Talk:Distraction

message: i hope a broader view of distraction will appear soon here,
the main entry according to this comment is a first WP:STUB and needs expansion
a foreign local temporary TV-show is anything else 
but not what one expects when looking 
in a global encyclopedia.
even editing this page is a distraction
many global readers DO NOT 
associate the term DISTRACTION
with a british TV-Show,
reading of it is a distraction itself.
i do not delete the former article of this tv-show
but i do request the author to move and link it to a seperate article
please read the WP:RULES instead of deleting contributions
please leave disambig in the page until proper expanded and separated:
===My revertion===
As I'm the one who reverted the above, I'll offer my comments.  I reverted, as the additions seems to amount to little more than a dictionary definition, which would not be suitable as the only content of an article, or a disambiguation section.  I will admit that their could be room for an acticle on Distraction as a thing, although I don't think the current content is likely to be the basis  of a good enclyopaediac article.  Also, I don't think a seperate article for either section is neccesarily needed at the moment, until either section grows rather more.  However, as there are some links to both the game show, and the general concept, it might be useful.  
In the mean time, I don't think the disambiguation has been handled correctly.  The disambig message doesn't apply here, as it is aimed at simple lists of topics being diambiguated, rather than a page with concent about each definition.  The standard for the sort of disambiguation we have here seems to be to have a simple line between each definition.  I intend to attempt to format this article to follow this convention.  If one or other article is split off, we could have the other article at Distraction, linking to the other.  This is called primary topic disambiguation.  The guidelines for Disambiguation are given here Wikipedia:Disambiguation. 
Anyway, I think I'll have to have a think about this some more, as to how a disambiguation, if neccessary, should work.  However, I'll probably still remove some of the new content that I don't think is enclyopaediac.  For example, I'm not aware of any discussion of distraction in physics, and the comments about this being a stub don't IMO belong on the article, as they are aimed more at editors than readers.  Silverfish 13:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distraction is for many readers anything but a local british TV-show 

message: As I'm the one who reverted the above, I'll offer my comments.  I reverted, as the additions seems to amount to little more than a dictionary definition, which would not be suitable as the only content of an article, or a disambiguation section.  I will admit that their could be room for an acticle on Distraction as a thing, although I don't think the current content is likely to be the basis  of a good enclyopaediac article.  Also, I don't think a seperate article for either section is neccesarily needed at the moment, until either section grows rather more.  However, as there are some links to both the game show, and the general concept, it might be useful.  
In the mean time, I don't think the disambiguation has been handled correctly.  The disambig message doesn't apply here, as it is aimed at simple lists of topics being diambiguated, rather than a page with concent about each definition.  The standard for the sort of disambiguation we have here seems to be to have a simple line between each definition.  I intend to attempt to format this article to follow this convention.  If one or other article is split off, we could have the other article at Distraction, linking to the other.  This is called primary topic disambiguation.  The guidelines for Disambiguation are given here Wikipedia:Disambiguation. 
Anyway, I think I'll have to have a think about this some more, as to how a disambiguation, if neccessary, should work.  However, I'll probably still remove some of the new content that I don't think is enclyopaediac.  For example, I'm not aware of any discussion of distraction in physics, and the comments about this being a stub don't IMO belong on the article, as they are aimed more at editors than readers.  Silverfish 13:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My revertion

message: The definition provided by this article says distractions divert attention to something else. The Trojans were not so distracted by horse that they forgot about the Greeks - they simply didn't know the Greeks were in the horse. Also does the octopus's attacker really divert its attention away from the octopus, or is the attacker's attention still on the octopus, but simply can't find it because of the ink?--Nonpareility 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of distraction

message: Distraction could be pos. or neg. if it is the latter, then it is disorderly and disrespectful....                                         Isaac D. Wolf
== allan walker is awesome
A discussion could be added re: the detrimental impact of distraction and interrupt rate in the workplace; see NY Times article 22 June 2008 "Fighting a war against distraction" which describes a book by the author Maggie Jackson.  Gloria Mark, at University of California Irvine also researches into "the cost of interrupted work." --anon IT Worker 30 Nov 2008
Hmmm, see also: Linda Stone's Wiki, she also has a wikipedia page here: Linda_Stone.
Something big is missing: A more in depth account of distraction in the technological age seems appropriate for this page. In our current society, distraction appears encompassed by technological advancements and their effect on daily life and interactions. Can distraction truly be explained without this, specifically in the classroom setting? The addition of distraction in the classroom seemed critical. The connections between decreased academic performance, technology, and over-stimuli are important aspects of distraction today.  Hmalowitz (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distraction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Distraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121101308/http://catalogue.mup.com.au/978-0-522-85374-2.html to http://catalogue.mup.com.au/978-0-522-85374-2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified