More references in:

The joy. -- sulfur 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, why did you move that? It was interesting and important to have that in the main article page as a reference - especially if someone were to edit it, they could see what episodes are missing and then go from there. – Distantlycharmed 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Because, dude, that's how it works.
This page is marked as lacking essential detail, and needs attention. Information regarding expansion requirements may be found on the article's talk page. Feel free to edit this page to assist with this expansion.
So you come to the talk page, and whadayaknow, there's a list of missing references. --Alan 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No need to be patronizing me. I thought that the reference section is usually there to inform the reader about all the episodes which are related to the article and where carbon is somehow of importance/mentioned etc. I understand fully well the little scribble you added about how they can go to the talk page to expand this more. – Distantlycharmed 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, since when does common (scientific) knowledge require references? Carbon is what it is. It's been talked about in about a million sources for decades. Except for the combadge and steel info, I dont see why a section on the properties of the chemical element carbon needs citation. – Distantlycharmed 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
...and what would be the point of having a list of references without the references themselves that go along with the citations that another way of saying the article is incomplete. The best way to reintegrate the above list into the article is with the corresponding references that said list implies.
Regarding the citations. Were they mentioned in Trek? If so, what episodes? If not, then is the information relevant? What warrants its inclusion? The rule of thumb is to build the encyclopedia as if it is based on everything you've learned while watching Star Trek. For example:
"Carbon has three naturally occurring isotopes, with C12 and C13 being stable while C14 is radioactive exhibiting a long half-life of about 5,730 years."
I recall no instances of such a reference to that information in Star Trek, nor is it exactly "common knowledge". --Alan 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Carbon having different isotopes and its radioactive form being used for carbon-dating is common, albeit scientific, knowledge. Also, I didnt wanna delete what was already there; whoever wrote this about carbon dating included quantum dating so I left it thinking it is relevant. Also, when we have an entry on an element, for the sake of wanting to be as comprehensive and complete as possible, as an encyclopedia, an entry should include some of the very basic facts. That carbon has isotopes is not some esoteric side note that need not be mentioned.– Distantlycharmed 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As no instances of the isotopes of Carbon have been provided (except for Carbon-70) I will remove the reference. I'm not entirely sure if the rest of the real world information was referenced, but unless it was a lot of the info could probably be removed as well. That's what the wikipedia link is for.--31dot 12:35, February 22, 2010 (UTC)