text:
Franky Gee

Francisco Alejandro Gutierrez (February 19, 1962 – October 22, 2005), known professionally as Franky Gee, was a Cuban-American singer, rapper and soldier. He was the second lead vocalist of the Europop group Captain Jack.

Early life
Gee was born in Havana, Cuba, with 3 siblings. His family emigrated to Miami, Florida, and he then went on to Mallorca, Spain when he was young. After college, he enlisted in the United States Army, and was stationed in Germany. While there, he began his career as a disc jockey. He grew tired of military service and decided to stay in Germany when his enlistment expired. In Darmstadt, Germany, he formed Captain Jack, alongside vocalist Liza da Costa, where he found success.

Gee also wrestled for Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling in Japan on August 28, 2000 losing to Kodo Fuyuki at FMW's Super Dynamism 2000 pay-per-view.

Death
On October 17, 2005, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage while walking with his son in Palma de Mallorca. He went into a coma and died five days later. The cerebral hemorrhage may have been due to a stroke in July 2002.

title: Franky Gee


text:
Talk:Analgesic

Needs
Needs one or more references for the content, added tag.--FloNight 21:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Returning tag to top of talk page. Category:Articles lacking sources states that talk page is an appropriate place for the tag. This is the place tags are placed on medical articles that are undergoing work by various projects related to medicine]]--FloNight 18:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Needs one or more references for the content, added tag.--FloNight 21:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The tag belongs on the article, not here. As a general rule, talk pages don't need to cite sources :-) (See Category:Articles lacking sources.)

 * chocolateboy 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NSAIDs
There are a number of fact tags in the NSAID/Paracetamol section regarding potential side-effects. These should all be listed, per FDA regulations in the US, on the product inserts. How does one cite these, specifically? siafu 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychological effects
Can anyone add information about the psychological effects of stimulation-induced analgesia, stress-induced analgesia, and belief-induced analgesia? These are natural effects that, I assume, are simulated by analgesic drugs. My psych prof is saying something about it, and I just missed it. Experts, can you help with this? - 137.122.55.72 17:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia does not answer questions. You'd better go to the reference desk. I wish there were more "experts" on Wikipedia :-) JFW | T@lk  17:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * A lot of the things you mention may be mediated by endorphins, which are the natural ligands for the opioid receptors in the brain. Stimulation, stress and belief may lead to a release of these substances. JFW | T@lk  17:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I know this talk section is really old but I found some articles that can confirm that stimulants can cause analgesic effects in mice doi:10.1211/0022357001773580. I also found an article that found that "Infusions of 6-hydroxydopamine into the nucleus accumbens abolish the analgesic effect of amphetamine but not of morphine in the formalin test", this means that the analgesic effect is different from opoids. And as a side note Tricyclic antidepressants often have a stimulant effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnom (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol
Alcohol doesn't count as a painkiller, does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.198 (talk • contribs).
 * Technically alcohol is an "outdated" painkiller, but it certainly does numb the perception of pain. --Thoric 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Over-prescription?
Doctors over-prescribing narcotics? There have been exceedingly few cases of such a thing. By far the problem is under-prescribing. Most doctors are afraid to prescribe anything stronger than Tylenol No. 3 (which contains codeine). Under-prescribing of narcotics to patients in severe pain (cancer, back/neck injury, major surgery) has become a far more serious problem than prescription narcotic addiction could ever be. It seems that the powers that be would far prefer a patient to suffer intense pain for the rest of their lives, and/or to suffer complications from over-use of NSAIDs (ulcers, internal bleeding, heart attacks, death) than to take a chance they might become addicted to a narcotic. In what sane world is suffering and death preferable to the chance of addiction? --Thoric 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)  Edit note -- pure narcotic formulations (namely Oxycontin) were the only narcotics that were specifically over-prescribed, and primarily to people who were already addicted to narcotics. I would go so far as to say that reduction in heroin use was proportional to increase in Oxycontin use. Most doctors under-prescribe narcotics, and instead over-prescribe NSAIDs. --Thoric 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thoric, I have no idea what you are basing your edits on. They contain value judgements (who says there is over- or underprescription?) At the moment they gloriously fail both WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and I have removed them until these policies can be satisfied.
 * You also reintroduced a weird little misplaced paragraph that wants us to know certain NSAIDs may increase risk for coronary artery disease. This fact should me mentioned in the relevant articles, not here, and with an academic reference (as opposed to a poorly researched news article). JFW | T@lk  22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't add the paragraph blaming doctors for over-prescription. I only toned it down and pointed out that under-prescription has been a growing problem.  The reintroduction of the news article link was an oversight.  --Thoric 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on the part of the article that talks about addiction to "pure" narcotics. It says that Lortab and Vicodin are hydrocodone only. I don't think thats true. I know at least those two are hydrocodone/acetaminophen(APAP). 161.45.236.217 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Matt

A response to the last comment: Lortab and Vicodin are both (traditionally) 5/500 (5mg Hydrocodone, the narcotic, 500mg Tylenol). Whatever "blend" (or whatever) they are, they're still Hydrocodone "blends"... Hope this helps a bit... :-) --JeffF

Copyvio
Somebody dumped this from the "Harvard Magazine" site. I cannot disagree with some points raised in that material, though. For example, physiotherapy, behavioral/relaxation techniques and surgery may be used to achieve analgesia. Perhaps we should expand the article to reflect this. JFW | T@lk  14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Atypical and/or adjuvant analgesics
I did some minor copyedits, but this section needs more edits relying upon subject-matter knowledge that I lack. Here are some suggestions.

Section heading. The section heading is awkward (see WP:MOS and its subordinate section on "and/or"), and might not even need to use both adjectives. If "atypical analgesics" and "adjuvant analgesics" are synonyms, as the body text seems to imply, then use one of those terms in the heading and explain the alternate name in the body text. Thus, the section heading could be, simply, Adjuvant analgesics, and the body text could begin with "Adjuvant analgesics, also called atypical analgesics, ...". If those terms are not synonyms, then the heading could be, Atypical and adjuvant analgesics; however, there is no explicit reference to atypical analgesics in that section now, so additional editing would be needed to identify those drugs that are already included from that category, or to add them to the section, or to drop that adjective from the heading.

Run-on sentence. The first sentence is overly complex and appears to be serving two purposes: a list of drugs in one or both categories; and a description of their usage. So, it should be split up. For example, the revised wording could be, '''Adjuvant analgesics, also called atypical analgesics, include orphenadrine, cyclobenzaprine, scopolamine, atropine, gabapentin, first-generation antidepressants and other drugs possessing anticholinergic and/or antispasmodic properties. These drugs are used in many cases along with analgesics to potentiate centrally acting analgesics such as opioids when used against pain--especially of neuropathic origin--and to modulate the effects of many other types of analgesics by action in the parasympathetic nervous system.'''

Inconsistency. The first sentence about THC ascribes to it an "indisputably true benefit" that "may be" its superior anti-nauseant action. If we can say only "may be", then we can hardly describe that benefit as indisputable. Also, "indisputably true benefit" is redundant; "indisputable benefit" is sufficient.

I think there may be a couple of problems in the logic of the sentence structure in the Addiction section, too, but I'll stop here for now.

My 2¢ worth. --rich

Adjuvant, Atypical, Potentiators
Perhaps this section can be copied and used as the core of a new separate article on the use of other drugs to help with analgesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.92 (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

BCAA has been chosen to relieve pain and increase effectiveness of other analgesics such as morphine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.43.93 (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Adjuvant, Atypical, Potentiators" section is a section with no references.
 * I do not know what BCAA is - perhaps Branched-chain amino acid? I see no indication that BCAA is a pain medication. This is not a request which I think can be addressed so I will mark it as closed unless someone re-opens the issue with more explanation.

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of opioids
10.7326/M14-2559 JFW | T@lk  13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Analgesic. 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/20101019055341/http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm054718.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/PublicHealthAdvisories/ucm054718.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140413144556/http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Generalsafetyinformationandadvice/Product-specificinformationandadvice/Product-specificinformationandadvice-A-F/CardiovascularsafetyofCOX-2inhibitorsandnon-selectiveNSAIDs/ to http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Generalsafetyinformationandadvice/Product-specificinformationandadvice/Product-specificinformationandadvice-A-F/CardiovascularsafetyofCOX-2inhibitorsandnon-selectiveNSAIDs/

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 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Analgesic. 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/20140408211938/http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1230/1875/content.pdf to http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1230/1875/content.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 21:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No history of analgesics?
I came here looking for the history of analgesics and didn't find what I was looking for after a quick glance at the article. Why is there not a section on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.180.137 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No section on why people are addicted to painkillers
124.254.78.121 (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Difference between analgesic and anesthetic?
What is the difference between an analgesic, and an anesthetic (especially a local anesthetic where consciousness is not impaired)? Would drugs such as the well known -caines (lidocaine, novacaine) count as anesthetics, alagesics, or both?

FT2 (Talk 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pain-reliever versus Pain-killer
Isn't there enough usage to putatively show a perfunctory fiat upon the current idiom where Pain relievers are NSAIDs (prodrugs to cannabinoid receptor agonists and cannabinoids as direct agonists too) and such, whereas Pain killers are opiate or opioid narcotics a la mu-receptor agonists? 67.171.248.22 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No Section on Radio-Based Painkillers
There is nothing on shortwave diathermy or RF analgesics in general. Could someone correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.65.56 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Analgesic vs Anesthetic
SO I came to this article fro another Wiki article to find what out what an "analgesic" is. From the article: "Analgesic drugs act in various ways on the peripheral and central nervous systems. They are distinct from anesthetics, which reversibly eliminate sensation,". From this sentence it seems to me that analgesics and anesthetics do the exact same thing unless anesthetics act *only* locally. Even if that is the case, aren't pain nerves part of the peripheral nervous system? I know absolutely nothing about biology and I am not getting a clear definition from the article so if someone could clear that up, I think it would help out the article (and the ignorant like me) a lot. Thank you.173.180.7.3 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BeeCier

Rename proposal
Currently this article is titled "analgesic". "Analgesia" also redirects here. I think that "analgesic" is a name used by health care professions and not layman consumers. Because of this, I think this article's title should be changed to the WP:COMMONNAME. Here are some alternatives:
 * Pain medication
 * Pain reliever
 * Painkiller
 * Does anyone know others?

About 2000 Wikipedia articles have links to this article, so the name should be thoughtfully chosen.

Here are some examples of names that some other organizations use. I do not think these uses reflect any choice for an organization manual of style, but rather, these examples are just what the organizations used in these articles. Elsewhere they might use another name for the same concept.
 * Pain relievers - MedlinePlus
 * Painkiller - NHS Choices
 * pain medication - Mayo Clinic
 * painkiller - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Looking in Wikidata, the equivalent Wikipedia article in other languages is often called "analgesic".

I just did searches in Google Scholar. The following searches got the following numbers of hits.
 * analgesic - 813,000
 * "pain medication" - 69,200
 * "pain reliever" - 13,000
 * painkiller - 18,300
 * "pain killer" - 11,700

I just did searches in general Google search. The following searches got the following numbers of hits.
 * analgesic - 11,500,000
 * "pain medication" - 870,000
 * "pain reliever" - 452,000
 * painkiller - 13,100,000 (top hits are unrelated to drugs for pain relief)
 * "pain killer" - 433,000

Most instances of use overall favor "analgesic". However, from what I see, publications for consumers favor using terms other than analgesic.

Thoughts from others? Who prefers which name?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure our preferences matter much, though I do think "pain reliever" is clearest (even though I'm a health care provider). Your summary of usage indications is helpful, and "pain reliever" doesn't fare very well. I find "pain medication" ambiguous (does it relieve or cause pain?). It seems to me that retaining "analgesic" is sensible (and globally aligned). — soupvector (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Painkiller" seems to be the common name, but this article falls under WP:PHARM and WP:MED, which have their own naming conventions, so FYI I'm about to notify those projects of this thread. As far as I can tell, WP:PHARMMOS doesn't say anything applicable here, but WP:MEDMOS says: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)...For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction." I work at a university hospital and when I search the medical library for peer-reviewed sources using "analgesic" vs "painkiller", "analgesic" wins 187,342 to 23,599, so based on that and the google scholar results, I'm guessing consensus will be to leave it how it is. I'm more or less indifferent between those two options. —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you already notified the projects. :) —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support pain medication Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support keeping it the same in line with WP:MEDMOS. While lay terms may provide short-term benefit in the form of making the article initially more accessible, in the long-term they act as a persistent source of ambiguity and confusion. A reader might wonder why lidocaine, something they've been given many times for the purpose of reducing pain, is not present in the "Pain Medication" article. Worse even the article could give someone the mistaken impression that the lay term is an official one, they might try and correct someone in a situation like this: "How was getting your wisdom teeth removed?", "Good, I thought it would be really painful, but the pain meds they gave me made it so that I didn't feel a thing", "They didn't give you pain meds they gave you anesthetics, look it up on Wikipedia they are different things".M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Comparison of available agents"
In April 2014 added a massive, brilliant table to this article called "Comparison of Available agents". See it live at Analgesic. I like the table a lot but I am unsure if the best place for it is here. It might be.

Here are some options I am considering -
 * 1) Leave it here
 * If it is left here, it needs an introduction somehow. I do not think that it attracts enough attention to itself without having 2-3 sentences introducing it. Also, if it does stay here, it should get a categorized redirect so that it can appear in in category lists including Category:Medical comparisons. I think this could be a model for other drug comparisons. It would be worthwhile to link several articles to this list, like for example, every drug class in the list should link here.
 * 1) Spin it off into its own single article
 * This is a tremendous amount of content and it could be managed in its own article. This much content usually is placed in a list article, just because of the style of Wikipedia. Additionally, if it were in its own article, it would not need to be collapsed and it would be easier to make other Wikipedia articles link to different sections of this list.
 * 1) Do either of the above, but also duplicate parts of the list elsewhere
 * This is a bad idea because Wikipedia should not WP:FORK content. It is better to have any list only in one place. However, some how in some way, portions of this list need to be made available for other articles. Like for example, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents needs to link to its own section in this list.
 * 1) Spin this off into multiple other lists
 * I think this is a bad idea also, but there is so much content here that that this chart could be separate articles called "list of NSAIDS" and "list of COX-2 inhibitors" and the rest.

I think that I favor moving this into its own article. In addition to that, the drug classes listed here each need a section in their articles which describes the list and then links to it.
 * Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
 * COX-2 inhibitor
 * Opioid
 * I suppose there is no particular article which should link to the "Other analgesics" section

I am not in any hurry to do anything. Right now I am just thinking. It could just stay where it is, and I suppose since this is the high-traffic article this is a natural place for it. I just wonder if this content would be more prominent if presented in its own space and not collapsed. Thoughts from anyone?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * believe #1 is best leave it here (and do the redirect)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly easy either way, though I do agree it should have its own space and not just be collapsed, thanks for the pats on the back though, at times it seems like all my edits do is cause people to get ticked off, it's nice to be reminded that people appreciate my work at times. Brenton  (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 02:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Classes of pain medications
Does anyone know of a basic reference source which lists and defines the classes of pain medications?

Right now, this article lists these: I do not know how these were chosen. Paracetamol is not an NSAID, and they might have been listed separately. I am not sure why flupirtine is in its own category because it is not so significant as compared to other things that might have their own category. I do not know the origin of the term "specific agents", but this category seems like it is being used right now to mean "everything else".
 * 1) Paracetamol and NSAIDs
 * 2) COX-2 inhibitors
 * 3) Opioids
 * 4) Flupirtine
 * 5) Specific agents

Elsewhere in the article muscle relaxants, cannabis, and liniment are mentioned, but I think these should be considered classes of pain medication. There is no mention of ethanol or dietary supplements. Triptans might be mentioned because they are commonly used for migraine.

I wish that I could sort this article based on any established list of the sorts of pain medications in common use. The article on pain management would also be improved if this article could back up its coverage of pain medication.

Sources, anyone?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-chemical classifications
I have been browsing available literature.

It seems like there are a range of guides for choosing analgesics for specific populations. Here is one for children. There seem to be others for pregnant women, the elderly, and other groups. I am unable to identify any source which gives any grouping of which drugs are used for various populations, even though I can find example papers that there are different recommendations for different groups. Because of this, I am not sure if Wikipedia should say something like, "Drugs for pain can be classified for use by different populations." The manual of style already recommends a "special populations" section - maybe this should go there.

There are a range of guides for treating various diseases and medical conditions with different analgesics. For example, low back pain, migraines, and cancer pain are all treated with a range of analgesics, and often the same sorts of analgesics, so one might classify analgesics by the diseases they are used to treat. For any painful disease, one could look at a management guide and see that certain pain drugs are either more recommended or less so. However, I am unable to find any source which classifies analgesics in general by disease. Each disease just has its own treatment guidelines.

