Talk:Reykjavík

REMOVED FAKE CLIMATIC DATA

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

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

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

Expensive according to whom?

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

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

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

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

Changes (2004)

Okay. I made a few changes, added a few new sections and material so that this page would contain the same sections as the page about Akureyri does. Added:

• Economy
• Sites of interest
• Colleges and universities (with complete lists of colleges and universities)
• Sports teams (with complete list of sports teams)

and a new Administration section.

--Ómar Kjartan Yasin

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

Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting of 1986 (discussed 2004)

The page

http://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iceland

claims that the Reagan-Gorbachev-meeting was held in 1986. What is correct?

'86 --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:02, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

High-seat pillars (2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

New article (2004)

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

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

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

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

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

Stærsta smáborg í heimi?

Where does this nickname come from? Does it have any official standing? Me and my friends generally refer to the city as Borg óttans (e. City of fear) or Sódóma :) --Bjarki 12:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aaahh, Scandinavian Sin... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway

Not IPA

2005

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

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

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

2007: /c/ vs /kj/

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

No severe congestion?

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

Daylight/sunlight

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

Nick M 15th of April 2006

New category for the nordic/scandinavian capitals?

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

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

Beginning of the article

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

Pronunciation bug

Superscripted h applied from German version! They are right. This was missing, making me think the j is 100% silent but it is NOT. The extremely weak h must be in to represent the j; it must not be omitted. Perfectly audible on the sample. -andy 80.129.74.36 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the difference between [c] and [k] with the difference between [cʰ] and [c] (it is [c] and not [k] since it is spelled Reykjavík and not Reykavík but it is [c] and not [cʰ] because it in sourthern Iceland and so is "linmælt" (don't think there is an English word for this) Stefán 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck, you are right! Yes I seem to have confused the [c] with an ordinary "c" or "k". But after I heard the sound samples, I'm about sure that there is no english word pronounced with a [c], am I even right? If so, does anyone of you guys know in which language that sound is used too? -andy 91.32.75.66 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right, [c] is not used in English. Haukur 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The sound file with the pronunciation is whack, I can't hear anything nor does it play the whole file. I'm going to re-record with both approached Icelandic version and Englishized one. 75.72.162.175 06:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I rolled that back. The earlier file works fine for me and your attempt did not sound like that of a native speaker. Haukur 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not meant to be. The previous speaker also indicated she was from New York so, I guess maybe she's really good. 75.72.162.175 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Picture

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

Recording

I am thinking of recording this page. Are Icelanders okei with an American English speaker recording their article? .:DavuMaya:. 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. This is the English Wikipedia and spoken articles should be recorded by natural English speakers. Perhaps an Icelander should do it first though so you have some guidance regarding pronunciation of Icelandic names? --Bjarki 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be very helpful because tho I know how to pronounce the names, I always hear it a bit different from a speaker. Someone did once say "all words have an anglicized version" but I hate doing that :) I can always direct you guys to the preview of the file to check it for accuracy. .:DavuMaya:. 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

fails to cite its sources...?

Aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to have sources? And cite them? And, if not, have a nice big flag that says "This article fails to cite its sources"? Because this one doesn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.220.138 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized there are 0 citations on this page. .:DavuMaya:. 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Time zone?

I came here to find out what time zone Reykjavik is in. Could someone add that to the article? --Doradus (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to the page of Iceland.--2.245.66.112 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

English pronunciation

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

Now English pronunciation is given in the beginning of the article: "/ˈreɪkjəvɪk, -viːk/ RAYK-yə-vik, RAYK-yə-veek". Burzuchius (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Icelandic I (diacritic in the name)

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

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

I'm against this move. In my opinion spelling it without the diacritic is simply incorrect. BodvarBjarki (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that the article's title contains the diacritic. We don't call Mexico City 'México City', etc. Is the form with the diacritic really the common name in English publications? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Jón Gnarr isn't mayor yet

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

'Bay of Smokes'

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

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

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

The south bay of Los Angeles uses it Bay of Smokes the same way, as a translation of the Spanish name [1]. You'll also find the "smokes" version has been used for the English translation of the Icelandic for a long time; it's not a wikipedia invention. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The lovely and/or annoying thing about English is that it's so flexible, and happily tosses out rules if it seems like a good idea. To me, "Bay of Smokes" is both more poetic and more meaningful than "Bay of Smoke". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I myself am American and find the pluralised version of the name to be much better, so it's not a matter of ENGVAR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, like I said, maybe it sounds ok to an American, but not to me. Languages change all the time but my English hasn't changed to the point where I routinely use mass nouns in the plural.Costesseyboy (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) By the way, the fact that some people have thought Bahia de los Fumos can be translated the same way doesn't make it right. A plural in one language isn't always plural in another. In French, a funeral service is plural - you wouldn't want to replicate that in English, would you?Costesseyboy (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In English, the definition of "what's OK" is pretty flexible - more so than in French, certainly. So the fact that everybody in a section of the L.A. basin uses the term *does* make it OK. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

And if you check Wikipedia on Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo you will see the correct English translation for Bahia de los Fumos: 'Bay of Smoke'.86.157.202.182 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia - in the real world, it's written as "Bay of Smokes" on signs, etc. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that any "competent" English-speaker would ever look at "Bay of Smokes" in this article and think "Bay of Cigarettes" or some other such nonsense. I'd assume that most people are not so bogged down in functional fixedness to not comprehend what is meant by "Smokes" here: multiple sources of smoke. "Smoke" singular gives an image of one cohesive mass of of suspended particles, like fog. But if you have actually visited Iceland, you will know that this is not what is being referred to. "Smokes" plural more accurately represents the geothermal vents that dot the landscape, each sending out their own plume of smoke, not forming one uncountable mass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a further note about usage, "Valley of Smokes" is not uncommon when referring to an area with lots of wildfires (a good parallel to the geysers of Iceland), while there's also "Valley of 10,000 smokes" [2] and the term "land of smokes", in this case [3] referring to Yellowstone, an excellent parallel. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd, your misconception that the correct usage would give the impression of a single mass. When a building is on fire & is said to be 'full of smoke', do we think all the smoke must therefore come from a single source - and if not, we must use the plural? Of course not. But it seems that to you Americans, 'Smokes' is good English, and that means the rest of us have to put up with it, although it is not a form we use and the singular would be clearly understood by all.Costesseyboy (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity,Lothar von Richthofen, are you an American? (I am.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's amazing that we Americans managed to fool some British folks into naming "Edge of Smokes Wood"[4]. Such power we have! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an American. But really, picking on nationalities here is exceptionally petty.

If a building is "full of smoke", the smoke in question is in one single mass. The geothermal vents in Iceland do not emit vapours that form one single mass. But if you really are going to continue niggling everyone on this very minor point, perhaps we can reach a compromise wording like "Bay of Smoke Plumes" (though such a wording is very cumbersome). The so-called "proper usage", however grammatically correct it may be, is simply inaccurate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) I'm not 'picking on nationality': I'm accepting that American English contains various usages that are less acceptable in other forms of the language (maybe you weren't aware of that) & suggesting that a more widely accepted form would be preferable. Thanks for impugning my integrity though. (2) I don't know Smokes Wood, Kent, but suspect it's a possessive form - woods are often called after (or 'named for', as you might say) individuals. Irrelevant though. (3) As you know, smoke in a burning building will typically come from a number of sources. (4) 'Bay of Smoke' is not inaccurate. You seem to think the use of a so-called mass noun in the singular implies a single physical mass (why? tea, sugar & rice are all mass nouns) & that because it is plural in Icelandic (which has not actually been established, to my knowledge) it must be in English. Not so. (5) Although I honestly cannot see why you refuse to accept 'Smoke', if you really think a plural is essential, why not 'Bay of Fumes', since that is a countable noun? (5) Trivial? You may not be aware how incredibly critical many people are of Wikipedia - unfairly, of course. Articles in poor English with questionable usages really don't help (& by that I'm not criticising the rest of this article).86.170.90.13 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that I have stupidly ignored the key point here: This isn't my translation, this is the translation that is commonly used, and has been commonly used for decades, in English-language periodicals (not just American ones). That's why it belongs in this article, not because a couple editors like the way it sounds (although I do). Check this Google Books search to see what I mean - it found 25 or so travel and academic and popular works, dating back to 1914, that use "Bay of Smokes" as the English translation of the city name. [5] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

