Template talk:Sleep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconPhysiology Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template has not yet been associated with a particular area.


Old discussions

See Archive 1 for discussion on the old vertical SleepSeries template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayoquot (talkcontribs) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better idea

I've been watching this series, and I think that this is better than the giant bar on the right. Good job!

Having said that, I am wondering if REM sleep and non-REM (NREM) sleep should be separated into two different subjects.

206.135.101.49 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at that K.murphy 13:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There already are two seperate articles on REM and non-REM, I changed the sleep article to make that more obvious K.murphy 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having created the vertical bar originally, I must say, it sure has progressed nicely.--Once in a Blue Moon 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final section problems

What is the intent of the giant, four-color, four section bar at the bottom of the template? The links are incomprehensible and non-obvious. It appears that they are more for some sort of quick-reference link jumping, but only if one knows the super-secret code. Single letter links to other templates and categories are not helpful at all to the average reader or editor,

Wikipedia:Navigation templates. What are the options to improve this, but de-clutter, so as to avoid the section being deleted entirely? — MrDolomite • Talk 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]