I know that lots of analgesics have legal restrictions on usage by country. Even in the European Union, some countries are more permissive with opioids and others are less. Definitely across the world there is a lot of variation in use of opioids, and lately, availability of cannabis has been changing a lot. I am not sure if cannabis is even traditionally called an "analgesic". Whatever the case, I think pain medications could be classified by legality by region. There actually are a lot of organizations which have written statements recommending that all countries provide access to drugs on the WHO essential medicine list. That includes opioids which many countries restrict. If anyone has ever tried classifying analgesics by legality, then I am unable to find such a thing.

For now, I think it is best to sort them in wiki by chemical class. There are other ways this could be done, but typically Wikipedia would copy someone else's classification system and not make a new one. I am unable to find other descriptions of classification systems, even though I do feel like it is easy to find examples of other classification systems being used as described above.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Paracetamol and NSAIDs were probably listed together because they are both nonopioids. The same grouping is shown in this WHO diagram which depicts three levels of analgesics: nonopioids to be used initially for pain, mild opioids for continuing mild to moderate pain, and then strong opioids for continuing moderate to severe pain. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That WHO classification actually has its own Wikipedia article at Pain ladder. I do not understand enough about the situation to know what is best. I separated the two because I had the idea that people with pain are sometimes advised to take an NSAID plus paracetamol, perhaps as described here.

 * I want to be straightforward in saying that I do not really know how to classify these. Also I have been unable to find the original WHO pain ladder paper. Some papers say it was published in 1986. I am not sure how to access the original or if it has been updated. You liked to a page which other people are linking, but that seems to be an incidental overview and not publication of the pain ladder itself. I might like to see the original. I do not suppose you know how to find the original paper or any update of it, do you? I checked Google Scholar, PubMed, and the WHO site itself. I found citations but no online version of the paper.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The original WHO publication that introduces the ladder is here on page 53 (World Health Organization. Cancer pain relief. Geneva: WHO, 1986). I don't think investing a lot of time will yield an optimum way to categorize them, however. The most practical approach may just be to determine a size threshold for giving something it's own section, and putting everything below that threshold into a miscellaneous section.M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a link to that publication at Pain_ladder. Do you have any suggestions for finding a "size threshold"? I might wish for a paper like, "Comparison of use of drugs for pain management" which then reports either what physicians prescribe or what people use. Whatever is not listed in the report could go into the "other" section.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a link to that publication at Pain_ladder. Do you have any suggestions for finding a "size threshold"? I might wish for a paper like, "Comparison of use of drugs for pain management" which then reports either what physicians prescribe or what people use. Whatever is not listed in the report could go into the "other" section.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam for my employer
Wikipedia is sensitive to WP:COI so I wanted to post notice that I added a link to one of my employer's publications to the external links section. There were no external links previously. Please discuss further if needed at Talk:Pain_management, where I discuss adding the same link to the pain management external links section. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging the COI, but I would suggest using Suggested Edit in a case like this. Nice resource, but a lot of ads. Mixed feelings about whether it adds value. — soupvector (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the link and made a request for the "suggested edit" coi process at Talk:Pain_management. Thanks for the feedback. I went further on that talk page and linked some comparable resources provided by other organizations. I hope that gives context to what resources are available to people who search for such information.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative medicine as an analgesic
At talk:Pain management mentioned that there should be more coverage of alternative medicine. It is true there, but also here. I just added an alternative medicine section.

This is not solid content, but I think it is better than nothing. Alternative medicine can mean any of thousands of drugs, so it is difficult to talk about it collectively. The academic literature does treat it collectively. I cited three Cochrane reviews of herbal medicine for pain. In all the papers, they are considering many drugs for a different type of pain in each review. These were the only such Cochrane reviews I could find where any drug from alternative medicine is used to treat pain.

In all three reviews, the treatment was found to relieve some pain better than placebo, and more research was advised. I tried to communicate this as a general research finding in alternative medicine. I think that I matched my cited sources, but sometimes, even Cochrane reviews are not as clear as what I hoped to find.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure the comment by Ronz is referring to alternative medicine. I interpreted their comment about expecting external links "perhaps having alternative presentations" to mean a having a different way of structuring and reporting information. I don't believe an alternative medicine section is appropriate for this article. Analgesics are a specific type of medicine, so alternative medications would seem to me to be off topic. Additionally an apparent decrease in pain may be the result of a broader anesthetic effect, rather than specifically being an effect that targets pain. I would thus hesitate to place something in either this article or the anesthetic article without knowing more about the specific nature of how it is reducing pain. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to alternative medicine. Given that this article is about a class of drugs, I don't see how alt-med would fit, especially in light of WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I re-read the comment and it includes the word "alternative" but I misinterpreted it.
 * However, if either of you like, I would appreciate more comments about what should be here. In a section above I proposed renaming this article at Talk:Analgesic. The situation is that the article currently has a technical name, "analgesic". I do not know what this term means, but probably most physicians imagine that the term refers to some but not all drugs which relieve pain. I see that there is line that an analgesic is not an anesthetic, but overall I am not clear on the difference between an analgesic and a "pain medication" or "painkiller". Some of the odd members on this list are alternative medicines, cannabis, alcohol, antidepressants, and there is a section on some other miscellaneous drugs not usually imagined as analgesics. I am seeing supporting evidence that everything on this list is routinely used to relieve pain. If an analgesic relieves pain, and if this article is about "pain medications" or "pain killers", then I think the list is appropriate. If "analgesic" means "the subset of pain medications most commonly used in mainstream Western evidence-based medicine" then some of the items here are misplaced. I think there should be some article on painkillers, because a lot of people who read this are typical consumers seeking information on what people do to get pain relief.
 * Ronz, I do not see any conflict with MEDRS here, so if you like, tell me what you see. I think that sources establish that people use alt-med to treat pain. I just tried to add another review article to establish the idea that some people try alt-med. I tried to present information about the efficacy of this as reported in the best MEDRS sources I could find. At the same time, I recognize that many pain management publications would omit acknowledgement of all sorts of alt-med treatments. I am quite unsure of whether alt-med is an analgesic, but I am more sure that alt-med drugs are used in an attempt to treat pain. What do you think?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

