Talk:Nitrium

Improvements

I did not create this article. Nor do I have a lot of interest in Star Trek, though I have seen a number of episodes. This article has promise. If someone sees an episode, they might not know whether nitrium is real or fiction. This article will help to clarify. Among the many articles proposed for deletion, this is one of the articles with the most potential.VK35 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete

Most of this is copy-and-pasted from my talk page for continuation here. --EEMeltonIV 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a AfD on this? I thought it was considered for deletion (not sure if a formal AfD) but it was saved and vastly expanded.VK35 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any particular discussion on the talk page. It's a bit of treknobabble in a single episode, and not anything that can verifiably be expanded even to a significant in-universe article, let along anything to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Hence, redirect to that aforementioned episode. --EEMeltonIV 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] See this diff about a deletion warning but then the article was improved. See how short the stub was before improvment. Therefore, I think it should remain an article. How about if I worked on it some more? Is it your goal to delete the article? Let me know your thoughtsVK35 18:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the earlier flag that it is non-notable. Even Memory Alpha's blurb is just a couple of sentences; there is no real-world notability for this imaginary material, and I doubt an article would hold up under AfD. The length of the article/stub is generally insignificant if all it is is plot summary (and uncited in-universe extrapolations based on dialog). Probably best to focus energies on those aspects of Trek (and everything else) that are significant out-of-universe. --EEMeltonIV 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we give weight to the fact that there's a category for fictional materials. Also the possibility that people will look up Nitrium but often will not remember the episode title? What if they are intersted only in Nitrium and not the episode?VK35 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I'm going to let this sit for a day. How about putting it on a back burner for now while we contemplate.VK35 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely plot summary from a single episode and makes no assertion as to the make-believe material's real-world significance. Additionally, it "cites" memory-alpha, which does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. This article either should be AfDed or, as is the case with other Star Trek substances, ships and characters that appear in just a single or a handful of episodes, redirect to the episode with its first or most prevalent use. There's nothing compelling here to make this article an exception. --EEMeltonIV 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a fictional materials category is nice, but entries only warrant separate articles if they have real-world notability as verified by published, reliable, secondary sources. Anyone interested in nitrium as a Star Trek material should look at the in-universe Memory Alpha wiki or other site; those interested in the material for its real-world significance will realize that it has no real-world significance, and be moved along to the next-best (or closest) thing, i.e. the episode in which it appears. --EEMeltonIV 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for being curious about Nitrium but not remembering the episode title: that's what the redirect (rather than AfD) is for. I'm happy to let it sit for a day (and really it's a month since the deletion flag went up): if after a day there is no content that establishes real-world notability, I'll either redirect it again or we can simply AfD it. I'd prefer the former to maintain the link to the episode. --EEMeltonIV 18:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a test edit, I've moved some Nitrium material to the episode article. One problem is that if Nitrium is redirected, then the Nitrium entry will be deleted under Category:Star Trek materials. This is not good. However, if we redirect Nitrium and put that category in the episode article, then the name of the episode will appear under the list in that category.

For example, the list would include dilithium crystals and Cost of Living (TNG episode), which clearly doesn't fit.

Hopefully others will write in. This is a discussion, not a vote. Furthermore, EEMeltonIV and I are not on different sides of a debate, just different perspectives of the same side. For these reasons, thoughts are important, not mass voting. Hopefully, someone will write!VK35 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have any encyclopedic value, then there's no reason to include it on the category page. Such is the case with many of the other edits I made this afternoon. --EEMeltonIV 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that most Star Trek related articles have no encyclopedia value other than an entry on Star Trek. There is no such thing as warp drive or dilithium, as far as we know. This doesn't mean that I'm anti-Star Trek. I'm for it!VK35 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: a lot of the Trek-related articles floating around aren't encyclopedic (or at least within Wikipedia's purview) and should be deleted or redirected. What makes something that is fictional (regardless of whether it's Star Trek or Star Wars or whatever) appropriate to include here is whether it has any real-world notability. For example, warp drive is notable because of its use in popular culture and other fiction and as an inspiration for real-world scientists and whatnot (too bad much of the article doesn't address that). Warp coil, on the other hand, has no real-world notability, but it is associated with the notable warp drive -- so, it redirects to the warp drive article. Similarly Dixon Hill, which has had no palpable impact out-of-universe, redirects to the quite-notable Jean-Luc Picard. --EEMeltonIV 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and speaking of Dixon Hill, I just noticed (and in hindsight this is kind of obvious) that a redirect can have a category -- so Nitrium, redirected to CoL, can still show up on that cat. page as nitrium. I may have to go back to some of my redirects yesterday and restore some cats that'd be worth keeping, even if the article/stub itself needs to lead to more-significant material. --EEMeltonIV 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

