Talk:Crystal polymorphism

On 13 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Polymorphism (materials science) to Crystal polymorphism. The result of the discussion was moved.

Title change suggested

Shouldn't it be "materials science and chemistry" or something like this? After all, this is about crystal structures, something made out of molecules. Klusiwurm 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the title be changed to "Polymorphism (crystallography)" since this would be inclusive of polymorphism in crystals studied by materials scientists, chemists, pharmacologists, mineralogists, and engineers.6.626X10^-34 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

however this has been questioned recently?

however this has been questioned recently? based on what grounds?, what is in this article that could be of interest to Wiki? A wiki article with just statements like somebody said this and somebody else said that and a third guy has something to say as well is not interesting to read. Do you expect the Wiki reader to jump up and run to the library and read the reference? I am inclined to revert the edit V8rik 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polymorphism in pharmaceuticals

Entire sentences of this section are incomprehensible at best. I'm not sure what the bulletin points are trying to say, so I'm inclined to not edit them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.57.70 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that would be bullit boards? V8rik (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ostwald's Rule??

If a "less stable" polymorph, and a "more stable" polymorph, exist; then the former will have a higher internal energy, than the latter. Inexpertly, as the bulk material cools, there will be a (perhaps small) range of temperatures, for which the ambient thermal energy is less than the former, but more than the latter. Inexpertly, in that regime, the less stable, higher internal energy, polymorph could crystalize; whilst the more stable, lower internal energy polymorph would still be molten? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

In my opinion this presentation needs complete revision/ Go to Macmillan Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Edited by J.J.Lagowski, Simon Schuster, N.Y., 1997., and look up the article entitled Polymorphs on page 1237., authored by BRAHAMA D SHARMA. Later on the following will be edited in the light of this article. Moved to talk page by Mikenorton (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Mercury610 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do the Greek letters refer to in phases?

Greek letters are used to designate various phases, but the naming system doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. Can someone knowledgeable in this area describe how this works? --BB12 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the use of prime and double prime symbols after the Greek letters. --BB12 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples section needs a rewrite

The section on Cefdinir appears to be biased and I don't think the perspective for this example is correct. I think it's OK to claim with PXRD and I definitily do not believe that every powder x-ray can result in a structure solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equallycorrect (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the ability of a solid material to exist in more than one form" in lede

Minor clarification: Should that be "exist in any of several forms" or ?? as it might be misread as indicating more than one form simultaneously. Humanengr (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

The dimorphism page is barely more than a dictionary definition,(i.e. all its cited sources are glossary entries) and since dimorphism and trimorphism are just specific kinds of polymorphism, so to avoid WP:NAD I think it's better to discuss here, in a broader context. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allotropes

It's when an element exist in 2 or more different forms under the same physical state. 129.0.226.218 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There's a clear consensus to move to the alternate proposed title Crystal polymorphism. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polymorphism (materials science) → Polymorphism (crystallography) – This proposed name would be inclusive of polymorphism in crystals studied by materials scientists as well as chemists, pharmacologists, mineralogists, physicists, and engineers. The proposed name would also reflect the fact that a variety of crystalline materials are currently included on the page. 6.626X10^-34 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relist to allow for further comment BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:AINTBROKE. The first line of Materials science reads Materials science is an interdisciplinary field of researching and discovering materials. Materials engineering is an engineering field of finding uses for materials in other fields and industries. The subject is therefore, by it's nature, inclusive. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is entirely, only, about crystalline polymorphism. Non crystalline material polymorphism (which may be oxymoronic with “poly” implying a countable number) belongs at Amorphous solid, where polymorphism is infinite. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have included more information in my proposal to change the disambiguation away from materials science. (1) The concept of polymorphism did not grow out of the field of materials science, and I consider it to be a poor choice for disambiguation. (2) Polymorphism is a phenomenon discovered by researchers who were investigating chemical properties of salts and who were concerned with concepts such as the Law of Constant Composition. They showed that a compound could have two different crystal forms while maintaining the same chemical composition. (3) Subsequent studies of polymorphism have focused on chemical structure and the interplay of thermodynamics and kinetics in crystal formation (physical chemistry).

While I think the best disambiguation for polymorphism from a historical perspective is chemistry, I proposed crystallography because I believe it is a correct description as well as being inclusive of all branches of science currently involved in the research and development of polymorphic crystals. From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Crystallography, branch of science that deals with discerning the arrangement and bonding of atoms in crystalline solids and with the geometric structure of crystal lattices. “ I would agree to chemistry as the disambiguation, but I consider materials science to be incorrect. 6.626X10^-34 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chemistry has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC):[reply]

Support the move, and also do some significant rewriting. As mentioned above, the page is much more general than MSE. Most obviously the "In materials science" at the front should be removed, but more is needed. I find the page confusing, and I am a crystallographer. (I will volunteer to do some of the rewriting.)Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One of the early sources in this article (Polymorphism, what it is and how to identify it: a systematic review) defines polymorphism as "the term means that a solid compound can adopt different forms and/or crystal structures". So while some definitions may limit this to crystals, others do not; and per YorkshireExpat, it is better to use the wider more general disambiguator for this. Materials science emphatically isn't wrong, while crystallography might potentially be wrong if one takes a slightly more generalised view on it. — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in terms of structure then crystallography is (much) broader than materials science, as hbar (6.626X10^-34) said. For instance, the structure of pharma, chemicals, enzymes, zeolites, MOFs etc are all part of crystallography, whereas they are not part of materials science -- they are not taught as part of undergrad/grad curriculums in MSE. Materials science emphatically is wrong. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., please check the Materials science#Fundamentals, in particular the standard Processing/Properties/Structure/Performance tetrahedron. In contrast crystallography is all about structure, crossing multiple disciplines such as biology, chemistry, geology, materials science, pharmacology, physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but actually think Crystal polymorphism would be a better target. As I have only a little knowledge in this topic area, my opinion is more that of a layman than a specialist. I skimmed the article in question and looked at Wp:NCDAB, where it says If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Consequently, I searched for existing uses of these disambiguators.
- (materials science): 14 matches, including 4 redirects
- (crystallography) 15 matches including 9 redirects
The difference is not significant, however, looking at the lists, it appears that this article is more closely aligned with the articles disambiguated with (crystallography), hence, I support the move. YBG (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my 1st sentence to indicate preference for a WP:NATURAL alternative. YBG (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, SmokeyJoe and Ldm. This may be better as a separate discussion, but a WP:NATURAL title could be Crystal polymorphism. This is a common way to disambiguate articles at Polymorphism, though the title is not consistent with Isomorphism (crystallography). ― Synpath 17:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of avoiding the dab term. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Better to use a natural disambiguation. We can move the isomorphism article too. YBG (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt: Support Crystal polymorphism. Struck my original opposition. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also OK with the alt Ldm1954 (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this alt as well. 6.626X10^-34 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.