Talk:Nap

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

contradiction

"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)[reply]

Naps for Flu

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)[reply]

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

I do agree. A nap is a relatively short sleep which is separate from the main sleep episode. It isn't even specifically human. (I'd prefer to see the use of the word restricted to short sleeps in subjects who are getting (near) the normal amount per day for the species. Unfortunately the polyphasic sleepers and Claudio Stampi don't agree with me on that.) Sleep and napping are "in" among researchers (psychiatrists, neurologists, others), so there are lots of up-to-date sources to choose among.

Should siesta still have its own article, as it is about a tradition? Possibly not, as that tradition extends to many places which do not use the word siesta, so the whole concept could also be moved to Nap. (Here in Norway, the tradition is called å sove middag, to sleep the midday meal. Both the midday meal and the nap have been moved later in the day in urban settings.) - Hordaland (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most heartily disagree.

1) "Power Nap" is not a colloquial term. It was coined in 1998 by Cornell University social psychologist James Maas. It is referenced in numerous scholarly studies and articles (there are 798 articles noted in these results http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=power-nap )

2) Just because a term is sub-type of another term doesn't mean they should be grouped together all on one page. For example, crystals are a type of rock, and diamonds are a type of crystal, yet all three terms have separate WP entries.

3) There was more information in the separate, original power-nap definition which has now been edited out, which should be put back in. Since there is specific research on Power-Naps, as well as numerous products on the market intended to induce a power-nap, it is clear that the term is worthy of its own separate listing, and therefore that listing should be restored. <Unsigned comment 20 June 2010 by IP 124.157.219.127>

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)[reply]

Negative effects

Where are the bad points of a nap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.13.223 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to reinstate the SEPARATE Power-Nap article

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)[reply]

Apparent reason for "merger" vandalism

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Power_nap#Re-include_this_external_link_to_PowerNap_app_for_iPhone_.26_Android.3F

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

Re-include this external link to PowerNap app for iPhone & Android?

I wrote a PowerNap app for the iPhone and Android. It's basically a timer app designed specifically for power naps. I had linked to it ( PowerNap app for the iPhone ) in the external links, but I now realize that the guidelines for external links sugests that such conflict of interest links be first discussed here and posted by someone else. Got it. Maybe someone can take a look and add the link? There are no tricks to the software, it just does what it says and would probably be reasonably relevant to readers. A quick look at my server logs shows that fewer than a user per day hit the link when it was live on the page, so some people where interested. Since conversion rates for things like this tend to be about 1%, I can assure you that this earns me only about enough money to buy one good coffee, per year. Basically, I propose that a utility program for taking power naps is a reasonable external link to include on a page about power naps. Jjrohrer (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Jim

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)[reply]

You have misread that. The longer paragraph asking about adding the link was posted by User:Jjrohrer. Hordaland responded that it wasn't appropriate to add it. Please calm down, read carefully, and ditch the persecution complex attitude. Yworo (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circular link

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)[reply]

Merge proposal

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)[reply]

Support. Again. --Hordaland (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see why this should be merged with nap. SifaV6 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Cat nap/catnap redirects

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 67.246.119.98 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Hordaland (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

children

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.