Reversion of my merger of the etymologies of "[[loop]]"

I was under the impression that the general consensus was to only separate etymologies if they were mostly or entirely different. While the verb may come from the noun, definition 2 of the noun probably comes from definition 1, and all the other definitions precede in some way from an original sense. It would be ridiculous to separate them out, however interesting it might be. Is there a reason you feel different parts of speech should be given distinct etymologies, and am I wrong in thinking there was a consensus not to do so?

The noun is derived from the verb, so that is its etymology. Showing the etymology of the verb as the etymology of the noun is misleading because it gives the impression that the noun was also descended through that same path when it clearly wasn't. The noun didn't even exist for most of that history, and was only created recently, so clearly its etymology is not the same.

If the noun were derived from the verb via a suffix, then we'd show this suffix but not repeat the entire etymology of the verb. We should do the same if the noun is derived without suffixation. Linguists call this a "zero derivation", and it's a derivational process just like a suffix might be. It creates a new word, with its own history/etymology. In fact, perhaps we should start indicating and categorising zero derivations as such.

OK, thanks for the clarification (though note that the entry says that the verb comes from the noun, not the other way around). I'm not opposed to treating such derivations as separate etymologies, but I think it's better to be consistent, whatever we do. I won't make any changes either way, however, if there is no solid consensus in place.