Talk:Unobtainium

-ium, metals only?
I'd suggest to remove the "suffix for a number of metal elements" and replace it with "suffix for a number of elements", since the -ium suffix appears also in non-metals like helium, selenium, ununoctium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.197 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I could find no reference to the suffix -ium differentiating metals; and there are plenty of metallic elements that DON'T end in -ium: copper, iron, zinc, cobalt, nickle, etc. √ Removed metals (per WP:BOLD). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of Origin
We start off with "Engineers have long used (at least since 1980[1])" but then go into some discussion about the SR-71 which is 1960's. It appears that the second invalidates the first. I think this needs to be resolved but I don't have the quals to do so. k thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.18.138 (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the two different uses - does not exist, and exists but you can't get it. They have two different histories. LouScheffer 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Engineer in Charge: ..." and "Development of Winged Reentry Vehicles" refs only prove 23 May 1983 beyond a reasonable doubt, if doubting an earlier date, regardless of the context being about 1957. Authors sometimes add words to stories about events that took place before those words were coined. Samuel Erau (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The text explicitly states that they (the Langely group) called it 'unobtainium', it's not a word he is using to describe events long ago. Of course a written reference from that era would be better, but he's quite explicit about them using the term in the 1950s.  LouScheffer (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Added an explicit reference from 1958. This reference "Interim Glossary, Aero-Space Terms", published by the Air University of the US Air Force gave an explicit definition:
 * "unobtainium, n. A substance having the exact high test properties required for a piece of hardware or other item of use, but not obtainable either because it theoretically cannot exist or because technology is insufficiently advanced to produce it. Humorous or ironical." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.18.151 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Black hole shell
So what would happen to the material piling up on a hypothetical unobtainium shell around a black hole's event horizon?


 * This is just a guess, mind you. I suspect you'd end up with a layer above the unobtainium structured like a neutron star. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm... wouldn't the increased mass of the hole-plus-shell result in the event horizon expanding slightly? If the event horizon reaches the unobtainium shell, it will swallow it no matter how insanely strong the stuff is. That's a guess too, BTW. :) Bryan 17:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it wouldn't swallow it! You don't seem to grasp the nature of Unobtainium. Maybe the material expands slightly when subjected to intense gravitational forces. :D 124.182.99.105 14:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, NO! Though the nature of the gravitational interaction with unobtaium remains unclear, theoretical results (un-) obtained by Dr. I. Needmore and D'Humor found that the probable quantum gravitational interaction would likely lead to a rapid expansion of the event horizon, balanced by a corresponding decrease of the Higgs mass, thereby destabilizing the nature of matter in an ever-expanding vicinity of the disruption (they refer to this as "God's fuzzball". In short, we all go bye-bye and the universe ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A spherical shell of matter has no gravitational effect on its interior; so assuming that the shell is spherically uniform, it wouldn't result in the event horizon expanding until such a time as the hypothetical event horizon of the combined mass of hole-plus-material would exceed the radius of the shell, at which time the actual event horizon would abruptly expand to swallow the whole thing and there would just be a bigger black hole.

(Or slightly before that, actually: as Kip Thorne figured out, if you think of a black hole's event horizon as a "membrane", it responds in an "anticausal" manner to events in the future, since an event horizon is not a material thing but a kind of statement about what can happen in the future. So the event horizon would remain stationary until just before the critical moment, then bloat outward just in time to meet the critical bit of matter to tip the scale.) --24.147.149.53 01:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much what I said, though much more thoroughly grounded, so sounds good to me. :) Bryan 06:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Company name
"In spite of efforts by the Soviets a large quantity of titanium somehow found its way to the USA after an apparently innocent European company bought a considerable quantity. The company was in fact a front set up for this very purpose." Anyone know the name of the company refered above?


 * I don't know about the details, but this story has been extensively cited in Wikipedia articles and in other major websites. It would be very interesting to find the "original source" or at least something very authoritative on the subject. I think there is no reason at this point to doubt the story, but it still has shades of grey. -- Hugo Dufort 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unobtainium's construct
What kind of metals is unobtainium supposedly made of? What's its melting point?
 * Supposedly it's not made of metals. It's melting point is the one which ends this sentence. Rbarreira 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--- could it reach the earths core if something like the movie portrayed??? please answer oh yea and isnt it like two types of metal at supercolled temps??


 * Alas, there is no such thing as unobtainium. It's a fictional material with properties that no real material is expected to be able to have. Bryan 05:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No; it is the result of all matter in the universe being compressed into a single black hole which decays into a cloudy mass of unobtainium. This unobtainium is immune to black holes--it'll bounce right off the event horizon--and therefore the whole universe will fill itself with unobtainium which slowly decays into "real" matter. Since being touched by matter forces unobtainium into a material state, the only way to control it is via black coins: the neutron-star-esque two-dimensional version of a black hole. If it's tweaked in just the right ways, a black coin becomes a "black wall" between matter and unobtainium: anything that crosses this wall will be converted into the other state. (The unobtainium side is almost ecessarily the outside.) The really interesting stuff is the collision between two black walls: the two walls' black coins will fall into each other, which will make the two matter sides merge. In the process, however, some of the matter will leak out. A "safewall", consisting of a black wall inside another, will be required to keep this matter explosion from destroying the universe. Some scientists believe that a safewall may automatically form in one of these explosions. --Ihope127 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (By the way... the word is "cold"; not "colled".)


 * Now, now. Save the made-up nonsense for Uncyclopedia, Wikipedia's supposed to be about the real nonsense. :) Bryan 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? "[This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources.]"

I don't know who inserted this at the beginning of this article, and it is rather foolish and quare, as are many of the comments about "unobtainium" below. They miss the whole point: as its name says, "unobtainium" does not exist. It is a "substance" that comes straight from science fiction and the humorous quips of aerospace and electrical engineers and physicists. It is a quare idea to speculate about the exact properties of "unobtanium", just like it would be quare to speculate about the properties of "upsiedaisium" or "thiotimoline".

The whole point of this article is that it is all about "inaccuracies". Got it? User:Dale101usa
 * ...what the hell is wrong with you? The article mentions real-life facts (such as the part about SR-71 Blackbird), but doesn't give its sources. Just because the article is about a fictional material doesn't mean that it shouldn't meet the usual Wikipedia standards. Aardark


 * And the fiction can be cited too, as it mostly is in this article already (Scrith is from Ringworld, etc.) Bryan 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Titanium discourse
Quote a bit of the text covering titanium as "unobtainium" is not really relevant to this article. I've reduced it to the basic point, removed some total irrelevancies, and footnoted the rest to leave it available for potential transfer to the Titanium article. The footnotes should probably be removed (or at least trimmed down) once that article's editors decide if they want it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I change the intro for the following reason. Any fictional material referred to as "unobtanium", even if the real-world existence of is currently thought to be unlikely or impossible, may prove at some point in the future to not be so. Our understanding of the universe is limited and our understanding of science is based on assumption that certain rules could never be violated. In the future we may find that there are ways around certian rules of science. I felt it was important to make it clear that the unlikeliness or impossibility of "unobtanium" is based current scientific thought and not claim that such a substance is impossible as we might some day find a far off planet where such a substance really exists. --Cab88 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Um
Is the chemical symbol for Unobtainium "Um" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.166.250 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no chemical symbol for Unobtainium because it's not a real material. Bryan 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a chemical symbol for "doesn't have a sense of humour?" -- Charlene 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's not without precedent that people have posted on this talk page genuinely believing that there is such a thing as the element "unobtainium". Lacking any other cues suggesting humor IMO it warranted a serious response. Bryan 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction section
I had to remove a lot of content from the SciFi section; it was filled with awful speculation: "unobtainium is an informal one, apparently developed within science fiction fandom..." If the editor even read the listed world wide words source, a very good source for word etymology, he'd know that statement is wrong. I cleaned of all speculation but a better historic perspective is needed; right now it just makes references to a couple of scifi series. —Mitaphane talk 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to good ol' Balonium?Rich 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For evidence of the use of Galena for 'Unobtainium' in Avatar see http://www.nvcc.edu/home/cbentley/geoblog/labels/minerals.html (for the attention of the Great Interferer LouScheffer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.31.125 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole section could be replaced by a single link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_%28Star_Trek%29#Fictional_elements_and_materials (or the direct link, which I can't find at present). Then if anyone wants to tweak it they can be directed there and be an SEP (Someone Else's Problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.111.18 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Would a better Trek analogy not be Latinum? 109.78.71.84 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would have to be Gold Plated Latinum --


 * Latinum isn't the same as unobtainium if you think about it it's not really all that rare considering it's used for general bartering. Also it's more commonly refered to in DS9 as gold-pressed latinum. --Andy Frogman 124.148.32.133 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We're getting off on a tangent here, but, for the record, the "unobtainable" quality of latinum in DS9 is that it cannot be synthesized by available matter-replication technology, which is probably what contributor 109.78.71.84 was referring to; this property combined with its relative natural scarcity make its value both sufficiently high and sufficiently stable to be useful as currency; the "gold-pressed" part (see DS9 S6E12 "Who Mourns for Morn") comes from pure latinum being a liquid at room temperature / pressure, and typically suspended in standard-size bars (and smaller strips and slips and larger bricks) of otherwise "worthless" (due to aforementioned matter-replication tech) gold for ease of handling. Furthermore, individual bricks/bars/strips/slips of gold-pressed latinum hold very small quantities of actual latinum - a half-full shot glass of pure liquid latinum is a hundred bricks worth.  On the other hand, latinum has no known canon uses other than monetary and decorative, while "unobtainium" usually has engineering/technology applications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.9.41 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As a "Dune" fan, I dissent from "Melange" ("the spice") being given as an example of 'Unobtainium'. The substance was in fact widely available and widely used, however expensive it might have been, nor was it difficult to obtain (just dangerous.) 2601:410:200:2C80:7086:EA8F:596D:A31A (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't delete the page !
The word "unobtainium" popped into mind during a discussion on manufacturer's pseudo-scientific claims about speaker-construction materials. I wanted to explain the concept, but couldn't remember where I first heard. Wikipedia to the rescue: I thoroughly enjoyed and found the info very helpful. My one suggestion would be to lead off with the engineering info, because I believe that's where the term really started. The length of the titanium discourse is really tangential and could be cut to a sentence. Also, I don't know how many sf citations are really necessary, but if people want to add that trivia to the end, I see no harm in it. Richard Grossman 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful info but way to many words .. to tell the meaning of a word... I first heard it in HAM RADIO to tell of a radio tube no one could find and later to describe how rare a part for an old motorcycle was ..THE subject needs a complete rewright to less than 150 words 65.78.219.138 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC):) ar wd8cyv David Thompson


 * If the purpose of the article was simply to tell the meaning of the word it'd be a candidate for moving to Wiktionary. Encyclopedia articles should go into more depth than just defining it, I don't see how the information currently present could possibly be condensed down to 150 words. Bryan 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the SF section: usual useage of unobtainium and handwavium
unnobtainium: a material/mechanism that is theoreticaly possibly - however we have not way to produce it at this time

handwavium: a material/mechanism that is theoretically not possible - its existance needs lots of handwaving .. see also: techno babble ..

the lower the content of handwavium in a story is the more it is considered "hard SF"

Markus84.112.41.61 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is that I've seen "unobtainium" used in both contexts, so we can't simply declare that one of them is the correct one and one's incorrect. That'd be attempting to define the term ourselves rather than describing how it's used in real life. Do you have any external sources suggesting this distinction? Bryan 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

how far would discussions with hard SF authors and gamedesigners count as evidence in this case .. ? it is there that the difference between "unobtainium" and "handwavium" was pointed out to me. if we add the information that this particular usage is possibly limited to hard SF only?84.112.41.61 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's just personal conversations you've had with authors there isn't any way to cite that and it can't really be used as a source. It needs to be at the barest minimum fixed in some tangible form where other editors would have some chance at getting access to it as well to verify it. If it's in interviews that have been published in some manner then by all means dig them up and we'll mention it here. Even a Usenet posting by a notable author or game designer might be useful. Bryan 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

woud this be considered adequate or should i seek more references?:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html

about mid-page - tihs is a quote from Ken Burnside - designer of a very interesting and critically acclaimed §D space combat game, that REALLY pays attention to physics .. "attack vector tactical" 84.112.41.61 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks like a decent source for this sort of thing. Bryan 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unattainium?
Is unattainium a variant or just a mispelling? Google shows only 68 references for unattainium, versus about 93,000 for unobtainium. Is it worth pointing out such a small usage in the very first sentence?


