Talk:Heterochromia iridum: Difference between revisions

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JakeTurner123 (article contribs).

Heterochromia iridum → HeterochromiaHeterochromia – 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 eyes. ★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 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 in passing, therefore your suggestion is inappropriate. Urselius (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]