Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sociology: Social Movements C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Slow Retail also seems to have little or nothing to do with the actual movement, seemingly added simply for a quick link. Thoughts? Opinions? TheGiftedOne 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't fit then I suggest you take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greycar (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the web site, "Slow Home," linked to in the "External Links" section, it appears that it has little to do with the genuine Slow Movement. It looks to me as if that site has merely appropriated the moniker from the Slow Food movement - and the Slow Movement in general - in order to lend itself a little cachet. I propose that the link to Slow Home be removed, as it is just another consumer-oriented web site and company, the very antithesis of the Slow Movement.

Slow home removed as per above request.

Could someone please give at least some sort of time frame for this movement? Dc2011 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add slow money to this?

Thanks

http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-trueman/slow-money-cultivating-a_b_219992.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101794001 Rivermusic (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mindmatrix recently deleted an edit by an IP user which looks like vandalism, but actually isn't. It said:

"Slow Sex is a branch of the Slow Movement. It's an alternative to the fast-food sex that pervades our culture. Instead of using sex as an escape, we encourage people to feel into each nook and cranny of their sex. We find that by getting back to the basics of connecting to your body, being honest about your experience, and communicating with your partner, we can have sex that is more intimate and sensational."

I think that if this were written and referenced a bit better, it would be fine. Carl Honoré's book "In Praise of Slow" has a chapter on this. -- Rixs (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could well be worth adding. There is a link to Slow Sex Movement, which is actually a redirect to a business called OneTaste.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related -- psychogeography. Might be of interest for Related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.22.97 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various types of offshoots of the Slow movement don't appear to be in any particular order, alphabetical, chronological, or topical. Engelhardt (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can tell, should there be? Theoretick (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed: alphabetized. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Slow (movement) or Slow (social movement) might be a better (more accurate) name for this article. Thoughts? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Slow movement/Merge request

I've just looked in on the Slow architecture page and found a tag saying “this article is in the process of being merged... (not “it has been suggested...” but that it is all done and dusted)” and that “the relevant discussion is on the article's talk page (nope!) or at the target article talk page (not here, either)”.
Can I suggest that if a merger of these pages is contemplated, that it be proposed, explained and discussed (per the relevant guidelines) so that some semblance of a consensus be determined. Hmm? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Turns out the discussion (such as it is) was tucked away on the talk page of Slow movement (which is a redirect to here). I've copied it to here (below) so the discussion can continue. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(This was on the talk page of Slow movement (which is a redirect to here). I've copied it to here so the discussion can continue. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I just see that there are many articles which contain the word slow in addition to something which already exists:

• Slow movement is the main one (destination),
• Slow design is another one,
• Slow education is another one,
• Slow gardening is another one,
• Slow Movement, is another one,
• Slow parenting is another one,
• Slow photography is another one,
• Slow programming is another one,
• Slow reading is another one,

Claimed unrelated (the merge tag will be removed after the poll):

• Slow television

Claimed to be valid as stand alone articles (the merge tag will be removed after the poll):

• Cittaslow
• Slow food

Redirected now:

• Slow architecture is another one,
• Slow cinema is another one,
• Slow Science is another one,

I'll suggest to make a move forward and integrate all those small articles into Slow Movement because the articles have no real substance and it looks like they where created to attract readers to the Slow Food movement. Please vote about this proposal below. I have nothing against the Slow Movement. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the ((merging|Slow movement|date=August 2015)) to the above articles to ask for comments on this suggested change.

Agree - no additional value to keep these articles separated, some are tagged for notability, refrences. Make your own objective research. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A point of order: As nominator, adding a vote for a merge is not good form. (And for some other process objections, see above. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Oppose for Slow television. That article is already lengthy enough to stand on its own and has 29 references. It documents a media phenomenon appearing for several years, unrelated to "Slow food". Bistropha (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bistropha, thanks for your valuable feedback, could you please change your vote, I removed your article to the unrelated list (these pages will not be included for the merge)! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huggi. I have no objection to the proposed merger (leaving out "Slow television"), but suggest a careful review of the list in case some of the other topics may deserve distinct articles (perhaps Cittaslow). Bistropha (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would oppose this merger, as no justification has been given other than that all the article titles have the word “Slow” in them.

The reasons for a merger would be Duplication, Overlap, Unlikely to be expanded, or Too much context needed: none of those (IMO) apply to any of the articles on this list.

OTOH the reasons against a merger are if the articles are on separate topics (I'd say “yes”) and/or are capable of expansion (again, “yes”) or if the result here would be too long or 'clunky'. This article is already 24 Kb long; If the twelve articles listed are an average of 3Kb each; (some, at least, are longer than that) that would make the resulting article here 60Kb long, which is getting on for being too big. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A better idea would be to keep this as a concept dab (with maybe a paragraph on each) and a main article link to individual articles on all of them. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are disposed to insult my editing habits, at least I understand the notions of collaborative working and building consensus; if your actions here are anything to go by, and if “your time to spend on discussion is over”, maybe you don't.

As for making the situation better or worse, I've already explained why your proposal makes things worse, (here) and offered a suggestion to make this stuff better (here); if you don't agree, maybe it's time we got another opinion. I've requested one, here. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Third Opinion Huggi was correct a few weeks ago in going ahead with the merger as there was, at the time, consensus for the merge since no one had opposed. However consensus can change, and the the fact that Moonraker12 reverted the attempted merge shows that there is not consensus now. Because there is no consensus now we need to discuss the changes more and come to a sufficient compromise. Wugapodes (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for slow cinema, probably the rest. Bulk discussions like this are not appropriate, you need to consider each on its own merits. Slow cinema has been discussed in detail in many reliable sources, only some of which are cited in the article. For example, Edinburgh University Press are publishing a book on the topic. This is a notable standalone topic. If you want to have summaries of the individual articles in a main article with main links then that'd be fine, but a merge will not better serve readers or navigation. Fences&Windows 21:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain I'm tired about such mickey-mouse discussions on WP. Just do your own homework before you join a discussion, leaving you guys alone now as there are more important things to do in real life :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my content and tagged all articles with the notability tag, I totally forgot that I did not do this from the beginning. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've restored them, per WP:TALK. If you wish to withdraw something you should strike it through (like this), not simply delete it, as it makes a mockery of everyone else's comments. Or was that the intention? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merge nomination seems to have been withdrawn, but the articles are still tagged for merging and many for notability:

• Slow architecture
• Slow cinema
• Slow design
• Slow education
• Slow gardening
• Slow parenting
• Slow photography
• Slow programming
• Slow reading
• Slow Science
• Slow television
• Cittaslow
• Slow food

They should not have have had the "merging" template added, but rather the "merge" tag; the former is when a merge is ongoing, the latter for when it is proposed. Fences&Windows 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the notability tags on these articles; they all had at least half-a-dozen links or references (one had nearly thirty!) so there was no question of notability, and the tagging was frivolous to borderline disruptive. I've also fixed the merge tags, using the "merge to" format (to direct the discussion here); if the proposal has been withdrawn then we can always close here and delete them. I've also archived the previous discussion on the redirect page. Moonraker12 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted the unexplained page move on 30 August; there was no obvious reason for this, as the previous title was stable, and well-supported by usage; a Gsearch for “Slow Movement” (here) throws up more than half a million results, while there is little evidence of a movement simply called “Slow” (see search, here).
If there is any good reason for this title change, I suggest it be presented as a Request Move, to see if anyone else agrees that it's a good idea. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]