Talk:List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elements (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mythology (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Handwavium[edit]

"Handwavium" is listed as appearing in 'bad science fiction'. I'm assuming this is vandalism, but I don't know how long it's been there or any works it appears in. BioTube 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that in means it is used in reference to science fiction deemed bad by the user of the term, because it is used to describe elements which form convient plot devices, but do not require much effort by the author.

Missing elements[edit]

Several major fictional elements are missing here. Neutronium is the supposed element formed when neutron stars compress normal matter into nothing but neutrons. It is essentially indestructible. (The question of whether matter would 'uncompress' when removed from the intense gravity is generally not even brought up.)

Neutronium is real enough; there is scientific evidence that this exists; and yes, it would decompress.WolfKeeper 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It features in Star Trek several times, most notably in 'The Doomsday Device' where the outer hull of the planet-eating thing they are trying to destroy is made of neutronium so they have to think of a way to drop a bomb down its throat. Neutronium also figures as armor in many Scifi computer games like the Master of Orion series.

Quite a few other 'elements' are present as classes of armor in computer games. 'Tritanium' is popular (it's in the 'Master of Orion games, and several others) and then there is 'Xentronium', the ultimate armor in the Master of Orion series and not used elsewhere.

The British Scifi series "Blakes Seven" has an substance called 'Herculaneum' as the main hull component of the Liberator starship. Whether this is supposed to be an element of an alloy/composite is unclear but it's worth investigating.

Larry Niven's Ringworld series had to invent a new element (or perhaps composite material?) called 'scrith' to explain how the Ringworld was structurally possible.

I am probably putting this in the wrong place. Electrum needs to be added. It was in an episode of Transformers G1. Beachcomber found a pool of it and tried to keep it secret. When a transformer (or anything I assume) is coated with Electrum, it becomes impervious to damage. The pool of Electrum was destroyed at the end of the episode. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.21.42 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Electrum is a real substance, an alloy of silver and gold, not a fictional element. Kjaer (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added this one.WolfKeeper 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These are just 'off the top of my head' but I guess I'm a hard core Scifi reading (and game playing) geek. :)

Oh, one more thought, Thor's hammer is made of a 'magical' metal called 'Uru' but I don't know if that's got any relation to the original Norse mythology or if that's just a recent comic book invention.

>>What about Nth Metal, which comprises Hawkman and Hawkgirl's magic maces, believed to be once given to the Thanagerian people by a Cthulhuesque god? And "sinusite" appears in the Pinky and the Brain episode "Funny, You Don't Look Rhennish". It's an integral part of Brain's latest scheme, used to make sneezing powder. There is also a variation called "fool's sinusite". --The_Iconoclast (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)



If you review the history of this page, many things get deleted and I'm not sure why. For example, go to a 2010 version and you'll see World of Warcraft elements.
I'd prefer to have a big list, even if dumb things like SpongeBob's jerkonium is listed. A shortened list makes this page less authoritative.
--J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To Be Added[edit]

I don't understand -- is this simply waiting for someone to add into the table? --Scix 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I was thinking the same thing. Because I have one that doesnt appear and I'm not sure wethere to add it to the table or add it to the "to be added" list.


What about 'Krell metal'(sp?) from Forbidden Planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.41.76 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alludium Phosdex[edit]

I'm pretty sure I saw Alludium Phosdex in here. Why was it taken out? Wikiman232 05:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops sorry it's Illudium Phosdex. Maybe that'll make a difference Wikiman232 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not established that the "Q-36" in Illudium Q-36 is an indication of atomic weight.

"Illudium Phosdex" is the "Shaving Cream Atom". Its properties are never specified.

