Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

The only way forward

Having seen how things have been going here for a while I would suggest that the only way this article can get out of the rut that it is currently in is for all editors with any commercial interest in this subject to take a break whilst some uninvolved editors sort the article out based on normal WP principles and policies. The editors with commercial interests could then return to editing the article on the basis of adding useful information, rather than fighting over commercial interests.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Support That suggestion sounds just ducky. Duff (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Support assuming you mean a break from editing the main space, not the talk pages. I will of course continue to refrain from editing on the article, and would like to see this same restraint from Blackash here and at Axel Erlandson and John Krubsack. I don't support a later return to editing... unless someone beside myself is watching.Slowart (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant a break from both the main space and the talk pages. The problem is that otherwise all discussion turns into arguments about commercial benefit and self-promotion. WP is not obliged to provide equal self-promotion and commercial benefits to all participants, the content should be based only on what reliable sources say about the subject. Neutrality should mean that we do not give undue prominence to any one method or principle of the process, not that everyone gets an equal chance to promote their business.
Clearly, all editors with a commercial interest in the subject would have to agree to withdraw from all discussion relating to this article, for this suggestion to work. Other articles are best dealt with through their own talk pages. Attempts transfer self-promotional material from this article to another would be quite obvious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes and No.
  • I would agree to not edit the main space if there was a real truce and each point could be discussed by all on the talk page and then the change put up. Doing this would keep it clear, what the consensus was and any new editors could then follow, the for and against points and therefore decide which points are valid in their view. The points should be brief and to the point, not an essay in the making. Blackash have a chat 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornfusion: Whose comment is the one above and at what time?Duff (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault for splitting the post. I have pasted in a copy sig. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point of my suggestion here, which is that those with a commercial interest in the page should withdraw completely. Discussing each point with the current editors is a bad idea because every discussion seems to end up revolving around some point of commercial or personal interest. Such interests should play no part in editing WP pages. I am therefore suggesting that you withdraw completely from all editing for a short while. This is not a criticism of you or anyone else here, it is just that a personal rivalry seem to have built up that makes cooperative editing impossible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree because, for example if I hadn't changed plant to tree, which means Duff wouldn't have reverted it. Martin may not have pick up that it was an issue, and an opinion was called for. Blackash have a chat 13:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, Slowart is willing to give this a try, are you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
@Martin, I'm willing to let you have this talk page to yourself but, consider that there are 2 tags at the top of this page. "A contributor to this article, may be covered by or significantly related to this article... I assumed this this would help editors know to take anything these 2 assumed "self promoters with commercial interests" said with a grain of salt, and you should ! Better to assume everything is quite now that Duff and Martin and Quiddy are around keep things good, while still allowing for self expression, suggestions, links, photos, and venting from the conflicted...but only if it's really needed. Slowart (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to have this talk page all to myself, I am suggesting that, for a short while we have only editors with no commercial or personal interest in the subject to here. I guess that would allow Duff and Quiddy to stay together with any other uninvolved editors we could persuade to join us. Your point about potential commercial interests is exactly the reason that I am suggesting this move. Commercial and personal interests need to be completely removed from the scene for a while. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
O.K. Yes, I suppose it's worth a try. Good luck then. Slowart (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC Hi. I came here from the RfC and have read through the talk page (admittedly not all of it) and article. I agree with Martin that, at least for a little while, editors with a commercial interest should take a more hands off approach. Or if you do feel like contributing try to make it things like simple copy editing for better grammar and things like that. nothing contentious. I for one would like to expand and rewrite the section on Bonsai. I think the [citation needed] tags have gotten a bit out of hand, and it reads like a preemptive strike on anyone who feels the two art-forms are similar, not an unbiased comparison like it should be. I hope no one objects? Colincbn (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Colin. Like you, I came here from the RfC to find a battle scene. There are two (at least) major contributors (Blackash and Slowart) to this article who have significant commercial interests in the subject. This naturally makes it difficult for them to contribute in a neutral manner.
I have suggested that these two editors (and any others with a commercial interest in the subject) take a break from editing the article and talk page, whilst non-involved editors sort out some of the problems with the article resulting from previous, commercially centred, arguments. Not the least of the problems to be sorted out is the name of the article.
To date, Slowart has agreed to my proposal but Blackash has not.
Regarding your plan to rewrite the Bonsai section, it will be interesting to see what happens. If it works well, with no interference from the commercially interested, then maybe we could just get on with doing the same for the rest of the article without waiting for agreement. The bonsai article itself seems to show how a subject with considerable commercial interest can be written in a neutral manner. Good luck. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome, Colincbn and thank you for providing another set of eyes and another voice of reason to this needlessly contentious article. I came into this article quite late in the discussion, but have engaged fully for the last month+. After an initial foray at article improvement, I studied and attempted to grasp the dynamic at play throughout the 7 archives of the talk page, as well as the blow-by-blow diffs of the article page from start to finish (and in some cases, of the talk page) and the various side shoots, AfD issues, and major to minor fluffs. I've also become entangled in several uncomfortable kerfluffles here myself in this short period, which is why I initiated the RfC.
I agree, the Bonsai section needs rewriting, as do the other headings in the Related art forms section. The pleaching section is just wrong, and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. The pleaching article is not a whole bunch better, but is under consideration for vast improvement and fact checking ensues on the talk page there. I put the fact tags here in this section as a reminder, intending to go back and work on that whole section also. Each of the "related art forms" was apparently re-cast adversarily in an attempt to somehow exclude or at least minimize the other tree shaping forms from this article which, under its current topic title, would of course have to give each of them (and several unmentioned others) appropriate weight.
One key problem that may need to be dealt with first is this issue with the article name. The article started out titled arborsculpture (which now instead redirects here) and it pertained in particular to the broad but specific craft which is described herein in great detail. Its development surrounded the main craft described, but did not envision the title as currently applied. These art forms were "related but distinct" at that time, and could probably have all comfortably and briefly fit into a See Also section of links to the related crafts and arts. Under the present article title, they are not just related, but are topically included and thus passing mention of them would be inadequate. If we take off down that path, those other fine tree shaping arts/crafts/practices would far outweigh, IMO, and certainly dilute the focus from this one that has been detailed here. Given the existence of the living sculpture article, as well as those on each individual main articles summarized there, I'm not sure that a parallel article on only (narrowly) trees, and only (broadly) "shaping" of said trees, is needed. The topic as detailed merits its own treatment, unburdened by the obvious weight of the other topics that would legitimately fall under the title 'tree shaping'.  ::Arborsculpture was a good name for it (though perhaps a better and more appropriate one might emerge), and arborsculpture is the one so far proven, verifiably by reliable sources, most in use to identify the craft presently detailed, as ascertained through hours of research and verification of sources at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. That has proven contentious in the extreme, to one duo of involved/covered editors/artists who, posting under one username, protest being 'branded' by the word arborsculpture, and insist that not only are they the uniquely first and best ever, but that tree shaping is a neutral term, which is is not. That editor, or those editors, (whichever it actually is) have already refused to accept consensus that they need to step back and it is probably time for administrative intervention. Until the naming issue is resolved, I am afraid that any approach to polishing text supporting the misnaming will lead us back to that awkwardness inherent in the odd simultaneity of a too-narrow and yet too-ambiguous title. What say you? Duff (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It looks as though we have started an important discussion without Blackash agreeing to keep out. There is little we can do about that except to ask again for all those with a commercial interest in the subject not to intervene in the discussion unless requested. The current title is positively misleading, in the UK at least where 'tree shaping' is already in common use to refer to the normal arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain a good natural shape. Should we start a new section below on the article title? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts are as follows - although Arbosculpture is a good word, it raises some serious NPOV concerns given the controversy and commercial aspects involved. AfD hero (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Noted. For the record, research indicates that User:AfD hero•contribs was directly responsible for the original decision to change the page name to Tree shaping, in the context of an AfD on [Pooktre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre], without discussion or consensus on this page. The user has not edited since June 2009; last edits on this page. Welcome back AfD hero and especially welcome back to this discussion. Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I was the one who originally moved it, I thought it would be good to give a short summary of my opinion. I do not intend to continue participating in this discussion. AfD hero (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I we are going to start the article name discussion, I suggest we create a new section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion isn't new; there's a whole section focused on it on this very page at 2. Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to Move: Arborsculpture or Tree Shaping (and its subsections 2.xxx) where also are many, many links to several past incarnations of the same discussion in the multiple archives of this talk page. I suggest that rather than reinvent that wheel too, we carry on with new comments on changing the name being added after the most recent ones (pretty recent). If preferred, we could easily refactor the entire 2.xxx section down here to the bottom. How does that sound? Either way I'd prefer to keep the whole discussion together so that work already done won't have to be duplicated or overly cross-referenced and so that when we finally do reach some consensus on this, and we shall, it can be referred back to in the future with a succinct link, as a discussion that has been hammered to its fullest extent and settled. Duff (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Moving relevant discussion her might be useful but we do not want to go over all the old irrelevant commercial discussion again. We have a new set of editors. I suggest we start again from scratch and that you copy down any information that might be useful or relevant as we need it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you wholeheartedly as to what we do not want to go over. I am really glad for all the help. I am game to start over from scratch, and I see the value of that. I am also exhausted from the tedium of explaining everything repeatedly to User:Blackash without ever reaching consensus (with just that username) over the same points and fallacious arguments ad nauseum. The discussions @ 2.0 on this page are not even ripe, let alone old yet (1 month, nine days ago, I started that heading), but I am eager to move along, and so will go along with a another new section if that is the consensus, to whatever extent it does not exclude the valid and well reasoned thoughts expressed by other non-involved editors such as User talk:SilkTork, User talk:Colonel Warden, and User talk:Quiddity, all of whom commented thoughtfully and whose influence was also quite welcome. It is worth a good read. Maybe we could invite them back to re-engage, if they are not also exasperated with this topic. It is my perspective, based on the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, that the argument inherent in the original name change: that the word arborsculpture is a commercial term or a neologism, is a fallacious one, with its roots in the commercial advantage to be gained for the previously mentioned editor (and that editor's perception of the possibility of disadvantaging the word's coiner, a fellow designer, author of 2 books on the same topic, and at least as far as I have seen, a valuable, cooperative, & neutral other editor on this page: Slowart). I will try to contain my exasperation and move on freshly. Here goes, inserting new section name & intro at the most strategic spot I can target for it. Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change page title

It has been proposed to change the ambiguous title of this page to a more specific title, perhaps to its original title, arborsculpture. Comments from editors, not involved in the commercial aspects of the topic, including but not limited to the professional practice of the craft and book-writing about it, are encouraged to share their thoughts on the best way forward to a good article. If you have commented on this name-change idea before, please come and help us restart the discussion with a new and cooperative editorial staff. Thanks!

(unindent) Well from my understanding this is an article about shaping plants/trees into specific Items/tools/geometric shapes. The Living sculpture article seems to be the broader classification, as stated in that article's first sentence "Living sculpture is any type of sculpture that is created with living, growing grasses, vines, plants or trees. " That being the case, regardless of the current name, I think we can agree to what this article's specific subject is. That does not mean I think the current name is the best one, I just think there are places that can be improved without even worrying about the article's name. That issue seems like it will take some time to resolve and it is valuable to fix the areas we can while waiting for that resolution.

Also, I agree with Martin that having an easy way for new editors to see the main points of the naming issue would be valuable. A bullet list of themain points of either side for example. Colincbn (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Living sculpture is broader only by the included blades of grass, than the broadness of the title of this page (whose topic is also included on that page), and I guess that's first what we need to get to. I may have misunderstood your sentence: The topic is not limited to any specific items, though I'm not sure if that's what you meant to convey as your understanding. It encompasses a whole raft of design ideas, some of them emergent, grown from live woody plants; and the practices used to do this neato construction craft cum art form; and (somewhat less so, I hope) some of the most significant and prolific crafters known. Shall we also attempt to cover with equal weight all the other topics potentially falling under the current ambiguous name: Tree shaping (including those currently listed under Related art forms, which are also currently all included at Living sculpture) and the practices and significant artists of those areas of horticulture, or should we stick with the subject at hand? I am for sticking with the subject at hand, developing it fully, and as quickly as is possible: titling it properly.
It's an article about arborsculpture. And yes, (I think) we agree as to this article's specific subject (I think). Work continues on improving the article, including several other artists and the new developments in the field, but a few things do need to be decided relative to the name, IMO, before certain work ensues that might be wasted in the event of a name change.
For example: with the possible exception of the pleaching item (which I believe is turning out to be the actual foundational history of this craft which most scholars and reliable sources currently refer to as arborsculpture), the entire Related art forms section, including the Bonsai bit (which I agree needs a complete overhaul) might instead be deleted entirely and reduced to additional wikilinks in the See also section, were the article to return to its original name (or one that some other appropriate name that we can agree means the same thing). Can we agree that we don't need to rewrite articles on bonsai, espalier, and topiary here on this article, but can mention the relationship briefly in the text and list these three in the See also? That is the way I had attempted to approach it previously and I think it will work. Comments? Duff (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
On thing is for sure, the current title is not satisfactory, as the term 'tree shaping' is in regular use, in the UK at least, to refer to something other than the subject of this article. As to what exactly the subject of this article is, it would seem to me that, although other techniques are used, it is the inosculation of branches and roots to form a desired artistic or functional structure that is the unique and distinguishing feature of the subject of this article.
I agree that arborculpture would be the natural term to use for the title of this article. It is descriptive and there is evidence of its common generic usage. I would therefor support that term subject to the following:
  • There is no earlier name in common use.
  • It is not claimed as a brand name or trade mark by any party. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
On the precise subject, that was well said. Restated a little:
While other artistic horticultural and agricultural practices such as bonsai, espalier, and topiary employ some of the same techniques and share a common heritage, the unique and distinguishing feature of this craft is purposeful inosculation of branches and roots to form desired artistic or functional structures.
I'm going to work that in, and see what we think about losing most if not all of the detailed comparisons to/distinctions from those three arts/crafts, in favor of placing those terms honorably in the See Also section.
To my knowledge, there is neither an earlier name in common use, nor is arborsculpture claimed as a brand name or trademark by any party. I support the term also, and subject to the same conditions. I stand ready to view evidence to the contrary on either of those points, but so far none has been presented.Duff (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with all the above. It does seem to be the dominant term in reliable sources, and there were no previous common terms. The only arguments put forward against using "arborsculpture", boiled down to the "commercial linkage" argument, and the suggestion that there were specific "method(s)" linked to arborsculpture (which has since been refuted).
I'd support retitling the article, and restructuring the first sentence to read (something like) "Arborsculpture, also known as tree shaping, is ...". -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. After reading through some of the links it seems the term "Arborsculpture" is perfectly valid. And as WP policy is to use the original name of an article, unless there is a consensus not to use it for some valid reason, I suggest the change be made. However in the event objections are made I still feel individual sections can be improved upon before waiting for the outcome of those discussions. I feel the subject of this article is clear, regardless of the name, and I think we can edit from that standpoint. Colincbn (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that a lot and I found this today too, at WP:Title#Considering article title changes, so there is also clear policy support for this as the default title, even if consensus could somehow not be reached.
"...If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.[3]
^ 3 This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in the Manual of Style which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in the Jguk case."
I think, if we can call that consensus so far (and I'd like very much to hear whether User:SilkTork and any others still tuned in can support this move), that it is proper to list it at WP:REQMOVE, since it has been the subject of so much controversy and chafing already and there is reasonable expectation of a challenge to the move, from the usual source. I checked out the instructions, and it says to add a new section with the move request template, which will advertise it to the page move crew for survey & discussion and help getting it done properly. So here goes that.Duff (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. I read through the discussion in this section and (most!) of the discussion above and there are a lot of good arguments that have been made here, especially the excellent summary by colincbn and the way in which martin hogbin brings out some of the key issues. For the purposes of this move discussion I chose to ignore arguments for deleting the article or merging it with Living sculpture (both are better dealt with elsewhere). It seems to me that the main arguments boil down to as follows:

  • For arborsculpture: that the article was created with this name; that tree shaping is too generic a name; that one of the editors supporting 'tree shaping' over arborsculpture has a commercial involvement with the art. There is also a suggestion that arborsculpture is an accepted name for this art. Of these arguments, the 'generic' nature of tree shaping is the strongest but it is worth noting that it is a negative argument (against tree shaping rather than for arborsculpture). The commercial involvement argument is weak because of two reasons. First, the involved editor is not promoting their name for the art as the title and second because the pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!). The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one.
  • For tree shaping: that tree-shaping is clearly descriptive of the art; that the term arborsculpture is a term coined by a single practitioner of the art; that it is a marketing term; that it is a neutral term; that arborsculpture does not describe the art well enough. Of these, the descriptive and neutral argument is the strongest (and clearly and succinctly presented by col warden and helloannyong and silktork). Googling the terms shows that there are plenty of hits that talk about tree shaping (or the shaping of trees) without mentioning arborsculpture so the term is definitely descriptive. Both pooktre as well as arborsmith seem to talk about the art as shaping trees (or trunks) so it appears to be neutral enough. And, as helloannyong points out, arborsculpture is not something that a lay person would immediately understand. Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.

On the balance, it appears that "tree shaping" is the appropriate name for this article. Tree shaping may or may not be generic but it is very descriptive and is likely to be easily understood. If, at some point in the future arborsculpture catches on as the default name for the art, then we can always reconsider the title at that time. Meanwhile, there is never a hurry on wikipedia and there is plenty of content to add. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping → Arborsculpture — Current title is ambiguous and has been extremely contentious since its change from the initial long-stable article title, which was arborsculpture. Currently, unanimous consensus has emerged among new and all-uninvolved editors, following an RfC. That consensus is: The current title is unsatisfactory, as the term 'tree shaping' is in regular use to refer to something other than the subject of this article. Absent evidence that there is either an earlier name in common use, or that arborsculpture is claimed as a brand name or trademark by any party, it is agreed that arborsculpture would be the natural term to use for the title of this article, as it is the most descriptive and appropriate name and there is ample and preponderant evidence of its common generic usage to identify the subject of the article. Duff (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very soon it will be time for a completely uninvolved and non-participating editor to close this discussion; having reached its full listing period of seven days. So, those who may have waited for more discussion before expressing support or opposition in the survey, or who may want to ring in with any final discussion comments, are warmly encouraged to express themselves below now, please! Duff (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. I have contributed significantly to the article, understand is content, and intend to improve it further. I submitted the RfC and the RfM, have enjoyed the improved atmosphere at the article and its talk page since having done so, and do agree that this is the best way forward, subject to the conditions noted. There is also consensus that lead shall contain something very similar to "Arborsculpture, also known as tree shaping, is..." Duff (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus for that. 'Tree shaping' is an existing, widely-used term for something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There are published references for Tree shaping used as the generic word for the art form. Blackash have a chat 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin, you are right, not for the specific wording with treeshaping. What I meant was that any legitimate 'other names' should be expressed in the lead in something similar to that format, such as Arborsculpture, also known as cherryforge and ashweld, is..., as a more neutral example of the intended form (if any aka's are determined appropriate), a consensus I understood to have been reached by Colin, Quid, and myself. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, after extensive and time-consuming research, NONE of the many questionable references previously provided for this claim, many of them used to establish false weight on the prior name change, have panned out to be reliable references that actually support the claim. Exhaustive details of that work are above at Tree shaping#Alternate names. All further such references provided should be checked against that long list first, to save time re-researching the same tired claims, and if not found therein, scrutinized just as carefully for relevance, reliability, self-publication and other departures from good citations in one form or another. It's been problematic. Fair warning. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The article's original name is a valid and unambiguous description of the subject. Regardless of who originally coined the term it has come into common usage in the field. The term is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in its usage. Colincbn (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support For reasons given above by Colincbn. Note that there is no conflict with NPOV in that there is no significant evidence of widespread usage of any other generic term for this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have capitalised the term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry habit, it was made clear, it is not about how we use the word. It's about how other people use the word. Blackash have a chat 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If you capitalise the word it indicates a clear intention on your part to treat it as a trade name. It is even referred to in this article as a brand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not about how we use the word it about how others use it. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Blackash have a chat 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is about what reliable sources say. It is quite clear from your web site 'Pooktre Tree Shaping' that Pooktre is a trade name. Most other sources show it with a capital. The sources thus clearly show that the originator of the name considered it to be a private commercial name that it is generally used in that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand,'arborsculpture' was not generally capitalised by its originator, indication a clear intention to coin an ordinary word. That is the way it is now used in many other sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes most do use the word Pooktre the way we intended, but some are using it as the generic word for the art form. It's not the indention that matters. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
Arborsculpture is now one of the generic terms used, but there has also been controversy about the definition of Arborsculpture though out the history of this talk page. links. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity#Neologisms quote "Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia". Blackash have a chat 00:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly verifiable that Pooktre was originally intended and is still generally used a a trade name. The fact that this also happens to be the truth does not disqualify this obvious fact under any WP policy. That Pooktre is a brand name is verifiable and true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. Pooktre is not a generic neutral name for the topic of the article, and it is not under consideration in this RfM. There are countless references to its use as a trade name for the Cook/Northey products, including numerous quotes to that effect by the artists themselves. It may turn out that inclusion itself of this product in the article is too problematic to sustain. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word arborsculpture has 3 problems.
1. Arborsculpture is strongly tied to Richard Reames. Changing the title to arborsculpture would go against Wikipedia guidelines of WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional and Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV quote "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.". Google arborsculpture, the links nearly all go one artist Richard Reames. Please have a look at this list for arborsculpture. Originally created by Griseum from a search with Richard Reames removed from the results. I went though and followed each link and summarised the links into groups. Richard Reames is still a dominant presence within these links. Realistically how many people will search arborsculpture with any words removed? I believe it is reasonable to assume most people would just type arborsculpture in a search and that leads straight to Richard Reames and his methods of shaping trees. WP:NPOV also states about choosing a title quote "...might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Tree shaping was chosen with this idea in mind. Tree shaping is used as the generic word in books and media articles about this art form, including the books of Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping has been clearly established as neither neutral (as previously miscast) nor descriptive (as previously miscast). No reliable sources use this phrase to describe this craft (as previously noted) and it is in common usage describing a different thing. It is an inappropriate title for this article. The relevant WP is WP:Naming conventions#Considering Title Changes. It states clearly "If [an article title] has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Arborsculpture is a method of shaping trees, (described in both of Richard Reames books. How to grow a chair and Arborsculpture) which are different to other artist methods of shaping trees. Please have a look in my sandbox, The Instant tree shaping is the suggested heading for the arborsculpture process. This heading may need to be changed, but that can wait. It is very rough but the references are there and I'm only adding text I can cite in regards to this point. I'm using Bonsai as a guide for style of this section. Quote from reference for arborsculpture. "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures." Link Quote by Reames/Slowart Title Arborsmith newsletter- #18 Full Moon August 2006 he stated Pooktre quote "...were shaping trees using techniques that allowed much more detail than anyone on earth had tried before. I can honestly say that it’s true." Pooktre uses different methods than those described in Richards books. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Every artist's methods are a little different, some are a lot different. Pooktre's methods may well be different, but that is off of the point at hand. The word arborsculpture was not intended to convey a method, and does not convey a method in general usage. It conveys an idea, which is the one we have described so specifically in the article. Your instant tree and gradual tree details are original research. While they may be interesting and appropriate for your future book text, they cannot be considered reliable citations for the purposes of this article. I think what may be the case is that the Cook/Northey team does not wish to be included on the Wikipedia article about arborsculpture, given that they claim so stringently to be doing another thing entirely. This merits consideration. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Arborsculpture is a Neologism, quote "Neologism is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" Length of time is not an issue either quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Please read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. quote "Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them." (I am Co-founder of Pooktre) Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This is simply false, has been refuted by the preponderance of evidence, and is yet another argument without merit, attempting to defend that which is perhaps commercially acceptable, but wikipedially, is an objectionable gaming of the system. To wit, "(I am Co-founder of Pooktre)", means...what, if not a clear acknowledgement of your own business name?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment When all is said and done we don't care what the overall name of art form is as long it is not linked to a method. If anyone is still interested I found some references for some of the suggested alternative titles. Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have a strong commercial interest in this subject. Three editors with no commercial interest, two of whom are new to this page, have all agreed that the most appropriate generic name for this article is arborsculpture. I have read your comments above and believe that these are all driven by commercial interest and are not relevant to WP.
From a commercial perspective let me suggest that you take different approach. Rather than trying to remove all reference and usage of what you see as a competitive term, I suggest that you fully embrace the term in your commercial activity and web site, along the lines of Pooktre is a (superior, better, alternative, extended, or whatever, it is your site) form of arborsculpture. This will help to ensure that arborsculpture is a fully generic term with no connection to one particular business. Of course if there were any commercial objection to this, that would show that 'arborsculpture' is being promoted a trade term, making it not appropriate as a WP article title.
We all know that the term arborsculpture was coined by a person who you see as a competitor but there is no claim to any commercial rights for the term and the evidence suggests that it was intended to be a generic term for something that previously did not have a widely used name. Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide equal commercial benefit to everyone. Our obligation is to report the facts as supported by reliable sources. The clear outside opinion here is that, on that basis alone, the most appropriate title for this article is 'arborsculpture'. 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

