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.
Article milestones
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.


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)

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)

"Damstadium" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Damstadium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Isotopes off by ten ?[edit]

The text talks about isotopes 269 and 271 (which is what I had from other sources) but the infobox says the known isotopes are 279 and 281; which is consistent with the decay products they claim, but perhaps the error is there, too. — Eddy (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

All four of these isotopes are known. 269Ds and 271Ds are mentioned first and in many books because they were the first to be discovered. 279Ds and 281Ds are the two most stable isotopes (and are still in the text, but maybe a bit later), hence they are in the infobox. The infobox only includes the most stable isotopes, so there is no error, but feel free to suggest anything if you think this distinction can be made clearer. ComplexRational (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)