The "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator" presumably includes some form of Illudium Phosdex, but it could just as easily be a model number (twice as explosive as the Q-35 model!). -- Resuna (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Bathorium-G[edit]

In Dr. Strangelove, it seems pretty clear to me that the Russian Ambassador is indeed referring to "Cobalt-Thorium-G," not "Bathorium-G." He does pronounce "cobalt" as "co-BALT" where the 'a' sounds like the 'a' in 'ballet,' rather than the more usual "CO-balt" where the 'a' sounds like the 'a' in 'all,' so that may be the source of confusion. I'm only anon so far, so I didn't want to make a possibly controversial change without noting it here, but that's what it sounds like to me.

It's still a made-up element/compound, of course - just misclassified imho.

75.33.251.102 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the mis-pronouncing, Balthorium-G also appears in an episode of The Middleman (TV series). It's used to power The Candle's evil melting ray. It's noted as a reference to the Strangelove element. [1] -- Epynephrin (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is 2 years later, but the actor clearly says "Cobalt Thorium G" (With a russian acent, which makes the first "o" almost sound like an "a") several times. Both shooting draft and continuity script call it "Cobalt Thorium G". Split from "Balthorium G", and added refs. -- megA (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Materials[edit]

I note that the pages on Fictional chemical substance link into this page, but without the "materials" (it redirects into the 'with "materials"' page).

There are overlaps, with entries on both this page and the (respective, A-M/N-Z) "Fictional Chemical Substance" pages.

I suggest there be a bit of a reorganisation, insofar as it is possible where a lot of the given substances are hard to define as an single one of particle, element, particular/alternate isotope of element, compound, alloy, mixture, etc, etc...

--62.49.25.104 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To be added[edit]

  • Arenak Moderately famous sci-fi metal from EE Doc Smith's series [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.12.174.26 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Chroniton: An elementary particle connected to time travel and other temporal effects in the Star Trek universe; also appearing in multiple episodes of animated sitcom Futurama, most notably Time Keeps on Slippin'
  • Cybertonium: From G1 Transformers Cartoon, in the Desertion of the Dinobots episode.
  • Dark Iron: In the World of Warcraft universe, the highest-quality naturally-occurring metal, present in the Molten Core and Blackrock Depths instances.
  • Daemonium: In the video game Tales of Phantasia, a gaseous element that comprises the atmosphere of the magical realm, which lies in a universe parallel to the physical world. Also known as Shoki.
  • Duranium: Strong metal or metal alloy used for making starship hulls in the Star Trek universe.
  • Dracheneisen (from the 7th Sea roleplaying game): Strong, durable material that resembles silvery steel in its worked and tempered form, but is much harder. Dracheneisen is actually a lightweight ceramic (“as dense as cork—a full suit of armor weighs less than 10 pounds”) formed from a rare clay found only in the nation of Eisen. This makes dracheneisen ore the national treasure of Eisen and the foundation of every ruler and noble’s power base.
  • Promethium X, from the Marvel universe, found in space by John Jameson, is related to the symbiote Venom, contains massive potential energy which is released when irradiated.
  • Radium X: The extra-terrestrial radioactive element which was brought to Earth by a meteor in the science-fiction film "The Invisible Ray"
  • Starmetal: Five Magic Materials. Meteoric Iron, crafted from the essence of dead gods and thrown from Heaven unto the earth. This material is used in artefacts that must foresee the future, and armour made from it will grow thicker where it predicts a strike will land (From the Roleplaying game "Exalted")
  • Transuranic iron ore: the unrefined, radioactive form of the Thanagarian metal substance Nth metal from the DC Comics universe. Shown to have atomic number 676 (although it's possible that this is incorrect and could actually be the element's atomic weight).
  • Vespene gas, found in the StarCraft universe.
  • Duraplast, a common material in the Star Wars Expanded Universe, similar to plastic but with much greater durability.
  • Ceramite: A ceramic-like compound used in armor and heat shielding. Unnaturally resistant to heat energy. Warhammer 40,000
  • Bassnium (Fortium in Japanese version): Element of which Bass (Forte) and Zero are made of. It is supposed to very strong and to posses a lot of energy within. Mega Man (series)
  • Minovsky Particle: An elementary particle with near-zero rest mass and capable of carrying either a positive or negative charge. Can be aligned into a cubic lattice formation known as an I-Field. It is the source of many technologies in the Universal Century Gundam universe.
  • Tetryon: A subatomic particle existing only within subspace. Its detection is evidence for various types of spatial anomalies in the Star Trek universe.
  • Promethium (comics): Two different elements from the DC Comics and Marvel Comics universes.
  • Solinium: A radioactive element featured in the Artemis Fowl series. The isotope solinium 2 is used in the devastating bio-bombs used to destroy all living tissue in an area without changing the landscape. Solinium-based tracker is also used to spray all LEP property so it can be located if lost.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.57.156 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


The Star Trek Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual, published in 1977, has a future version of a periodic table with a list of elements and their discovery dates. It also includes long lists of drugs and imaginary types of radiation. It does include some real entries. Many of these were mentioned in the original Star Trek series.

Many of them are probably alloys, but are listed as being chemical elements. Tritanium and Trititanium have such similar names, they probably should be regarded as alloys of Titanium.

It includes Corbomite as element 140 and Dilithium as element 119. Zienite, Topaline and Kironide are listed. Diburnium and Dikironium are also elements, but "Burnium" and "Kironium" are not mentioned; it would be logically consistent with their listing of Dilithium along with Lithium.

It would be nice if one of these, such as Boridium, could be used as the name of an actual transuranic element.

The book is fun to read, but has a lot of iffy assumptions.

69.212.46.212 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)NotWalter

Please do elaborate. It sounds like something that would be good to include.--Marhawkman (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)



Just came across Trivanium in the original Mission: Impossible series, season four, episode 12, aired December 1969. Trivanium is described as an ordinary-looking liquid that is a rare radioactive isotope (of what is never disclosed) that would permit any nation to produce inexpensive nuclear weapons. Jkshrum (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

anyone heard of....?[edit]

"arbitrarium"? If not, I think I just accidentally coined it... which is what brought me to this page in the first place. As yet, I've not heard of its use anywhere, which would disqualify it as a genuinely fictional element (sidestepping the irony of that phrase), but I just thought I'd ask. Thx, cheers Pterantula (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Where did you possibly encounter this term?--Marhawkman (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
My chemistry teacher used to use this in his lectures. "Take an element, any one, say, Arbitrarium, ..." 65.199.178.100 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
sounds like something made up on the spot.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombastium[edit]

When I was young (I'm now 64) I read a Donald Duck comic that involved an element called "Bombastium". As I vaguely recall, the world's supply was a sphere about the size of a large beach ball, It had the remarkable property of being able to impart any conceivable flavour to ice cream. The entire world supply was, however, lost somehow in the course of the adventure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krenon (talkcontribs) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... never heard of it. It sounds like something they'd do though. any idea where?--Marhawkman (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Folks, this article looks like it's been fun to write but this seems to me to rank high on the list of inappropriate articles. To begin with, of course, "list articles" generally are considered a violation of Wikipedia policy (although there are some exceptions). But in this case there is barely anything to relate the information. This article is essentially attempting to tie together many bits of trivia with the thinest of premises.

May I suggest that the information here be moved to more appropriate articles and this article be deleted?

