Talk:Unobtainium

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  -ium, metals only? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Date of Origin 

message: 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|✎ 08:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Company name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Titanium discourse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Is the chemical symbol for Unobtainium "Um" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.166.250 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no chemical symbol for Unobtainium because it's not a real material. Bryan 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a chemical symbol for "doesn't have a sense of humour?" --Charlene 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Um 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Science fiction section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Don't delete the page ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Yeah, that looks like a decent source for this sort of thing. Bryan 21:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition to the SF section: usual useage of unobtainium and handwavium 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: OK, I removed it.   LouScheffer (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattainium? 

message: 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. —QuicksilverT @ 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I fixed it. Why does your username not match your username? 76.247.105.28 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oakley 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Element 404 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We'll know by Sunday evening. AnonMoos (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the responses I've read, this event has eventuated. glasnt<3 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Avatar movie

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Facetious vs humorous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technical use vs McGuffin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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#Etymology in first sentence. Ignoring the results of this many discussions is pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is 'unobtainium' primarily a description or a material? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but what is an encyclopedia? According to you... it's a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  encyclopedia vs dictionary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unobtanium 

message: 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)
replies: text: However, Unobtainium bas been many things in many contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unobatinium is not Science Fiction 

message: *  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)
thread_title:  Misc. edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spherical cow 

message: "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)
thread_title: Eludium/Illudium

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crypto-currency? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Helium joke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dysprosium 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rare-metal link goes to electric vehicles or something 97.83.18.143 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This wasn't wrong, but I've reworked the paragraph to make the reference clearer. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link