Talk:Pomodoro Technique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating 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 46.253.186.62 (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=adhd+%22pomodoro+technique%22 Talk to SageGreenRider 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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. 84.57.15.158 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)

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.

Plural[edit]

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". 177.181.17.124 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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^^^^ 179.110.196.100 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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. 177.181.17.124 (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
That sounds OK. Diego (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)



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)

  • Oppose. Pomodoro Technique is a proper nown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovereign Sentinel (talkcontribs) 00:54, 6 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Oppose. A quick Google search shows it as Technique almost universally. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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)



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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

Did you review the thread immediately above this one? DonIago (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)