Talk:Caesium

What's the source of File:AirDoseChernobylVector.svg? ("A graph showing the relative contributions made by different substances to the levels of radiation in Prypiat after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.") There must be one but I couldn't find it after a (rather quick) search. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here are statements that I deleted today. 1) "The golden colour of caesium comes from the decreasing frequency of light required to excite electrons of the alkali metals as the group is descended."

IMHO, this sentence says nothing, and isn't even decent English.

2) "For lithium through rubidium this frequency [which frequency?] is in the ultraviolet, but for caesium it enters the blue–violet end of the spectrum; in other words, the plasmonic frequency of the alkali metals becomes lower from lithium to caesium. Thus caesium transmits and partially absorbs violet light preferentially while other colours (having lower frequency) are reflected; hence it appears yellowish."

So we learn that if a material absorbs at the "blue–violet end of the spectrum," it is yellow. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Сaesium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 18 § Сaesium until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the infobox, caesium has a melting point of 301.7 K, however in the text itself, it has a melting point of 301.6 K. I assume this is because the temperature template in the text doesn't round things up and just removes decimal places after tenths HAt 05:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Googling it suggests it's 28.44 °C which translates to 301.59 Kelvin. Tayste (edits) 07:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

CRC 92nd edition gives 28.5°C, while Lange's handbook 15th edition gives 28.44°C. Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please add either of those references to the article/infobox. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the bottom of the infobox there's a link to "references", leading to compilations like Melting points of the elements (data page). Both these sources are cited there. (I don't remember why it was set up this way, but probably it has something to do with how the references would be to the same handbooks on every element article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many of the lines on the infobox have inline refs. I think from the original post here we can say that the link at the bottom is ineffectual. Plus having both sources but different numbers is not verifiable. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

These two claims are not sourced:

• It is the least electronegative element, with a value of 0.79 on the Pauling scale.
• Notably, caesium and fluorine have the lowest and highest electronegativities, respectively, among all the known elements.

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Electronegativities of the elements (data page) has the electronegativities with multiple sources. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried that, but that page does not source the 0.79 value AFAICT. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Pauling table says it is this same value in all three of the reference-sets: "WEL", "CRC", "LNG" (see the §References section for the bibliographic details of each ref-set). DMacks (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. I did not realize that table was the data or what those TLAs meant. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize what the TLA columns were either...my only initial clue is that I know what "CRC" means in science:) I like this edit of yours to clarify. DMacks (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply