Talk:Sleep architecture

Physiology Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This redirect has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Re merge proposal

Sleep architecture is a stub. If it were to be merged anywhere, Sleep would be the logical place, but that article is already 65 kilobytes long. Sleep architecture is a fascinating topic with a short history. The article should rather be built upon to include much of the sleep stage info from the article Sleep.

In any case, Circadian rhythm is not the place for sleep architecture! Sleep architecture is primarily about the sleep stages which are ultradian, not circadian. Sleep is perhaps the most noticable circadian feature in animal life, but it is far from the only one. --Hordaland (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find those arguments compelling. Obviously this topic pertains strongly to "sleep". Currently this article consists of:

a good diagram
a lousy uncited introduction of terminology (architecture, quotas, & duration)
mention of NREM-REM cycles (supported only by wikilinks)
mention of polyphasic sleep patterns / siestas (supported only by wikilinks)
a cited note that it depends on species
a thoroughly cited statement of various influencing factors
an ambiguously phrased but cited statement of influence of sleep availability
links to ultraradian and circadian rhythm (the more relevant of which I only just added)

Lets compare this with the existing sleep article: 1. the same diagram 2-4. separate entire detailed subsections on each of: sleep stages, NREM, REM, sleep timing, and duration. 4. a section on polyphasic patters / siestas 5. a section and subarticle on other species 6-7. wide ranging (albeit questionably structured) coverage of influences 8. explanation of how the circadian clock works

..anyway, you get the picture. This page is just a stub, and most of what is here is already given a better and more extended treatment on the sleep page. It's ripe for simple redirect to that page, with or without attempting any specific merge of content. (This topic is certainly not a logical subtopic of circadian rhythm, so it's ridiculous that the talk page over there is proposing to merge this article into that one.)

If anyone in future does want a substantial article on sleep architecture to exist, they should construct it first as a subarticle of sleep - rather than trying to replicate that content from scratch like here. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis true that Sleep Architecture is a very incomplete stub. It needs to be built out with information from, among other places, the Sleep article. We tolerate stubs, waiting for good work, in Wikipedia. I do not agree that it should be turned into a redirect. It is a topic worthy of an article. --Hordaland (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But at the present time, which is the best page to direct the reader for information on this topic? Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do tolerate stubs, but only when a full article is warranted and the stub is the best available content at that time. That is not the case here, since a better treatment of the same topic already exists at the sleep article.

If you are planning work which in the future will improve the encyclopedia's overall treatment of this topic (for example if you are intending to restructure the sleep article by spinning-out a section of it to this page) then an appropriate venue would be userspace or the article incubator rather than mainspace. That way your drafts won't disrupt some readers from finding the best existing coverage in the meantime before the new structure is ready.

It's not the lack of content I'm objecting to, it's the duplication of scope. As it is currently positioned, this proposed article will unfortunately be a redundant content fork. Policy lists that as a valid reason for deletion, regardless of whether it's a stub or not. Forks make information more difficult to find. Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much has happened to this article in the years that have passed since this discussion started. The existence of this page is detrimental, since readers landing here may assume that this is what Wikipedia has to offer, while we actually have a Sleep article that covers this, and more. I will merge this to the Sleep article now. If the Sleep article later needs to be slit because of large size, it should be split by its sub-topics, such as "Physiology of sleep" or "Anthropology of sleep". Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the merge now. The only useful referenced part was the evolutionary variables affecting sleep patterns, but I could not confirm that the term "sleep architecture" must be used, instead of simply "sleep patterns". The other referenced segment was rather obvious, so I didn't include it; "Sleep architecture varies widely across species, and is thought to be significantly influenced by genetics". Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did some clean-up (before reading here). Replaced a red ref (used for the sentence you didn't include and used again for an included sentence). Removed some "See alsos" already linked, sneaked the word "architecture" back in there as it's commonly used and otherwise general copyedit. Now I think this 5+ year-old conversation is finished. :-) --Hordaland (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Fictional References' section

The section titled 'Fictional References' is unnecessary, off topic, and makes little sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.46.97 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]