This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reykjavík article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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)
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:
and a new Administration section.
The page
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iceland
claims that the Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting was held in 1986. What is correct?
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)
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)
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))
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)
The phonetic description at the top of the page is not IPA, though it says it is.
My apologies for my recent /c/-deleting edit. I had never seen /c/ in IPA before, meaning something akin to /kj/. But Help:IPA#C just schooled me. — ¾-10 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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 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)
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)
The history section has some very close paraphrasing, maybe even enough to be a copyvio, of the book Travel Iceland, see here. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 14:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Reykjavík. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
Climate data for Reykjavík (1985-2014) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high °C (°F) | 10.7 (51.3) |
10.2 (50.4) |
13.0 (55.4) |
14.7 (58.5) |
18.8 (65.8) |
22.4 (72.3) |
25.7 (78.3) |
24.8 (76.6) |
18.5 (65.3) |
17.6 (63.7) |
12.6 (54.7) |
12.0 (53.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 3.1 (37.6) |
3.1 (37.6) |
3.7 (38.7) |
6.4 (43.5) |
9.9 (49.8) |
12.7 (54.9) |
14.5 (58.1) |
13.9 (57.0) |
11.1 (52.0) |
7.2 (45.0) |
4.6 (40.3) |
3.2 (37.8) |
7.8 (46.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 0.6 (33.1) |
0.4 (32.7) |
0.8 (33.4) |
3.2 (37.8) |
6.7 (44.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.2 (46.8) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.3 (36.1) |
0.6 (33.1) |
5.0 (41.0) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −1.7 (28.9) |
−2.1 (28.2) |
−1.6 (29.1) |
0.6 (33.1) |
3.9 (39.0) |
7.1 (44.8) |
9.0 (48.2) |
8.5 (47.3) |
6.0 (42.8) |
2.3 (36.1) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−1.8 (28.8) |
2.5 (36.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | −19.7 (−3.5) |
−17.6 (0.3) |
−16.4 (2.5) |
−16.4 (2.5) |
−7.7 (18.1) |
−0.7 (30.7) |
1.4 (34.5) |
1.0 (33.8) |
−4.4 (24.1) |
−10.6 (12.9) |
−15.1 (4.8) |
−16.8 (1.8) |
−19.7 (−3.5) |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 83.7 (3.30) |
84.6 (3.33) |
83.4 (3.28) |
57.4 (2.26) |
53.3 (2.10) |
42.2 (1.66) |
50.9 (2.00) |
62.9 (2.48) |
81.3 (3.20) |
75.1 (2.96) |
81.3 (3.20) |
93.8 (3.69) |
849.9 (33.46) |
Average relative humidity (%) | 78.1 | 76.3 | 75.9 | 73.7 | 74.2 | 77.3 | 80.1 | 81.0 | 79.7 | 77.9 | 77.5 | 77.6 | 77.4 |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 19.9 | 60.9 | 109.3 | 166.9 | 208.3 | 185.8 | 178.6 | 163.1 | 116.9 | 93.0 | 37.6 | 12.0 | 1,352.3 |
Source: Monthly climatological statistics from 1949–2015 [1] |
Synon0 ( talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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
"Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat, pronounced [kalaːɬːit nʉnaːt]; Danish: Grønland, pronounced [ˈkʁɶnˌlænˀ]) is a North American autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark."
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)
Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North Americarequires 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)
"Iceland is generally included in Europe for geographical, historical, political, cultural, linguistic and practical reasons. Geologically, the island includes parts of both continental plates."
"The site REYK shows a large (expected) relative velocity because it is located on the North-American plate."
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.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reykjavík article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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)
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:
and a new Administration section.
The page
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iceland
claims that the Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting was held in 1986. What is correct?
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)
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)
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))
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)
The phonetic description at the top of the page is not IPA, though it says it is.
My apologies for my recent /c/-deleting edit. I had never seen /c/ in IPA before, meaning something akin to /kj/. But Help:IPA#C just schooled me. — ¾-10 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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 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)
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)
The history section has some very close paraphrasing, maybe even enough to be a copyvio, of the book Travel Iceland, see here. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 14:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Reykjavík. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
Climate data for Reykjavík (1985-2014) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high °C (°F) | 10.7 (51.3) |
10.2 (50.4) |
13.0 (55.4) |
14.7 (58.5) |
18.8 (65.8) |
22.4 (72.3) |
25.7 (78.3) |
24.8 (76.6) |
18.5 (65.3) |
17.6 (63.7) |
12.6 (54.7) |
12.0 (53.6) |
25.7 (78.3) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | 3.1 (37.6) |
3.1 (37.6) |
3.7 (38.7) |
6.4 (43.5) |
9.9 (49.8) |
12.7 (54.9) |
14.5 (58.1) |
13.9 (57.0) |
11.1 (52.0) |
7.2 (45.0) |
4.6 (40.3) |
3.2 (37.8) |
7.8 (46.0) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | 0.6 (33.1) |
0.4 (32.7) |
0.8 (33.4) |
3.2 (37.8) |
6.7 (44.1) |
9.6 (49.3) |
11.4 (52.5) |
11.0 (51.8) |
8.2 (46.8) |
4.6 (40.3) |
2.3 (36.1) |
0.6 (33.1) |
5.0 (41.0) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −1.7 (28.9) |
−2.1 (28.2) |
−1.6 (29.1) |
0.6 (33.1) |
3.9 (39.0) |
7.1 (44.8) |
9.0 (48.2) |
8.5 (47.3) |
6.0 (42.8) |
2.3 (36.1) |
0.0 (32.0) |
−1.8 (28.8) |
2.5 (36.5) |
Record low °C (°F) | −19.7 (−3.5) |
−17.6 (0.3) |
−16.4 (2.5) |
−16.4 (2.5) |
−7.7 (18.1) |
−0.7 (30.7) |
1.4 (34.5) |
1.0 (33.8) |
−4.4 (24.1) |
−10.6 (12.9) |
−15.1 (4.8) |
−16.8 (1.8) |
−19.7 (−3.5) |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 83.7 (3.30) |
84.6 (3.33) |
83.4 (3.28) |
57.4 (2.26) |
53.3 (2.10) |
42.2 (1.66) |
50.9 (2.00) |
62.9 (2.48) |
81.3 (3.20) |
75.1 (2.96) |
81.3 (3.20) |
93.8 (3.69) |
849.9 (33.46) |
Average relative humidity (%) | 78.1 | 76.3 | 75.9 | 73.7 | 74.2 | 77.3 | 80.1 | 81.0 | 79.7 | 77.9 | 77.5 | 77.6 | 77.4 |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 19.9 | 60.9 | 109.3 | 166.9 | 208.3 | 185.8 | 178.6 | 163.1 | 116.9 | 93.0 | 37.6 | 12.0 | 1,352.3 |
Source: Monthly climatological statistics from 1949–2015 [1] |
Synon0 ( talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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
"Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat, pronounced [kalaːɬːit nʉnaːt]; Danish: Grønland, pronounced [ˈkʁɶnˌlænˀ]) is a North American autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark."
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)
Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North Americarequires 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)
"Iceland is generally included in Europe for geographical, historical, political, cultural, linguistic and practical reasons. Geologically, the island includes parts of both continental plates."
"The site REYK shows a large (expected) relative velocity because it is located on the North-American plate."
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.