 * Unobtainium is a portmanteau of unobtainable (obtain: to gain possession) and the suffix '-ium.' Likewise, Unattainium is a portmanteau of unattainable (attain: to achieve as a goal) and '-ium.'  The two fictitious element names have have nearly identical meanings/uses. Just as an article of a person will be titled by the name they go by most popularly, while the opening paragraph will give aliases or even birth names that differ from their current, this article is basically doing the same. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Basically" is a weasel word. The second sentence does in fact considerably more than just give an alternate name; it provides an etymology. Moreover, its use of the word "Likewise" seems to indicate a near-equality between the two words, whereas "unattainium" is much rarer. Illexsquid (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I removed it.  LouScheffer (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern?
The article makes a number of references to "modern". From the context, it appears that "modern" in the mind of the respective contributors is sometime in the last 3-5 years; the design and construction of the SR-71 is, therefore, "ancient". Such terminology makes the article sound ridiculous, written from the perspective of an adolescent. It's definitely not scholarly or encyclopedic. For practical purposes, the modern age may include the last two or three centuries, not just years. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I fixed it. Why does your username not match your username? 76.247.105.28 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But context is often used, even in technical and encylopedic documents, to define "modern". You will certainly find articles referring to "modern art", and "modern programming models", referring (unambiguously) to very different timescales. In fact, it would sound very stilted to speak of Linux, for example, as "a late-contemporary operating system", rather than a "modern operating system". Since the article states that the term dates from the 1980s, "modern", in this context, clearly refers to the last few years. I don't feel strongly enough to change it back, but I think it was fine the way it was. LouScheffer 04:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Impossible with conventional materials?
I think the addition "that is impossible with conventional materials" makes the definition more complex without helping. If conventional materials would work, then no exotic ones would be needed, so this is already covered. So I think the original sentence makes the same point, but more succinctly. Also, I'm not sure the reference adds anything - the reference seems like many others on the topic, and is not an early one or one that is special in any way, so it seems not to add much. But if others think differently please chime in here. LouScheffer (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At first, I simply wanted to add a citation for the initial definition and so looked up for a good source that tried to explain it under the context of science/engineering, not from science fiction. I read the reference I added which stated:

[Unobtainium] is the term coined for a smart material with properties once considered unimaginable: a material that would self-heal; self-replicate; turn invisible on demand; automatically shrivel up to sneak through wall cracks yet remember its original shape afterwards; generate its own power; be able to store and transmit huge amounts of data; flap like a bird and one day, replace human organs on demand.


 * That quote showed what kind of applications unobtainium would have been used for, most, if not all, of them impossible with the materials that exist. So I thought it was also better to elaborate not only what this fictional material is, but what kind of application that requires it. From the initial definition, one could say gold and diamond are unobtainium since it's costly, probably extremely rare too, and used for various applications. Basically, I tried to close up what I thought was a loophole in the definition.


 * That said though, I think what I chose as a citation was poor since it dealt with being able to obtain obtainium.


 * I have another reason why, but that depends on paradox and how one thinks of unobtainium, and I already got confused just by thinking about it :x --BirdKr (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit: On reflection though, I shouldn't really give much concern to the definition as we're talking something imaginary >_> --BirdKr (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oakley
I was surprised to check this page and not see anything on Oakley's use of the 'element' name.

