Talk:Astigmatism

Green or Red

I recently went to have my eyes checked and was told that I have astigmatism, albeit "just a little." He came to his conclusion based on a series of tests with white superimposed on green and red backgrounds. I observed the letters through a phoropter. I was asked which letters appeared clearer: the ones superimposed on the green or red background? This does not appear to be a reasonable test for astigmatism. If I am not mistaken, shouldn't an astigmatism chart be used if one was to diagnose astigmatism? Anyone have any ideas? mezzaninelounge 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it have more to do with the eye doc looking inside your eye? JayKeaton 08:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

its when you cant see things very cleary and it makes it hard ansd you should go to an eye doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.224.195 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The government page on astigmatism http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001015.htm states that "Glasses or hard contact lenses will correct astigmatism. Soft contact lenses do not work as well." I have a 180 degree axis in one eye and a 170 degree axis in the other eye and am able to use softmed torics which are soft lenses. The doctor told me that those would be better than buying hard lenses. I have no problems wearing them or seeing with them and my astigmatism is horrible. I'm wondering too if there is any genetic basis for having astigmatism. My mother also has a huge axis on both eyes. --Starladustangel 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. I have astigmatism and I'm using soft lenses to correct it. 195.72.132.1 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So? Just because you are doing it does not mean it works. Did you even read the message or did you just skim through it? Jackass2009 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

cataract operation,implant of lense, can this lead to cjd

this is bhatia here, my uncle who is in varanasi INDIA, was opearated for cataract 6 months back,has suddenly being diagonised having cjd, is this possible.can you guide us in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.182.35.9 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

By "cjd" do you mean Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Because that has nothing to do with cataracts, eyes, or astigmatism. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not WebMD, and the discussion page does not exist for you to ask questions about the validity of medical diagnoses. --75.58.54.17 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

The cornea, instead of being shaped like a sphere, is ellipsoidal (like an egg)

Spheres are ellipsoids. This statement does not meaningfully draw a distinction between a healthy cornea and an astigmatic cornea. What actually differentiates spheres and eggs is that eggs are mostly prolate and spheres are neither prolate nor oblate. It is also wrong to say that "ellipsoidal" means "like an egg". An egg is a very special case of an ellipsoid, just as a sphere is.

Quite simply, an astigmatic cornea resembles a prolate hemispheroid whereas a healthy cornea resembles a spherical hemispheroid. An egg would actually be both of those two joined together. --75.58.54.17 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Info on "Real World" Impact

I would love to get a sense of how astigmatism of various degrees affects ones vision. How is the subjective experience or the objective abilities of someone with a given level of astigmatism compare to myopia. Am I correct in assuming that myopia is a "bigger" problem? --RedHouse18 19:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

Notable individuals with astigmatism

I'm removing the "Notable individuals with astigmatism" section. First of all, astigmatism is extremely common (just read the article to see). It's like having a section on "Notable individuals with dandruff". Second, none of them are cited. Greg Salter (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the future impact of astigmatism for a patient?

I have -12.5 and -11.5 power glass and in one eye it has cylindrical power. Now I am wearing a spectacle with that power. My question is what would be the future effect of this problem? Am I going to be blind in future days or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.157.91 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

With/against the rule

The article says "In With-the-rule astigmatism, the eye sees vertical lines more sharply than horizontal lines. Against-the-rule astigmatism reverses the situation. " Is this correct? It seems that it depends on the spherical refraction/acommodation what axis is seen sharper. Depending on the spherical focal distance, in either case (with or against the rule) one or the other orientation could be seen sharp. If the total spherical equivalent matches the object distance, neither axis will be seen sharp. Can anyone confirm? 193.196.193.20 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to the Alpins method of astigmatism analysis

The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis is a new entry, currently listed as an orphan. It forms the basis for ANSI standards related to planning/analysis of astigmatism correction in refractive surgery (a new section that will soon be added). It includes a link to Astigmatism (eye); can I insert a link in Astigmatism (eye) back to the Alpins method (not sure of the protocol here, as I'm new to this). Thanks. Kcroes (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"focus a point object"  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

New illustrations

Hello! I'm from Russian part of Wiki)) For some reason I needed an illustration for my article, but the original picture had a very bad resolution. I've redrawed it. You can use it if you want. Best wishes)) Russian page https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC_%28%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%29&stable=0 Illustrations

File:Мира астигматизм.png

File:Мира четкая.png Гуменюк И.С. (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus that the eye condition is primary topic by common usage and also what users are most likely to be looking for.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

---

• Astigmatism (eye) → Astigmatism
• Astigmatism → Astigmatism (optical systems)

– When people are looking up information on astigmatism they are looking for the article on the eye condition. If you do a Google search you need to look a long long way down before you find something that is not about the eye. Our pageviews for the eye disease in the last 30 days is 46,000[1] while that for the more general optics topic is 12,000 many of which probably arrived at the wrong page. Google when searching for astigmatism thankfully ranks the eye disease page higher. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• support per DocJames rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support because of the wide discrepancy in page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per common name and nom. Randy Kryn 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per common name and nom. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what these mean; WP:COMMONNAME has no applicability here. This is a disambiguation issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – popularity does not alone define primarytopic. Here the word's more general definition should be the primary topic; the application to the eye is a popular special case. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  We should not be surprising our readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose—I agree with Dicklyon's reasoning. Tony (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

can you be more specific,(aside that you agree w/ Dicklyon)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per MOS:DAB, plus both pages are already hatnoted. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you perhaps mean WP:DAB, with its WP:PRIMARYUSAGE section, rather than MOS:DAB? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The guideline lists three factors we should take into account (1) the eye article has more incoming links per Special:WhatLinksHere (2) the eye article has greater article traffic (3) the eye article has more reliable sources. The disease is also what comes first to most people's minds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support The disease of the eyes meets all the criteria to be a primary topic. Calidum ¤ 06:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• support - a case where a technical article of interest to a few got the spot where something of interest to many should be. page views determine it. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support The eye condition seems to be the primary topic. Sizeofint (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support we should be putting what readers expect first (ie. COMMONNAME). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The more general topic is primary. A special case cannot be the primary article. Google counts and common usage are irrelevant here.--Srleffler (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  What guideline says that? Sizeofint (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  I suspect that Srleffler is trying to make a case from common principles, rather than from Wikipedia guidelines. This sentiment appears at Talk:Pregnancy fairly often, with people objecting to the "special case" of pregnancy in humans being considered primary (as compared to pregnancy in all other mammals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too technical

This article is techincal without explaining what it's talkaing about. Unclear, like trying to learn Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.2.150 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I totally, totally agree with you. A loose noose (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What does "cylinder" actually mean?

I know what a cylinder is, but this article starts using the term like it is a specialized optical concept (which it is) and gives no explanation of it. There is no corresponding Wikipedia article on "Cylinder" or "Cylinder (visual)" that means the kind of cylindrical correction for a contact lens. This article on astigmatism doesn't make this any more clear (as it were). A loose noose (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There's at least some attempt at a definition at Eyeglass prescription#Cylinder component, although it's still not super consistent in my opinion. I've changed the entry you added to the DAB page and I may just create a redirect that this page can use too. Edit: I've created it. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Cylinder" is a reference to a cylindrical lens. If you combine a spherical and a cylindrical component in the same surface of one lens, you get a toric lens.--Srleffler (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)