Talk:Pomodoro Technique

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Different types of people[edit]

Does this technique work for daydreamers, for people with ADHS? To me it seems it assumes that we humans are all robots who can work fully concentrated on one thing, same time span each day. Is there any information on how individuals "react" to this technique? Are there alternatives or tips for people who can't concentrate easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Talk to SageGreenRider 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing new[edit]

I learnt the very simple study technique of 20 mins work, 10 mins break in the 1970s when I was a schoolboy. The study guide I got that from - or was it word of mouth from a teacher? - was probably written in the 1960s. I'm boggled that someone should make a whole career, book, promotional opportunity, and product out of something as simple as that. (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even more baffling to some of us is the fact that someone may find it practical to split concentration into such small periods. How can one expect to perform complicated tasks, needing hours of continuous focus, while emptying the mind every 25 minutes? Take for instance any relevant scientific problem, mathematical, physical or otherwise. As a mathematician I can think of very little that can be actually accomplished with such a method. Quite on the contrary long trains of thought couldn't take place, concentration would dwindle and performance probably drop to a minimum. (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you timed how long you concentrate on trains of thought? Certain people may have the ability to focus for hours at a time on extremely complex tasks, but most of us have neither the mental discipline nor the willpower. As far as I understand it, the Pomodoro technique, and similar systems, are simply a formalized method of obtaining agreements with oneself to take short breaks in exchange for work. In fact, I invented a 15-minute method for myself, for the same reason: I procrastinate. -- BlueNight (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the book, commit to the learnings for 7 days. Then decide wether or not it is something new. Learning comes from awareness and knowledge, not from ignorance. Giving it a go and deciding that there is nothing there, you haven't lost time, you now have an informed decision. The book contains great counters to both your arguments, and this technique is used by many creative and mathematical people. Balupton (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideal for programmers[edit]

Maybe the Pomodoro Technique is not optimal for everyone and every task. It is commonly used by programmers in the software development environment. You get a good productivity and you get the necessary resting time. If you do not "clean" your mind every 25 mins, you will have a good headache when you finish working. It is also an old studying technique that allow you to concentrate.

Programmers enjoy making their tools, I have found several Pomodoro Technique applications to install as a plugin for your internet browser and applications for smartphones like Android. The last one I have found is a "Pomodoro Soup" that works as the traditional kitchen timer.


The plural of "pomodoro" is "pomodoros", not "pomodori". It says "pomodoros" in the book! I don't know where this got the idea of "pomodori". (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello I changed it to what that guy above said^^^^ because of the same reason he talked about, I was going to leave a note about that here so they don't change it back again but he did already so I'm leaving this thing under this topic. by the way the style guide probably says this isn't how you do replies on talk pages but at least I'm signing it unlike that guy above me^^^^ (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have no idea how to do replies either, but I remembered making this comment back then and just came back to check if it's still here. I should have signed it! I know I'm not even a registered user and my IP isn't even static so it has probably changed, but I'll sign that comment retroactively now. (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of software[edit]

There is a list of various applications implementing the technique, preserved as a draft here. Someone may be interested in cleaning up the list and adding it as a section here. Diego (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sections needs some sort of inclusion criteria. How about we only list those with independent and reliable sources (as well as those that are notable themselves or from notable companies, which currently none fit)?
The external links to the websites and stores should be removed from the two tables. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds OK. Diego (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've cut the entire list. There might be one or two stand-out apps that a lot of sources have talked about, but I can't see any evidence of this - this was just a mostly unsourced WP:LINKFARM with a few unremarkable Lifehacker blog reviews here and there. --McGeddon (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second the removal of the list and it is great that someone spotted this before it was remained for too long.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pomodoro TechniquePomodoro technique – Decapitalise a general noun. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) The Evil IP address (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 October 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pomodoro TechniquePomodoro technique – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE. WP does not normally cap laws, hypotheses, techniques, rules, etc. Tony (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose: It's Pomodoro, not Pomodor. If and when that obvious error is corrected I'll reconsider my vote, but I would note that this move has been brought up before, relatively recently. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relisting comment. I've also corrected the error that DonIago mentions as it seems pretty clear from the nomination that Tony only intended to change the capitalisation. Jenks24 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Jenks. Doniago, a significant number of google hits also show upcasing for rules, hypotheses, laws, and a whole lot of other similars, many of them because they appear in a title where titles are written in title case. But many don't. WP doesn't use title case in its article or section titles, as you know. We usually resist claims that an expression is a proper noun—that definition is rather complex and there's a lot of confusion/disagreement about it. Our house guideline is to downcase where possible, and in that we are at one with Chicago and Oxford style guides. My best. Tony (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only do the cases of "Pomodoro Technique" appear to far outnumber those of "Pomodoro technique" in my experience, but additionally the former is frequently followed by what I believe is a registered trademark indicator. Consequently I believe the former is correct. DonIago (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pomodoro Technique" or "Pomodoro technique"?[edit]

Does it really deserve to be a proper noun, Pomodoro Technique? Or should it be 'Pomodoro technique'? --Mortense (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you review the thread immediately above this one? DonIago (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was initially partial to the change, but on reflection the current version seems correct. For example we say the "Toyota Way," not "the Toyota way," to refer to Toyota's philosophy. The "Toyota way" would be a vague reference to the way Toyota does things. We would reasonably say the "Apple Philosophy" as a thing reflecting Steve Jobs etc's approach and mindset around design and user experience, whereas the "Apple philosophy" would be Apple's philosophy. The "HP Way" was a thing. Along these lines, the "Pomodoro technique" reads as "the tomato technique," a kind of technique, as opposed to the specific named thing, the "Tomato Technique." So, I am for stick with the current capitalisation. But I am no grammar expert, there may be grammar rules that govern this kind of thing. :) Now to stop procrastinating and start doing some Pomodoro Technique :) Lauchlanmack (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality & Proof[edit]

This article certainly is notable. However, I am concerned it is written in a manner that is promotional and biased in favour of the idea that this technique actually works, seeing as the article makes heavy usage of primary sources that are directly related to the commercialization of the technique, and to secondary sources that make direct reference to the relevant primary sources.

Is there any evidence that this technique works? If so, would it be appropriate to attach a WP:POV/neutrality disputed for the problem of primary sources, and also note in the article that there is no proof that it is more effective than other techniques in any double blind study in the case of credibility? It seems like a bit of a placebo to me.

I am unable to find any scientific evidence demonstrating that this is actually credible and I think that should be noted. I would welcome any further research that demonstrates this technique to actually be effective or otherwise work. Elyeri (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what content you are specifically concerned about, but the sentence in the lede was not verified by the sources and might be considered a health claim falling under WP:MEDRS. I've removed it. [1] --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not aware of any scientific research evidence on the Pomodoro Technique (there may be some, I haven't looked). But there is certainly anecdotal evidence, e.g. Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article lacks critical discussion - criticisms and context[edit]

I know there have been criticisms of the Pomodoro Technique.

Also, there are alternative productivity techniques available.

It would be good for the article to summarise the criticisms as well as the proof / benefits, and to list alternative productivity techniques (and, if verifiable, why this one is better or worse, and who it's better or worse for). :) Lauchlanmack (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

e.g. here are a couple of alternatives and variations:

Lauchlanmack (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a "Variations" section. :) Lauchlanmack (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Overlearning"? Lacks citation / evidence ...[edit]

The section on the Pomodoro Technique says:

"After task completion, any time remaining in the Pomodoro is devoted to overlearning."

I don't see any evidence to support that.

It's one option for what to do with the time.

Others could include:

  1. Finish the pomodoro time block early
  2. Review and edit the work you just completed
  3. Complete some admin / paper shuffling type tasks that don't require concentration
  4. Review the list of upcoming tasks for the next planned pomodoro time blocks, and update the list and start reflecting on those tasks.

I suggest that unless someone sees evidence for "overlearning" in any available remaining pomodoro time, this line about overlearning just get deleted.

If there are no further comments on this by the next time I see this page after today, I'll go ahead and delete it myself. :) And I may possibly add the options above as *suggestions* (not rules) for what to do with the remaining time in a pomodoro block.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated as outlined above. I deleted the reference to overlearning and replaced it with items similar to the above. Lauchlanmack (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just read Cirillo's book, and he does indeed suggest overlearning as one possible use for leftover time - to review and make improvements. The previous version did not give a citation or quotation though, so would have been objectionable anyway due to that. Here is what Cirillo did say. I didn't check the exact page number as I read it on Kindle, Kindle told me it was p. 35 though:

"Specific cases should be handled with common sense: If you finish a task while the Pomodoro is still ticking, the following rule applies: If a Pomodoro begins, it has to ring. It’s a good idea to take advantage of the opportunity for overlearning, using the remaining portion of the Pomodoro to review or repeat what you’ve done, make small improvements, and note what you’ve learned until the Pomodoro rings." The Pomodoro Technique: The Acclaimed Time-Management System That Has Transformed How We Work by Francesco Cirrilo, p. 35. Lauchlanmack (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relation to software development?[edit]

In the lead at the top of the article it says:

"Closely related to concepts such as timeboxing and iterative and incremental development used in software design, the method has been adopted in pair programming contexts.[5]"

I get its relation to timeboxing. But iterative development in software design seems like more of a stretch. Pair programming even more so.

In any case I don't think it's relationship to software design techniques belongs in the lead. I suggest delete it, or move it into a new section in the body called something like "The Pomodoro Technique and software development methodologies."

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The technique inventor's website and book ...[edit]

As the article says, the technique was invented by one specific guy.

He has a website at

The website does have commercial programs.

But since he invented the technique, I think it's fair to mention it in the external links section ...

He also has a book on the Pomodoro Technique, that could be mentioned along with other productivity books and systems (e.g. GTD, 7 habits, atomic habits, sparking joy, the one thing, etc) - or

See also on Amazon for other Pomodoro books:

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of invention of the Pomodoro Technique[edit]

The article currently says:

"The Pomodoro Technique is a time management method developed by Francesco Cirillo[1] in the late 1980s."

Specifically, it was invented on a September afternoon in 1987, as per his book The Pomodoro Technique: The Acclaimed Time-Management System That Has Transformed How We Work by Francesco Cirrilo, 2018 edition, p. 11:

"I wound up the first Pomodoro on a cloudy September afternoon in 1987. The setting was the terrace of a house in a medieval village 30 miles north of Rome—Sutri—where I spent my family holidays. The task was clear but scary: “I want to finish this chapter.” The chapter in question was the first of the sociology book I was reading for a university exam I had to take within a few weeks."

It might be worth updating the article to reflect the specific invention date.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradictory information[edit]

In the Description section, it first states that after each pomodoro, you put a check mark on a piece of paper. If you have fewer than four check marks, take a 10-15 minute break, then repeat. After four pomodoros, you then take a 180 minute break (which is three hours, which seems excessive).

In the very next paragraph, it says short breaks of 3-5 minutes follow each pomodoro (not 10-15 as in the previous section) and that between each "set" of four pomodoros, a longer (10-15 minute, as opposed to 180 minutes) break is taken.

These two things are so different as to be entirely different strategies -- which is actually the original pomodoro technique? MrAureliusRTalk! 03:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, MrAureliusR! This inconsistently was the result of vandalism, I've gone ahead and reverted the edits. Thank you for flagging! Bookworm-ce (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Tools section[edit]

This edit, which removes a good chunk if not the entirety of the Tools section, on the basis of concern about SEO links, appears to be a bit of an overreach to me. Please let me know if you disagree. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DonIago! The links removed in this edit are all news links, not the kind of links to specific tools that we've had issues with, and the text itself is broad and relevant. I agree removing that section is an overreach. What we've had persistent problems with on this page is IP users adding links and references to specific tools or apps, in a way that does not add anything to the article and feels like obvious promotion in violation of WP:PROMOTION, but I don't think deleting the Tools section entirely will solve that. Bookworm-ce (talk)
Thanks Bookworm. The IP removing the Tools section is an IP who previously added an SEO link. I'm not sure whether they genuinely have an issue with this section or whether this is their form of retaliation, but we'll see if they come to the table to explain their concerns. DonIago (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I first read the article I was surprised that it did not contain more material. Looking at through the history there were some interesting additions that were reverted. So I added one back. This was reverted for being SEO spam. Ok, if that is the rule, then the tools links had low value and looked just as much like SEO links, so I deleted them. What is so special about these particular links? There must be market leading tools that have been reviewed and can be linked to. DonIago appears to be very posessive about this article, and has reverted changes made by multiple people. Does he have a connection to these links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources you're removing are a book and a news article, your argument isn't making much sense to me. DonIago has only reverted edits by two contributors to the page in the past year, yourself and someone who made this spam edit; the allegation that DonIago might have a connection to the two sources you've removed seems off base and bad faith. Please refrain from edit warring and focus on working this out here on the Talk page. Bookworm-ce (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As is currently, I'd prefer better sources for the Tools section, but I'm not sure removal is appropriate.

The Variations section on the other hand is mostly OR and SOAP. I've removed it, and am unsure what could be done with the one useful ref from it: Cooper, Belle Beth (8 August 2016). "The best productivity system for procrastinators is to work with your natural tendencies". Quartz Media. Retrieved 13 July 2020. --Hipal (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacking science - merge with time management[edit]

Hi all. The pomodoro technique is a technique created and used by people without much, if any scientific backing from an evidence base. Almost all references in this article come from the creator, or the articles reference the creator. This reads more like original research without neutrality due to the lack of critique or alternative views. I don't think the technique alone will generate enough discussion to form a well rounded article whereas the time management article is more broad allowing for further discussion and comparison allowing more critique. The section for pomodoro in the time management page already summarized this article at first glance. My question therefore is, should we merge this article with Time management and expand that section? DannyHatcher (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak support: I'm not quite feeling a lot of passion about the idea of this merge, but I admit that the bulk of this article merely describes the technique, and based on the amount of time I've been monitoring this article, I doubt significant expansion is likely. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The topic is notable so qualifies for a stand-alone article. If there are problems with the article, the article should be improved; there's no need to merge or delete it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with Kvng re: notability. In addition, the page was viewed more than a million times this year, which seems to indicate a level of specific interest among users as well. Bookworm-ce (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proper noun?[edit]

