2009/5/24 Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>rg>:
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
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk