Talk:Dimensional deconstruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This is a perfect example of one of the worst things running rampant in Wikipedia articles. I don't know a thing about particle physics, and I learned absolutely nothing from this article. If anybody knows what all of the jargon means, they probably already know what dimensional deconstruction is. This is just a feeble attempt to show off one's intellectual prowess. I HATE it.

Sorry to rain on your anonymous rant, but I did find it useful. The point it is, this is an obscure expert topic. If you intentionally looked this up (like I did), you should have the requisite knowledge to understand it (even if you didn't already know what it is). If you just stumbled onto it randomly, I'm not sure why you expect to necessarily be able to understand it. I know I wouldn't necessarily get some article on an obscure aspect of geology. It seems to me that Wikipedia has room for articles with narrow audiences. A legit complaint is if an article that is more general and so should be more accessible (like particle physics), were to make such heavy use of jargon. Joshua Davis 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)