Talk:NEXAFS

Proposed merge with NEXAFS
Both "NEXAFS" and "XANES" are terms used by the physics community to describe the experimental method under discussion here. Both names are equally valid. However, I created a quite substantial NEXAFS article before User:Bianconi created the XANES one, undoubtedly in an effort to publicize his/her own work. A whois lookup of the machine 141.108.20.26 shows that it is in Italy and "Bianconi" is an Italian name, so I believe that this article is primarily an attempt at self promotion. User:141.108.20.26 has removed links to the NEXAFS article from the EXAFS article and replaced them with links to the less substantial XANES one for no apparent reason. I'd like to hear others' opinion on whether XANES should be merged into NEXAFS or whether there should just be a redirect. Alison Chaiken 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC).

Reply

The comments are clearly pushed by the attempts of self promotion by a californian user. I do not think that the two terms in wikipedia should merge: NEXAFS is used by a smaller community of scientists than the wider community using XANES (not only in physics but aso in chemistry, biology and other science communities). If a merge has to be considered one should use XANES in fact XANES is more common than NEXAFS. It is easy to control by everyone that for example in all Journals of the AIP (like Phys. Rev. and Phys, Rev. Letters) 1. There are today 167 papers using XANES in their title. 2. There are today 55 papers using NEXAFS in their title.

Historically the acronym NEXAFS has been introduced some years after the XANES acronym. The first paper on XANES has been published in 1980. 3. the first paper on XANES on the AIP journals appears in 1982, A. Bianconi, M. Campagna, and S. Stizza Phys. Rev. B 25, 2477-2482 (1982) 4. the first paper on NEXAFS appears in 1983, D. Norman, J. Stöhr, R. Jaeger, P. J. Durham, and J. B. Pendry Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2052-2055 (1983).


 * I don't really care what acronym we use.   I only wrote an article called "NEXAFS" because someone requested it.    If someone had requested an article called "XANES," I would have written one with that name.   So let's not argue about semantics; it's fine with me if we end with one article called "XANES."   I proposed merging XANES into NEXAFS  because the XANES article was kind of sketchy and my NEXAFS article was much more complete.    I don't really understand why someone would go and knowingly create a duplicate article.   Hopefully we can agree that the ultimate goal is to have one excellent article on the topic, not two.   Alison Chaiken 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)