Talk:Wigner–Seitz cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Example needed[edit]

An example would be good, maybe graphite is simplest to visualise? Nossac 12:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with redirection[edit]

'Primitive unit cell' redirects to this article. I'm not advanced enough to understand what this Wigner-Seitz cell is, but i'm almost certain its not the same thing as a primitive unit cell. The article implies that its a type of primitive unit cell- this is quite possibly correct, but in this case, the redirection isn't correct. Someone with greater expertise should remedy this. Hai2410 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear sentence under Primitive Cell[edit]

I don't understand the last part of the sentence: "Primitive translation vectors are used to define a crystal translation vector, , and also gives a lattice cell of smallest volume for a particular lattice." (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Split off section "Primitive cell"[edit]

Section "Primitive cell" should be split off, or should be the title of the article. Wigner–Seitz cell is obviously a special case of a primitive cell. Other languages have already separate articles. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrections Needed[edit]

Apparently the suggestion to split off primitive cell has been implemented. Items here that are not about Wigner-Seitz cell should therefore be removed (including the erroneous claim that it is always a parallelepiped). JamesGibbsMcLean (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually that erroneous claim appears to have been present since long before the split. It's gone now. Archelon (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It was added in 2009 by this edit: [1]. Prior to that a slightly different, but still incorrect, phrasing was here: [2]. Archelon (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)