Template talk:Sleep

Physiology Template‑class

	This 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Old discussions[edit]

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

This is a better idea[edit]

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[edit]

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, IMHO. And it seems to defy many of the guidelines from Wikipedia:NAVBOX#Navigation_templates and 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]