Several glasses in the oakley product range now feature "unobtanium" ear- or nose-pieces; this material grips better when a person sweats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.190.31 (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the glasses, they have other products that use "Unobtanium" as well such as their HOLESHOT Unobtainium Strap Edition watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.38.190.22 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Element 404
After some searching, I could not find a reference for this that dates before the introduction into Wikipedia (16 Jan 2009). There are plenty of copies spawned by Wikipedia, and one in uncyclopedia with no 'unobtainium' content (just 'not found'). I think a pre-wikipedia reference is needed before restoring this. LouScheffer (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help but comment on the irony that your search resulted in "404 Not Found", right? Without being able to find 'Element 404' you were unable to obtain the results you wanted. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Avatar movie
I'm not going to revert at the current moment -- but unless it bombs catastrophically at the box office, the Avatar movie is going to elevate "unobtainium" from being something of a footnote of science fiction fandom and engineering in-jokes to a whole new level of pop-culture prominence... AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If Avatar indeed has this effect, and other sources note this phenominon, then it should be included. But it's not the job of an encyclopedia to predict; it should summarize what has happened, not predict what may happen.  LouScheffer (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll know by Sunday evening. AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging by the responses I've read, this event has eventuated. glasnt  &lt;3  00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The material shown in the movie appeared to be a High temperature superconductor which has the properties of the Meissner_effect at room temperature 90.205.4.108 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.4.108 (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Facetious vs humorous
There is a question of whether the usage of unobtainium should be described as 'humorous' or 'facetious'. I think we should use 'humorous' since it get the point across and is a common word. Even if facetious is better (which I am not sure it is), and we don't want to write down to readers, the small gain in exactness is more than penalized by the number of reader who won't know that this means a humorous usage. So I think that we should stick to humorous. (Note that 'facetious' links to the page 'humor' anyway.) Evidence that facetious is not common knowledge might be these SAT prep pages which list it with lots of other uncommon words SAT words and TOEFL words. Of course this is open for discussion and comments are welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when do you look up words in an encyclopedia????? Hey, perhaps we could link to the place you look up words... you know, a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper  00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that linking to the definition would surely be better in this case. However, even if you do so the question of which one to use remains.  According to these lists of English word frequency Words 1-10000 and words 10001-20000, humor and humour rank together about 2000th in the list of English usage, with about 40000 references (combined) per billion words.  Facetious has 1827 references per billion, or about 1/22 as much, and ranks as (roughly) the 13,500th common word in English. 13K words is a pretty sizable English vocabulary.   LouScheffer (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's a less common word, and?? Many words are less common than others, we don't cut them out of the encyclopedia, and it's more common than unobtainium. You seem to be confusing this with the simple encyclopedia; and you seem to be confusing this article with a dictionary entry; encyclopedia articles are not primarily about words.- Wolfkeeper  01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll disagree here - I think we *should* cut sufficiently uncommon words out of the encyclopedia.  I work with a lot of folks who speak English as a second language (in science, so these are sharp folks, but not linguists).   A good second language knowledge is a few thousand words, as opposed to the 20K or so words of a good native speaker.  So if we can get the idea across using common words, we should.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah "humorous" is fine. causa sui  ×  18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Prithee for background on Wolfkeeper's opinions about "words" in Wikipedia. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical use vs McGuffin
Should we use examples here? I think it's a useful distinction - sometimes the main use is to make an implausible invention possible, but in others it's mainly an object to be fought over. Certainly these categories overlap (presumably cavorite would be valuable and could be fought over, and unobtainium might not be fought over if it had little use), but the *primary* reason for the author to use the material is usually one or the other. This is certainly true in real life and movies as well - you fight over the heavy water since it enables an atomic bomb (and pay no attention to how much it costs), but you fight over gold because it's valuable, not because it's corrosion resistant. LouScheffer (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is 'unobtainium' primarily a description or a material?
Clearly, there is some controversy of what 'unobtainium' really means. Is it primarily a material, or a description of the material? As a thought experiment, what is the composition of unobtainium? You cannot say. Furthermore, if I describe a material, such a 50% mixture of carbon nanotubes and kryptonite, could you say whether this is unobtainium? No, you can't. Also, in the case of rare or expensive materials that really exist, the same material can be unobtainium for some uses and not for others. Basically 'unobtainium' is a concept that is undefined without a context. (Another way of seeing the seeing the same thing is asking what all unobtainiumss have in common. The answer is nothing, except for the idea behind them.)

This is very different from a real material such as titanium, where I certainly agree the article should be about the material, and not the word, which might be different in each language. However, the questions above are completely un-ambiguous for a real material such as titanium - you can tell me what it is, and tell me if a lump of something is titanium, independent of context.