<--Whose are these three above paragraphs, please?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pooktre is not a business. We are not trying to name the art form. I have stated, the title shouldn't be a word that links to a method and shouldn't lead straight to any one person. Please explain how arborsculpture can be neutral, when you google arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What method(s)? Not ring barking, we already found sources for fruit propagation that match the diameter Reames suggested using. Do you mean the "initial bending and grafting on a project in an hour" idea? I don't think that could be properly called a "method" - It's just hasty, and doesn't provide refined results (afaik). Was there anything else that you believe is a "method" attributable only to "arborsculpture"? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ring barking as used for arborsculpture is used to achieve a different out come than ring barking for fruit or to kill a tree. Try arborsculpture's creasing technique. Blackash have a chat 23:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ring barking: Whether to influence fruit production, or to slow the speed of branch growth, or to kill a branch or the whole tree, the method is the same. Purpose is not the same thing as method. Please stop confusing the two.
Creasing: Creasing is not mentioned in the archives. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No Creasing is in my sandbox, partly due to your behavior in removing text with citations. When I asked why and give quotes for the citations here You answered with Analogy The long and short of it was you didn't like the use of arborsculpture technique of ring barking. I replied with quote "If the wording arborsculpture technique was the issue why didn't you remove it and leave the references? Using the book that talks about ring barking in context of shaping trees make more sense that using a web page that talks about how to get better coffee beans. For now it doesn't matter as the text about ring barking is so changed from what I put up as to be unrecognizable and is now original research as doesn't match the book or text in the coffee reference. Blackash have a chat 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)" To which you didn't reply.
I created my sandbox, so I can put together the different process of shaping trees as a whole and not have the text twisted from what the references say. When I have this section more polished with correct reference I will ask other editors to look at it and see if is of interest for the article.
Please look at my sandbox for some more details about arborsculpture technique's creasing.Blackash have a chat 02:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The word Pooktre is word coined by two artists to trademark their own creations. That is a commercial entity. That is another non-issue, as it is not a generic term for the craft and is not being considered as a possible option for generic titling. The word arborsculpture, on the other hand, is under consideration, as the preponderance of evidence indicates that even within a few years of its coining, the word was being used in scholarly resources and good citations to identify the craft, the crafters, and the product of the crafting. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title, arborsculpture, is a neologism and its meaning is not obvious at first glance. The existing title seems clear enough for our purposes. To help readers understand that they have come to the right place, we just need the various competing names to appear in bold face in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Abbreviations and synonyms. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The existing title is thoroughly misleading and is therefore unacceptable. The term tree shaping' is in common use for a completely different subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It does not seem misleading. Its only fault is perhaps that it is too general. We might distinguish the shaping of the foliage of trees (which is what I suppose you refer to) from the shaping of the woody portions of the tree. We could do this by either expanding the article to say something about the former or limit its scope more clearly by renaming it tree trunk shaping or the like. In any case, the proposal is for arborsculpture which is less clear than all these possibilities.
  • The term 'tree shaping' has a completely different meaning. It refers to the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain a good natural shape. That usage is vastly more common that that proposed in this article. There are hundreds of arborists offering to do 'tree shaping' but they certainly do not mean what is described here. I have had it done in my own garden, it is commonplace. If you have any doubts just search for companies that do tree shaping and ask them what they do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping was chosen because it has a wider meaning and was in books and published media about this art form before the name change from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping. WP:NPOV also states about choosing a title quote "...might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view". Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The current title is indeed misleading. It is too ambiguous, demanding that all possible forms of shaping be included and it is in common usage to describe a different and far more general tree related practice. It is also too specific, suggesting that only trees are subjected to the craft, which incorrect and also misleading. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment if the original title is indeed a neologism then the article should be deleted. That is what I read from the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy (which is where the policy on neologisms is found). I would be happy to start an AfD based on the neologism policy if there is consensus for that. However, if "arborsculpture" is a neologism and this is a "notable topic which is well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists", then the article name should be something like "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic tools and items". I have seen zero evidence that "Tree shaping" is the general term used to denote this specific practice. The name was originally "arborsculpture" and the practice of "arborsculpture" has had a fair amount of coverage in secondary sources, therefore rather than deleting, or renaming to a long drawn out explanation of the craft, which is what the policy on neologisms calls for, keeping the original name seems to me to be the best way forward. However there is no policy that allows us to make up a name that is not used in secondary sources, and plenty that specifically forbid it. Colincbn (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The current title of tree shaping is consistent with the policy WP:NEO which advises " Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.". That's what we have here - a descriptive phrase in plain English. Arborsculpture seems inferior as plain English because it is pretentious and Latinate. And it is also a neologism and we should not show preference when there are competing neologisms for the same activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not feel that tree shaping is descriptive of the process this article is about. And as Martin pointed out above "The term tree shaping' is in common use for a completely different subject." therefore it is unacceptable to use it as the title of this article. The policy on neologisms says , as you mentioned, "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.". Therefore we either keep the original name as called for in the MoS, or if that is in fact a neologism, we either delete the article or change the name to a descriptive title such as "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic tools and items". And please remember, I don't care what the title is, I have no invested interest in this subject whatsoever. Deleting this article would not cause me to shed a single tear if that is what is called for by WP policy, I am just trying to implement that policy in the best way for the encyclopedia as a whole. Colincbn (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I have absolutely no specific interest in the subject and came only in response to the RfC to give an outside view. certainly there are only two options as Colin suggests a totally neutral descriptive title or the original one. I have suggested some below. If fact I do not accept that 'arborsculpture' is neologism according to the definition given there are plenty of examples of general generic usage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe WP:NEO applies at all in this case. The term "arborsculpture" has been widely used for over a decade, in reliable sources, from journals to grad-papers to books to articles. Compare with Snowclone for example (term coined in 2004, but widely used in reliable sources, and hence accepted). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Length of time is no gauge as to whether or not a word is a neologism. Neologism, quote "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism." Most of the reliable sources are based on Richard Reames's books and teaching classes, so it is not surprising they use his term. As can be seen though out this talk page there is controversy about the definition of the word arborsculpture.
What Mark Primack has to say about arborsculpture. (In Richard Reames's book, Arborsculpture Solutions to a small planet, Richard has acknowledged Mark Primack as being the leading authority on Axel Erlandson's trees.) quote "That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." search Mr Reames Blackash have a chat 01:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a fairly new editor on the article too and we do not have a descriptive term at present. We have a term that has proven to be specifically associated, in fact, with the work of one pair of artists, by their choice, and which, perversely, describes something else entirely in common usage. Its use has made the article difficult to edit due to all the toe-stepping around the elephant in the room. I agree with Martin Hogbin and with Quiddity, based on the preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, that arborsculpture is not a neologism and so that the policy on neologisms does not apply to this discussion. I agree with Colin, we have a naming issue that must be resolved by either returning to the original and specific name as clearly decided and implemented in the MoS by WP:Article titles#Considering title changes or by crafting another specific descriptive phrase but which is not in common usage, or we have an entirely non-notable topic whose article must be proposed for deletion. I do not think either long and clunky or gone are better than just using the name that is used by tree professionals and scholars.Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Colonel Warden got it right: "Arborsculpture" isn't crystal clear as to what it means. It comes off as a little inside group, to be honest - as if only people who know the topic get the title. I'd stick with what we currently have. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Warden do you have the same sense about arboriculture? That's an even longer established name for something related to this area of work (and from whence the term arborsculpture is clearly derived), which few people know the meaning of, and yet which is indeed the correct name for what it describes. I wonder if it might be not so much about a little inside group, but instead just a little outside your own (probably large) area of experience. Duff (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I promised myself I'd stop participating in these stupid trivial wikipedia controversies, but I keep getting sucked back in. The term "tree shaping" has problems, but changing it to "arborsculpture" is not the way to go. It seems that every "tree shaping" artist uses a different word to describe what they do, whether that is "arborsculpture", "Pooktre", "botanic architecture", or whatever. Arborsculpture is the most popular, but it is still controversial and highly tied to the work and books of the artist who coined the term. It is not the place of wikipedia to choose one side of the debate over the other. AfD hero (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be right. I like arborsculpture because that is what the article started as. As far as I know it was originally about the specific method used by the guy who wrote the books, in other words "Arborsculpture". But that is irrelevant, at the end of the day the article has come to cover the craft as a whole and there seems to be contention over what the broad name should be. In that case I will be proposing "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" (I shortened it a bit from what I put above) as the most appropriate title cosidering the WP policy on neologisms. It could have sections about each method used including a Pooktre and arborsculpture section. How does that sound? Colincbn (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about 'arborsculpture' except that one commercially interested editor here does not like it. Al the sources just use the term as an ordinary word without comment. There is no controversy elsewhere. 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)<--whose comment is this please?Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It was contentious before the name change, and has had controversy about the definition of arborsculpture though out the history of this talkpage. Here is summary of the different comments with links Quote from a reference for arborsculpture. "We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture, which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures." Link Blackash have a chat 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word arborsculpture is contentious only due to the considerable and highly improper influence of one editor on creating contention here at Wikipedia, and the same editor(s) protracted on and off-wiki campaign to squelch the word. The campaign is contentious. The word is non-controversial and easily understandable by anyone with the loosest familiarity with gardening and art. The article was not originally about a specific method. It started off with a picture of Aaron Naveh's pretzel tree and was written to describe the craft as a whole. The original source of the word did not convey it as a specific method either, but instead the word was coined therein by an admitted (here) amateur in the craft to unify an oddly unnamed field. The word arborsculpture is in common usage, in lower case, to describe the craft, as it was intended to do and it is without trademark, specifications as to method, or commercial identity. Posing Pooktre and arborsculpture as separate sections in an article with a different name is not going to resolve the problem, and in fact compounds the matter, since the word Pooktre IS a commercial name, tied to just one pair of artists and their work, and may not even qualify as notable on that basis alone. Duff(talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Changing the name would not make dissent go away, and would only encourage another request to change the name back to Tree shaping - or one of the many other suggestions that have been put forward over time. The best way to stop this petty infighting over the name is to settle on one name, and stick with it. I thought we had achieved that when it was settled on Tree shaping. Dragging up this issue again is not the way to go - it is in itself disruptive. The intention with having an article under the name Tree shaping was that it would serve to include discussion on the various aspects of tree shaping - and that if someone wanted to create a distinct article on Richard Reames and arborsculpture they could do so. While evidence was found for arborsculpture being used as a generic term for shaping trees, much more evidence was found for it being related to the work of Richard Reames. On the other hand, there was much more evidence found for tree shaping being a generic term, and while some tree shaping searches led to Pooktre, this was significantly fewer than the arborsculpture searches leading to Richard Reames. Our policies, guidelines and our sense of fairness and common sense lead to using the most neutral term, the most explanatory term for the general reader, and the term most used in reliable sources - and that is Tree shaping. SilkTork *YES! 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Tree shaping is indeed a common generic term. Sadly, for something completely different. See section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The word "arborsculpture" is used in the majority of reliable sources as the name for the artform, and is the original article title. The phrase "tree shaping" has been shown to overlap with another distinct activity, the generic (non-artistic) pruning of trees. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Our policies and guidelines do not support keeping this name. On the contrary, they support a return to the original article title. There are not reliable sources for the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe the craft and it is by no means the term most used in reliable sources. That point is false and has been exhaustively proven false at Talk:Tree shaping#Alternate names. There is no change of name, alone, that will solve the most serious problem with this article, which is an editorial one. Changing the name per policy and prohibiting the misuse of Wikipedia by the particular involved editor(s) who have manufactured and carried out the controversy by gaming the system...that would likely solve the problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 June 2010
  • Comment Re-reading some of the archives, I was dismayed to see this link to Blackash's internet campaign objecting to the usage of "arborsculpture" as generic, and pointing to Wikipedia as her evidence. Not good. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the text that Quiddity is referring to quote "Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world." Blackash have a chat 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, 127 hits. but when I just go and study a few, mostly blogs, and read them through...the depth to which this ridiculous campaign has sunk...for what? For the sole purpose of discrediting another respected artists work, while simultaneously and blatantly soliciting one's own work, is frankly appalling. This is the source of the "arborsculpture is a neologism associated with Reames" meme, and the source of the "arborsculpture is an extreme method of bending which is inferior and leads only to Reames" meme as well. The only source that seems to indicate this view, replicated over a period of years, back and forth across the web, traces back to Becky Northey, Pooktre, treeshapers.net and pooktre.com...none other than our self-outed ID, over-involved editor, Blackash. It's BRILLIANT! Are wikipedians going to let this stand? We shall see. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair and with full disclosure: Following an RfC pertaining specifically to a hostile editing atmosphere at this article and talk page, consensus was reached between 4 new and uninvolved editors that different name was needed and that a return to arborsculpture was the appropriate move. See Talk:Tree shaping#Proposal to change page title. Discussions preceding the RfC had become unproductive and the article was suffering. See Talk:Tree shaping#RfC:Tree shaping editorial conflict and the RfC was thought to be the most appropriate first step in dispute resolution. In discussions with new editors from the RfC, at Talk:Tree shaping#The only way forward, consensus was reached that the involved editor usernames Blackash and Slowart should step back from editing both the mainspace and the talk page for a while, and let the new editors try to find consensus (which we ultimately did). Slowart agreed to step back and Blackash refused to agree to do so. Consensus was nonetheless reached during the discussions that followed. Subsequently, when I opened this RfM, I thought it appropriate to invite both editors to express their support or opposition and participate in the discussion, in this context, as part of the ongoing dispute resolution process. I hope that was appropriate, and I trust firmly that all discussions in this RfM will remain civil.Duff (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 4. The word is as old as the www, it simply filled a vacuum when the works Axel Erlandson were becoming well known and other examples from history were starting to be uncovered. Without a unique name, finding historic and contemporary examples in 1995 would have been extremely difficult. The motivation to apply a single unique word to this unique art form was paramount because "pleaching" had become the default word and the art deserved and researchers needed and still need BTW, this unique word, arborsculpture. Slowart (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not entirely against using "Pleaching art" at the very least as an alternative name, but the article on pleaching still needs a lot of work (its basically a stub) before there could be justice for either page in this solution as a page title. Still, there were 2 reliable references using (possibly incorrectly) the term 'pleaching' to describe this art; and check out the google images on [pleaching http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS348&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=pleaching&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=]...An important point that is emerging in development of the pleaching article is that to pleach (or plash) is to plait, which is to braid or interweave, and the full dictionary reference dictionary term yielded roots in the Latin word plectere (buffet, beat; punish; plait, twine) and the Late Latin word plicare (to fold; fold , bend, flex; multiply by X , X-tuple; add together), both derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *plek-. To touch on an earlier point in this discussion, I believe that pleaching can be understood to include creasing via folding...no? AND, this art/craft that we're describing consists of MANY of the practices indicated by the practice of pleaching. Just some thoughts on that. Duff (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The term “arborsculpture” is neither controversial nor descriptive of a particular set of methods. Rather, it describes the practice of making what this article is about. Indeed, the first time I saw the word "arborsculpture," I got a mental image that exactly corresponds to the article's subject matter. I can't go so far as to say that the word “arborsculpture” is self-explanatory, but it's darn close. More importantly, the term “arborsculpture” is used by numerous verifiable sources, including universities and national magazines, to describe the sort of thing this article talks about. Previous discussion has documented this beyond doubt. “Tree shaping,” on the other hands, is a term we ourselves are choosing to distinguish from “shaping trees” – a concept that would include topiary, pleaching, bonsai, etc. It is Wikipedia's role to reflect existing nomenclature, not to deliberately change it. The fact we know who coined the word “arborsculpture” isn't especially relevant; it is individuals who coin words. The word has never been used in a propitiatory way by Richard Reames, he just recognized a category of horticulture that lacked a term so he made one up. Evidently, all of the supposed controversy about this term, on Wikipedia and across countless internet forums, can be traced to a single individual who considers Richard Reames a professional rival. Having sincerely examined her tireless objections over the course of half a year, I find they lack merit. Therefore, I think changing this article title to “arborsculpture” would improve Wikipedia because it is descriptive and appropriate for the subject matter. --Griseum (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This territorial feud does a disservice to its subject, and threatens to limit the value of the work described. I can understand the importance placed on naming something; it's a lot like founding a club- you then get to decide who can join, which guarantees your place at the center.

At the center of this subject is Axel Erlandson. His Tree Circus creations are the preeminent and unparalleled masterpieces of the field. The wikipedia article on Erlandson quotes me as saying, in 1981, that "I know of no other single person who has taken ornamental grafting to such an extreme, it is not just an oddity. It demonstrates an intriguing option for improving our environment by creating an absolutely unique space of living sculpture." Of course I said many things about Erlandson's work but, as his biographer, never used nor found the term 'arborsculpture'. Mr. Reames attended my lectures on Erlandson, and 'borrowed' portions of my original research. He was also familiar with my broader overview of the subject at hand, to which, in 1973, I had given the title 'Botanic Architecture'. At the time he requested access to my research (the early 1990's), he was using the term 'arborsculpture' to describe the work upon which he hoped to embark. That term does not adequately describe Erlandson's work, and I have been in communication with several practitioners mentioned in the article who feel the same. So it is important that the title not convey ownership of the subject, that it instead respect the unique and idiosyncratic natures of the individuals involved, and that it remain open enough to encourage full participation and exploration. Therefore I recommend that the 'plain English' title 'Tree Shaping' remain until such time that the subject does prove to be limited to 'sculpture' alone, or 'architecture' alone, or perhaps becomes a stand-alone 'art' of it's own.MarkPrimack (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine, unfortunately "tree shaping" means something else. Please see the section below regarding WP policy. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Primack and thank you for returning again.
This is not a territorial feud from where I stand, though there are aspects of the discussion that feel that way and certain involved participants in the discussion who seem determined to frame it that way. Although Axel Erlandson is clearly at the center of your work in this subject area, he is not at the center of this encyclopedia article's topic, and we are not in any way aimed at guaranteeing his (or any other artist's, or your) place at its center.
It appears to me, as a non-involved editor, that the controversy exists chiefly among certain involved editors (Primack, Cook/Northey, and Reames). It may extend further to include discontent with usage of the term on the part of some other artists themselves, though this second point remains an unsourced claim. Use of the term arborsculpture to describe the subject (which has been shown not, by far, to be limited to describing either Erlandson's or Reames' work) is not controversial and generates no heat whatsoever -- only light -- outside the actual "club," as you call it, of which you clearly see yourself as a member. Reames' works, and his coining of the word to describe the craft in general, may have sparked that light to some extent, but all the artists (and you) have benefited from the exposure. The word remains without copyright or trademark, has not been shown to accrue any particular benefit to any one artist, and it is in fact neutral, as its coiner intended.
Further, returning to the original article title 'arborsculpture' conforms to established wikipedia article-naming policy, as detailed above, to wit: "If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." 'Tree shaping' does not, both because it is in common usage to describe something else, and because it's invention to rename this article violated "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."(emphasis mine) These policies are clearly stated at WP:Article names#Considering title changes
While it is acknowledged that you are among the foremost experts on Erlandson's work, this article is not about Erlandson's work, nor is it about your work. It is also not about Cook's or Northey's work (either or both of which, I am of the opinion, might be notable enough to merit individual artist articles, but not authored or edited by its subjects), nor is it about Reames' work; although it does seem appropriate to include brief mention of each/all of these artists/craftspeople in the chronology section, if we are to include a chronology section at all. [[Axel Erlandson[Erlandson]] is considered notable enough to merit his own article, as are Reames, Krubsack, Wiechula, Nash, and the War-Khasi people, though none is considered, for the purposes of this article, any more prominent than any other, nor should they be 'centered' or promoted unevenly in the way that you suggest. Other gifted and possibly notable crafters may emerge (and have, but have yet to be included) and these designers/artists/craftspeople may merit their own articles too, as well as inclusion in the chronology of this article. All of you, and several others, and countless amateur crafters across time, and many appreciators of the art & the craft, are doing (and appreciating) something that transcends you as individuals. What to call it isn't really any longer a question outside your club, as the preponderance of reliable sources and many others outside your club are calling it arborsculpture. Both art and craft are safe and open under this name, even though I do like the elegance, if not the exclusiveness, of the name "Botanic architecture". Clearly some of it is architecture, however, you could hardly call people trees and peace signs architecture, could you, as an architect yourself? Yet they are most certainly part of the subject covered in this article, which is not architecture, but is: "the craft of cultivating and training (not just) trees, (but also) shrubs, and vines to grow into ornamental shapes, useful implements, and structures." Please note that 'woody plants' covered what's trained too, but was shot down in favor of the more detailed "trees, shrubs, and woody vines."
By the way, are either your biography of Axel Erlandson or your early 1970's master's thesis, Botanic Architecture, published and are they available anywhere on the web for reference and citation here? They're not currently cited in the article and I wasn't aware that you had published his biography. I found this [1], but no ISBN & no preview. It's come up in discussions that led to this RfM (see Talk:Tree shaping#Museum of Jurassic Technology). While a link related to you was provided, at the store at the museum of Jurassic Technology, it was disqualified for the purpose of supporting what it was used to cite, which was both whether that citation established 'botanic architecture' as another name for the craft and whether it called Erlandson's work (or any other) by that name. Given that the reference provided so clearly stated that the thesis was written before your discovery of Erlandson's work, and so could not have encompassed it specifically; and given that the thesis itself was not cited, we are seeking a better reference than that one and in any case, it would be extremely helpful to properly consider the thesis and its relationship to the subject of this article, if possible. Thanks much. Duff (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose'In the article in Richard Reams bio section the writer infers that Axel Erlandsen called himself an arborsculptor. In Axel Erlandsens' letter to Ripley he states he trained trees and did tree training.

