Talk:Crystallography

Liquid Crystals Should be Added
I think a comment should be added in the introduction about liquid crystals and perhaps a separate section as well. Liquid crystals may not seem to be crystals to a traditional geologist, but they have the properties of crystals according to physicists. With the ever growing presence of liquid crystal displays (iPods, cell phones, gaming devices, computer screens, TVs), the average reader may end up on this page upon wondering how his iPod screen works only to be told that crystals are solid. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article badly needs improvement
Among other things to be fixed: Reify-tech (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduction (article lead) is way too long relative to the article; it has a hodgepodge of stuff that belongs in the body of the article, or should be deleted as redundant. See MOS:LEAD for guidelines on writing the intro; it is usually best to keep a minimal intro until the rest of the article is written and stable.
 * 2) "Notation" doesn't belong here because it is too specialized; it should be merged into crystal structure. or deleted if it is redundant.
 * 3) "Reference literature" probably should be called "Further reading", in accordance with Wikipedia article standards.
 * 4) "Scientists of note" and "See also" are waaaaay too long. Their content is useful, but it should be placed into a new infobar template, something like the Geology one already at the end of the page.
 * 5) I haven't even waded into the deeper content of the article, but suspect there is a lot of room for improvement.

Moved section on Women in x-ray crystallography
I have moved this section to X-ray crystallography, as it seems more appropriate there. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Split x-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography
I propose splitting X-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography, discussion started at Talk:X-ray crystallography. The two are not the same, and there are many areas of XRD where the focus is not on detailed determination of atomic positions. Examples are powder diffraction where comparison is made to known samples, SAXS and many more. There are many areas/pages where it is relevant to say "use XRD" but wrong to say use "X-ray crystallography This would also help to improve the current rambling X-ray crystallography page. Comments to the X-ray crystallography talk page please. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)