From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Etymology in the lead[edit]

I just moved the very useful etymology from the end of the lead to the first sentence where I think it belongs and explained it well. Jytdog (talk · contribs) moved it to the end of the article instead, which is far worse than before, without explanation but instead just referring to an extremely long discussion with no conclusion or consensus. That doesn't make sense to me. If it should be moved away from the lead, it should be argued for or there should be a reference to a strict rule or clear and well-argued consensus about it; it is absolutely normal and super useful to have the etymology up there, as I already said and which you did not argue in any way against, Jytdog. You can't just move it without explaining. I find that disruptive, annoying, and lessening my want to improve Wikipedia. You also didn't explain why you felt you had to move it even further away, even though it's rather essential and doesn't belong hidden far away and wasn't before. --Jhertel (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. This is the correct move when you add something and it is reverted. Wikipedia is read more and more by people on mobiles, and due to the way that editors keep larding up the lead with nonessential things like etymology, developers from the WMF actually starting showing readers the "description" field from Wikidata so that people could quickly get an idea of what they were reading about. Etymology is nonessential. I don't deny that it should be in the article but it just dictionary/housekeeping stuff. Not the most important thing about this topic, that needs to be dealt with in the first few words of the whole article. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)