2009/5/24 Delirium <[email protected]>: > I agree with the first part (serious consequences of incorrect > information), but I don't see how why dosage information is > unencyclopedic. Information on typical quantities used for any chemical > compound with practical applications is a perfectly expected thing to > include in an article.
...especially given that we include it for all sorts of chemicals that you *don't* put in your mouth. Take a look at the article for a chemical element, for example - a handy table with Young's modulus, specific heat capacity, isotope half-lives, the whole lot; the infobox for its compounds is less detailed but still pretty comprehensive. Moving away from chemicals, take a look at, say, the article on an asteroid, with comprehensive details of its orbital parameters and composition, or a country, where the infobox gives details right down to the telephone code. I think we're kidding ourselves a bit if we say that these numbers - the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a specialised reference work and of little or no immediate use to the casual reader - are vaguely encyclopedic, but comments like "is generally given in 10-50mg doses" are somehow definitely not. -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
