Talk:Distraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does anyone think that perhaps there should be another distraction article about actual distraction? I don't know how much info there is out there about it, but I would suppose that there might be considerable military knowledge on the subject. VetteDude 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Distraction is for many readers anything but a local british TV-show
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:
 |
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Examples of distraction
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)
