List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on March 12, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bibliographies: Science Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Science Taskforce (assessed as Top-importance). History of Science Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics: Biographies / Publications / History Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce. This article is supported by History Taskforce. Switzerland Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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". —Quondum 13:07, 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. —Quondum 16:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why they are not the same thing. Nerd271 (talk) 12:38, 29 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, N_A, 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 N_A = 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. —Quondum 15:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same difference. Avogadro's constant is the number of items in one mole. Nerd271 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. But since you clearly are not really interested, I will not continue. —Quondum 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]