Overall, despite the fact that unobtainium is a conceptual description rather than a material, it is notable, as shown by all the references. So we should describe it this way. As always, counter-arguments are welcome,  LouScheffer (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a concept, not a term. The article 'free speech' is about the concept of free speech, not about the letters 'f' 'r' 'e' 'e' ' ' 's' 'p' 'e' 'e' 'c' 'h' and how it came to be written like that and the history of the usage, although that is sometimes included as well. It is also a goal that the article should be completely translatable into foreign languages, without still referring to the English language; when articles are on terms, then they are not translatable.- Wolfkeeper  01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But a name that can apply to different things in different contexts is a concept, not a definition, and the article makes this very clear. You could explicitly call it a designation, or a concept, but that just makes the article harder to read without improving the meaning.  Demanding complete translatability is an excellent goal, but not practical in this case, since it depends of the similarity of (for example), titanium, 'uranium', and unobtainium.  LouScheffer (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper has some nonconsensus views on articles about "words" in Wikipedia, and on how to interpret WP:NAD. See the link given 2 threads above for background and examples. He has edited many article leads to remove the pattern "is a term" or "is a phrase", often to the articles' detriment. eg. I could elaborate, but this is not an appropriate location for that wider issue, and he has declared himself unconvincable so discussion is essentially pointless. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Quiddity is attacking me personally rather than arguing about the actual issues involved. In general when this occurs it is a clear sign that somebody has lost the argument.- Wolfkeeper  21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm trying to point out the details of the difference of opinion, and the size of it. Just as everyone was in the last thread at Wikipedia talk:Lead section. Ignoring the results of this many discussions is pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wolfkeeper. If a word has different meanings in different contexts, then each meaning should be split with a disambiguation. Since 'unobtainium' has a few meanings but they are all related, I think keeping it in one article is okay, but we need to focus on explaining each definition, rather than getting hung up on work usage, (which is what dictionaries are for). Ashmoo (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

encyclopedia vs dictionary
Articles in an encyclopedia are primarily about *things* or ideas, not words or names.

The first sentence/paragraph defines what the topic is about (WP:NAD), and the topic (unlike a dictionary) is about the thing. The thing here is a type of material (more or less any material that is unobtainable), not the term or name that refers to a type of material that is unobtainable.- Wolfkeeper  16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is different from a dictionary, there the word unobtainium is the primary topic.- Wolfkeeper  16:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this would make no sense for a real material such as titanium, where the article is on the material itself, quite independent of the name. But unobtainium is an idea, which as you point out is an acceptable subject.  It's both ambiguous and context dependent - more than one material can be unobtainium for a given context, and a single material may be unobtainium in one context and not another.  Now this context-dependent class of materials has a name, and *the name itself* is of interest, and is notable.  If you were to explain to an alien why it's called unobtainium, you would need to explain that it's a pun on the real element names such as titanium or uranium.  Thus the *name* aspect is fundamental - you cannot explain the term without it.  LouScheffer (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. This article is about materials that cannot be sourced, including similar related things denoted by terms like 'wishalloy'. If you define the article to be simply about 'unobtainium' then wishalloy is off-topic. The point is that the opening sentence has to say what the article is about, and you cannot do that by defining it to be about the word 'unobtainium'. In encyclopedias articles are not about words, because single words can have radically different meanings, (e.g. rocket can be about space vehicles or salad vegetables- that's why encyclopedia articles do NOT cover terms).- Wolfkeeper  21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your perspective. It is not widely shared. Category:Words has dozens of subsubcategories, and thousands of articles. Almost all of which are legitimate given that Wikipedia is "an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias". -- Quiddity (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what is an encyclopedia? According to you... it's a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper  14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire second paragraph of the lead is about the name, and how it came about, and why it's related to other terms. So using 'name' in the first line is proper, and indeed necessary.   LouScheffer (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. As per WP:NAD and WP:ISNOT the first sentence defines what the article is about. The article is NOT only about the term. Therefore your edit warring is completely unacceptable.- Wolfkeeper  14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unobtanium
Please don't add OR descriptions of how this stuff is used in the movie. And please don't make anonymous reverts without commenting here - I'd like to be able to respond to any reversion of my edits.

Unobtanium is clearly mentioned by the film itself, and unless you can ref a source stating otherwise, it is (to me) crystal clear the characters are talking about unobtanium the mineral.

It is thus not "humorous" nor "oblique". It simply is the name of the film's valuable stuff. However, feel free to add some kind of clarification it isn't spelled "Unobtainium" if you like.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Original contributors are also averse to their input being stomped on by someone else's righteous size 10's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.111.18 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar reference "oblique"?!
Re: "It is oblique in-so-far as they mis-spell it, either intentionally or ....." (an edit comment)

Okay, so "mineral obliquely called "unobtanium" (sp)" totally don't cut it - "sp" is internet shorthand and comes across as colloquial.

If you wish to attribute some underlying meaning to how Avatar uses this word (in one of its alternative spellings) feel free, as long as you can provide a source. However, merely calling the reference "oblique" is confusing, because it's use in the movie is completely straight-forward. So it's mis-spelled (insofar it can be misspelled, which we could discuss elsewhere) - then say so instead of being unclear by using a "fancy" word like oblique.

Enough with the re-insertion of this adjective - or any other qualifier - already. If you absolutely must have it in (without adequate explanation), find a source!

But hopefully, you can realize its usage here isn't uncontested, and so we could instead agree to simply and neutrally report the usage in the movie. CapnZapp (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a stab at conveying the (I hope) honest reason behind "oblique", in a (hopefully) clear manner to all. CapnZapp (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as we don't get 'actually' put back in, as unobtanium is not 'actually' unobtainium.


 * The additional explanation for Avatar is just silly. There is no point in differentiating between the article's unobtainium and Avatar's -- the latter serves as a generic highly-valuable resource purely for plot purposes, thus fulfilling the description in this article. The presence of the "traditional element naming" and wiktionary links demonstrate the only truly notable aspect of this: that the -tanium spelling is perceived as more legimate, for no valid reason. How does removing the i "conform to chemical element naming"? 99.251.204.24 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How does removing the i "conform to chemical element naming"? I really don't know, all I've done is add a citation of that as the reason for the difference. But, I also don't know why this article spends time in the lead telling us that: Unobtainium = "Unobtainable" + "ium", which also has no sound basis in compound/element naming, but is also uncited, blinding-obvious, probably WP:OR, and actually admits to being illogically reasoned by saying "However, the name unobtainium was in use long before the IUPAC systematic names were created". We have that in the lead, and yet we are talking about one cited sentence about Avatar! Now THAT is what makes Unobtanium "truly notable"... it's current cultural recognition factor. While the Avatar stuff is silly, it adds a direct citation of something 99.251.204.24 considers the "only truly notable aspect" of Unobtanium (its missing i). Now, that citation is far from ideal, because it's a fictional universe explanation (I couldn't find the real reason for the change in this universe- hopefully somebody can) but at least it partially answers (or makes convincing) the MAIN thing that this page is being looked at for. I should also say something else here: If Unobtanium becomes a cultural phenomenon then it is inherently notable for that, and that phenomenon would have to be discussed on this page (it not being important or different enough to have its own article). - On the other hand, this whole article is silly - it's a terrible word and idea, but we should be able to get the silly articles right. --Wragge (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The additional explanation is necessary because a) the spelling used in the film is without the 'i' and b) ignorant editors keep changing it to the 'i' included version with annoying regularity if you don't explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.99.101 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is spelled without the 'i' here ("Official" Avatar site) -- But I can't find an explanation for the alternate spelling. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: okay, here's the ©2007 screenplay by James Cameron from the Wayback archives -- Spelling = Unobtanium ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unobatinium is not Science Fiction
Just recently scientist working on the Web Telescope have created a new type of composite material that can withstand high temperatures of space, here is a link to confirm this... http://bigthink.com/ideas/24334 Zymyne (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * However, Unobtainium bas been many things in many contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnamed sources report, and a consensus of anonymous scientists agree that Unobtanium extracted from alien spacecraft is being used for a number of top-secret government black-projects at Area 51. An example of its application can be seen here: (Anti-Didactic Enigmatium Device?) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Misc. edits

 * Removed and sometimes handwavium from alternate spelling -- perhaps a.k.a. but certainly not an alternate spelling. Handwavium is mentioned in 'Similar words' section, which seems like a proper place for it. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Considered changing (also spelled unobtanium) to (sometimes spelled unobtanium) but chickened out. Consensus?  Even Google says "Did you mean..." ~Eric F [Special:Contributions/184.76.225.106|184.76.225.106]] (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed metals. (See: -ium, metals only? above). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Spherical cow
There is a question of whether spherical cow should be referenced here. I think not, since it's a very different idea. The point of a spherical cow is not that it's hard to obtain, or that it is particularly good for any application. Instead, it's a nonsensical approximation, which may be better, or worse, or irrelevant, to any real application. Other opinions are welcome, of course. LouScheffer (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unobtanium
Please correct the spelling for this article as Unobtainium is simply wrong, and every scientist on the planet would disagree with this spelling. It is seriously bothering me the original author is obviously a plebeian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.183.161 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure any scientist wouldn't care less what name or spelling was given to a fictional - and satirical - element. It seriously bothers me that it seriously bothers you to the extent you feel the need to insult editors of the article:  No personal attacks please.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I invite the brand new editor - and of course the IP above - to discuss why the change from sourced and established "unobtainium" to "unobtanium" should be made. As per available sources and wp:retain there is no reason for the change.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't care why you changed it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't know why something which was mainly confined to the folklore of scientists, engineers, and science fiction fans for many decades would necessarily have an "official" spelling... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said that I don't care, only that scientists wouldn't care. I care very much so, which is why I reverted back to the stable version and invited discussion here on the talk page.
 * Please stop your changes until a consensus for change is established here.
 * To start the ball rolling, I ran a quick Google search for "unobtanium" - 500,000 hits, and "unobtainium" - 900,000 hits.
 * Out of the 14 currently used references, only 2 refer to "unobtanium" - and one of those acknowledges the spelling of "unobtainium" as well.
 * The external link here World Wide Words — Unobtanium makes mention of "unobtanium" - yet the page itself is entitled - and refers to - "unobtainium"
 * The other link is a 404 not found, and the final link does refer to "unobtanium"
 * So far it's not conclusive enough to make a change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article refuse to correct the spelling? Would you spell Titanium Titainium? No, you wouldn't. Case closed, just because people spell it one way, does not make it correct. You are just supporting a major typographical error. Stubborn as well. -- 19 January 2014‎ 68.190.183.161

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomata3 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Please put forward your arguments - before change.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Conversely, would you spell "unobtainable" as "unobtanable"? No, you this would make the "a" short, not long.  There are two possible motivations for the spelling
 * You should spell it "unobtainium" in reference to the fact that it cannot be obtained,
 * Or, you could spell it "unobtanium" in analogy to "titanium" and similar metals.
 * Clearly, different writers have come to different conclusions on which spelling makes the most sense. Both of them are acceptable, like "labeled" and "labelled".  So we need to pick one and use it in the article.  "Unobtainium" is the form used in the first written reference anyone has been able to find, NASA history document.   Furthermore it's slightly more common in current use.  So it seems sensible to use that spelling.   LouScheffer (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are a number of well respected sources that spell it "unobtainium".
 * A 1995 article from the New York Times
 * An abstract from the American Physical Society
 * An article from the IEEE, one of the world's largest engineering societies.
 * At the very least, this indicates the spelling "unobtainium" is certainly acceptable.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

SPELLING
SEE: Titanium

Prounounced TIght-TAIN-ium

Spelling Unobtanium with an AI is simply wrong, and whoever keeps editing the page is wrong about the spelling. -- 18 January 2014‎ 68.190.183.161


 * Please join the discussion of an already active topic - one that you started. Your edits also broke the spellings in the references and sources.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting my changes, I have a right to edit these pages just as much as you do. -- 19 January 2014‎ 68.190.183.161


 * Well, sort of. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia - only a priviledge.  See here for the policy regarding editing in general.
 * All of this is covered in the welcome message that Cirt left you back in December - I'd advise you read it (and the links).
 * Also, I think you're manually adding a sig to your posts - you don't need to do this, but can just add ~ to the end of your post, and it will add the necessary sig for you. It makes it easier for other editors to contact you.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Eludium/Illudium
"The term Eludium (also spelled with variants such as Illudium) has been used to describe a material which has eluded attempts to develop it." I thought Illudium was different - something Illusory or for use in casting Illusions [lexically challenged editors please note: not Allusions nor Elusions].

Also while I was here I did something useful - linked cryptocurrency to its article. Shannock9 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Crypto-currency?
It mentions in the article that this is also the name of a crypto-currency. Is this crypto-currency in widespread enough usage to merit mention in the article? There are a lot of them at this point. Zell Faze (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Helium joke
I don't seem to understand the reference to Helium in the first paragraph. Is being stronger than helium supposed to be surprising for a material that is lighter than air?211.30.197.108 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. Maybe it is supposed to read "stronger than steel (titanium, aluminum, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshualouie711 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dysprosium
The name of this element comes from the Greek word "dysprositos", meaning "hard go get". This is sufficiently similar in meaning and etymology to "unobtainium" to be worth at least mentioning in this article. For now, I have simply added a link and brief explanation of relevance to the See Also section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.9.41 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unobtainium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406030118/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/elevator_update_020819.html to http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/elevator_update_020819.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link
Rare-metal link goes to electric vehicles or something 97.83.18.143 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This wasn't wrong, but I've reworked the paragraph to make the reference clearer. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)