Template talk:Crystallography

What is the criteria for adding names?[edit]

What is the criteria for adding names to this template? Obviously a Nobel or the Ewald prize should qualify, but some curation on recent 21st century additions looks like it is needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for raising this issue @Ldm1954, Dr. Marks. The influential crystallographers in the early 21st-century category is very incomplete and likely very biased. If someone got a prestigious award they certainly qualify, but these awards tend to credit the original discovery made 30-50 years in the past, so the awardee would better be included in the prior time bracket, unless it's some award that targets rising stars. I have the impression that we can only have a finalized list for the early 21st-century category in the 2040s, once the impacts of the discoveries made years before are consolidated into common knowledge in the community. We'd love to hear your suggestions and review your edits. A lot of the more recent crystallographers don't yet have a biography page on Wikipedia. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

If they have no page, then except in special cases they don't belong.
They must have received multiple top awards from IUCr, ACA, ECA and/or similar in crystallography in the broadest definition.
In the current list:

Yes: John Spence, Henry Chapman, Janus Hadju, Wayne Hendrickson

No: Jianwei Miao, Tamir Gonen, Ilme Schlifhting

Marginal: Ian K. Robinson, Sjirs Scheres, Eva Nogales, Nikolaus Grigorieff

Some very big names are missing: Sumio Ijima, Staff van Tenderloo, Michael O'Keeffe, Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, Richard Henderson Ldm1954 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

To VaudevillianScientist, FuzzyMagma and GreatStellatedDodecahedron. Before we get too much further into different approaches/edits, I think it is critical to establish a definition of crystallography then stick to it in various pages and templates. In Crystallography I have just added the IUCr definition, although I think it is too short. Can we discuss/debate then clean up templates and related pages rather than going in multiple directions. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Ldm1954, the template should really be rolled back for a few edits. It's not anymore what's intended originally. The journals, awards, and scholarly societies are not necessary to include there. They could be in separate articles. I haven't seen other discipline-oriented templates with journals and awards. It's useful to have some representative figures and pioneers of specific techniques/algorithms included for the uninitiated to look through. Journals and awards are really not for public consumption. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave recent edits out of this as I see both views. Instead can we just debate to consensus what Crystallography is and is not. To start the ball rolling, please consider the following:

X-ray/electron/neutron diffraction are tools used for data, but are not themselves crystallograhy.
Grain boundary bicrystallography is (needs a page).
Aspects of defects such as point defect sites and slip planes have components of crystallography in them.
Inversion methods such as direct methods, Gerschberg-Saxton and others are crystallography.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray/electron/neutron-based methods are essential tools for crystallography. These probes themselves have separate templates already (Template:X-ray science, Template:Electron microscopy, Template:Science with neutrons) already, but the experimental methods specifically designed for crystallography should be grouped as a category under the crystallography template. There can definitely be small overlaps between templates.
Inversion methods should definitely be included. Gershberg-Saxton is a special case of dual-space methods, the more recent versions such as shake-and-bake and charge-flipping methods don't yet have their pages.
Other points taken. Is bicrystallography a typo?

VaudevillianScientist (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bicrystallography, not a typo. It is the dual crystallography at grain boundaries/interfaces. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., I believe GS is the first dual space method, at least for phase recovery. I think my group was the first to argue that DM are dual, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108767398014408, but I don't know if everyone agrees. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, X-ray and electron and any other techniques should be grouped as relevant to crystallography characterisation (similar to the current template) and not more than that as the reader can go an explore them once they land on these pages.

Remembers, templates provide the easiest way to know different aspects of a specific topic. In this case the inclusion of journals can be debated but I disagree with the opinion around awards and journals, as all templates are unique and different as long as they stick to the topic. Awards are also the best way to end the debate on who is notable for inclusion on this template as most notable crystallographers (at least from the 20th century) can be found there.

I added Gerchberg–Saxton algorithm and phase retrieval as per the discussion above.

If I can add one more thing, I think we should focus more on including more crystallographic key concepts. You two mentioned couple of them, and I can add Coincidence site lattice, and I think we should put some redlinks also in the template to remind ourselves that these pages need to be written. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are, I think making progress. However I would still like your (plural) thoughts on the definition. At the moment we have Crystallography, X-ray crystallography, X-ray scattering, X-ray diffraction, LEED, RHEED, Electron crystallography, EBSD, Electron diffraction plus others in this templates and the history list. EBSD & ED are GAs, and I think good (COI). I redid the lead in Electron crystallography to make it more NPOV. I would like to establish, jointly what is crystallography so we can be consistent. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: we also have pages linked to X-ray scattering or crystallography when they should be to XRD and so on. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition from IUCr is excellent and broad enough.

I did an overhaul, especially around the characterisation techniques to keep it simple, but we can include the main characterisation techniques, for example under X-ray crystallography we can include X-ray scattering and X-ray diffraction, same for Electron crystallography to include Electron scattering and Electron diffraction (but not EBSD), just electron diffraction) and Neutron diffraction to include Neutron scattering and Neutron diffraction. I think going deeper than that is not necessary

At the top we can put Materials science and Biophysics next to Timeline of crystallography FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]