However, to complicate things, a different Google Book search finds a roughly equivalent collection of publications that use the "S-free" form, including one dating to 1838: [6]. And at least one gives it the alternate name "The Smoky Bay" ... so perhaps we should give some a couple of choices? But maybe that would be clutter without much purpose. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi David — You're correct in both cases. It is my native language, and my edit was lacking: If it's a dominant custom to use Bay then that should be used. Thanks for pointing this out. I also think it has to be accompanied by a sidenote like you propose; but rather have a note that states: "(direct translation cove, yet frequently referred to as the Bay of Smoke.)" — but we need to state who refers to it that way (eg. mainly USA? Do you have any links at hand?). And on the plural matter: I favor either "Smoky Bay" or "Smoke Bay" over using a plural form of smoke. But I'm not overly zealous in that. We should turn up trustworthy references to settle what its custom form will become on Wikipedia. How does all this sound? I hope we're closing in on an agreement on all matters. ---hthth (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you agree that the article is undeniably better, at least for now, when changed according to our agreements above. I've made the changes and added a few citation needed clauses for good measure, since this is something we seriously need to improve the article. We'll figure things out in good time. ---hthth (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've belatedly tweaked it a bit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Per capita car ownership in Iceland is among the highest in the world at roughly 522 vehicles per 1,000 residents

So what does "roughly" mean here?

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

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

The 39th of January?

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

Sound file

I don't know Icelandic, but for [c], the sound file has too much [k]. Are you sure it's not [kʲ]? Or is the sound file not precise?--2.245.66.112 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's complicated, but several scholars seem to agree that [c] is correct... if perchance you know German, maybe this discussion over in German Wikipedia will interest you... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

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

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

Okay, thank you. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

quote

did you know that over 85 percent of people in iceland didn't watch the super bowl this year?? or last year??And the vast vast majority of people in Iceland doesn't watch american football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:2380:27E:244B:8C4A:E6F4:657F (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why Icelanders would watch the Super Bowl. It is incredibly boring and completely irrelevant to us. I guess most Icelanders have never even heard of it. American football and baseball are not considered interesting sports in Iceland and probably the rest of the world. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you're responding to a feeble joke of some kind. Like saying "99.9% of Americans didn't watch the world handball championship" since that sport isn't played in the US. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080901210249/http://www.questia.com:80/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=GWNJYhhJ9lt0MbY6X86ny7Z6LKLhJbqnBs8QyfG9sGJx6JvRT1qN!-1963512867?docId=5001321944 to http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=GWNJYhhJ9lt0MbY6X86ny7Z6LKLhJbqnBs8QyfG9sGJx6JvRT1qN!-1963512867?docId=5001321944

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Timeline of Reykjavík

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

"Reykjavík City" vs. "Reykjavík"

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

I agree. I don't see what putting "City" there adds. It is not a normal part of the name in English (neither is the diacritic for that matter). New York City and Quebec City are exceptions - but the articles are also at New York City and Quebec City, whereas this one is at Reykjavík. Kahastok talk 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The template is called Infobox Icelandic municipality and refers to the administrative division (municipality) whereas the name of the article refers to the geographic area – the two obviously overlap. In Icelandic, when vaguely refering to the area, one says Reykjavík but when refering to the municipality one says Reykjavíkurborg (Reykjavik City). We also have an article on the Reykjavík City Council (not Reykjavík Council). Whether one says Reykjavík City or City of Reykjavík is a matter of choice but the former is closer to Icelandic. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

That we refer to Reykjavik City Council is not relevant - "City Council" is a common construction in English, and does not imply that the city's name should end with the word "City". For example, Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council. Kahastok talk 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

In English "Reykjavik City" does not imply that we are talking about the municipality as opposed to the urban area. The precise distinction in meaning you describe in the Icelandic is lost when you translate to English. There is no significant difference in meaning in English implied between "Reykjavik" and "Reykjavik City" in this context. "City" is simply redundant. Which is why people are questioning it and is one of the reasons why no other article - other than those like New York and Quebec which are very different situations - uses "City" in this context. Kahastok talk 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been clearer and said "in Iceland" and not "in Icelandic" but that doesn't matter now. "Reykjavik City" doesn't have to imply anything specific in English or any other language. I didn't put "City" in the name because I thought that would signal something useful for English-speakers, such as to imply that it referred to a municipality. I did it because all of the other data related directly to the municipality as an administrative division and so naturally it made sense to me that the formal name be given. The fact that it is in a municipality-related template should imply that, not the "City" part by itself. I don't see why a non-native shouldn't know that the municipality has its own name which is similar but different from the geographic area. A rule should be applicable to all situations but if we had a geographic area known as "X" being ruled by a municipality known as "Y" then calling the municipality "X" wouldn't just be imprecise but factually incorrect. There is a compromise I think is reasonable however and that is to keep the heading at the top as "Reykjavík" but to add another parameter corresponding to a label somewhere below saying "Municipal name" or something. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New Weatherbox

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

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

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

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

References

"among the cleanest, greenest, and safest cities in the world"

I'm not questioning clean or safe - but greenest ? I once learned that there are no trees on Iceland. Perhaps planted ones - but no woods. Are there lots of parks (with planted threes) in Reykjavik ? And if not, how come it's so green ? It's a question only. Boeing720 (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to green grass. Lots of green fields. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Number of seats on the City Council

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

No government currently?

Why is there nothing in the government section of the infobox? Is it anarchy? :) I assume it is either a mistake, or there has been some trouble in forming a city administration. Inspector Semenych (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

North American city

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

"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)

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

The claim that geological plates are "the universal standard" for defining continents is false. The fact that you are referring to Europe in the first place demonstrates this, since there is no plate boundary between Europe and Asia. By your standard, Hanoi is as European as Paris and more European than Venice (which is on a separate microplate). Kahastok talk 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kahastok WP:BLUESKY applies when the question is "what continent is this city in?", so no WP:NOR concerns. There is only one answer (North America) and the cited source provides that. Politically it is a part of Europe, but geographically it is indisputably outside of Eurasia and we run up against weirdness with the Greenland article if we pretend it's outside of North America.

Iceland makes quite a big deal of which continent you're in when you cross the rift zone fully, but it's not like this detail is covered by a ton of sources which meet WP:RS. You have technical sources which simply refer to Reykjavík as located in the North American plate (which I went with) or a whole plethora of travel guides which we can't use to go off of. You're right in pointing out that the division of Eurasia itself is arbitrary, but Eurasia to North America decidedly isn't. As we don't cite that France is a European capital, the purposes of a geological citation was to counter incredulity, which it appears failed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUESKY is that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue - i.e. obvious facts known to all. You do need a cite if you want to say that the sky is orange - even though it sometimes is. There are few if any topics where WP:BLUESKY applies across the board, no matter what the claim is or what the context is.

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

The claim that Reykjavík is the only capital of a sovereign European state located in North America requires a source that says that, in so many words. Drawing your own conclusion from plate tectonics is WP:OR. Kahastok talk 10:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kahastok You're right about the issue with Los Angeles/San Diego, but that is again an example where there's larger geopolitical considerations a lá Eurasia vs. Europe. I'm fine doing an RFC on this; it feels like a pretty big wiff to have an article about a city physically if not geopolitically in North America without mentioning the continent it's in. Note that while I invoked WP:BLUESKY I did actually cite the claim I made with a source that discusses Reykjavík's location relative to the North American plate, since we can't exactly cite tourism companies on this topic. Note that the main article for Iceland does a decent job of discussing its position relative to both continents.

"Iceland is generally included in Europe for geographical, historical, political, cultural, linguistic and practical reasons. Geologically, the island includes parts of both continental plates."

There's two fundamental questions, here:

1) Is Reykjavík physically located in North America?

2) If so, does this meet WP:N to include in the article on Reykjavík or do we go with the general convention?

The notion that Reykjavík is physically on the North American pretty easily meets WP:VERIFY, and general convention isn't verifiability. For example:

"The site REYK shows a large (expected) relative velocity because it is located on the North-American plate."

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

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

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

What is going on

I believe there is tons of misinformation on this page. "The land of fire and ice" is a nickname for Iceland as a whole, but is never used when talking about Reykjavík. As for "Reykjavik loves" being the motto, that is simply not true (or is never used outside of certain events). As for the discussion above, which talks about whether Reykjavik is in North America or not: Reykjavik is on the North American tectonic plate and is therefore considered, geographically, to be in North America. Logiston (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree on those two examples, there is no official motto and the city is not referred to as a 'land' anyway. The rest of the page is mostly adequately cited and correct. As for Europe vs. NA, plate tectonics happens on a large scale: there is no defined boundary, especially within Iceland - a large part of the country is in a rift zone. Drumstick21 (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A continent is just a cultural and political concept, originating in the classical world where Europe was here, Asia was over there and Africa was across the sea. Plate tectonics have nothing to do with it and wasn't even settled science until the mid-20th century. Iceland seems to be the only place in the world where plate boundaries are even brought up in this context, which is probably a testament to how successful the Icelandic tourism industry has been at marketing the idea of Iceland as the boundary between continents. Bjarki (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)