I assume Pomodoro Technique is a proper noun and so is capitalized in the title and elsewhere. I have reverted capitalization changes by Sauer202 here and at 52/17 rule. I've been wrong before about what's a proper noun so, if so, please set me straight. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm also open that I may have been wrong in asserting that these are common nouns. My impression and rationale for viewing the pomodoro technique and 52/17 rule as common nouns was that they did not sound very special to me, i.e. ordinary nouns. The pomodoro technique is about using an alerting timer (originally a tomato shaped or "pomodoro" timer) as a help for staying focused on a task. The fact that it may be trademarked (don't know if it is?) might indicate that it should be classified as a proper noun and should be capitalised. But I would also assume that there would be many cases where proper nouns gradually become common nouns over time as they are starting to become more used or known generally, or democratised, or not pushed heavily by only one supplier. For example band-aid (wiktionary). I therefore lean towards common noun for the pomodoro technique. The 52/17 rule sounds even more like a common noun to me. The name is based on the findings from one study, and I imagine that based on studies coming in the future there might be given new but similar recommendations only with other numbers (45/30 rule, 10/15 rule, 50/5 rule, etc.). In another context, and the numbers might be wrong if I don't recall correctly, the Norwegian military has a 50/10 marching rule (or something along those line, i.e. 50 minutes march, 10 minutes rest, repeat). The originality of the name itself doesn't speak very strongly for me. I also don't get the impression that it is heavily trademarked and marketed, which in sum doesn't speak to me as a proper noun. Before my edit, the article used 52/17 rule (lower case) and 52/17 Rule (upper case) inconsistently. This is only one small sample, but may also be an indication of the "commonness" of an expression. I will often err on the side of common nouns if in doubt. I'm open to expert input on the subject. Sauer202 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take it or leave it, but when I did a cursory web search it seems to most often be Pomodoro Technique, though not infrequently Pomodoro technique. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think about "pomodoro technique" (miniscule p, unless start of a sentence)? That would be the proper spelling if it can be classified for a common noun. Sauer202 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd oppose that as the P seems to be consistently capitalized. DonIago (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hybrid Pomodoro technique (upper, then lowercase) is out of the question for me, as Pomodoro is not the name of a person. I think that if the proper case (Pomodoro Technique) is to be retained, it should at least be emphasized in the lead who the method is trademarked by. But it seems that there may be widespread promotion of pomodoro techniques by others than those who have trademarked it (i.e. other than those associated with trademark holders). At that point it slides into the public domain and I hold that it can be accepted as a common noun. This Wikipedia article currently says that "The technique has been widely popularized by apps and websites providing timers and instructions". At that point the term may have become a genericized trademark. So should the article mainly be about the original Pomodoro Technique, or variants, uses and further developments of pomodoro techniques in general? To draw parallels with other articles, I feel this article is closer to an adhesive bandage or "band-aid" article (i.e. pomodoro technique) rather than a Band-Aid article (i.e. Pomodoro Technique). Sauer202 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The valid choices, as I see it, are pomodoro technique if we believe this is a general idea or Pomodoro Technique if we believe this is specific idea with respected originator. The latter case still allows for public domain status. The former case can still be argued for even if there is a trademark. DonIago's web results are relevant if they help us better understand which of these two situations we're dealing with but the goal here is not to style the title as it is most often styled on the Internet; that would be a misreading of WP:COMMONTITLE. I appreciate Sauer202's thoughts on this and, in this context, can see both as valid and don't have a strong opinion about which we should go with. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case that both Pomodoro Technique (trademark) and pomodoro technique (common noun) are both valid options, I would argue for using sentence case. This would be in line with the Wikipedia policy to avoid un-necessary capitalization: WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"). Sauer202 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument for title case is that's what we're currently using, it's arguably valid and if there is not a consensus for a new title, we shouldn't change it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I view it as unnecessary capitalization, and that it goes against the principle of using sentence case on Wikipedia. Sauer202 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To further your case, you're going to have to make an argument that it is a common noun. We do capitalize proper nouns. Pomorodo Technique originated with Francesco Cirillo in the 1980s and was clearly a proper noun at that point. As far as I can tell, it has not since gained the widespread recognition required to convert it to a common noun. ~Kvng (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]