@Wikitiki89, I won't revert your diff, but something bothers me.
When you say: "Two or three interlocked chain links, symbolizing the concept of connection.", it is an introduction to the entry, it tells us what we should expect to see, and sounds like a complete (short) explanation.
When you say: "The two or three interlocked chain links symbolize the concept of connection.", it's like you are referring to readers who already know the symbol and are aware that these may be two or three chain links. The reader will only probably see either 2 or 3 links at a given time, so she must have prior knowledge of the fact that a character appears with that specific difference in separate fonts or emoji sets. I did not know it before we discussed it in the BP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you on this: "It's also worded in a way that if you are not familiar with it, it explains it indirectly." -- Point taken. With the etymology you wrote, probably nobody is actually going to be confused as to what exactly is the shape of 🔗; it's a common symbol shown on internet links and also used as a tool to create/edit links in word processors.
But one thing about my proposal didn't change: My idea is introducing a Description section and leaving the Etymology alone.
This is, currently, the Etymology section of 🔗, which resulted from your edit:
==Translingual==
{{character info/new}}
===Etymology===
The two or three interlocked ] ]s symbolize the concept of ].
===Symbol===
{{head|mul|symbol}}
# {{lb|mul|Internet}} Indicates a ].
This is what I would like to have. The etymology should mention the origin.
==Translingual==
{{character info/new}}
===Description===
Two or three interlocked ] ]s, symbolizing the concept of ].
===Etymology===
Introduced in .
===Symbol===
{{head|mul|symbol}}
# {{lb|mul|Internet}} Indicates a ].
I would also use the Description section to tell readers that sometimes 🏦 is rendered as the work "bank", sometimes it is the image of an actual bank.
But I can see your point and I don't expect you to change your mind. I just have a different idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)