From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDarmstadtium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 20, 2012Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Darmstadtium at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Version 0.5
WikiProject iconThis article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.


This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:52, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:09, 7 June 2005).

It's amazing, I moved Ununnilium to Damstadtium back in march 03, the IUPAC in May 03 offiacly chanegd it to Damstadium, we were one of teh first sites to change it to its name. -fonzy

How different things are now, when our quality matters more! Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

electron configuration[edit]

My SATII chem prep book (baron's) has this element with an orbital shell progression of [Rn]5f146d87s2... which is different from the one listed. Is there a definitive source for this? Lepidoptera 17:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The reference is electron configurations of the elements (data page), though so far the only data for elements 105+ is merely the guesses taken from (which may or may not be based on a source from their bibliography). remarks that the takeover of the irregularity from platinum is not recommended, however it lists the 6d8 7s2 configuration as 'unconfirmed' as well. Note that I recently changed the qualifier of these guesses from "probably" to "perhaps" in the articles. As long as they're properly marked as such, any guess should be as good as the next one, unless one guess is found more educated than the other. Femto 19:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

atomic mass[edit]

Also, one of your sources lists the atomic mass as 281- another says 271- and my periodic table lists it as 269. With elements like this that are not found in nature, the atomic mass is not average mass of the isotopes as found in nature, but the most stable isotope. Again, is there is a definitive source for this? Elements tend to be more likely to decay if there isn't enough buffer neutrons between protons... on the other hand, the larger the atom is the more prone it is to decay as well, so I frankly have no idea which is the most correct. Lepidoptera 17:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The recent Ds-281 with its half-life in the minute range looks like the clear winner to me. Femto 19:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


"Scientists are not always serious, so[citation needed] some suggested the name policium for the new element, because 110 is the emergency telephone number for the German police. The element was named after the place of its discovery, Darmstadt (the GSI is located in Wixhausen, a northern portion of the city). The new name was given to it by the IUPAC in August 2003."

There's no cition. But it does sound kind of resonible and I know that scientist do have sense of humor. I'm putting the hoax tag in to make sure some looks at it and the reader doesn't use it for reaserch untill someone looks at it.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Hoax[edit]

Even though nobody ever really intended naming it policium, I remember reading an Article in the Darmstädter Echo [1] which covered this story. Should have be right after they confirmed the name Darmstadtium. Maybe someone has access to their archive and can look it up for quotation. Thus I#ll remove the Hoax-Tag for now.

Thanks just naming it policium sounds like a hoax.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


If the name has been changed, then why hasn't the symbol?Cameron Nedland 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The name was never changed therefore the symbol shouldn't either. Porygon-Z 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talkcontribs)

External links to a congress center[edit]

Under "External Links" there is a link to the new congress center called Darmstadtium . I think it should not be here, as the name is the only relation to the chemical element Darmstadtium. From my point of view it should be removed. But I'm not as used to the Wikipedia etiquette to actually do it. (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does Policium redirect here?[edit]

It's just a joke mentioned in a single book as something a class of children suggested as a name for the element. (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GSI location[edit]

Someone changed the description of GSI's location from "Wixhausen, a northern suburb of Darmstadt" to "Arheilgen, a northern suburb of Darmstadt" and then someone else changed that to "Darmstadt, a northern suburb of Darmstadt". Judging from the (unsourced) Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung article, Wixhausen is probably correct, but I've changed it to simply "Darmstadt, a northern suburb of Darmstadt" for now, since GSI's website just says Darmstadt. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jingle bell jingle bell jingle bell rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wixhausen is a district of the city of Darmstadt as the Bronx is bourogh of New York City — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darmstadtium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Perhaps "most dense" → "densest", and "element 112"→"copernicium (element 112)", and "in fact" in the paragraph about Ds-277 is probably redundant if a long half-life was not expected.
     Done Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    Still would seem a little murky (about electron configurations (don't use "nd" notation for specific elements); perhaps elaborate on the reasons why we need 1 atom/week for experiments.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    The fisrt one is done. The answer to the second is in the next sentence: "...the need to increase the rate of production of darmstadtium that statistically significant results can be obtained." Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    If possible, explain why we need that particular rate of production, but if it can't be done so in a reasonably concise fashion, we can settle with this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    Not done This seems to have to do with the cross-sections of the nuclear reactions (see isotopes of darmstadtium), but it doesn't seem to be possible to explain this reasonably concisely. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    The reader is likely to remain confused if we refer to it as a requirement for chemistry experiments, which shouldn't be affected by neutron absorption x-sections.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    You have to have a reasonable chance of the reaction actually being successful to get a sufficient number of nuclides you can test chemically. The steps for testing an element's chemistry are (1) synthesizing the nuclide; (2) separating out the nuclide; (3) conducting chemical tests on it; and (4) examining the decay products to be sure you've studied the chemistry of the correct element. Steps (2) and (3) must be done very quickly and shortly after (1), given the short half-lives of these elements, and typically one atom decays long before the next one is synthesized. If atoms can't be made fast enough, there won't be enough atoms made and the results won't be statistically significant (the sample size being too small). However, nothing in this explanation explains anything about why 1 atom/week is the cut-off. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    Hhm... should it be removed? --Jasper Deng (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    No, I don't think the figure should be removed: we have a source for it, which references the GSI, so it should be reliable. What we don't have is a justification for that specific figure; we already have general explanations why a reasonable figure is necessary, though, so it should be OK. Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Need to cite for the predicted density and for the claim that indirect synthesis is not preferable for chemical experiments.
     Done Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Minor citation and prose issues.


Hi User:Kirligross. What does "UUN" stand for (other than urine urea nitrogen, and why should UUN redirect to here? It puts this article in category:Missing redirects. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Wbm1058. UUN is the prototypic name for Darmstadtium. It stands for "ununnilium", or "one-one-zero-ium", which spells out the atomic weight of this element. This and other elements heavier than it were also named similarly, and are currently in the process of being named (such as ununtritium). This element, for example, was named for the city it was found in, which was only about 20 years ago.

UUN is a common abbreviation for urine urea nitrogen, as you know. There is no article for urine urea nitrogen, but typing urine urea nitrogen automatically redirects to blood urea nitrogen. So I thought it would make sense for a redirection of UUN to happen to the same page. And that's when I saw the gap with Darmstadtium and decided that was the more significant reference.

Thanks, Kirligross (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I created the redirect. The article should be updated to include this information. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually, "UUN" does not and has never stood for darmstadtium; "Uun" has. (Capitalization matters!) So I changed the target of "UUN" (in all caps) to blood urea nitrogen, while "Uun" currently redirects to this page. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
So should the article be updated to mention the term ununnilium (abbreviated "Uun") so we know why that redirects to here? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think so: it's an obsolete name that should never be used once a trivial name (here darmstadtium) is officially accepted. We don't have unnilquadium for rutherfordium either; that's because that was in use quite a few more years back, and nearly everyone has updated stuff. The drive to keep putting ununnilium and the ones after it in are simply because the official names were accepted more recently – though you'd think this would've stopped by now, with darmstadtium being officially accepted ten years ago(!).
(Additionally, try searching for how often "ununnilium" was used in real science papers during the time darmstadtium was still unnamed. I think you'll find that it was very seldom used if it all, with the most common name being "element 110" and symbol "E110" or even just "(110)" or "110". This is actually a good argument to move ununtrium, ununpentium etc. to "element 113", "element 115"...) Double sharp (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lanzhou 271Ds confirmation[edit]

I don't remember whether this was in here (and I'm not even sure it needs to be, since IUPAC was satisfied long before this confirmation), but here's the paper. Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)