The question What is “detwinning” as a 2D crystallography technique? and neutron diffraction brought this to mind, but electron diffraction is an established technique as well, and there may be others.

For the linked question I chose "compromise tagging" and left the comment

there is no neutron-diffraction tag, so I've added x-ray-diffraction and neutrons.

But I would like to ask how in general questions related to diffraction of things other than X-rays should be tagged?

related: Scope of Crystal-structure and X-Ray-diffraction


Indeed, I also cannot come up with a better tagging than you've already proposed, and it seems there is no way to uniquely denote diffraction methods other than via the x-ray-based ones. As I see it, there are two ways this can be sorted out:

Add a new specific tag

We can introduce a tag, or something more generic, like a or tag.

Modular tags

In my personal Zotero library, I use separate tags for instrumental methods and the classes of underlying principles (e.g. effects of which particles or/and at what wavelengths). Following this logic, I'd probably split tag into and tags. This way one can cover x-ray/electron/neutron diffraction as well as photocrystallography by supplying a set of two tags, e.g.

The main advantage of this tag classification is modularity and flexibility; tags are less narrowed-down and can be re-used, e.g. + or + .

The drawback is that there is a five tags limit per question, and one method already would occupy two slots out of five.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I see nothing wrong with creating a neutron-diffraction tag, it would fit in with our current way of tagging. The limitations of the system have been discussed a couple of times; the tag limit is a strong argument against modular tags, also usage and tag wiki should be more straight forward in the single tag case, and mistags are also probably minimal in that case. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン May 21 at 9:31

I know we have many spectroscopy tags but many of them use fundamentally different phenomenon not just a different wave/particle.

Thus, I think is unlikely to have many tags, therefore I would suggest a general tag of with , (electron backscatter diffraction) and as synonyms.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've never heard any of the diffraction techniques called 'diffractography', so I'd suggest just sticking with 'diffraction'. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 23 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for diffraction (rather than diffractography) $\endgroup$ – uhoh May 23 at 13:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonCuster it may not be the popular term, but it is the correct one. diffraction is the phenomenon, diffractography is the analytical technique. You wouldn't say "UV-vis spectrum" in place of "UV-Vis spectroscopy". As a sanity check here are few articles that use the term diffractography: 1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13081255 2. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02322658 3. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214860417304621 4. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167577X18304282 $\endgroup$ – A.K. May 23 at 14:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh see above^ $\endgroup$ – A.K. May 23 at 15:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @A.K. from a practical perspective, it's better to choose a more popular term for the tag than a less popular one. If someone starts typing d...i...f...f... and they see something they don't recognize or are uncomfortable with like diffractography they may simply refrain from using it for fear it might not be correct, whether it is correct or not. In the interest of getting the most utility out of the tag, I think it's better to go with the more familliar and commonly used term. $\endgroup$ – uhoh May 23 at 15:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh that is the utility of synonyms. People can type x-ray-diffraction and still get diffractography. $\endgroup$ – A.K. May 23 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ ...and then opt not to use it because they are uncomfortable with a term they don't recognize, thereby negating said utility. $\endgroup$ – uhoh May 23 at 15:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think they are sufficiently close enough and that can be overcome with good usage guidance. $\endgroup$ – A.K. May 23 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ I'd opt to not use something that caused a problem that needed to be overcome by adding something else, but that's just me. $\endgroup$ – uhoh May 23 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just because something is 'correct' on ELL SE, or can be found in a few articles, does not invalidate the fact that 'diffraction' has been used for electrons, neutrons, x-rays, etc. in roughly a billion articles, text books, lecture halls, and informal conversations. Confusing the audience is not the purpose of tags. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 23 at 16:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .