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    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Mythology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


"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.

I'm not aware of any specific stories that use "handwavium" by name. However it's a regular in sf-writing classes, as a generic term for its use as a weak plot device. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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 (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 (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)


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. 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)


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...

-- 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 (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 (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. (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, ..." (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
sounds like something made up on the spot.--Marhawkman (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


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)


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. (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 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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 (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)


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. -- (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So, why is Upsidasium not listed here? --Canglesea (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Because you haven't been bold and added it along with a third-party source establishing its significance? DonIago (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2015 (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)


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)


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)


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 (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.


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. (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops - ignore the above - Ice-9 was in a lower table. All good. (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been removed, I guess. Second the motion. I belongs here or in a similar article, even as a See Also in the article on Ice or as disambiguation with the article Ice IX. (What's a huggler?) (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Eric
No problem with having a listing here for it assuming a third-party source establishing how it is considered significant in a real world context is provided in accordance with WP:IINFO. DonIago (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2015 (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,


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)


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


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


Where, in War of the Worlds, is there any reference to Martian flying machines that are coated with a "gravity-blocking substance"? ( I suggest removing any reference to War of the Worlds from the Cavorite entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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) (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


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. (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. (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)


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 (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 is a fictional element added by a Minecraft modification known as RedPower. (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 (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. (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


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 (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)


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) (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)


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 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


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)
DonIago, I'd recommend that you review WP:OWN. You've take the role of police officer on this page and removed edits from a large number of users. While Wikipedia, in general, benefits from users cleaning up things that don't belong in Wikipedia, you're making some questionable deletions. In fact, some don't even fit your own criteria as you describe it in this discussion. -LesPaul75talk 17:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to discuss specific edits of concern I would be happy to do so, but as I'm sure you're aware it's difficult to respond to such a vague accusation. Are you perhaps thinking of your own contribution, which failed to include a third-party source? DonIago (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I would not like to discuss specific edits. Just general advice about taking ownership of articles. The WP:OWN page is not vague. -LesPaul75talk 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there any way that prismarine from Minecraft could be added? I'm just too shy to add it myself and I'm afraid that it might not be qualified as one of the materials in the list for some reason. Thanks in advance! (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. Have any reliable third-party sources discussed it? One thing we should be avoiding is adding to the list indiscriminately. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguments for Inclusion/Exclusion[edit]

I do not envy the people who would take it upon themselves to moderate a page such as this. I'm not really sure a page like this should exist... but so long as it does, I would like to make a few arguments for inclusion/exclusion. Some of these have been made before.

Cavorite - Originally one of the central elements in The First Men in the Moon, a book by H.G. Wells, whom could be considered a classic science fiction author. It was also cannonized(?) by Star Trek and DC Comics.

Chronoton or apparently Chroniton(? I have no idea) - Basically a generic time particle. The term was maybe first used in Star Trek? But it has definitely been used other places. (Teen Titans, Futurama) I admit though more research might be necessary.

Ice-nine - I have no constructive argument to make, I just want to submit it. ;)

And I submit argument against:

Redstone - While hailing from an undeniably popular video game (Minecraft comes up in almost every You Tube search, come-on), that I can find it has been referenced in no other media (which isn't already all about Minecraft), and any potential refrences I've been able to find (ie, just the words "Red Stone"), pre-date Minecraft, considerably. Though I admit uncertainty as to how Wikipedia judges situations like this. Also considering the sheer volume of Minecraft fans: Good luck removing it.

I also question a few of the other entries, but being personally unfamiliar with them, cannot raise argument against them.

DuskwoodZero (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The way I judge appropriateness for inclusion is whether third-party reliable sources have discussed the substance. DonIago (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add to this topic with the following:[edit]

In the Canadian TV series Andromeda (Five year series) there has been listed in Season 4, episode 9, "Machinery of the Mind" listed about 3/5 of the way into the episode the Radical Isotopes, from the beginning of time. I do not know the exact spelling, but they were listed as having 10 negative prime numbers, phonetically as follows: Tucarium(-5), Doncope(-17), Lou(-31), Cartex(-79), Sharbar(-101), Ulainium(-127), IhDeron(-173), Sumodsium(-211), Matite(-239), Crasnou(-307). I have the DVD 5 Season set, and have digitized the episodes, where I could extract the few minutes of the episode where they are mentioned, into a small module. Thank you in advance for keeping this subject. --Bushman E. (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (3rd nomination)). postdlf (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:IINFO, you will need a third-party source as a way of establishing that these isotopes were considered significant in some manner. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Inclusion Criteria[edit]

I think this list suffers from an overly strict approach to Wikipedia's Notability condition, and a fixation on third-party sources that causes idiosyncratic decisions. For example, The Discworld Companion has basically the same relation to the Discworld books as the various wikias have to their work of fiction. It is not conclusive to me why it is nonetheless accepted as third-party source, but the various, often well-citing wikias are not. Similarly, the call for a citation from a New York Times article is less than helpful. Many of the materials people would want to add come from genres that traditional print media don't like to touch, like Science Fiction, Video Games or Manga. And it poses the question at which point such a third-party source becomes relevant. Is it enough for the book to be reviewed by the newspaper, and the name of the material mentioned, or does it have to be the focus of the article? I would therefore like to suggest a new list of criteria to base the decision on whether to include a material or not, which should be more applicable and fairer for a topic dealing with works of fiction:

For a material to be included, it has to fulfill at least one of the following conditions:

  • Common: There are at least five different works of fiction, from different authors, that mention a material of this name, or with an obvious variant of the name. Each mention alone does not need to be notable.
  • Relevant: The material is of great importance for the plot or the background of the work of fiction, and is in-universe acknowledged as such. The work of fiction as a whole needs to be notable, but the material does not need to have separate third-party quotes.
  • Quoted: There is an independent third-party source mentioning the material. In this source, the focus needs to lie on the properties of the material, not the work of fiction it comes from.

A material has no place on the list if it fulfills any of the following excluding conditions:

  • Singular Mention: In a serial work of fiction, like a TV series or a comic, the material is only plot-relevant for a single episode, but not significantly mentioned in any others.
  • Insufficient Specification: The properties of the material are not explained in any detail. It appears only as explanation for the attributes of an object, and has no mention outside this limited amount of uses.
  • Not Unique: In the work of fiction, there are at least four other materials, fictional or not, which could claim the same notability, based on the criteria above.

Following some examples for each rule:

  • The list of common fictional materials will most likely not grow beyond Adamant(-ite/-ine/-ium), Orichalcum and Mithril. Note that Mithril is not notable if one takes Lord of the Rings as single source: It is not relevant to the plot, and only mentioned in conjunction of Frodo's mail.
  • Materials relevant to their universe would be for example Element Zero from the Mass Effect series, or the Minovsky Particle from Gundam universe.
  • Quoted materials include Unobtainium, which has been mentioned in several reports about material properties. It also counts as common.
  • A material with a singular mention would be Strongium 90, currently on the list, which is used in only a single episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Unless the Turtles encounter the material on a regular basis, like Kryptonite for Superman, I would suggest deleting the entry.
  • As example for an insufficiently specified material, there is Neutronium from Schlock Mercenary, of which it we only know that it is the fuel for the ubiquitous Annie-Plants. The material does not appear in other contexts, and is never explained beyond being very dense, and therefore does not warrant inclusion. (Also, Neutronium is not technically a fictional material, but it has fictional properties in the comic, and was the best example I could think of.)
  • As straightforward example of not unique materials count all kinds of crafting materials of Video Games. Skyrim has more than five materials to make armor and weapons from, some of which share their name with real materials. Orichalkum is not of any special significance among those other metals, and therefore doesn't warrant inclusion from that alone. Another example would be Redstone from Minecraft, which also is not more or less significant to the game than Diamond or Wood.

And finally, there is one exclusion rule that I'm not sure whether it should be included or not, and could need opinions on:

  • Molecular Compound: The material is clearly stated to be a molecule, or is used in a way where an analogous real-world material would be a molecule.

This is to prevent overlap with the Lists of fictional drugs and toxins, but might leave some materials hanging without a list.

I think those criteria would be more helpful for deciding what goes on the list and what doesn't than a blanket call for third-party citations. Feel free to discuss, criticize or add to that list.

AlienAtSystem (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, this seems overly-complicated to me. I'll be curious to hear what other editors think, but I'd prefer a minimum threshold for inclusion with no excluding factors. Perhaps "must be discussed in a third-party source" is overly-limiting, or perhaps not, but it has the advantage of being easily summarized and, IMO, relatively unambiguous. DonIago (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that introducing Inclusion criteria is an excellent suggestion for this list. Wikipedia's Notability guidelines are quite clear that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability and that the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. The more important criteria would appear to be that the item added is verifiable (WP:Source list). I support the above suggestion. In terms of content, I am comfortable with its content, although the "not unique" exclusion category is complicated or at least would be hard to manage.Kwib (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the proposed inclusion criteria of "common, relevant or quoted", but I don't think the excluding conditions are necessary. Best to keep it simple; the criteria can always be refined later if you run into problems. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@AlienAtSystem: hasn't contributed to WP since starting this thread it seems. I'd be willing to consider these inclusion criteria acceptable with or without the exclusions, though I'm a little concerned about the wording. "Is of great importance to the plot" could be a matter of editorial judgment (do we stipulate that a source must say it's important? In that case we're back to needing sourcing in any case; could be handled on a case-by-case basis), and a notable but not bluelinked work of fiction could become an issue. I think we have a few options, and I'm willing to support any option that garners the support of at least two other editors.
  1. Accept the inclusion criteria as listed, including the exclusions.
  2. Accept the inclusion criteria as listed, without the exclusions.
  3. Accept the inclusion criteria as listed, but specify that rather than notability works must be bluelinked.
  4. Rewrite the inclusion criteria to clarify what constitutes "great importance to the plot".
  5. Reject these inclusion criteria (please propose alternatives).
I look forward to us finally having a set of useful selection criteria for this list! DonIago (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've got no problem with using the existence of a WP article as a simple gauge of notability. With regard to the bit about "importance to the plot", that's always going to be subjective, and I think that's the strength of these criteria – they allow room for editorial judgement, and a more inclusive, and useful, list. Disagreements over individual entries can be resolved on the talk page (admittedly, this could be a problem if not enough editors are familiar with the work of fiction in question; maybe we should stipulate from the start a presumption of non-eligibility, so that if two or more editors can't agree on an item, it won't be included). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'd like it if at least one more editor weighed in on this, as I think that would make for a stronger consensus than just the two of us signing off on it. Perhaps if nobody chimes in for a few days we might ping the editors involved in the below discussion? In the meantime I'm willing to consider these criteria acceptable. Thanks very much for weighing in on this; I am immensely relieved that there's finally been some traction on this matter! DonIago (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that we have a hybrid of option 2 and 3, that being Accept the inclusion criteria as listed, without the exclusions, but specify that rather than notability works must be bluelinked. I am comfortable with that.Kwib (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur. DonIago (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. What is the next step?Kwib (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is one formally, though a couple of ideas would be to a) work the criteria into the lead of the article (if that's even possible in a concise manner), and b) clean up the article to remove items that aren't in compliance with the criteria. The only real issue would be if someone objected to these criteria, but as this discussion has been active for over 10 days and this Talk page has never received a lot of participation, I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it did, we might have to start an RFC to get enough interest for a more clear consensus. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a few entries from the list that I don't think fit the criteria; happy to explain my reasoning in detail if requested. So now the list is even sparser than before, but I'd like to suggest a third step: restoring entries that were previously removed for poor sourcing, but which would be permissible under the new rules. I might make a start on this myself later on. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Why have you predominantly removed the Discworld materials, which were already sourced and not just sourced to a primary fiction source? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like those entries were only sourced to The Discworld Companion; that's not an independent third-party source but rather one with a vested interest in discussing all things Discworld regardless of their real-world significance. It would be akin to using The Star Trek Encyclopedia as a basis for including everything discussed in the Star Trek franchise, which I think we can all agree would be overemphasizing their real-world significance. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I have restored some of the deletions, with explanations. I'll start another section below to discuss rather than tag to the Inclusion criteria section.Kwib (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


This has been repeatedly removed by Doniago. Yet it is a key plot McGuffin in well-known British film The Mouse That Roared. Sourcing is a matter of basic research from your favourite dictionary of film – or indeed primary sourcing via IMDB, which is perennially popular for WP and the endless Marvel / DC themes. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The source provided is a primary source that does not establish that the element in question received any attention outside the film itself. If the element is so well-known then providing a source outside the film should not be difficult. Also, using IMDb as a reference generally is frowned upon as discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it here. DonIago (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's nice that the inserting editor has decided to disregard WP:BRD even after I specifically noted that there is now a discussion here. It would be most appropriate to leave the information out until there is a consensus for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The book The Mouse that Roared was the first of a best selling series of five books, and inspired two movies, a television series, and several radio and stage adaptions. The series is one of the most prominent examples of early Cold War satire. Quadium and the Q-Bomb is a key element of the storyline. That makes it at least as significant as any other example in the list, if not more so. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, then finding and providing a third-party source that discusses Quadium shouldn't be too difficult. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
By definition, the two films are a "Third Party Source" of the books. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a requirement that the element received attention outside of a notable work in which it was a significant plot element. This claim was refuted in the last two AfDs. Nor is it a constraint applied to other elements in this list. This is a list; it's not a requirement for each entry in a lost to demonstrate individual WP:Notability.
As to sourcing, then that's an invitation to do something positive and work to improve an article by improving its sourcing. Seeing it instead as an opportunity to get to delete more of other people's stuff is a popular temptation all across WP, but is never a constructive move. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that the article's been tagged for needing sourcing since 2010, adding more unsourced or poorly-sourced material, to my mind, indicates either a failure to note the article's current problems or a disregard for them. In either case, the last thing the article needs is more unsourced or poorly-sourced information. Given that the information was newly-added, it seems reasonable to assume that the editor who added it is best-positioned to provide a source, though I note that thus far they have seemed more interested in edit-warring than in participating in this conversation.
As to whether it's a requirement that the element received third-party attention, that goes to the fact that selection criteria have never been clearly laid-out for this list, despite several conversations above that attempted to do so. Perhaps this latest incident can lead to a more significant effort to establish such. In the meantime, to say that the constraint is not applied to other elements in this list is a nonsensical argument, as it could simply be the case that the list itself needs to be cleaned-up. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fictional elements key to Stargate universe[edit]

I think should be added to the list some of the elements listed in Technology in Stargate, specially Naqahdah, Naqahdriah, and Neutronium, as these fictional elements are important to the whole Stargate SG-1 series. --Zerabat (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Did any of them receive any attention from sources unaffiliated with the series? DonIago (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of Collapsium, Timonium and Xithricite[edit]

I have restored these three because they are all important to the fictional works and universes they were created in. Collapsium is even the name of one of its cited works. Timonium is one of two major resources in its game franchises (the other being gold). Xithricite forms the basis for a major mission in Vendetta online and permeates the game.Kwib (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like we already disagree on how to define the "relevancy" criterion. I take it to mean that the element or material should in some way drive the plot forward; even if it has a ubiquitous presence in the work of fiction, it shouldn't be included unless it plays a crucial role in the actual story. But okay, I won't press the point. (By the way, I disregarded the novel The Collapsium because it wasn't bluelinked, so I assumed it wasn't notable, but it turns out it does actually have an article.) DoctorKubla (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm tentatively agreeing with DK on this, though I'm open to further discussion on the matter. I don't think a "background element", no matter how prevalent it might be, is necessarily appropriate though. If it turned out that every hovercraft in the Matrix films was powered by Matriflonium, would that make Matriflonium appropriate for this article if it didn't have any impact on the plot? I don't believe so. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought that judgement as to the relevance of the material should also take into account the importance of the material to the background of the work of fiction, so long as it is in-universe acknowledged as such. If we were to find out that in fact the war that led to the destruction of civilisation in the Matrix was due to disputes over the supply of Matriflonium then this would be a substantial reason to have that substance in this list.Kwib (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of Discworld entries[edit]

These substances are verified as existing within the discworld universe, which is itself notable. The fact that they are mentioned in the official companion which is co-authored by Terry Pratchett underlines that they are important to that world in the eyes of the creator of the Discworld.Kwib (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. The Discworld Companion includes basically everything ever mentioned in a Discworld novel, no matter how fleetingly. However, if I've been too strict in my definition of "relevancy", and simple prevalence is enough to indicate significance, then I'm fine with the re-addition of all the Discworld entries except "inspiration particles", which I'm pretty sure are mentioned exactly once in the novels. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. I don't think companions/media-specific encyclopedias/behind-the-scenes books should be considered a means of establishing relevance, when any reasonable person would expect such volumes to discuss minutiae related to the media that isn't otherwise significant. As I said above, would we use The Star Trek Encyclopedia to argue that everything it discusses, even throw-away mentions of elements in a single episode, is somehow significant? I certainly hope not. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your example of the Star Trek Encyclopaedia. Where I thought the specific case of the Discworld Companion differed was it having been authored, at least in part, by Pratchett himself. However, if it is indeed a catch-all then its authority is diminished somewhat. With regard to the specific materials mentioned, I would agree that the Inspiration Particle is a stretch. The Thaum however, and the Reson, are fundamental to the background of the discworld due to their integral association with he magic that powers that world. Mentioned numerous times, and not just in passing but also in detail as to their properties and interactions, the subjects of experiments etc.Kwib (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the specific volume, or the Discworld series itself, enough to offer input on the details. That's kind of why I'd prefer to see an independent source provided, but if there's another editor willing to speak for the significance of the materials I'd be okay with that (barring any dispute). DonIago (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I've read most of the Discworld books, and I'd say the Thaum certainly warrants inclusion, the inspiration particle maybe, and the Reson doesn't. For context: The Thaum is mentioned fairly often as a unit of measurement, and in several of the "Wizard" books, it's mentioned that Ponder Stibbons wants to split it (he actually does it in Science of Discworld, but it's not the focus of the book). The inspiration particle is brought up in several books to explain the scatter-braininess of characters, and is used as a plot device in Sourcery. The Reson, however, is only ever mentioned in a footnote in Lords and Ladies and has no relevance on the story.--AlienAtSystem (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Red Mercury?[edit]

Is red mercury fictional enough to be included here? Margalob (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Fictional enough? Either it is fictional or it is not. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The article has a sizeable section "Usage in fiction". Paradoctor (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename to List of fictional substances[edit]

Isotopes are atomic particles of elements. "Material" is rather general, but connotes engineering purposes. "Substance" covers it all, and avoids the awkard list-as-list-name situation we currently "enjoy". Paradoctor (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)