Talk:Eye drop

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Pharmacology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Inconsistencies

Why are there examples of some classes of drugs (some multiple), yet not others? This could be considered a form of advertising (In NZ at least, some of these generic drugs are not generic manufacturer), so i'll remove it (rather than adding examples to all classes). Fillup (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some drops, like glaucoma meds, have to penetrate the cornea in order to work. These have to be held on the cornea for two minutes with the tear drain blocked by finger pressure. Others can just be applied to the nose corner of a closed eye and blinked in. Always follow the advice of your ophthalmologist as to technique. David Spector (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Ophthalmic Administration section, no mention is made of drops to treat corneal conditions (e.g., Epithelial basement membrane dystrophy). Depending on the nature of the condition, various treatment options, including different kinds of prescription and non-prescription drops may be proscribed. I'm sure other ophthalmic conditions have been left out as well. I have no expertise in this area; however, someone more knowledgeable than I should review and improve this section. Drbb01 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend removing or completely revising "Other Uses" Section

This section focuses solely on uses of eye droppers, not eye drops. Consequently, I believe this section should either be deleted or completely rewritten with a focus on eye drops. I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable of the the topic to choose which alternative makes more sense. Drbb01 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t know, but I`d personally keep that section with perhaps adding link to eye droppers article, it adds a positive vibe of "Did you know that?" and it makes this article much better in perception of a reader (it did for me at least). By adding link on text "eye droppers" to relevant article about it you give already enough signal to the reader that this is not precisely about the same thing, but somewhat related. This is why I`d keep it and I don`t think it is against any rules. I would however think about changing the name of this section, "other uses" makes it confusing a bit. 97.87.10.242 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention and link to "eye dropper" in the lede and remove the "other uses" section for exactly the reason Drbb01 gave. I then came here to the talk page and found this discussion. Sorry about that, but I won't revert my edit. You should not in general discuss two separate topics in a single article: see WP:TOPIC. The other uses of an eye dropper should be in the eye dropper article, not this one. Separately from all that, the use for water colors was unreferenced and should not be re-instated in either article until a reference is added.