why did someone undo this edit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analgesic&oldid=760575810 "have been derived from" is clunky language. It seems that it is written by someone who knows english as a second language. 162.231.134.145 (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Classification by mechanism of action?
The Classification section introduces itself with the sentence "Analgesics are typically classified based on their mechanism of action." Good idea. Do we have a taxonomy of mechanisms of action? Well, not in this article. How about reference 4, the BNF online link? It redirects to https://about.medicinescomplete.com/, which conveys that BNF is a very exclusive organization of some sort. OK, how about by example in the various subheadings? The first subheading is acetaminophen, that's a chemical not a mechanism of action. OK, as a last resort, let me take a stab at what the mechanisms of action might be. The first is to prevent pain from arising in the first place, e.g., by reducing inflammation. The last is to prevent the brain from finding out about it. An intermediary strategy might be to stop the central nervous system from finding out about it. Somewhere in all of this, we should see the term "antinociception," but we don't, I find that odd. The subheadings for this section suggest that the classification used is mainly historical. Perhaps the easy fix would be to replace the first sentence of this section with a more accurate overview of what is to follow. Page Notes (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Analgesic


text:
Larry MacPhail

Leland Stanford "Larry" MacPhail Sr. (February 3, 1890 – October 1, 1975) was an American lawyer and an executive in Major League Baseball. He served as a high-ranking executive, including club president and general manager, with the Cincinnati Reds, Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Yankees, and was a one-third owner of the Yankees from 1945 through 1947. MacPhail's sons and grandsons were also sports executives. He was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1978.

Early life
MacPhail was born in Cass City, Michigan, on February 3, 1890. His father founded State Savings Bank of Scottville, Michigan, in 1882 as well as twenty other small banks in that state. He obtained an LL.B. from the George Washington University Law School, where he became friends with Branch Rickey. He worked for a time with a Chicago law firm. Prior to World War I Larry MacPhail was an executive of a department store in Nashville, Tennessee.

During World War I, he served as an artillery captain in France and Belgium. He accompanied his commander, Colonel Luke Lea, on an unsanctioned mission to Amerongen in the Netherlands in January 1919 to attempt to arrest the exiled German monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and bring him to the Paris Peace Conference to be tried for war crimes. MacPhail reportedly stole an ashtray that belonged to the Kaiser and received an official reprimand for the mission.

Entry into baseball
After his discharge from military service, MacPhail opened a law office in Columbus, Ohio, where he eventually purchased an interest in the Columbus Red Birds, a minor league affiliate of the St. Louis Cardinals. While in the role of president of the Red Birds, MacPhail came up with a plan to create a geographically based playoff system for determining the league champion of the American Association. It was not well-received and lasted only two years. In 1933 he was hired by the Cincinnati Reds and became its chief executive and general manager. MacPhail had been recommended for the Reds position by Branch Rickey, who said that MacPhail was "a wild man at times, but he'll do the job." After leaving the Reds, he spent about a year with his father's investment business before becoming executive vice-president and general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1938. He was promoted to team president, a position that had been vacant for about a year after the death of the previous team president Stephen McKeever, on May 4, 1939. In 1939, he received the Sporting News Executive of the Year Award.

MacPhail was pivotal in the development of pioneering sportscaster Red Barber, who announced Reds and Dodgers games for MacPhail. MacPhail's innovations include nighttime baseball, regular game televising, and flying teams between cities. MacPhail resigned as president of the Dodgers on September 23, 1942, to accept a commission in the United States Army. By the end of World War II, MacPhail held the rank of colonel. Returning from the war, MacPhail served as president, co-owner and general manager for the New York Yankees.

MacPhail was well known for his unpredictable behavior which was fueled by bouts of heavy drinking. MacPhail's grandson Andy said, "My grandfather was bombastic, flamboyant, a genius when sober, brilliant when he had one drink and a raving lunatic when he had too many." In one incident, MacPhail was drinking with Boston Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey when the men decided to swap stars Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams in what would have been the biggest swap of baseball stars in many years. The men decided not to execute the trade after they sobered up.

Leo Durocher, the Dodgers manager who had a tempestuous relationship with MacPhail, recalled, "There is a thin line between genius and insanity, and in Larry's case, it was so thin you could see him drifting back and forth." As the Dodgers returned by train to Grand Central Terminal after winning the 1941 league pennant, Durocher did not want his players to get off early at the 125th Street stop, so he ordered the conductor to pass the stop. MacPhail was planning to board the same train at that stop. He told Durocher that night that he was fired, but he changed his mind the next morning.

MacPhail's career as a major-league owner ended after the Yankees clinched the 1947 World Series, when he got into confrontations at the team's post-game celebrations at Yankee Stadium and then in Manhattan. Though he had already quit as chief executive in the Yankee locker room, books by Roger Kahn and others indicate MacPhail's behavior at the victory parties led to co-owners Dan Topping and Del Webb buying out his share of the ballclub.

Later life and legacy
MacPhail owned a 400 acre farm near Bel Air, Maryland, called Glenangus. An owner/breeder of Thoroughbred racehorses, his colt General Staff won the 1952 Narragansett Special at Narragansett Park and five other stake races that year. In March 1952, MacPhail was appointed President of Bowie Race Track in Bowie, Maryland. He held the position for thirteen months, until he was removed from the position and barred entirely from the track; he was accused of "using profanity to three horse owners" and "charged with being drunk and disorderly."

MacPhail died in a Miami nursing home on October 1, 1975, two days after well-known manager Casey Stengel. MacPhail was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1978.

Several of MacPhail's family members have become sports executives. His son and namesake Lee MacPhail enjoyed a long career in baseball, most notably as president and general manager of the Baltimore Orioles, general manager of the Yankees, and president of the American League. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1998, making him and Larry MacPhail the only father and son inductees. His other son Bill MacPhail was president of CBS Sports and later was President of CNN Sports, brought on by Reese Schonfeld to create the department upon the network's launch. Larry's grandson Andy MacPhail, the former general manager of the Minnesota Twins and Chicago Cubs and the former president of baseball operations for the Orioles, was president of the Philadelphia Phillies from 2015 through. A great-grandson, Lee MacPhail IV, is a professional scout for the New York Mets. Another, Drew MacPhail, is a member of the Los Angeles Dodgers' front office.

Since 1966, Minor League Baseball has annually awarded the Larry MacPhail Award to recognize the top promotional effort by a minor league team.

In 2013, the Bob Feller Act of Valor Award honored MacPhail as one of 37 Baseball Hall of Fame members for his service in the United States Army during World War II.

title: Larry MacPhail


text:
Talk:List of trans-Neptunian objects

Untitled
What order is this list in? Size? Distance from the Sun? Date of discovery? It's not clear. The Singing Badger 17:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if some editors (such as The Tom) insist on splitting the number from the rest of the name, the table columns need to be correctly titled. For example, the "permanent designation" of is "", not "15760". I don't see how to fix this without merging the columns back. Urhixidur 22:42, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
 * "" cannot by definition be considered a "permanent designation" because it is ultimately in line for replacement. The number is certainly locked in for eternity, but the year/letters/number part simply cannot be justifiably placed in a permanent column. mpl- is simply a cosmetic shortener so objects that have been assigned numbers but not yet names can be placed in a table row with no duplicate or inappropriately-placed information.  Also, there's no ironclad reason year/letters/number designations have to mated-in-perpetuity with permanent numbers for every single occurrence: astronomers frequently shed the leading numbering on unnamed objects for convenience's sake (even within academic contexts) just as they'll often refer to the planetoid as "Sedna" instead of "90377 Sedna" --The Tom 23:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
How do people feel about re-arranging this in terms of mass? As far as usefulness goes, I think this makes the most sense. We list the mass and perhaps also list "Pluto masses" to provide a baseline comparison. Marskell 10:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, the masses are unknown, except for a few objects which are binaries or multiple systems (i.e. have at least one satellite), so the mass of the system could be calculated from Kepler's laws. The diameters are also unknown, except for large objects where the disk could be measured by HST or the albedo established via the thermal method and using the absolute magnitude (calculated from the apparent magnitude (the only thing really measured) with the distance known from the observed orbit and Kepler's laws). In other words, there’s not much to order this list. Even the discovery date is bit fishy because some objects had been observed earlier but not recognised as such, for instance has been actually discovered in 2005. Regards Eurocommuter 13:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * For the larger bodies mass is not absolutely unknown. We can provide a range. We know how big Sedna is, more or less. We know that 2003 UB313 is bigger than Pluto... Mass stikes me as eminently more useful than (putative) discovery dates (think in the "school project" sense). Perhaps not rearranging this list but making another one. I think a placeholder listing, say, the top ten bodies relative to Pluto mass makes good sense. Marskell 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I’m surprised that the mass is being put forward. Firstly, the size estimation from the albedo alone is to a factor of 3 or worse. Secondly, the densities (except the cases mentioned above) are not known, i.e. the density may easily represent another uncertainty of 2! Next; who remembers whether say (our) Moon is denser than Enceladus? As result, the comparison of the mass can easily mislead about the size. Finally, if told that the mass of a satellite is a bit more than 1% of the primary, how many people will think: 'wow, it is quite big!'? (well, it is big; it is again our Moon compared with Earth). Having said that, I’m, like you, unhappy about the discovery date. If asked, I would vote for the absolute magnitude. Given the differences in albedo it can mislead into overestimating a small-but-bright over a big-but-dim, but IMHO magnitude is more expressive than mass. The only problem with the magnitude is that it's logarithmic, so for a wide public, a TNO one magnitude dimmer or brighter than Pluto does not necessarily mean much. Regards Eurocommuter 19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What about plain old (estimated) diameter? It's equivalent to the magnitude sorting for the majority of objects, apart from a few cases where we have more accurate data (which is even better). This seems the best compromise between wide applicability and understanding by readers. It gets used in e.g. List of solar system objects by radius, List of noteworthy asteroids. Deuar 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, this table would be far more useful if it included both mass and diameter, at least for the larger named objects, if not all. As to the accuracy of the figures (referenced above), scientific information is always going to be limited to the best current observations.  It's better, in my opinion, to include the best current information, with a note concerning the potential veracity of the figures, than to give no information at all. 7:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.0.245 (talk)
 * The list is arranged by MPEC filing date because other minor planet lists are also sorted that way. A (rough) size-based list appears on trans-Neptunian object, Kuiper belt and scattered disc.  The Tom 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would order the TNOs simply by number, as is done in List of asteroids as well. This would also put Eris to the right place. (Those TNOs without a number should be at the end of the list or even completely removed IMO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roentgenium111 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think ordering by distance from the sun makes the most sense, and maybe use a colour code for size. At the very least, add a few more columns for AU and kg.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.198.13 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why so many unnumbered?
Why are so many of the TNOs given unnumbered, although they have been discovered a long time ago and their orbits seem to be well known (according to their Wiki pages)? Or may they have a permanent number, only none of the editors knows it? (No offense!) Unfortunately I cannot search the TNOs in List of asteroids, since it is not a single page. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Minor planet receive a number when it orbit is well-known. Minor Planet Center established Uncertainty parameter U. When U is 1 or 2, minor planet will receive its number and, possibly, name. You can learn if certain MP is numbered or not at JPL Small-Body Database Browser page. — Chesnok (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. However, according to your last link, Haumea should not have a number yet, because it has U-value ("quality code") 3.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe there is in fact other policy of TNO numbering and naming. TNO's period is very large (hundreds of years), and we cannot observe it on long arc. So, we cannot sufficiently improve quality of its orbit anon. — Chesnok (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It's strange: some numbered TNOs have U-value 2 or 3 (Eris, Haumea), while unnumbered 2005 QU182 has U-value 1.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Technical banner Added: List is all Science Gibberish, Total Lack of Courtesy for Non-Science Readers
Posting an article in all-science lingo on Wikipedia is self-centered and rude behavior.

