This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Nerd271, I'm vaguely curious about your revert, for which you gave no rationale (which should be seen in the context where I did explain my edit adequately). The text concerned is in WP's voice, so there are no issues with faithfulness to a quote or article title. Please do not be deceived by Google ngram counts: these do not reflect scholarly literature. As far as I can tell using Google Scholar, recent literature (consistently over at least the last decade) dominantly uses the name "Avogadro number" rather than "Avogadro's number". —Quondum13:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is given in the edit summary. No, I was not thinking in terms of what people might or might not find on Google. That was a matter of style. Since "the Avogadro number" has already been used in the same paragraph, writing "Avogadro's number" is a good idea. Good writing avoids unnecessary repetition. I doubt scholars insist on saying on or the other, to be honest. Nerd271 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I could not glean this from your choice of words in your edit summary ("Or we can use varied phrasing"). Looking more closely, there is a bigger problem with this: the use of "Avogadro('s) number" where it is likely to be confused with "Avogadro constant"; they are not equivalent. I'll give this some thought, while trying to limit repetition of the name. —Quondum16:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained briefly in the lead of Avogadro constant. They are dimensionally different. The Avogadro number, N0, is a (rather large) dimensionless number, whereas the Avogadro constant, NA, has the unit mol−1. Since units behave like variables of unknown (and unknowable) value, the two cannot be equated directly. They are related by NA = N0 / 1 mol. As far as I'm aware, the Avogadro number has little scientific utility beyond its use in defining the mole and the Avogadro constant, but is more relatable in informal contexts. —Quondum15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