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to trim it down to the most notable ones, such as mithril, Minovsky Particles, Dilithium, Kryptonite, gravitons and tachnyons. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I will have to say, graviton is not fictional, it is only hypothetical. For the deletion, I have no comment, the notable ones normally already have their own article, Mithril, Minovsky Particle, Kryptonite are good examples. (Although they might not be good article examples) I have never heard of tachnyons though.(not to say that it is not notable, just that I never hear about it) MythSearchertalk 08:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been proposed many times in the past. As the article is still here..... well, you get the idea. Aside from that, what makes you think it is a violation of wikipedia policy?--Marhawkman (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to go look for it right now, but I recall having a guideline on something like "each article should refer to a single subject, not multiple subjects" and a policy like "the article requires reliable and verifiable, unbiased sources for its notability". I guess people base on those to suggest the deletion of most lists that are a big combination of stuff from many series that do not have a common source claiming they are notable as a whole. I cannot speak for deletionists since I am not one, but I guess it is close to something like this. MythSearchertalk 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the subject of the article is a vague concept. As for notability, this concept is such an old plot device in stories that it predates the modern era. That's about as "notable" as you can get. The article lists both Norse mythology and Star Trek as sources along with dozens of other fictional works. That should be more than enough to establish notability.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) deletionists can suck it
I know, I am just suggesting my guess, yet, I think there might be sources that can back up the notability of this article, but then, the list is somewhat redundant. In fact, I am thinking of adding more notable stuff like alchemical elements like fire, water, air and earth into this article. MythSearchertalk 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's already covered in an article on Classical element. I guess it'd be a good idea to incorporate a link.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Corbomite[edit]

I don't feel that Corbomite belongs in this list as it isn't a "real" element, material, isotope, or atomic particle within the Star Trek universe. Kirk made up the name as part of a bluff. It isn't supposed to be a "real" Trek substance or device.

The Corbomite Reflector is part of the Star Trek: Armada and the Star Trek: Armada II PC games, but those games are not canon. And in those games, the Corbomite Reflector is a ship's special ability, not an element, material, isotope, or atomic particle.
24.252.73.5 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not being "real" within the setting doesn't make it any less fictional, however I think that it should be removed on notability grounds. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, corbomite is a classic example of what a fictional material does. It's also not particularly obscure. thus i think it should stay.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Corbomite not notable? If so, then nothing in this page is notable. Kjaer (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
IMO Kirk's corbomite bluff is probably notable as a fictional bluff or hoax, but I don't think Kirk's corbomite bluff in The Corbomite Maneuver and the Corbomite Reflector in Star Trek: Armada and Star Trek: Armada II (which, according to Memory Alpha, is, from an in-universe perspective, inspired by and named after Kirk's corbomite bluff) are sufficient to establish the notability of corbomite as a fictional substance. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
If corbomite becomes a well known example of or slang term for fail-deadly systems, I feel that would make corbomite notable outside the context of Kirk's bluff. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Transfer[edit]

I believe that Transparent Aluminum should be moved to the allotropes section. It is never described as a new element, simply a different crystal structure of aluminum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.146.94 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Very reasonable, feel free to do so. Kjaer (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bionicle[edit]

Toa Niletia, I have pared down your additions which, while helpful, are far too detailed on matters of the Bionicle universe that have little to do with the substances as substances. I am not trying to pick on you. The problem is that such detail ammounts to undue weight. I suggest you create a new article about these substances, or add the comments to the bionicle article where you can go in to all the depth you like. If you want to create a new article and need help I will be glad to do so. Keep in mind that such an artcle would need some sort of verifiable source. Kjaer (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope nobody's offended about my deletions of antidermis and energized protodermis on the grounds that they were actually lifeforms and not materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.138.32 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits and Deletions[edit]

I have editted most entries for brevity. Some I shortened signifacntly for undue weight, they went into detailed in world plot developments. I have deleted a few entries that were references to trade names and commercial advertisements. I have flagged a few entries listed as jokes that have no reference or related article. I will delete those shortly if no supporting action is taken. Kjaer (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Upsidasium[edit]

It is my recollection (followed by an immediate glance at my R&B dvds) that Upsidasium is not merely lighter than air as in the entry but the anti-gravity metal, which explains why "Mr Big" made it as far as the moon (to return in the MMMM arc) and didn't just float on top of the atmosphere. Why/How he could breathe the between-planets vacuum is beyond the scope. --24.44.81.98 (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is an element or alloy is unclear[edit]

Marthawkman, I deleted this phrase since as stated it comes across as OR and editorial comment. Could you rephrase it to say something like element or alloy is not stated, or is unresolved in the plot? Thanks. Kjaer (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not specified in the game. Perhaps a better wording would be: "Whether it is an element or an alloy is not stated in the game."--Marhawkman (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the entries are written from an in-universe perspective, and while I agree your statement is better, it still stands out as an editorial comment. How about just "A metallic substance used as armor on alien ships"? If whether or not is is an element or an alloy is not an issue raised in the game then maybe its best just not to mention it? Kjaer (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I only put it in because of the way the article is sorted. It's sorted in the element section, but not stated as to whether or not it is one. Maybe move to materials? Or not. since elements and materials are in the same list.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I changed it to the above wording. I think the only reason we would comment that its nature was uncertain would be if that were somehow mentioned in-universe. As it is the "nature" of almost all the "substances" in this article is unknown - no atomic number, weight, molecular structure given. Thanks. Kjaer (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say most. There are many situations where something is explicitly referred to as either an element, alloy, or compound. Thus I feel that it is important to include distinction when available, and mention when they aren't. I also think that "editorial comments" are not a bad thing. This is an encyclopedia. Thus the information is not done solely from an in universe perspective.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major issue. This would end up being the only entry where it is stated that it is not known whether the entry is an element or an alloy. Everey single entry could have4 a comment to the fact that it is unknown what SOME physical constant or other bit of information is. Once we start listing waht is unknown rather than known, you have a potentially infinite list. My concern at this point is the supposed "joke" like administratium. Substances from actual games, books, movies, myths, etc. have some notability but unknown jokes? I intend to delete those outright if they are not provided with some support. Kjaer (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... It might be better if there were statements for that. the Kryptonite entry does have info about that. Hmm... Jokes I might move them, but they're (supposedly) used as part of generic jokes. If we can find a source for this then it'd be fine to keep them.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fubarite[edit]

I don't think Fubarite is mentioned in any books or movies, but it still is a fictional mineral. Should it be added here? Maybe just in the "See Also" section at the bottom Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

According to that article, it's an informal term for a broad category of real-world rocks, so it wouldn't qualify as a fictional material. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

crapcrapium[edit]

Its definitely unclear that this is a real element (within the futurama universe of course). My interpretation of the line was that it was merely mocking the diamondium. Similar to (forgive the juvinality) "Lets go the playground." "You mean the GAYground! oh snap!".

Furthermore, is the purpose of this article to list every single fictional material? Or merely ones of note. There are volumes of fictional elements throughout science finction but they barely have any significance within their own universe. Let alone outside. I think there are some that belong here, but an offhand reference to one that merely says "there is such a thing" rather than "There is such a thing. here are its properties and here is what its used for, etc" doesn't need to be brought up.— JediRogue (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilithium[edit]

Why is this listed as a fictional element? It is real and actually has it's own entry in Wikipedia. While it may not be used to channel energy from a warp core, isn't a real isotope of lithium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

well, transparent aluminum also exists in some form, but neither has the properties of the fictional substance.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Trilithium is fictional and you can supposedly make warheads from it using dilithium off a warp core.

Ice-9[edit]

How come Ice-9 gets its own article yet it doesn't make this list? I'd add it myself by I'm an IP and hence some huggler would delete it immediately without even checking. 59.101.35.111 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops - ignore the above - Ice-9 was in a lower table. All good. 59.101.35.111 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Amulite (Prefabulated Amulite)[edit]

No Amulite? From GE's Turboencabulator.
"The original machine had a base-plate of prefabulated amulite"

In 1962 a turboencabulator data sheet was created by engineers at General Electric's Instrument Department,
Datasheet:http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/ge-turbo-encabulator.pdf

Zeagonite[edit]

The table of elements and materials attributed Zeagonite to Alchemy and described it thus:

An obsolete term for what was once believed to be a unique mineral. It was later discovered to be a mixture of phillipsite and levynite.

