Talk:Crystallographic defect

	Earth sciences portal Crystallographic defect is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split point defects

the point defect article can be dealt with separately, in detail, by adding more information on point defects in metals and ionic crystals.LeaveSleaves 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- agreed. ~blah

- It's a good idea to have pages specializing in point defects, specific types of point defects (vacancies, interstitials, impurities), as well as line defects (there is already one on dislocations), planar defects (like grain boundaries, buried interfaces, stacking faults, and surfaces plus their reconstruction), and myriad inclusion types. However, a page putting the various types of defects into a common context is important as well. Hence my inclination would be to start a page on your favorite defect type, and link to it from here. Thermochap (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split is a good idea. Cewvero (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about ionic defects--especially as they pertain to the result of doping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzarfos (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that Point Defects should be split into a different article. If this is done though the articles on Frenkel and Schotky defects should combined into this.

- I disagree, it is good to have a single briefish overview of types of point defects (this is often difficult to find even in books), then there may be separate articles for all the other types with more details (like there are already for e.g. vacancy, interstitial, Stone-Wales defect etc.). Knordlun (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article is poorly developed. If "point defect" section growth too big, then off-course it can be split into a separate article leaving a summary here. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of defects

This article needs to explain what effects defects have on mechanical and electronic properties of materials - i.e. why do we care about defects? 131.203.12.253 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 100% agree (Dr. S.A.Moiz) Yes. And should mention what causes them, too. (bleh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.1.201 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screw dislocations

Screw dislocations are explained here in a way that makes sense to me: http://btech.mit.asia/downloads/svlomte/CrystalImperfections-dislocations2011.pdf

I assume that the images are non-free, and I've stopped believing that I understand how to have my content not deleted, so I won't edit the substantive page. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal defect vs crystallographic defect

"Crystal defect" seems to be, by far, the more widely used term, and the earliest, too. I would imagine a crystallographic defect to be a problem of the technique, not of the lattice. Should the article be moved and the redirect reversed? Perhaps there's a domain expert who could clarify? Latrissium (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Latrissium (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better: lattice defect? Latrissium (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Latrissium (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]