User talk:Hordaland/Archives/2010/September

Discussion involving rewrite of article Treatment section
Hi, I have started a discussion involving a possible major change to the article Insomnia. Since you seem to be one of the experts on Sleep on Wikipedia, I'd like to hear your input on the issue at the talk page. Thanks! — Code Hydro  18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a user who cares about sleep and reads a lot about it but am not a doctor, biologist or "expert", and I have no experience reviewing articles. Just looked at Insomnia and am reminded why I've stayed away from it.  Much of it is in a chatty style and the whole looks to have been done piece-meal, which it no doubt has.
 * But then the word itself is a catch-all. I'd rather it weren't used for shift work and the circadian rhythm disorders, as there'd be no insomnia if such patients just slept when their bodies want to.  But it is used that way in literature, and I can't change that.
 * The article states that insomnia is a feature of delayed sleep phase syndrome (which I have), and later says "Patients with various disorders including delayed sleep phase syndrome are often mis-diagnosed with insomnia." Ummm.  It should perhaps be made clear when we are talking about primary insomnia and when we are not.
 * I see no reason to include the section 'Insomnia versus poor sleep quality' as written. Just delete it IMO.  Sometimes nonrestorative sleep is included in the insomnia concept, but these details are unnecessary here.
 * Section 'Patterns of insomnia': what is the difference between points 2 and 3?
 * Section 'Signs and symptoms' is all about longevity. Does that make sense?
 * But what you ask about is the treatment section(s), and that I very know little about - so am not much help. Someone like user:Literaturegeek knows a lot about the chemicals used, is my impression.
 * Practically anything you do to this article is an improvement. I'll take another look when I come back from a long weekend.  --Hordaland (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article looks like a nightmare to fix. I may have to make a version of it in my user page and just hack at it for several days since it's not something I can do in one sitting, though I won't be able to get much done this weekend. Thanks for taking a look, your opinion really helped me get a sense of what needs to be done. — Code Hydro  12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)