) I assume it is either a mistake, or there has been some trouble in forming a city administration. Inspector Semenych (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

North American city
I've reverted the removal of the comment on Reykjavik being North American. If you read the comment on the source when I added it in you'll note that I acknowledged the source only discusses Reykjavik's location on the North American Plate, but that's the only source I was after. If someone can provide a more rock solid statement then by all means, edit it in, but Reykjavík is unambigulously located within the geological region of North America in an identical way to Greenland, where the lede is

There's no geographic or geological distinguishing between the two and both are functionally European nations, though obviously Greenland is neither independent nor culturally similar to the rest of Europe. There are plenty of sources mentioning this which themselves would wildly fail WP:RS so we're left with the geological plate sources (which, again, is basically the universal standard and is the reason we refer to Greenland as North American) in the absence of anything else, though I'm certain with digging a better source could be found. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 * The IP was correct. The fact that you say, "that's the only source I was after" doesn't mean other people have to accept it.  Per WP:NOR, you need a source that says that Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North America.  You don't have that, so the claim can't go in the article.

 * The claim that geological plates are "the universal standard" for defining continents is false. The fact that you are referring to Europe in the first place demonstrates this, since there is no plate boundary between Europe and Asia.  By your standard, Hanoi is as European as Paris and more European than Venice (which is on a separate microplate). Kahastok talk 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kahastok WP:BLUESKY applies when the question is "what continent is this city in?", so no WP:NOR concerns. There is only one answer (North America) and the cited source provides that. Politically it is a part of Europe, but geographically it is indisputably outside of Eurasia and we run up against weirdness with the Greenland article if we pretend it's outside of North America.
 * Iceland makes quite a big deal of which continent you're in when you cross the rift zone fully, but it's not like this detail is covered by a ton of sources which meet WP:RS. You have technical sources which simply refer to Reykjavík as located in the North American plate (which I went with) or a whole plethora of travel guides which we can't use to go off of. You're right in pointing out that the division of Eurasia itself is arbitrary, but Eurasia to North America decidedly isn't. As we don't cite that France is a European capital, the purposes of a geological citation was to counter incredulity, which it appears failed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUESKY is that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue - i.e. obvious facts known to all. You do need a cite if you want to say that the sky is orange - even though it sometimes is.  There are few if any topics where WP:BLUESKY applies across the board, no matter what the claim is or what the context is.

 * The conventional distinctions between Eurasia and North America rely on locations of the oceans, not locations of the plate boundaries. Otherwise, Los Angeles and San Diego are definitely not in North America, but a large chunk of north-eastern Russia is.  When it comes to islands, in the real world all division between continents depends on cultural and political factors as well as geology and geography.

 * The claim that Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North America requires a source that says that, in so many words. Drawing your own conclusion from plate tectonics is WP:OR. Kahastok talk 10:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kahastok You're right about the issue with Los Angeles/San Diego, but that is again an example where there's larger geopolitical considerations a lá Eurasia vs. Europe. I'm fine doing an RFC on this; it feels like a pretty big wiff to have an article about a city physically if not geopolitically in North America without mentioning the continent it's in. Note that while I invoked WP:BLUESKY I did actually cite the claim I made with a source that discusses Reykjavík's location relative to the North American plate, since we can't exactly cite tourism companies on this topic. Note that the main article for Iceland does a decent job of discussing its position relative to both continents.
 * There's two fundamental questions, here:
 * 1) Is Reykjavík physically located in North America?
 * 2) If so, does this meet WP:N to include in the article on Reykjavík or do we go with the general convention?
 * The notion that Reykjavík is physically on the North American pretty easily meets WP:VERIFY, and general convention isn't verifiability. For example:
 * 2) If so, does this meet WP:N to include in the article on Reykjavík or do we go with the general convention?
 * The notion that Reykjavík is physically on the North American pretty easily meets WP:VERIFY, and general convention isn't verifiability. For example:

 * At some point It doesn't feel like pedantry or pointless trivia to me to include the continent the city is located in, but also it feels important not to treat that bit of information with a WP:UNDUE approach. i.e., "just because this little fact is very obscure and sort of a technical detail does not make it unreal and therefore not worth mentioning, but it doesn't necessarily need more than a mention regardless." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I think it is worth reminding ourselves your proposal is. It is not that we should say in a relevant part of the article that Reykjavik is geologically on the North American plate (a claim that your sources would support and that I would not have objected to).  It is that we should claim, in the first paragraph of the article, that Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North America - a conclusion that neither of your sources reach, on a topic that is not discussed in the rest of the article at all.

 * You acknowledge that your definition of the continents produces odd results, and then ignore that fact entirely in the rest of your comment. If Reykjavik is in North America, then Los Angeles and San Diego aren't.  You say "larger geopolitical considerations", but your own quote above - shoot, your own proposal for the article - applies those same considerations to put Iceland in Europe.  If the larger geopolitical considerations are irrelevant here, then they are also irrelevant in the cases of Los Angeles and Hanoi.  And it would be just as valid for the first paragraph of the lead of Los Angeles to refer to it as the largest US city not in North America, or for the first paragraph of the lead of Hanoi to put its ranking as one of the largest cities in Europe. Kahastok talk 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Reykjavík


text:
Talk:Floater

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Floater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023070153/http://www.eyecaresource.com:80/conditions/eye-floaters/ to http://www.eyecaresource.com/conditions/eye-floaters/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226034028/http://www.healthhaven.com:80/hyaloid_artery.htm to http://www.healthhaven.com/hyaloid_artery.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130728004305/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/flashesandfloaters/ot089103.pdf to http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/flashesandfloaters/ot089103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Floater. 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/20080423155742/http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/index.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207084700/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/floaters/floaters.asp to http://nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/floaters.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Premacular bursa?
Why is an illustration showing the and labeled "Premacular bursa" in the article when there is no mention of the bursa in the article itself? Do floaters tend to accumulate in the bursa, or between it and the retina or something? Is there a reason to point it out then not talk about it?

Yatagerasu (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I was asking myself the same thing. Besides, there is no entry on "premacular bursa" in Wikipedia. The search query only gives the Floater article. I would suggest removing the image completely.

 * Fabianokm (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Speculation about a premacular bursa where floaters were "supposedly found" in children was added by an anomymous user in 2009.(dif1, dif2). The speculation was removed in 2018, but the illustration accidentally remained.(dif3) I am going to delete the image now. Ceinturion (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Floater. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.formulamedical.com/Topics/Head%26Neck/Eye%20floaters%20vitreous.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502083133/http://www.stlukeseye.com/Conditions/Floaters.html to http://www.stlukeseye.com/Conditions/floaters.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708191532/http://www.optometry.co.uk/uploads/articles/640c1a5b606a7d89320511ca29ccc288_kabat20010323.pdf to http://www.optometry.co.uk/uploads/articles/640c1a5b606a7d89320511ca29ccc288_kabat20010323.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ellex.com/patients/floaters/about-vitreolysis/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eye-floaters.com/treatingfloaters-vitrectomy.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/floaters.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Floater. 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/20151017014013/http://www.ellex.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ultra-q-reflex/Ellex_UltraQ_Vitreolysis-whitepaper.pdf to http://www.ellex.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ultra-q-reflex/Ellex_UltraQ_Vitreolysis-whitepaper.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Information on Floaters in Animals
https://veterinaryvisioncenter.com/eye-can-see-clearly-now-vitreal-floaters-in-pets/

https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-dogs-get-floaters-in-their-eyes-like-we-do/448611

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/vitreous-floaters

Here are some references that could be useful as it has been known that floaters happen in other animals too. As an aspiring animal researcher with tons of animals at home, I like to keep links that contain information on animal health issues, but not a lot of information on animal health issues is tackled here, so I wish to add them in order to broaden up coverage.

Cheers! LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 * @LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist thanks for your edit! I would not trust "Veterinary Vision Center" as a reliable source for scientific information. The page from ScienceDirect you posted contains some articles that might help you write a better referenced statement, for instance this chapter of Equine Ophthalmology.
 * Have a look at Identifying reliable sources (science). Broc (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Floater


text:
Talk:Folk singer

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I vote to redirect this to List of folk musicians. Tokerboy

title: Talk:Folk singer


text:
Talk:Cavalleria Rusticana

Synopsis originally from Melitz, 1921. - Dreamword 00:38 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cavalleria Rusticana