288
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + +
Talk:Equivariant cohomology (view source)
Revision as of 19:20, January 8, 2010
, 19:20, January 8, 2010→Jargon
:Start by describing [[de Rham cohomology]] and [[group actions]], then. If you can't handle that, we can always [[userfy]] the article. I don't like to delete works in progress, but if none of our readers can understand what you've written, then you are not communicating. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:34, 8 January 2010 (EST)
:Start by describing [[de Rham cohomology]] and [[group actions]], then. If you can't handle that, we can always [[userfy]] the article. I don't like to delete works in progress, but if none of our readers can understand what you've written, then you are not communicating. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:34, 8 January 2010 (EST)
::This doesn't appear to be a work in progress -- no one has touched in more than a year, and I have no interest in working on it (nor have I ever touched it). I don't think pages on de Rham cohomology or group actions are a high priority here and so I'm not going to write those either, unless someone would like to see these and requests that I do; certainly a fairly accessible page could be written on either, but I'm not sure it would be enough to save this page. I'm merely interested in the policy about jargony articles like this -- there is simply no way to say anything about this subject without assuming the reader is familiar with certain language. Is some jargon in articles permissable as long as the relevant terms are defined on other pages on CP? Or should advanced material never appear here? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:20, 8 January 2010 (EST)