Talk:Crystal

On title

Current title is Crystal (geology). But, are there other possible meanings for crystal? And, aren't crystals about physics as well? I suggest to switch the title to simply Crystal, but some native English speaker should check out this before. --Nereo Preto 02:04, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Check the disambig page for Crystal; I think there are other uses which justify the naming of the article this way. --Robert W King 09:11, 7 February 2008 (CST)

The disambiguation page only shows this meaning of crystal and the glassware meaning. Aside from "crystal meth" and "Crystal" as a brand name, I can't think of other uses, and I think this use is far more prevalent - enough that we should have crystal (disambiguation) for other uses, with the link to the disambig page at the top of this article. Anthony Argyriou 09:54, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Uh, do we all agree to change the article title to simply Crystal, before it becomes bigger and super-linked? Objections if I'll do it this weekend? --Nereo Preto 14:21, 7 February 2008 (CST)

What if we had an article named Crystal (molecular)? Also, I think I do not object to the moving, even though I hate using the WP syntax of "Thing (disambiguation)" --Robert W King 14:23, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Well, as Anthony suggests, the common use for crystal is that of physics and geology, even though many do not have a clear idea of what a crystal actually is (i.e., ordered solid matter). So I suppose "crystal" alone should point to this article. Anyways, "molecular" won't work, because gases, liquids and amorphous solids are also made of molecules. --Nereo Preto 14:37, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I'm not terribly fond of using Wikipedia as a precedent, but they have their equivalent to this article at Crystal, and a separate Crystal (disambiguation) page. As for the WP syntax, I'd suggest Thing (other meanings) in the case where there is a main Thing page, but "other meanings" isn't quite as exact as "disambiguation", and it's not always obvious enough to warrant "other meanings".

If there is no objection, I'd like to move the current crystal to crystal (disambiguation), and this article to crystal. Anthony Argyriou 16:25, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I believe all contributors expressed their opinion, and we all agree the move is ok. Anthony, please go ahead and make the move. Many thanks! --Nereo Preto 02:54, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I managed to get the article moved and metadata page replaced. Don't forget to add your link to the disambiguation page at the top of this article for those wh are looking for glassware! --D. Matt Innis 22:01, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks! --Nereo Preto 03:26, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Gallery

Anthony, would it be possible to move the crystal structures over to the gallery page? It's true that crystalline structures are largely dependant on the molecular arrangement, but I don't think the article should be that sole focus. --Robert W King 12:40, 7 February 2008 (CST)

It would be possible. This article needs a *lot*, including a discussion of various types of crystal symmetry, a discussion of mineralogy, economic uses of crystalline materials, etc., etc.. At that point, the gallery of crystal structures won't dominate the page as it does now. (It may be worth importing all 200-some images from the crystal lattice page for a big gallery on a separate gallery page.) There should also be photos of actual crystals. I can try to provide a few, though I may just go to the Smithsonian website and grab a few (PD) images there. I'm trying really, really hard to not look at the Wikipedia page. Anthony Argyriou 12:54, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I definately agree that there is a lot to go in. Right now I've got a couple of photos on flickr lined up that I'm trying to get: (see section below)

I realize many are of the same subject type, but they're influenced differently and I'm sure they'll have a usage. --Robert W King 12:57, 7 February 2008 (CST)

On the other hand, I suppose showing only a couple of significant crystal lattices in main article space would be more elegant. My suggestion is, let's wait to see what pictures we can get, then select a couple of crystals with clearly different simmetry, and pick lattices with the same simmetry to show how macroscopic crystals reflect the microscopic arrangement of atoms. --Nereo Preto 14:41, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I was thinking that right after I went on the flickr binge, but failed to mention it until I saw your post. Also, some of the molecular pictures are "ok", but some are not clear--there has to be a better resource for these illustrations. --Robert W King 14:45, 7 February 2008 (CST)

Possible photo references

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/cobalt/2228590062/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/sevenbrane/2163532240/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasreichart/2130018485/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/14833125@N02/2243258623/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/social_advances/417273520/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-view-from-up-here/7396387/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/97637687@N00/398932936/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/bill_angel/124342484/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjflex/2213732547/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/9591915@N04/2189421962/

These below have tons of pictures which should be compatible with our license, and you'll have to check some of the other photostreams by him as well.

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/fluor_doublet/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/10433743@N06/sets/72157603603560568/

and finally here's a flickr search of creative commons photos:

• http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=crystal+macro&m=tags&l=cc&ss=0&ct=0&page=3

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert W King (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fluor_doublet and cobalt123 appear to have good collections of CC-licensed usable photos. I'll try to contact them through flickr and ask for permission to use their photos, and ask what sort of credit they want (flickr name, real name, etc.) Anthony Argyriou 13:57, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I'm pretty sure you just have to get their real names; I could be mistaken though. Seeing as they are already CC photos you shouldn't need to ask permission.. --Robert W King 14:04, 7 February 2008 (CST)