Talk:Slow science

Requested move 28 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Doesn't look like there will be a consensus to move with this bundled nom, feel free to re-nom as separate discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• Slow Science → Slow science
• Slow Food → Slow food

– Not organizations but generalized social movements or approaches, thus not proper names, and lower-cased per MOS:ISMCAPS. See already: Slow architecture, Slow cinema, Slow design, Slow education, Slow gardening, Slow living, Slow marketing, Slow parenting, Slow photography, Slow programming, Slow reading, Slow television. The only other one that needs to be down-cased is Slow Movement, which is the subject of its own ongoing RM (relisted) at Talk:Slow Movement#Requested move 17 November 2015. (Slow Money should remain uppercased because, like Cittaslow, it's the legal name of an organization, thus a proper name. If the article is rewritten to cover the concept of "slow money" not that specific organization's work, it too would be down-cased.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Objection I think these two issues should be discussed separately instead of being bundled together; the slow science article is unreferenced, so should not be bundled into a slow food discussion. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Then it would be decided on the merits of the slow food arguments. There's no reason to have two separate rm on the same MOS:ISMCAPS rule.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• I would second the objection; Slow Science may or may not be correctly capitalized (or even notable) but Slow Food pre-dates the rest of the Slow movements and is invariably capitalized (viza google search for “slow food”, uncapped). And I would oppose the move of Slow Food for the same reason; sources indicate capitalization is correct. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Slow Science → Slow science – Not an organization but a generalized movement or approach, thus not a proper name, and lower-cased per MOS:ISMCAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY policy. See already: Slow movement (culture), Slow architecture, Slow cinema, Slow design, Slow education, Slow gardening, Slow living, Slow marketing, Slow parenting, Slow photography, Slow programming, Slow reading, Slow television. The only other one that needs to be down-cased is Slow Food, under it's own ongoing RM. (Slow Money should remain uppercased because, like Cittaslow, it's the legal name of an organization, thus a proper name. If the article is rewritten to cover the concept of "slow money", not just that specific organization's work, it too would be down-cased.) Every single other "slow movement" article is lower-cased.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Renominating per the instructions in the previous close.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Horgan in Scientific American, irony

Horgan makes fun over the fact that with Slow Science, he will have less to write about. Even if there is some superficial description of Slow Science in his joke, it is not very encyclopedic. Seems a useless reference. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)