This is simply describing the property of antimatter; an explosion caused by antimatter; antimatter exploding. It's not a component, not a byproduct, it's what it does. This would be comparable to an article called "gunpower explosion", to describe a bullet going off. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:31, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Opppose. It is a specific type of explosion, defined by specific causes and characteristics, and starfleet crew seem to find it worthy of differentiating from other explosions: starship sensors can detect that an explosion is in fact an antimatter explosion (and this is pointed out), damage can be seen to look like the effect of an antimatter explosion, antimatter explosions as opposed to explosions in general are a concern with certain tech... looks like a fair example of a specific topic to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:08, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
I added the category "events" - it's a thing which happens. --LauraCC (talk) 19:16, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

We don't even define "explosion" here, so why have an article about a specific type of something we don't even recognize. So again, they are defining the source of an explosion as being antimatter, or "phaser blast" or "disruptor blast", which were frequently identified when viewing burn marks. This is no different that proton burst. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:26, July 28, 2017 (UTC)


Per my last statement above, this, temporal explosion, thermokinetic explosion and forced chamber explosion would be best represented as the cornerstones to the non-existent explosion page (waiting to be created with numerous other incoming links explosion (links)). --Alan (talk) 15:23, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.