Wikipedia is heavily read by nonscientists and that's why Wikipedia policy stipulates that all articles should include descriptions that non-scientists can understand.

Technical language may be included but editors should have the courtesy to explain their jargon so that non-scientist readers may follow the topic as much as is possible.

71.237.102.193 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Size in table
Added diameter data for the named objects (in the notes). -- AJ, 26 Nov 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.216.230 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense as a separate column instead of in the notes. --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried making it a separate column, but it always merged with the "Notes" column. I couldn't find what was wrong, so put the data into the notes for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.216.230 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I took some doing, but I've tracked down the problem to Template:TNO list and made the necessary changes there and changed the table here. --JorisvS (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Diameter of the moons
Some of the diameters of the moons may be accidental be of the primary instead. I fixed the value for "26308 I", the other values might still be wrong. Tony Mach (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx for noticing. As the figures displayed in this table are plausible and there is no indication for a systematic error, I removed your Contradiction hatnote  R fassbind  – talk  12:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of trans-Neptunian objects – unmaintainable?
I have concerns whether this TNO list will be maintainable. As of August 2016, there are only 332 numbered TNOs, but it seems this number could significantly change in the near future. Just look at the newly numbered TNOs (in #-range 470,000–473,000):

 * Proposals:
 * 1) Remove template TNO list, which is used as a row-template in this table. It is a burden, completely undocumented and not used elsewhere. This limits the number of potential editors.
 * 2) Orbital parameters (a, q, Q, e, i) and magnitude (H) are already outdated and should no longer be displayed. A link to the corresponding MPC/JPL websites, and/or to the "list of minor planets" (which has a MPC-link) should be suffice.
 * 3) What about the columns "Diameter" and "Notes", that are already sparsely populated and its source is not given? I presume the data is sourced from the johnstonsarchive, which includes info for column "dynamical class" (which is otherwise hard to find). These columns do not seem to be maintained either.
 * 4) The list should be split-up in numbered and unnumbered TNOs.
 * 5) There are ways to generate a list automatically (based on MPC/JPL/johnstonsarchive data files).

In any case, the structure (data fields) of this table should be reconsidered and simplified. I think it needs to change now, not in 1 or 2 years. If no one replies to this proposal, then I might be tempted to implement such version myself. R fassbind – talk  17:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"1930 BD" for Pluto
I get that this is included for correct sorting, but surely we should not be so prominently putting up a made-up designation? Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, is not a valid designation (134340) and should therefore be removed. If the template  has a sorting problem, then it needs to be fixed differently. Actually I don't like this template, as described in my post from 2016 (above). I just have updated 47171 Lempo, but the template links to Lempo instead...    R fassbind  – talk  11:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Split article
As suggested in November 2017, the article should be split due to its size. I propose to break it up into two lists: as done with the MP-catalog. R fassbind – talk  12:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * List of trans-Neptunian objects (numbered objects only)
 * List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects

Managing the tables and selecting data
Yes, these lists are already too long, but I do not think a split between numbered and unnumbered objects makes sense. For one thing, this is a distinction which readers are very unlikely to care about or take into account when looking for information about TNOs. Also, this hasn't solved the issue anyway.

For this page to be useful, it needs to restrict itself to selected TNOs. The number of entries should not come anywhere close to a 4-digit number. Selecting information is an essential function of an encyclopedia - copying extensive databases isn't. Those few readers who need access to a complete list of TNOs can follow the appropriate links to the page's sources.

The current incarnation of this page actually seems a large step back to me, being on one hand overloaded with data, while on the other omitting essential information. I propose the following:

1. Focus on a few hundred selected TNOs, prioritizing named objects, likely dwarf planet candidates, objects with well-known physical characteristics (especially mass and diameter), objects with unusual orbits or orbital elements, objects of special interest for various reasons (for example, early discovery or disputed classification), and objects that are typical for a class of objects (specific resonances, collisional families etc.)

2. Merge the lists for numbered and unnumbered objects. That distinction only serves to make information harder to access and compare.

3. Leave out superfluous information, as well as information that is not interesting to compare. In the current list, the year of discovery is superfluous if the provisional designation is given (which is already the case by all unnamed objects, and it should be added to named objects as well). Places of discovery and names of the discoverers do not belong into such a table, because people are not going to compare them - they might be interested in the circumstances of a specific object's discovery, but those will be just one click away.

4. Add (back) information which enables readers to understand the role an object plays in the solar system, and which allows for interesting comparisons and sortability: Orbital period, semi-major axis, perihelion, aphelion, eccentricity and inclination are essential orbital elements - without these, this table seems to serve almost no purpose anymore. Also essential are absolute magnitude, estimations of diameter and mass (if available), and the names of moons.

Error discovered. I have not been here for a while, so I hope I am not vandalizing. However I found a suspected error,474640 Alicanto, date discovered is listed as 2004, however all the nearby entries are 2014. and it is by date discovered. So logically speaking it is 2014. I would edit it. But I have learned that even a minor edit would require approval. So would a mod get on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.254.132 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

5. Explain data that is not easy to understand. The current list, for example, uses color index abbreviations without any explanation of even the most general kind (especially that they refer to the object's color index!). Other such data that could be useful, but need some explanation, are argument of perihelion, longitude of the ascending node, mean anomaly, mean motion and estimated albedo.

