Talk:Refractor (ophthalmic instrument)

Proposed merge with Phoropter

If phoropoter and refractor are equivalent in common usage, there should only be one article, regardless of which name was once trademarked. Even if Phoropter is a slightly unique kind of Refractor, it would be better to discuss the history and comparisons in one article, rather than force readers to navigate between two very similar articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but my vote is that Refractor (ophthalmic instrument) should be the heading and phoropter should be re-directed to Refractor, since R is the proper name and the generic term (and the original term) and P is a misspelled trademark that no manufacturer is even allowed to use other than Reichert. I'm an optometrist so I know about these instruments. PS It is still a trademark, not "was once trademarked". I don't think trademarked names should be used as listing heads, especially when misspelled. The correct spelling is Phoroptor. The correct term is Refractor. DigbyDalton (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet in favor of one title over the other, but the preferred title should be decided by WP:COMMONNAME criteria, e.g. what's used most widely in reliable sources (e.g. manuals, text books, and other medical literature). From casual browsing of Google Books, it looks like both terms are widely used and often interchangeable (with phorpoter variously capitalized or not), so as a courtesy to readers this should be clarified in text. I'll defer to your expertise on title. As an aside, please consider adding citations for the many unsourced statements on both articles, per policy. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned a page from my old Optometry school text book, "Visual Optics and Refraction" by David D. Michaels, Mosby 1980, p. 232. At the time it was the standard text for optometrists and ophthalmologists so it's pretty authoritative. He uses the word "refractor" as the primary term, and spells phoroptor differently than Wikipedia. I uploaded the page to hyzercreek.com/buried.htm for you to read.DigbyDalton (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has any argument against it by this coming tuesday, I'll just merge the 2 articles under the generic name Refractor and get some good references for it. That's my day off and I'll have time. DigbyDalton (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind. I'm not going to merge refractor and phoropter as I have come to realize that they are two distinct devices, although used for the same end. I edited refractor today, and will source the information on Tuesday when I have more time (and energy). If somebody wants to merge them, they can discuss it here. Cheers. DigbyDalton (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]