Even assuming this is an true and accurate description, it doesn't belong in this list any more than Didymium. A misconception about the nature of a substance does not render that substance imaginary, even if its name is made obsolete. Also, wouldn't alchemy have largely given way to chemistry in the modern sense by the time these materials were discovered (1820s)? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article name and Alchemy in general[edit]

Along the same lines as my comment immediately above, I don't quite understand why any materials from alchemy (Alkahest, Philosophers' Stone, etc.) are included here, as they were not thought up as fiction, but widely believed to exist at one time. Their inclusion in List of discredited substances attests to this. By the way, is there any reason we shouldn't take a cue from that article and shorten this list's name to "List of fictional substances" rather than the unwieldy "List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles"? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No argument here that a shorter article name might be nice. I would recommend a "See Also" link to the list of discredited substances and the removal from this list of alchemical substances. Doniago (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Strapontium?[edit]

Can this one be confirmed? I sounds like a joke entry to me. --RedKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Adamantium[edit]

Nobody seemed to have noticed Adamantium comes from Greek Mythology. I add it to the list. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cavorite[edit]

Where, in War of the Worlds, is there any reference to Martian flying machines that are coated with a "gravity-blocking substance"? (http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/warworlds/24/) I suggest removing any reference to War of the Worlds from the Cavorite entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.25.159 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Either Cavorite needs to be returned to this list, or it needs to be redirected to The First Men in the Moon. 72.200.78.211 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cesium-138[edit]

Actually, there are even two different types of the isotope caesium-138 existent in real life. One can look them up here: Isotopes of caesium Of course the described characteristics are not even close to those isotopes which really exist. Edit it nevertheless? Just my two cents. TKPizza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.193.236 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


sorry, amature edit. How about "unobtanium" from Avitar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.220.160 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

Whoever is deleting all my hard Runescape metal work, STOP!!!!! You are driving me crazy!!!! I also guess that you are no expert on that subject, so why shorten it?! STOP! Brian Zhao 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talkcontribs)

Ice Limit[edit]

The novel Ice Limit describes with some detail a meteorite made of a transuranic element in the island of stability. This should be added (havent finished the novel so im not reading the novel's article yet, and wont add myself until i finish it).(mercurywoodrose)75.61.142.53 (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yominium[edit]

Yominium was a fictional element in one of the Star Trek films (I believe it was The Search for Spock, but it could be The Voyage Home). Spock's re-education after his fal-tor-pan ceremony required him to identify this element in a compound. It's the reverse of Leonard Nimoy's last name, with symbol Ym. Should this material have a place in this list? Kumorifox (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Assorted additions[edit]

Another timonium is a power source in "The Stardust Voyages" book by Stephen Tall. There's an episode of the old Spiderman cartoon (60s or 70s) where someone (Doc Oc?) is making feenium-007 in the sewers. Invidium damages the antimatter injectors in an episode (which as I recall mentions 4 other fictional substances) of Star Trek: The Next Generation. I remember a science fiction story a long time ago (no idea of the title) that mentioned the planetron, a subatomic particle with a charge of the square root of -1. Meslinide was a rocket fuel the appeared in a Jonny Quest (original) episode (The Quetong Missile Mystery, as I recall). Soon after the Soviet Union fell, scammers were trying to sell something called red mercury that was supposedly used to make nuclear bombs. 69.72.27.119 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Left one out - Swiftonium from the Tom Swift Jr. books - a naturally-occurring fissile isotope suitable for use in atomic reactors. 69.72.27.119 (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Timonium is mentioned extensively throughout the stories of the Liaden Universe. The first mention was in [I Dare] in 2002. This use predates [Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends] by 4 years. --Rhonda Lea (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Element/material[edit]

There should be a section to determine whether the element/material in the section is a fictional element or a fictional material. Enbéká talk 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Italics?[edit]

I notice most of the entries in the source column are in italics but some are not. I'm assuming references to TV shows, movies, games etc. should be but people have been forgetting when they are adding new entries. I didn't want to go fixing it in case I'm wrong though. java7nerd (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Kryptonite (song)[edit]