Keep in mind that the point of a Wikipedia page is not to provide a complete reference for experts, but to present an accessible, understandable and insightful overview for interested laymen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.110.144 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 * It seems to me you are interested in a List of notable trans-Neptunian objects, with a "selected few hundred" bodies, based on a set of criteria. As per WP:LISTCRITERIA, these selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Can you provide such criteria to determine which TNOs should be part of such list and which not? Best,  R fassbind  – talk  00:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 * The very next paragraph also notes: "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive", and "common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list". So, I appeal to your common sense here!

 * As for inclusion criteria that are not enitirely unambiguous (like having an official name), I find the following quote from your linked page relevant: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective[...]it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." (Without doubt, the MPC and JPL sources you already use qualify as reliable.) So, Wikipedia _does_ acknowledge that membership criteria for lists can be subjective by necessity (which is again just common sense, resulting from the basic function of an encyclopedia).

 * As for the notability of objects, there is de facto already a selection process which governs if a TNO has its own Wikipedia entry. If you just follow that lead, you will probably get very close to a good selection. Skimming over the current tables, I get the impression that removing all objects without their own entry would get that list down to a manageable number, while leaving out very few objects, if any, of specific interest (and if so, they can be re-added, preferrably while also creating an entry for them).

 * If it seems especially important to you to have a list of all TNOs in one place, in the vein of the lists of numbered and unnumbered minor planets already existing on Wikipedia (which I feel makes the maintenance of an additional exhaustive TNO list unnecessary, but your mileage may vary), you should split this page into a list of selected TNOs which provides all important information (especially orbital characteristics), and an exhaustive list on another page which serves the same, more basic function as the MPC lists (being exhaustive and providing links). That list then can be as long as needed, just like the MPC list, but I wouldn't expect it to get too many hits, while the shorter, but more information-dense list would be helpful again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.135.222 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of trans-Neptunian objects


text: User talk:205.237.38.18

title: User talk:205.237.38.18


text: User talk:65.207.86.186

title: User talk:65.207.86.186


text: User talk:69.148.79.208

title: User talk:69.148.79.208


text:
Airlinair

Société Airlinair, simply known as Airlinair, was a French regional airline based in Rungis, France, operating scheduled regional flights (some of which were on behalf of Air France), and aircraft lease services. The airline has set up bases at Paris-Orly Airport and Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport. As an Air France regional partner, it also offered flights from Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport

Airlinair, along with Régional and Brit Air, was fully merged into HOP! in 2017 after a year of negotiations.

History
The airline was established in 1998 and started operations in May 1999. It was founded by four principal shareholders including Lionel Guérin and is owned by private investors (80.5%) and Brit Air (19.5%).

Since 31 March 2013, all Airlinair flights have been operated under the name HOP!, Air France's regional brand.

Airlinair ceased all flight operations in March 2017 after its merger in HOP!.

Destinations
As of 30 March 2013, Airlinair operates scheduled flights to the following domestic destinations:

Additionally, the following destinations are served on behalf of Air France:

Fleet
As of March 2017, the Airlinair fleet consists of the following aircraft:

title: Airlinair


text:
Brong-Ahafo region

The Brong-Ahafo region was a region in central Ghana. Brong-Ahafo was bordered to the north by the Black Volta river and to the east by the Lake Volta, and to the south by the Ashanti, Eastern and Western regions. The capital of Brong-Ahafo is Sunyani. Brong-Ahafo was created on 14 April 1959 from the then Western Ashanti and named after the main ethnic groups, the Brong and Ahafo. In 2019, as a result of the 2018 Ghanaian new regions referendum, the region was divided into three, namely Bono, Bono East and Ahafo regions, and ceased to exist.

Economy and tourism
Brong Ahafo is known for its large cocoa production and agribusiness industries. Brong-Ahafo contains many Akan cultural and wildlife attractions, but it is less known to tourists than the Ashanti or Central region. Attractions of Brong-Ahafo include Kintampo, with its waterfalls (Kintampo waterfalls) and nature reserves; Fiema, one of the communities which is home to the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary (a short distance outside Sunyani); national parks, Bui National Park and Digya National Park.

Education
Paul Yeboah is the founder of the Ghana Permaculture Institute. The Ghana Permaculture Institute is a non-profit organization in Techiman (Brong Ahafo Region, Ghana). The purpose of the Institute is to train communities how to build and maintain stable food systems using Permaculture sustainable practices that restore, take care of local ecosystems, and to improve quality of life in rural and urban areas.

Universities in the area include the University of Energy and Natural Resources (UENR), Catholic University College of Ghana (CUCG), Anglican University of Technology (AnguTech), College of Science, Arts and Education (CSAE) and Sunyani Technical University.

Sports
The region is renowned for producing a lot of elite athletes. Asamoah Gyan, Emmanuel Agyemang-Badu and John Paintsil are just a few of the numerous prominent sports personalities the region has produced. Currently, the region houses three of the 16 teams in the Ghana premier league. Aduana Stars F.C. is the traditional team of the Dormaa Traditional Area and it is based in Dormaa Ahenkro. They were promoted into the league for the first time in 2009 and emerged champions of the Ghana premier league that same year. In 2010 the premier league was won by Berekum Chelsea F.C., a club which is based in Berekum. Aduana Stars won the 2017 Ghanaian Premier League. Bechem United F.C. is the third Ghana Premier League team from the Brong-Ahafo Region.

Districts
The Brong Ahafo region was created in April 1959. It contains 27 districts. They are made up of 8 municipal and 19 ordinary districts as follows:

title: Brong-Ahafo region