Talk:Dilithium (Star Trek)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 11 April 2017, see discussion.
Keep, 27 May 2008, see discussion.

Star Trek Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I read somewhere that Dilithium had a four-dimensional structure, though I don't have a reference or remember if this is canon. 129.240.70.67 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this topic is nearly eleven years old, but for the record - I think the OP is confusing Dilithium with Thiotimoline. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trilithium here[edit]

I propose the Trilithium be merged here. It is related to dilithium and the article is a stub (and likely to remain so). Tocharianne 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trilithium, however has completely different uses than dilithium. Dilithium is used to power the warp engines, while trilithium is used to destroy stars. Comtraya 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trilithium and dilithium are different elements in the Star Trek universe. Should be kept seperate. (Cardsplayer4life 08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The issue isn't whether they're different or not, of course they're different. The issue is whether there is enough to say about either of them to justify having separate articles for both. Tocharianne 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:Unless you are going to have an article for Chemical Elements in Star Trek, I'm pretty certain that both of these articles should stay separate. I agree that there should be a NEW article for the fictious elements in Star Trek, but one should not be merged into the other. WiiAlbanyGirl 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we also also mark this page as written in an In-Universe style and in need of fixing. (Not sure how to do it myself or if I can) --AtomicMass (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

The content of this article is entirely plot cruft and trivia, and has undergone none of the suggested improvements since its AfD over a year ago. I've redirected it to the appropriate List of... The editing history is intact as a (squishy, lame) foundation on which to rebuild an appropriate article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the AfD, the consensus was a strong Keep. More to the point, the Dilithium (disambiguation) page is now shouldering the "cruft" that rightfully belongs to this article, and I'd like to have a place to shove that. We should have one page for Star Trek and one page for fact. This article, though largely unsourced, offers what is probably a pretty detailed description of the Star Trek concept. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft should not be shoved around from article to article -- it should be rewritten/sourced or just deleted. The keep consensus at AfD does not preclude e.g. a redirect -- and, in fact, a year+ after the AfD, the article did not receive any of the meaningful improvement suggested by/guessed at by the AfD.

By restoring this article, I assume you plan to meet the burden of proof to establish meaningful third-party sources, encyclopedic coverage, or even just substantiate a claim of independent notability. Otherwise, you or I should restore the redirect and instead monitor Dilithium to ensure stuff pertaining to the Star Trek concept is instead appropriately covered at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. For my own part, I'll put in a request for help at the Star Trek wikiproject. But, again, merely restoring this kind of encyclopedic content to alleviate an inconvenience elsewhere isn't an appropriate practice. --EEMIV (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replicating or regenerating crystals.[edit]

There is a difference between replicating dilithium crystals out of nothing, and regenerating already existing crystals, as they do in TVH.
Spock does not "discover" the method - it is a well-known theory, and he states that the only reason it is not commonly used is because the method of regenerating the crystals is hazardous and esoteric - getting close to nuclear reactors that are inherently dangerous and in any case no longer used in the 22nd century. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

es·o·ter·ic

/ˌesəˈterik/ adjective 1. intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest: "esoteric philosophical debates" Powered by Oxford Dictionaries 50.32.152.81 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Number?[edit]

Where is the atomic number of 87 given? The memory-alpha lists it's atomic number as "unknown", and the article here says it was in a chart in Rascals (I can't verify). The Star Trek Technical Manual (g-books) nor The Star Trek Encyclopedia (g-books) don't appear to have it.

It seems odd (or perhaps not) that they'd give it a number that was specifically of a known element at the time (1992). Jimw338 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]