Should there be a mention of the song by 3 Doors Down? It received notoriety as a somewhat popular song, and has a WP page. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem appropriate for this article, but perhaps it should be mentioned at Kryptonite, provided there's sourcing establishing that the song is explicitly linked to the fictional material. Doniago (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Amusingly, while the article about the song has a section about what inspired it, and Superman is even mentioned, the quote provided doesn't include anything explicitly stating, "Yes, the song's named after the material." Doniago (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nikolite[edit]

Nikolite is a fictional element added by a Minecraft modification known as RedPower. 187.2.49.71 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds trivial to me, unless a reliable source has taken note of it. Doniago (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Carbonite[edit]

Carbonite (Star Wars) redirects here, but there is no mention on the page. Sachmet (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, please support with content. 70.247.162.105 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Adamantine[edit]

I added a link to the Adamantine disambiguation page. I chose the disambiguation page since Adamantine may refer to something mythical (according to this article) or the real Adamantine Spar or Adamantine lustre . Though links to disambiguation pages are discouraged, I thought it was a more informative link. J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Who decides what is significant?[edit]

I am curious as to why "Jerktonium," which seems to be referenced in a single episode of Spongebob, is considered to be more significant than "Notum", which is a factor in an entire long-running MMORPG. Who makes the decisions as to what is or is not significant? It seems that a lot of the references here are trivial, which is quite reasonable for a list of this type. If we are going to just start axing each other's changes based on personal ideas of what is significant, there are probably a few dozen more that I would like to take out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.166.202 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources decide what is significant and should be included for all of the entries on this list; it isn't our place as editors to make that determination. The article has been in desperate need of improvement per WP:INDISCRIMINATE for a long time now. Provided no other action is taken and there aren't any policy-based objections, I'll start trimming out the existing unsourced entries beginning sometime after the end of the month. Another option might be to establish firm criteria for including items per WP:LSC. Anyway, I welcome discussion on the subject but I don't think the article should remain in its current state. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

impossibilium and handwavium[edit]

Michael Quinion mentions impossibilium and handwavium. I don't have cites for the actual use.  Randall Bart   Talk  06:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Serranium[edit]

Element appears in the 1953 movie, "The Magnetic Monster". From IMDB:"...a new radioactive element which he has bombarded with alpha particles for 200 hours. The element, dubbed 'serranium' grows geometrically by creating matter out of energy which it absorbs from metallic objects surrounding it." The element also seems to have strange magnetic properties. I haven't seen the film, but it may have more information.

Mekton armor materials?[edit]

I added four entries yesterday, describing fictional armor materials from the Mekton role-playing game, but they were deleted by Doniago. I don't understand why, and I'm somewhat taken aback. Today I added several armor materials from the Gundam franchise and I'd like to avoid seeing them removed. What did I do wrong, and what can I do to correct the situation? -- Greboguru —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

99.185.244.53 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Has a secondary source ever made note of it? We're not, nor should we be trying, to list every single fictional element, etc. ever used, but rather ones that are significant in some manner. Significance is established via the existence of secondary sources. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Red/Blue Alloy, but not Redstone (and others)[edit]

If Red and Blue Alloy from a modification to Minecraft are mentioned, shouldn't Redstone (from the vanilla game) also be mentioned? And are Red and Blue Alloy significant in any way?Radioactivated (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Tiberium[edit]

This element is central to the Command & Conquer - Tiberian world that has millions of followers, even if I'm not a die-hard fan I think it is one of the most interesting hypothetical/fictional elements in general because of its almost life-like potential to spread, so can someone explain why it would be less significant compared to some other things listed here? (I'll avoid naming names and insulting someone's preferences) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.35.28 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

What exactly is the criteria for notability here? Why do most of these entries have no sources listed at all? Why is an entry for a Minecraft mod (no wiki page) considered more notable than an entry from the Skyrim DLC (wiki page with 15+ sources)? Twice I have tried to add something to have it removed for lack of notability. I have added things here before without any complaints. If these questions are not answered satisfactorily, I see no reason to prevent me from editing the page. Eridani (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussed up above, actually, under "Who decides what is significant?". Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This article has changed little in 11 months. "Jerktonium" is still there. In fact, in that time, more unsourced entries were added. Perhaps you should worry more about the trivial, unsourced entries rather than the more relevant, unsourced entries. Eridani (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
And how would you define which entries are more "relevant"? We need a global standard, and I believe that would be the presence of a third-party source. If no third-party source has discussed one of the elements et al., then I would argue that it is trivial. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I also have the problem of having edits (that have significance) instantly removed, even when the source is, in fact, reliable. SUPERGOD6 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're referring to a wikia, wikias are not considered reliable sources. For the purposes of this article sources should be third-party sources that establish that the element or what-not is considered significant in some manner, not merely that it "exists". DonIago (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
How do go about getting this 'third-party source', because this element is, indeed, significant. Should the source be, "Go play the game."? I would guess not. SUPERGOD6 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant significant in a real-world context. For instance, if the New York Times took note of it, that would establish its significance. Please don't re-add information to an article while there is no consensus to include it here. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've asked for additional opinions from WP:SCIFI. You are welcome to ask the other projects for feedback as well. I believe it might benefit us to have the opinions of uninvolved editors. DonIago (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been an interval of several months since I last referred to this informative Wikipedia entry which is essentially just a big ol' list of fictitious materials & subatomic whatsit imagined-up by various people over the decades & centuries-- from the ancient Greeks to the modern day sci-fi screenwriter. I've made use of it for years now, even adding a few items myself. How upsetting it was indeed to find the article gutted. GUTTED! Really, to state that this is upsetting is to put it most mildly. At first I assumed it was an act of digital vandalism; that'll happen from time to time. A glance at the Talk page however reveals the.. problem. The afore discussion seems to be demanding "reliable sources" and "third-party sources" and an honourable reference published in the New York Times as a prerequisite for the adding of an item to the article's roster. And then the statement is made that an entry on the list must be "significant in a real-world context." Well my goodness... This Wikipedia article is entitled "List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles". FICTIONAL. As in unreal and cannot ever exist "in a real-world context" thus being realistically insignificant in such a context. Whether it's adamantium alloy or mithril, energon crystalline or ice-9, naquahdriah or isotope illudium Pu-36, the gravioli particle or omega molecule... it's all ludicrously qualified to be added into this compilation of silly stuffs. If it was a certain fantasy quasi-allotrope from J. Michael Crichton's late imagination presented in the pages of Omni magazine aback in 1979, but said pretend substance was never acknowledged by the authoritative Scientific American journal, what would that even matter where a list of FICTIONAL elements is concerned?? I will concede that the article required some polish from competent editors who know how to compose a coherent write-up, and it certainly would be a perspicacious idea to cite the initial real-world source of each entry made (e.g., kryptonite, first appearance: 1940s radio show The Adventures of Superman). But to arbitrarily delete the bulk of the article's entries with such elitist indifference is WRONG. I want the article "List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles" restored to the work that it was. Frankly I'm getting rather fed up with this manner of abusive behaviour on the part of fellow users as regards Wiki(a) articles-- my having quietly contended with such displays for years now. It's immature and asinine, and it is disrespectful of the research and compositional efforts of others. GreyZarak (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend reviewing WP:Source list, WP:IPC and WP:DISCRIMINATE. While I understand your frustrations, Wikipedia lists, even a list as broadly defined as this one, should not be used to include every single item that could potentially be considered appropriate for the list unless the item is established in some manner as having significance beyond the fictional work in which it appears. If you feel this is an inappopriate inclusion criterion (which lists are required to have per WP:LSC), I would invite you to propose a set of criteria that you feel would be more appropriate for this list. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)