The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see this has been brought up before and has support from everyone except for an IP editor who's opposed and has undone these changes a few times. Aside from the general subject overlap, I think almost all, if not completely all of the prose in the Power nap article is found in the Nap article itself. They clearly cover the same subjects, the power nap being a sub-subject. Moreover, while it's clear that Power nap has a small body of research around what it describes, and the term is used, from a research perspective they're not different subjects. Moreover, there's little to be gained by having them separate. It creates more articles to synchronize for accuracy, burdens a reader by having multiple sources (we also have a Siesta article which only furthers the subdivision of sleep related articles), and makes accuracy and consistency more difficult. I'd also note that the typical reasons for having a separate fork don't exist here: namely the size of both articles is small and even combining both leaves a lot of room for expansion before coming close to the split guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see why this should be merged with nap. SifaV6 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I support this and agree with Shadowjams (talk) . So long as it is done in a careful and precise way, I see no problem in supporting this movement. -- Necropirate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC).
Oppose also - I most heartily disagree for the following reasons.
1) The full content and references of the Power Nap article are not, and should not be completely part of the "Nap" article -- they are two different mental states. A Power-Nap is as distinct from a normal nap, as Nap is from normal night-time Sleep.
2) Even if a given term is sub-subject of another term doesn't mean they should be grouped together all on one page. For example, diamonds are a type of crystal, crystals are a type of rock, rocks are a type of mineral, and minerals are a type of chemical substance, yet all five terms have separate WP entries. That's just one example, yet there are thousands of other appropriate examples of valid sub-subjects, just as siesta and power-nap are types of naps, and naps are a type of sleep.
3) "Power Nap" is not a colloquial term. It is a distinct and clearly defined separate sleep mode, discovered and named in 1998 by Cornell University social psychologist James Maas. It is referenced in numerous scholarly studies and articles (there are 977 articles noted in these results http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=power-nap ). It is therefore a valid and appropriate subject for its own article.
4) Wikipedia is fundamentally about complete and accurate information, so it is fallacious to state that more information "burdens the reader." That's a ridiculous conclusion -- if given a reader doesn't want to know about a given subject, they would not have clicked on it, or they can always hit the "back" button or click another link.--Chez37 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently Cat nap redirects to Siesta, but Catnap redirects to Nap#Power nap. Seems a bit loco, no? Though I think most would agree that both forms should point to the same article, I can't find a good reason to pick one over the other. Thoughts? If the Power nap article survives the merger proposal, should that article be the target of the feline forms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's worth including the phenomenon of enforced naps for children, usually a way for adults to get some peace, but which rarely involve sleep. Conversely, very very small children tend to just 'crash out' randomly in the manner of cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Systematic napping reads like an advertisement
The quote doesn't have much substance about polyphasic sleep , yet it is the bulk of the section. The author reaches no conclusions about polyphasic sleep, nor does she describe in any detail what it is. Sure the quote is neat, but it doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see many problems with the information presented in this article, but I think there are a few occasions where the sentence structure could be improved. The first few sentences in the introduction read a bit choppy and I feel they could be rearranged or combined to make it more interesting and easier to read. I found another instance in the section detailing the benefits of naps. Some of the benefits like that naps aid the heart and relieve headaches seem like they were just thrown in there. Csmith2017 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)