real life nitrium

This is a disambiguation in progress. I will be writing an article on the real nitrium today and tomorrow (and submit it tomorrow probably). The Star Trek article will be moved to Nitrium (Star Trek) where it may be deleted or kept or redirected.VK35 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Nitrium (Star Trek) has been moved so the nitrium AfD tag in this article is appropriately removed. There isn't much edit history but if this is a concern, it can be (with effort) moved to Nitrium (Star Trek). The plan is for Nitrium (Star Trek) to be redirected. It appears to have total concensus (me, EEMeltonIV, and the original author of the nitrium (Star Trek article). Nobody, except bots, did any editing on the article. Normally, I would seek more concensus, but there doesn't appear to be anyone interested in this, as far as I'm aware.VK35 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major change in article 13 May 2007

On this date, this article significantly changed from Nitrium, a Star Trek material, to the real life nitrium. The edit history of before 13 May 2007 reflects the Star Trek contents. See Cost of Living (TNG episode) for the Star Trek reference of nitrium.VK35 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start of nitrium, real life material talk page

The new article is a mere stub. I plan to add to it daily or almost daily. I have done this to another article showing that I can do what I pledge.VK35 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence is low

After spending nearly an hour looking for a scientific definition of "nitrium", I am unconvinced that this exists in the real world. There is natrium [2], the "technical" name for sodium (hence Na). There is also nitrum, the latinized name for niter. Even the farlang.com source, if you begin with the first page of the chapter, is obviously referring to niter/nitrum, except for some apparent scanning errors. One source even indicates it may be a synonym for fuller's earth [3]. Nitrium seems to be the word used in German to mean sodium.[4] But it does not seem to be, in English, something itself. The Japanese source is, I believe, another case where it simply means sodium.--Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding that this is potentially a very confusing subject. I am making progress in separating this confusion. That's added reason for me to work on this. If I make sense of the confusion, maybe someone will benefit by just reading it and end the confusion for them!VK35 19:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dhartung is correct. The Nitrium described as "It can ion found in metallic compounds and in tap water. It is found in salt water and in the human body." is almost certainly sodium. The other instances are foreign langauge names. I think we should redirect the page. Acegikmo1 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the work for redirects complete, except one. Will place AfD for redirect of Nitrium article to the Nitrium disambiguation page. I am not removing all of the article now because some people may have an opinion against this (don't really think so, but who knows) and just haven't edited this page.VK35 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the policies more carefully, what I suggested in the above paragraph is really a merge, not a AfD. So I am placing the tags and contacting contributing editors.VK35 22:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmmm....

A few things worth thinking about:

A merge with a mess of a disambiguation page leads to a bigger mess. The issue with the Star Trek episode article seems to have been take care of; the rest is redundant:
- any redirects should not be mentioned on a disamb page, and neither target page has the word "nitrium" in it. Thus both lines on the DAB page should be removed. This leaves only a red link, apparently to tie it in to either a proposed article (which, by the way, would be misnamed per WP:NAME) or the nitrium article. Thus no disambiguation page is needed.

The nitrium article is not presented in the form of an encyclopedia article - the subheadings seem more likely to be from some editor's sandbox. These must go. As it appears now, it looks like either
- a second (redundant) disambiguation page (note that there is not a single definition here), or
- a possible entry for Wiktionary (but, again, there are no specific definitions here!), which would mean that this should be Transwikied to Wiktionary instead of being left here.

What is the intent of this article? I'm not sure what it is, but clearly a merge with the DAB article would be worthwhile, for there is nothing in Wikipedia that indicates the need for the existence of the disambiguation page. If the nitrium article can't be restructured so that it has some actual substance, both articles should be deleted. 147.70.242.40 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nitrium article (actually just a disambiguation) serves several useful purposes including, but not limited to,

keeps a nitrium entry in category:Star Trek materials. It is not correct to put a title of an episode in the materials category.
separates Star Trek nitrium from the potash nitrium compound.

VK35 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good reason why this article can't simply redirect to Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)? Neither of the other disambiguation links are particularly relevant (as mentioned above, the word 'nitrium' features on neither of them), and the Star Trek use is what most people finding this page will be looking for anyway. The redirect page could still be categorised in Category:Star Trek materials. Terraxos 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

I was thinking about this above, and: no, there is no good reason. There's only one relevant and notable link from this 'disambiguation page', so it should just redirect there. And now it does! Terraxos 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]