User talk:Hordaland/Archives/2010/June
 | This page 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. |
Evolutionary Baggage
{{helpme}}
I still don't know how to move articles. Would someone please move Evolutionary Baggage back to Evolutionary baggage? The capital B is wrong (as I've pointed out on the article's talk page); it was added by page move in November 2009. Thank you. - Hordaland (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect created by the past move has meant that you can't move it back. I've tagged the redirect for deletion, and it should be sorted soon. (If you do want to know how to move pages under normal circumstances, do let me know.) Cheers, {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! It is now finally appearing correctly in the search box, without the capital B. - Hordaland (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Admin
Hey Hordaland any interest in being nominated for adminship? We could use some more people with mops around WP:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- OMG. First reaction: NO! (Not even No, thank you; just NO.) - Hordaland (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Abortion
You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- As you have commented before further proposals were made, and if you're still interested in the outcome of that discussion, I would ask you to express your opinion on those as well. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
power-nap merger
Please re-visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nap#Merger_proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.219.127 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I did look at it and made some changes in the article. It is poorly written and needs work. I don't know when the merger was done nor by whom nor where any missing text might be. - Hordaland (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing back more of the original power-nap information -- however, this extra information makes the case for a separate article all the more compelling. More than half of the "Nap" article is dedicated to the subject of power-napping; and there was even more info in their before.
It seems likely the removal or the power-nap article was done by USer:SlubGlub who originally proposed it -- see the "Nap" discussion page. But why does it matter who did it; it must be possible for someone in authority at WP to reinstate that original article. Do you have any more direct way to contact this person or connect with the right editors at WP to have the original, SEPARATE "Power-nap" article reinstated. That is the fundamental travesty that needs to be corrected. How do we do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.164.197 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- When commenting you should end by clicking the little blue pencil at the top of the edit box. As you see, a bot signs your comments, but it looks better if you do it yourself.
- And/or register a username!
- Frankly, I don't think we need an article Power nap. A nap is a nap, and then there are different sorts. Current research refers to either Power nap or Stage 2 nap; perhaps there are other terms as well (20-minute nap).
- We don't usually pull out a subtopic until the main article is just too big.
- The Nap article, aside from power naps, can be expanded, as there is ongoing research. For example, according to Sara Mednick, Ph.D. and nap researcher, a 90 minute nap or even a short one early in the day may give REM-sleep which "inspires creativity and heightens perception" while a nap later in the day will give some Non-REM-sleep which "improves memory and clears the mind." There's lots of info waiting to be put into the article but still a long while, if ever, before a sub-topic should be pulled out. IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is missing the point here. Its not a matter of pulling Power-Nap out, it is a matter of restoring it to its originally separate article status -- which it most assuredly deserves. As noted above, "Power-nap" is a scholarly and scientific term noted by over 900 articles linked from Scholar.Google.com. The power-nap article ALREADY EXISTED for years, and was only recently merged, without the need to do so. That merger should never have occurred in the first place -- at the time, the Power-Nap article was more detailed with more references than the Nap article was. It is a distinctly separate and unique type of sleep mode that has a specific name, unlike Dr. Mednicks's unnamed reference to early 90-minute sleep.
Follow up note: I figured out how to reinstate the original, separate power-nap article and have done so. No need for further action from anyone; all is approximately back as it was, though it is a shame that because of this, the original, longer, more detailed content of the original Power-Nap article is now lost. I have manually re-entered an updated, edited version based on the archvie.org record, though it is a shame that was was added since that 2008 record has been lost because of this prior merger. Lets not let that happen again. --124.157.164.197 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Help me
{{Helpme}} Looks like I am getting into an edit war, which wasn't my intention! Can someone help me end the war before it starts?
See the exchange above (power-nap merger). A "power nap" is a short nap, also known as a "Stage 2 nap" or the "20-minute nap". IMO it needs its own section in the article Nap, no more. Power nap redirects to Nap.
The IP above has started (or restarted?) a new article Power-nap (with a hyphen, which s/he even edited into a direct quote). Much content was moved there from the article Nap. I am replacing and editing it. I will not touch the new article Power-nap, but I believe it should be deleted.
What now? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I've repeated noted... the merge was vandalism. The original article existed separately for YEARS (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-nap or more specifically http://web.archive.org/web/20080408134645/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-nap )and as for numerous reasons noted in the Power-Nap discussion page (and repeated again below), it deserves to be maintained separately. It is a separate subject completely.
- Btw, this "war" was started in Feb 2010 when someone deleted the Power-Nap" article and added a severely redacted version, summary version into the "Nap"article. That act was effectively vandalism and was without foundation or valid cause. All excuses to the contrary are completely subjective, while I have provided 6 concrete, objective reasons (which were in the power-nap discussion page, but were deleted by someone), explaining why it should remain as a separate article. Here are those reasons again, below:
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 lost due to the prior merge of "nap" and "power-nap." 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>
4) More than half of the content and the vast majority of references for the "Nap" article was 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. (see above).
5) 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.
6) "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)
--124.157.164.197 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Be civil and don't break 3RR. That's all I can say. Mr. R00t Talk 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's hard to deal with an IP like that. I think I am getting through to him. Looks to me like the version he was posting was superior to the one I restored, but we do need to maintain the edit history. I take it the improved version was snatched from nap? Perhaps you could integrate any improvements while I get our new editor to see the advantages of creating an account, using a watchlist, and participating in discussion. Yworo (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)