Talk:Heterochromia: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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 after discussing it on the closer’s talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 05:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heterochromia iridum → Heterochromia – The article states that “heterochromia iridum” is specifically when one has one eye of one color, and another eye of another color, while “heterochromia iridis” is when one eye has two colors (also called “partial heterochromia”). While the former seemingly takes up a lot of the article, it also seems to cover the latter, as well as mentioning that “heterochromia” can also affect the skin and hair. ★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I would say that ‘Heterochromia of the eye’, or ‘Iris heterochromia’ would be better, as ‘heterochromia’ just means ‘different colour’ and could apply, in theory, to anything that is coloured. Urselius (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that is an issue when heterochromia already redirects to this article, and it’s a medical condition which can effect more than just the eye.★Trekker (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made the point of the unsuitability of just ‘heterochromia’ by saying, “… it’s a medical condition which can effect more than just the eye.” That ‘heterochromia’ redirects here is just what some random editor on Wikipedia has set up, it does not constitute a usable precedent. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense to me, the article clearly starts by stating “Heterochromia is a variation in coloration most often used to describe color differences of the iris, but can also be applied to color variation of hair[1] or skin.”, and the article originally was at just “heterochromia” before it was moved in 2010.★Trekker (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obvious distinction between the internal text of an article and its title. That is where the sense of my argument lies. If this makes no sense to you, I would opine that it would to most people. The title of an encyclopedia article should accurately describe the contents, not be a blanket term of which the subject is one part. If the article covered all aspects of biological heterochromia – skin, hair etc. – in suitable depth, then your suggestion would have merit. However, the article just mentions other aspects of biological heterochromia than that of the iris in passing, therefore your suggestion is inappropriate. Urselius (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the article makes out as if it intends to cover the condition in full with it’s first sentence, then just goes on to only focus on the eyes despite establishing at the start that it doesn’t just refer to eye coloration (I assume that is why the article was moved to add “iridum”). Is it not odd to have an article only about one aspect of a condition but none on the whole condition? Wouldn’t the solution be to move the article and expand to be more encompassing?★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is much the same as an article about rainbow trout saying there are other trout species, then going on to talk only about the rainbow variety. If you wanted to add much more coverage on other aspects of heterochromia and then afterwards change the title of the article, that would be fine. Creating a new more general article on heterochromia would also be fine. Changing this title and then expecting other editors to do the necessary work, would not be, in my opinion. Urselius (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well my bad then. Since almost of of the other language articles linked on Wikidata have it at just the simple name heterochromia I assumed it would be sensical to do the same here since “iridum” is only one type the article covers more than, but if everyone disagrees I guess we pick a different name.★Trekker (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>If the article covered all aspects of biological heterochromia – skin, hair etc. – in suitable depth, then your suggestion would have merit. However, the article just mentions other aspects of biological heterochromia than that of the iris in passing, therefore your suggestion is inappropriate. The article describes several types of heterochromia involving the iris in some detail, not just heterochromia iridum. So at a minimum, the title needs to be made less precise so as to include heterochromia iridis and other types involving the iris. Additionally, when I do a web search for heterochromia most results exclusively discuss conditions of the iris or make only brief mention of related phenomena of the skin, hair, etc. I have not done a comprehensive source analysis but the various conditions of the iris, including but not limited to iridum, appear to be the primary topic for heterochromia. Thus Heterochromia is the appropriate title for the article’s current scope and allows for expansion to include more details on conditions of the skin, etc. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The lead clearly describes other types of heterochromia and heterochromia iridis is bolded in the lead and heterochromia iridisheterochromia iridis redirects here. It’s possible that the article needs to be expanded to include more coverage of other types of heterochromia. Content on other types of ocular heterochromia is already included in Heterochromia iridum § Partial heterochromia – different colors in the same iris. The current article title is over-precise (too narrow) for the scope of the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then my suggestion, see above, that the article be renamed “Heterochromia of the eye” would fulfil your strictures, without the need to include lots of additional information on heterochromia of the skin or hair. This article was a citation wasteland before I started editing it. I am not prepared to research skin and hair heterochromia just so the title can be generalised. If you are prepared to do the work then all is well, but I would recommend adding the additional information, with suitable citations, before changing the title to “Heterochromia”.Urselius (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I stated above, many sources use heterochromia to refer to refer specifically to conditions of the eye and it appears that such conditions are the primary topic for the term. Heterochromia is the appropriate title for coverage of the multiple conditions of the eye and also allows for – but does not require – expansion to cover other heterochromias. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I vehemently disagree. Heterochromia as a single term can refer to anything that is multicoloured, biologically, it refers to any sort of piebaldism of skin, hair and eyes. Any encyclopaedic article that has the bald title of ‘heterochromia’ MUST cover all aspects, otherwise it is not encyclopaedic. Any coverage in an encyclopaedia has to be comprehensive, otherwise it is not an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia claims to be such. Urselius (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, so words exact meanings are not as important as their common usage. If heterocromia of the eyes is the primary thing the word is used for in English (as Myceteae asserts) then I don’t see the issue.★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does not wash. An encyclopaedia that ignores an important aspect of a subject is not an encyclopaedia. If you search ‘civil war’, the vast majority of hits will be concerned with the American Civil War, but an encyclopaedic treatment of ‘civil war’ that ignored all the other important civil wars of history would be a travesty. As I said, I have no problem with this article becoming ‘Heterochromia’ if, and only if, someone else does the spadework in making the article cover all aspects of biological heterochromia in a reasonably thorough fashion. I am not going to do so, because an entirely apt title, viz ‘Heterochromia of the eye’ is available for use. If a medical/classical language treatment of the title is to be retained, then ‘Heterochromia iridum/iridis’ would also be fine. Urselius (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with StarTrekker. The article covers the main meaning of heterochromia and mentions the others. Wikipedia is a work in progress. There is no requirement that an article be complete before selecting a title. Heterochromia of the eye is less WP:CONCISE and there is no need for this level of precision since heterochromia most often refers to conditions of the eye/iris. That title would also exclude the other heterochromias that are mentioned and for which content could be added at a later date. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic, and the last time I looked at the definition, it stated that it means, among other things, a comprehensive coverage of a subject. Urselius (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is contrary to Wikipedia:Editing policy § Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree with your anology to “civil war”, that is an English term with any English-language reader will be able to understand that it describes a broad phenomenon of which the American Civil War is only one. The word heterochromia is not remotely common in English and is therefore not comparable.★Trekker (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, but wrong in your conclusion. It is precisely because ‘heterochromia’ is not a commonly understood term in English that the article attached to such a bald title HAS to be comprehensive. Anyone reading this article, but not every word of it,would come away with the impression that heterochromia was a condition that solely affected the eye. We should avoid giving an erroneous impression. Urselius (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose per Urselius —Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Like it or not, the article clearly talks about two different eye conditions, only one of which is iridum. And it also mentions other forms of heterochromia not covered elsewhere so, whether coverage of the other forms is detailed or not, it belongs at the broader title. The 2010 RM move which established the longer title was made with the assumption that a split would occur shortly after, but 15 years on that hasn’t happened. It’s also clear from sources that heterochromia is the WP:COMMONNAME for this, even when talking specifically about the iridum case, so article title policy supports a move.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The original intention of changing the title was to avoid ‘iridum’, because it refers only to a complete iris and heterochromia can affect part of an iris (iridis). This can be adequately addressed, whilst retaining comprehensiveness, by using the title ‘Heterochromia of the eye’. This also has the advantage of incorporating an English descriptor into the title, which can only be an advantage in facilitating comprehension for an English-speaking readership. Urselius (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are some sources that support the conclusion that heterochromia of the eye/iris heterochromia is the primary topic for heterochromia and that heterochromia is the common name for these eye conditions:
  • General audience medical information sites: Cleveland Clinic, WebMD, Medline Plus, American Academy of Ophthalmology.
  • Reference works (accessible with Wikipedia Library login): Concise Medical Dictionary, A Dictionary of Nursing.
  • A Google Scholar search for heterochromia returned 1,960 publications since 2021. I looked at the first 4 pages of results (40 results) and all but a handful concerned iris heterochromia in humans. The phrase ocular heterochromia appeared most often in discussion of non-human animals. Some sources do use iris heterochromia for more specificity while others simply use heterochromia unqualified. Unsurprisingly, many medical papers do use more specificity such as segmental heterochromia, heterocrhomia iridum, heterochromia iridis, etc. where appropriate. Out of 40 results, the only one not discussing eyes was this paper which specifies hair heterochromia.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any encyclopaedia entry that says, “N is a condition that affects O and also P and Q” that then goes on to never mention P or Q again is not fit for purpose. Urselius (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not what this entry says. It says: Heterochromia is a variation in coloration most often used to describe color differences of the iris, but can also be applied to color variation of hair or skin. This definition is consistent with usage in sources that treats heterocromia as most often referring to the eye condition/phenomenon. Devoting substantial coverage to the most common usage is appropriate and, again, more coverage of other heterochromias can be added. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.