This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"those exceeding 30 minutes, could lead to sleep inertia", "Naps can also be helpful to one's alertness when 30–60 minutes long.", and "a 20-minute nap can improve your overall alertness"
It seems the first and third agree with each other and the second disagrees with the other two. Anyone else have an opinion? Schnarr 06:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't quite work out how to cite correctly as I don't have much time, but Influenza ( this version) mentions naps as being a good treatment.
-- 216.109.8.37 ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article for power nap simply describes a colloquial term for a type of nap. It seems self-evident to me (but I welcome contrary opinions, of course) that the description of what a power nap is should be merged into the article for nap. SlubGlub ( talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that powernap, even if it is marketable, would make an interesting subheading under the nap category. I think more people would come across it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.149.148 ( talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an even bigger issue here in my opinion. there are at least 5 different pages and probably a lot more, discussing nearly the same topic. polyphasic sleep, segmented/biphasic sleep, nap, siesta, power nap... yes there are slight variations but each page is talking about nearly the same thing, there are far more similarities than differences. Its frustrating to me because anytime I do sleep research and I'm trying to find the source of something I read, I have to hop around to all the different pages trying to locate it, not to mention that the pages directly contradict in each other in some places. For example on one page, polyphasic sleep I believe, a source is given to back up the fact that polyphasic sleep (the uberman sleep schedule) is probably harmful because it's never been documented as a normal sleep pattern or scientifically studied, yet on another page a link is given to an anthropological article about a tribe in the amazon who's sleep pattern nearly matches the uberman schedule. these inconsistencies could be discussed if they were in the same place. The page could be titled polyphasic or segmented sleep since they mean similar things, and it could house all information about broken up sleep schedules, which include napping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.160.220 ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Where are the bad points of a nap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.13.223 ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
More than half of the content and the vast majority of references for this article are in the "Power-Nap" section which was previously a separate article for years, and most assuredly should be separate because it is a well-known, highly referenced scientific and scholarly term which is also widely known by the general population. It would be a serious mistake to leave the specific Power-Nap subject (with over 900 Google Scholar referenced articles) lumped inside the very vague, broad subject of Napping in general.
There are a vast array of precedents for this within many WP subjects in which one of a relatively few sub-types of others subjects indeed have their own separate article. For example: "lucid dreaming" is separate from "dream"; "popcorn" has it's own article separate from "corn" (Maize), and "Polarized_3D_glasses" is a separate article from "Stereoscopy". There are tens of thousands of such examples.
"Power-Nap" is the same situation, yet even more deserving because the subject has focused bodies of scholarly research devoted to it alone and is distinctly different in method, duration, and result than a traditional, generic "nap." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.164.197 ( talk) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently User:Hordaland has ulterior motives for wanting to delete the original Power-Nap article (spite? revenge? misdirecting his potential customers) since his own WP post on the talk page of the original Power-Nap article clearly states that he is the owner/distributor/seller of commercial product based on the term and had his external link removed.
Below is the text of User:Hordaland's own post at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Power_nap#Re-include_this_external_link_to_PowerNap_app_for_iPhone_.26_Android.3F
I vote 'no'. The article should be about what a power nap is, and the scientifically claimed results/benefits from it. Wikipedia tries hard to be not a how-to manual. - Hordaland (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
--
124.157.164.197 (
talk)
21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The "power nap" section gives a link to "Main Article: Power Nap". However, clicking that link returns the user to "Nap" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkid70 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"those exceeding 30 minutes, could lead to sleep inertia", "Naps can also be helpful to one's alertness when 30–60 minutes long.", and "a 20-minute nap can improve your overall alertness"
It seems the first and third agree with each other and the second disagrees with the other two. Anyone else have an opinion? Schnarr 06:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't quite work out how to cite correctly as I don't have much time, but Influenza ( this version) mentions naps as being a good treatment.
-- 216.109.8.37 ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article for power nap simply describes a colloquial term for a type of nap. It seems self-evident to me (but I welcome contrary opinions, of course) that the description of what a power nap is should be merged into the article for nap. SlubGlub ( talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that powernap, even if it is marketable, would make an interesting subheading under the nap category. I think more people would come across it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.149.148 ( talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an even bigger issue here in my opinion. there are at least 5 different pages and probably a lot more, discussing nearly the same topic. polyphasic sleep, segmented/biphasic sleep, nap, siesta, power nap... yes there are slight variations but each page is talking about nearly the same thing, there are far more similarities than differences. Its frustrating to me because anytime I do sleep research and I'm trying to find the source of something I read, I have to hop around to all the different pages trying to locate it, not to mention that the pages directly contradict in each other in some places. For example on one page, polyphasic sleep I believe, a source is given to back up the fact that polyphasic sleep (the uberman sleep schedule) is probably harmful because it's never been documented as a normal sleep pattern or scientifically studied, yet on another page a link is given to an anthropological article about a tribe in the amazon who's sleep pattern nearly matches the uberman schedule. these inconsistencies could be discussed if they were in the same place. The page could be titled polyphasic or segmented sleep since they mean similar things, and it could house all information about broken up sleep schedules, which include napping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.160.220 ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Where are the bad points of a nap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.13.223 ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
More than half of the content and the vast majority of references for this article are in the "Power-Nap" section which was previously a separate article for years, and most assuredly should be separate because it is a well-known, highly referenced scientific and scholarly term which is also widely known by the general population. It would be a serious mistake to leave the specific Power-Nap subject (with over 900 Google Scholar referenced articles) lumped inside the very vague, broad subject of Napping in general.
There are a vast array of precedents for this within many WP subjects in which one of a relatively few sub-types of others subjects indeed have their own separate article. For example: "lucid dreaming" is separate from "dream"; "popcorn" has it's own article separate from "corn" (Maize), and "Polarized_3D_glasses" is a separate article from "Stereoscopy". There are tens of thousands of such examples.
"Power-Nap" is the same situation, yet even more deserving because the subject has focused bodies of scholarly research devoted to it alone and is distinctly different in method, duration, and result than a traditional, generic "nap." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.164.197 ( talk) 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently User:Hordaland has ulterior motives for wanting to delete the original Power-Nap article (spite? revenge? misdirecting his potential customers) since his own WP post on the talk page of the original Power-Nap article clearly states that he is the owner/distributor/seller of commercial product based on the term and had his external link removed.
Below is the text of User:Hordaland's own post at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Power_nap#Re-include_this_external_link_to_PowerNap_app_for_iPhone_.26_Android.3F
I vote 'no'. The article should be about what a power nap is, and the scientifically claimed results/benefits from it. Wikipedia tries hard to be not a how-to manual. - Hordaland (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
--
124.157.164.197 (
talk)
21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The "power nap" section gives a link to "Main Article: Power Nap". However, clicking that link returns the user to "Nap" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkid70 ( talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)