Talk:Power nap

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Created page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Coffee nap now merged to Power nap#Stimulant nap. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unmerged. As I said on your talk page, merging Coffee nap into Power nap is a major step which in my view requires community consensus first. If you wish to pursue a merge, place a tag on both articles asking that such a merge be discussed, and let's let the community decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I gave appropriate policy related reasons in the edit summary. This was a standard merge. You are welcome, of course, to seek consensus for splitting the article. See Wikipedia:Splitting. As it stood, the article was mirroring the content in this parent article, and had no scope for development. It did not consist of sufficient encyclopaedic content for a stand alone article. There is no point duplicating material across Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your change is a major one, essentially deleting a valid article Coffee nap which was getting 60-100 pageviews per day, a topic which is different from Power nap. It is not enough for any one contributor to merge an article simply by providing an explanation; please seek consensus first.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Coffee nap shouldn't be a sub-topic within Power nap. Frankly, both of them could well become sections within Nap (where the long section on the polyphasic sleep fad should be drastically shortened). --Hordaland (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well if merging is the order of the day I have no objection if the coffee nap and stimulant nap content is merged into nap, provided of course that the contributors doing the merging do not fall asleep mid-merge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The image of woman napping in Nappucino in Barcelona is not appropriate. It invades the privacy of the person represented. When an establishment offers a place to nap, there is a reasonable expectation of some degree of privacy. A search for Napuccino on the internet brought up a second image taken from the exact same angle, also showing a woman in jeans with her legs in a comparable position. This suggests not only that the establishment is the source of the image, but is actively involved in online circulation of candid images taken in stealth. Surely there must be less invasive and more respectful images of people taking naps. 71.168.128.186 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that on the photo is a man, not a woman, though I agree that image is not appropriate. Šaholjubac (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe the image should be removed. It violates Wikipedia.org's ethical standards. And it makes the site liable to legal action.

(1) The image is invasive of the privacy of the individual shown. She [a woman, according to the caption] was not in a public space, but had a reasonable expectation of privacy and safety, since this is what the establishment, Nappuccino, offered.

(2) The picture was taken while the person was asleep, and therefore not in a position to give or deny permission.

(3) The unusual camera angle suggests voyeuristic intent, in that no other angle could have offered such a "front-row seat" of this part of her anatomy.

(4) The image depersonalizes and reduces the woman to her bodily physique, omitting facial and other features that would allow her to be identified as a person. Depersonalization cannot eliminate legal obstacles to publication on the spurious grounds that she has been made anonymous in any case. It makes no difference whether the publication is for-profit or not.

(5) There is no obvious benefit to keeping the image in defiance of better judgement. It cannot be said to provide a meaningful illustration of the topic. That would have required a person whose eyes were visibly shut, and who had given permission to be identifiably photographed for the purposes of "free sharing" online. The choice of image is completely gratuitous as far as I can tell.

(6) The image contributes to a general climate of denigration, object-thinking, and the ever-present threat of violence that is an everyday reality for many of us, men and women alike.

(7) Whatever the intentions behind the posting of the image, it seems calculated to tarnish Nappuccino's name as a place where it is safe to take a power nap. It is certain to cost the owners in terms of clientele. I for one would not wish to visit the place, or recommend it to others.

All this makes Wikipedia doubly liable to legal action--coming not only from the unidentified woman herself, but also from the business, which may have unfairly suffered loss of profit. Please do the right thing, and find something more appropriate.

2600:4040:A2CD:5600:A180:AC8A:F560:55AE (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The traditional midday nap depicted in the film "Gone with the wind" has many similarities to the modern power nap, the difference being power nap is valued and normalised by researchers. I suggest conflating the notion of midday nap and power nap. s.vecchiato (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply