Talk:Time management/Archives/2014

Inadequate Lead (banner)

I encountered this page when searching for 'Eisenhower Method'. I find the lead section completely incomprehensible as a summary of the article. (I haven't read most of it, as I quickly got lost.)

Although the first two sentences would appear to give a good introduction, thereafter the lead is much too detailed and does not summarise the article. Merely inserting a section heading called 'Overview' before the third paragraph is (a) cheating, (b) avoiding the problem, and (c) not actually improving anything.

As hinted at earlier on this Talk page, I suspect that the whole article needs a re-write, or at the very least, a re-structure. As I know little about Time Management (which is why I am writing this rather than getting on with my unrelated training course!) I cannot contribute further. (I will respond to notifications if required: NB - I am not watching this page.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

General Comment

Nice article - Eagle 14:49, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it seems rather patchy to me. If there are 'hundreds of time management approaches that are on the market today', surely this article should say more about them (e.g. names & descriptions of particular ones). For example, Getting Things Done. Also, the Time section seems somewhat lame. Sorry, I'd improve this article myself but don't know enough about the subject. Ben Finn 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's useful. Keep it. If there are other systems that you prefer or think are also/more useful, either add comments by editing or — and I think this could be better — start an article or subarticle along the lines of "Time Management - [name of originator or conventional label]'s system."

This article seems dreadful to me. Even what little material is cited is not from authoritative sources. It is disorganized. I would think that no particular time management approach should be mentioned only in this article. Each particular approach should have its own article, which this article references. Somebody will need to take on the job of getting some highter-level perspective on time management as a whole. DCDuring 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs)

"Criticism of the term" section is wanted. One is managing activities not time. Every day has 24 hours in it regardless of what you do with it, sleep, meditate, contemplate, think, daydream, drive, work, and so on. It is a dangerous misconception to think that you are 'saving time' by completing a task in a shorter time. Just my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sandberg, Jared (2004-09-10). "Though Time-Consuming, To-Do Lists Are a Way of Life". (dead link) The provided url (http://blog.hitask.com/post/95681939978/though-time-consuming-to-do-lists-are-a-way-of-life) is an exact copy of the Wall Street Journal article which is no longer available, hence why a new link is needed to replace the 'dead link'. There is no reason for this link to be removed if it is exactly what was originally cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.187.37 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is still available; the title just seems to have been mangled. I've fixed the link to the WSJ. Kuru (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)