Wilma Erlandsen refers to her fathers work in her book as 'tree shaping'or 'circus trees'. The term Circus Trees was used to introduce the artform to the world at World Expo 2005. Richard Reams, in his book, branded Axel Erlandsen the first arborsculptor. When I google arborsculpture I am sent directly to Arborsmiths Studios and am encouraged to buy merchantdise.The word is obviously a marketing funnel. The word arborsculture has a gender bias.Sydney Bluegum (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its Reames. Please read the section you are concerned about again carefully. You may have been looking at a past version of the article, but for quite some time the wording there has been very carefully stated so as to specifically clarify that very point, and it does not at all infer nor does it intend to convey that Erlandsen called himself that, nor that his daughter did. Curiously too, when I google the word arborsculpture, I get a whole long list (About 37,700 results), with this article at the top of the list, preceded only by a series of images of arborsculpture, two of which, including the first and largest image, are indeed Erlandson's. Two are also Cook/Northey works. I note that your user account contains exactly 2 edits, both on this article talk page, one in February and then this one. Do you ordinarily edit under a different username or are these your first edits on Wikipedia ? If the latter, I'd be very curious to know just how you got wind of this particular discussion first (and only). Finally, I am baffled by your last comment: Please explain precisely what you mean by "The word arborsculture has a gender bias" (and also whether your misspelling was intended or inadvertent). As far as I know, that's the first time gender non-neutrality has come up about the original article title, and I'm failing to see any, but maybe you can point out where I'm wrong. Duff (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The proposed move also conforms to the following established policy at WP:Article titles#Considering title changes: "..If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Duff (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It was contentious before the name change, and has had controversy about the definition of arborsculpture though out the history of this talkpage. Here is summary of the different comments with links Blackash have a chat 10:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is clear at this point there is no consensus to rename to arborsculpture. I don't like it but there it is. I will be putting forth a new proposal to change to something more in line with WP policy, as I feel "Tree shaping" is right out. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As of the time of the above comment, the RfM had started only yesterday, 7:49 pm, 9 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago now) (UTC−7). We are now on day 3 of a 7 day formal process of finding consensus on the page move, as part of an ongoing process of dispute resolution that will continue to additional forms of mediation if appropriate and necessary. Everyone doesn't agree, but there is some consensus.Duff (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the only completely neutral names that are clearly relevant to the subject would be either the bland and unhelpful 'Inosculation' or the ludicrously cumbersome 'Creation of artistic or functional plant structures by inosculation of branches or roots'.
I'm going with "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic items" Its a bit shorter and covers the main points of what this craft is about, but it might be too general. Any better suggestions? Colincbn (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What about "Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items"? Colincbn (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine with me if, after the RfC and hopefully some more outside views, there is a consensus that 'arborsculpture' is is neologism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Roger that. Another option would be to move up the dispute resolution line to informal mediation or something like that. Colincbn (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that will be helpful here. I think we need more outside views. Mybe a note added to the RfC asking for opinions on just the article name.
I've commented on the NEO claim, further up. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There are other alternatives, but I need more than one day to find reliable references. Yesterday I researched biotecture and it been around since the late 70's in published media and books. Tree Circus and grown furniture was used at the world expo Japan in 2005, but it will take time to get the published references in English. There are others, maybe the way to go about this is to create a list of the different suggestions and have editors voice which ones may be worth researching. Blackash have a chat 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I speak and read Japanese at a fluent level, I am in fact a translator of Japanese to English by trade, so if you have any Japanese text I would be glad to translate it for the betterment of WP. I also think the current name of the article is unacceptable as the term "tree shaping" is much more commonly used to describe a separate art-form and I feel that WP policy is clear that a descriptive title, even if it is long and awkward, is called for. Colincbn (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked at this trying to do a close and suspect that it could be closed as no consensus. In reading the comments, I wonder why Tree shaping (tree trunk art form) has not been considered? I know it is long, but it seems to address many of the concerns and describes what I think the article is about. The biggest problem for me with keeping this where it is appears to be the fact that the term is ambiguous and we even have tree shaping sources for artificial Christmas trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should leave it a bit longer in the hope of more outside views on the subject. If the stalemate persists, the only option we have is to change the title to one of the unambiguous, neutral, and descriptive names suggested above. Colin's "Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items" looks fine to me and clearly meets the strictest WP criteria for neutrality.. If this RfC runs its course without consensus then I will propose a move to that name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Vegaswikian's suggestion of refining the title with brackets would work. Blackash have a chat 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To properly reflect the subject of this article the title would need to be Tree shaping (Shaping plants through inosculation to form useful or artistic items). In that case you might as well drop the misleading 'Tree shaping' bit. In any case it is not neutral. Your business describes itself as is called 'Pooktre Tree Shapers' Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Martin. Tree Shaping is not neutral, and neither is shaping.
Neither is supported by a preponderance of reliable references as a name for the craft and using either would give improper benefit to a commercial entity composed of 2 WP editors using one WP name, with whom we are wrestling constantly for editing freedom on this page and upon whom the responsibility for all controversy over the use of the original, and again proposed name rests. This can't be permitted to continue.
Even Shaping of...... is not the right verb, were we to lead with a verb, which we won't, please, as that conflicts with naming policies too. Tree shaping: Tree trunk art form has similar problems: The craft is not limited, either to trees (one form or type of woody plants used) or trunk (one particular crafted part of woody plant among several that might be used to craft a design); and the practice of the craft is certainly not limited to Pooktre's term 'shaping'). I've suggested several alternatives already, including arborisculpture(note the i as in arboriculture), which does have references for its use by reliable sources; Livewood sculpture; and Xylem influence; and how about Live wood construction,Live perennial woody plant crafting, or Living woody plant sculpture, but honestly, this proposed title fits the best, has the most serious references, is already well-established, and meets all WP criteria for neutrality. Agree with Colin, Martin, and Vegaswikian: Tree Shaping is ambiguous. Disagree with Vegaswikian on closing. As of the time of the above comment on closing, the RfM had started only two days prior, 7:49 pm, 9 June 2010, last Wednesday (3 days ago now) (UTC−7). We are now on day 3 of a 7 day formal process of finding consensus on the page move from tree shaping to arborsculpture, as part of an ongoing process of dispute resolution that will most assuredly continue to additional forms of mediation if appropriate and necessary. Everyone doesn't agree, but there is some consensus, so let's keep up the good work and see what happens with the proper process please.Duff (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Per Quiddity's suggestion, I have just added a note to the RfC inviting further comment here at the RfM. (This basically involves only noting it at the initiation of the RfC section of this page, as the RfC page is bot updated and contains a warning not to post anything there upon it.) In case that's not effective in generating more light, I've also placed the same note on both of the interested project pages for this article, hoping to spark the interest of some more voices from our friends and fellow members of the Horticulture & Gardening and Plants communities; something I incorrectly assumed had already been done and wish I had thought of checking on sooner. Duff (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, on a similar note, thanks again to Blackash, who beat me to my next task this evening, sending out invitations to comment to (it looks like) every user who ever contributed to the arborsculpture/tree shaping article, including IP addresses, creating user talk pages where there were none as deemed necessary. Bravo, and WoW, that is really thorough. Did that include cross-referencing with all the talk page user names, I am curious? Again, thank you for that. Duff (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Althoughhhh...This is odd: What's up with no invitations for some named contributors, for example, User Talk:Thumperward (3 edits), User Talk:Tktktk(24 edits), User Talk:Pgan002(14 edits) and particularly User Talk:Ezekiello(12 edits), who started the article in the first place? Here's the tool I use: [2]. Maybe Blackash or someone can follow up with invitations to those and any others missed...I need sleep.Duff(talk) 10:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done it manually. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you kindly, Martin Hogbin. Duff (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'.

Note the url of the first one one [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] search on each page for 'shaping'

There are plenty more. What this shows is that whatever usage there may or may not be of the term 'tree shaping' to refer to the very specialised and limited subject of this article, the term is already in common use to refer to a standard arboricultural process, carried out on a much wider scale. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to have the title that is to quote AfD hero "The term "tree shaping" was thrown around because it is neutral, generic, descriptive, and in current use (judging from a quick googling). That is a good point about Bonsai et all. Perhaps we should include them in the article. If you have another name you think would be more appropriate, we could move it there, though I don't think moving it back to Arbosculpture would be a good idea given the controversy over that name.
Remember, our goal here is to provide all sides of the issue from a neutral point of view and not try to push one side or the other. AfD hero (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC) From section of talk page. Move from Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping.
Also from the section above quote blackash "Tree shaping is in common use, It been used by people who shape trees and others.
Some examples
  • How to grow a chair by Richard Reames, page 14. Quote:- "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortopia -all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditiaonal practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier."
  • Arborsculpture Solutions to a small Planet by Richard Reams, uses it twice on page 1 'shaping tree trunks' also 'shaping trees' there are other places though out the book that it used.
  • My Father "Talked to trees" by Wilma Erlandson, page 7 'shaping trees'. She doesn't use the word Arborsculpture anywhere in the book."
There are plenty of other references for the word Tree shaping linked to this art form. Blackash have a chat 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to comment or argue further here, the facts are plain for all to see. The term 'tree shaping' is in common use by arborists throughout the English speaking world to refer to something other than the subject of this article. Those who argue otherwise demonstrate a desire to ignore the facts for some reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason
Here may be at least a part of the reason: A quick whois search on the websites treeshapers.com & treeshapers.net yields the following: [treeshapers.com http://who.is/whois/treeshapers.com/] was created on 4-23-2003 and is a California, USA company, consisting of certified arborists who focus on overall arboriculture (and not arborsculpture), whereas [treeshapers.net http://who.is/whois/treeshapers.net/] was created 5 years later on 6-4-2008, by Becky Northey @ Sharbrin Publishing Pty Ltd (our editor Blackash, self-outed, clearly finding the .com version of her preferred domain name already taken), which is a South Queensland, Australia company focused on arborsculpture that wishes to establish and emphasize the independent development of its craft in complete isolation from other practitioners of the same (or a very similar) craft (though apparently not in isolation from the internet itself). Her use of the word treeshapers to describe her craft and the work of others may be its first actual use in that manner, and it may be helpful to note just where the discussions in this article's archives were headed on the date of her registration of her website domain.
Her first identifiable post on the article as a registered user was on 12-10-2006, with this delightful [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&action=historysubmit&diff=93358592&oldid=83868904], an excellent harbinger of the 3 1/2 years to come. This was a year & a half before registering her domain name, treeshapers.net.
Her first foray into the Talk page that I can discern in the archives is at Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 2#'Reames' following two incidents that occurred on August 13, 2008 (diffs [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&diff=prev&oldid=231854115] and [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_shaping&diff=next&oldid=231854115]) of her having uploaded copyrighted photos belonging to another editor (Reames/Slowart, also self-outed, repeatedly), and those photos having been deleted by their owner. This was 2 months after registering her domain name, treeshapers.net, and what ensued thereafter in the discussion is a pretty good detailing of where the real fight over the article name change began.
This then proceeded through Blackash's attempt to create a separate page for Pooktre and two AfD proceedings that ultimately decided that article's fate: deleted. Somehow this led to a redirect to this page, which I think is iffy, but even more iffy was the decision made without consensus by a participant in that AfD, User:AfD hero, preceding the AfD closure, to move Arborsculpture to Tree shaping without discussion and consensus first on this page, where heated related discussions were already underway.
That's the nutshell of it, I think. Duff (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


I have had a look at the history and it seems clear to me that the article was moved completely against all WP policies. My view is that it should be moved back to arborsculpture pending a consensus for possible further action. There was certainly no consensus for a move in the first place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree I share your succinct view. Thank you for taking the time to swim through all of that. I do intend to seek consensus for possible further action, given the well-recorded, long and sordid history. This RfC>RfM process was started in an effort to proceed carefully through the appropriate steps, as outlined in WP policies for addressing such challenges. Duff (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I (obviously) disagree with your take on the subject. When I came across the AfD, I knew nothing about "tree shaping". What I saw were two pages about the same subject - Pooktre and Arborsculpture. A little research indicated that Pooktre was associated with one artist, Arborsculpture with another, botanical architecture with a third, tree circus with a fourth, etc. I saw that Arborsculpture was a neologism intended to describe the subject as a whole, but it had not fully caught on and was still highly controversial among some circles. Furthermore, when I looked on the Arborsculpture page I saw a ton of neutral editors mentioning the problems with Arborsculpture, and basically a single person - the artist who made up the term - defending the name.
In such a situation, wikipedia must remain neutral. We simply mention the controversy without endorsing either side. This is a foundational principle. Some other editors associated with the AfD mentioned that, in the case of a neologism about a notable subject, the proper course of action is to give the subject a generic descriptive name. This is a policy. The term "tree shaping" was mentioned since it is neutral and also used in some sources. Taking all this into account, I made a bold move and took the action I still think was right. AfD hero (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD hero, I have taken three liberties: 1. moved your comment to the point in time in this part of the discussion when it occurred, for clarity and continuity. 2. indented it (and thus necessarily also Colincbn's comment) for the same goal. 3. Corrected the five instances of your spelling of the word in question from 'arbosculpture' to 'arborsculpture' (for the same goal: cornfusion reduction) which is I think what you must have meant, since 'arbosculpture' was never the name of the article, nor was it ever in discussion to be the name of the article. I've noticed that you've used the spelling before several times, and I've left it, thinking it just a typo, but now I'm beginning to wonder whether that might be part of your confusion on the issue. If that's not what you meant, please set me straight. Duff (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. While I understand AfD hero's point, being bold is not meant to override finding consensus. I think it shows well for the people in this discussion that no one else feels that it does or we would have an edit war on our hands. The fact is before making the move AfD should have put a tag up and looked for input. I know he was operating under good faith, I just feel he did not follow the best strategy. If you have a point to make about policy please see the section below which details what the WP policies regarding the issues under discussion here are. If you think I have left anything out or misunderstood something please respond down there. As far as "Tree shaping" goes, it is not descriptive nor is it used to mean this specific art in the vast majority of reliable sources. Therefore arbitrarily deciding to name the art "Tree shaping" in WP is clearly unacceptable. And of course you are right; WP does have a policy about what to name articles: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". Colincbn (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have heard the term "tree shaping" used by those in the industry exactly as Martin Hogbin's above links show: tree shaping is the judicious removal of branches and dead wood in order to encourage a tree to grow as naturally as possible given its circumstances. That practice has nothing to do with this article. The arguments to oppose renaming the article as Arborsculpture need to be presented in executive summary form (or provide a link to such a summary). All I have seen so far is a claim that the Arborsculpture name promotes some interest. What concise evidence supports that? Is there anything else? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP policy is all that really matters (mostly)

The way I see it there is only one thing that really matters in this debate: "What does WP policy say". I don't care about this craft, I have never done it, I don't know anyone who does it, I have never bought or even seen it in my life. I even went to the Aichi expo in Japan (I live in Aichi) and never saw Blackash's Pooktre exhibit. I don't care. I do care about WP as a whole and helping articles comply with WP policy is a great way to help the project. So here is what I think based on this standpoint.

The current title is unacceptable for multiple reasons pointed out above, the strongest of which is that the term "Tree shaping" means something else. However there are multiple options that are acceptable:

  • Return to the original name Arborsculpture; The article was created as "Arborsculpture" and existed as such for quite a while before being renamed to "Tree shaping" with no discussion or consensus. However there is even less usage of this new term in the available sources and it also falls under the exact same rules as a neologism. Some have argued that it is "more general" but nowhere in WP policy is there any wording that implies using a more general name is preferable to a neologism. In fact this clearly falls under the WP policy on original research, as we are choosing the name ourselves and specifically not using the most commonly referenced name. WP policy clearly states to use the first non-stub title whenever possible.
  • Delete the article as a neologism; If, as some editors have proposed, the term "Arborsculpture" is a neologism then WP policy calls for this article's deletion. With one caveat: if this is a "notable topic which is well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists" then is those rare cases "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." which leads to my next point.
  • Rename to a descriptive title; If the above conditions are in fact true then a name that describes what this craft is, even if it is long and awkward is what WP policy demands. Now myself and others have put suggestions forward as to a neutral unambiguous title. If this is the path that is decided upon the discussion should become about which of these is the best option. Those with suggestions they feel are better than those already presented are of course encouraged to put them forth.
  • Merge into Living sculpture; I am beginning to think this is the best option. If the terms most used to describe this craft are neologisms then rather than loosing the information by deleting, or choosing one company's name over another we can simply move all of this into the already existing article that covers all forms of this craft in a broader sense. No information is lost from WP, this debate will come to an end, and no editors with clear conflicts of interest will be able to control the title to best suit their own commercial enterprise.

I think I have covered all possibilities that conform to WP policy. Colincbn (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Colin, I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling you used from 'arborasculpture' to 'arborsculpture', which is the original title and, I believe, what you intended. Shoot me now too, if appropriate. ;) Duff (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, *hangs head in shame* (-_-) Thanks for fixing it. And thank god seppuku is outlawed... Colincbn (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As another disinterested editor I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
My preference, in order would be:
  1. Return to the original name Arborsculpture
  2. Rename to a descriptive title
  3. Merge into Living sculpture
  4. Delete the article as a neologism Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
My (MDV) opinion is Return to the original name Arborsculpture - Even pruning like doing apple trees would be tree shaping and shows further why "tree shaping" was a step in the wrong direction. I don't do arborsculpture, but am trained with any component it uses. The short existence of the name is not a problem. For example, had Wikipedia started 2 years after the first human went into space and the title "astronaut", we would see no problem using a new name astronaut. The merge with Sculpture as "living sculpture" is interesting. Sculpture is often a one time deal, Arborsculpture may need continual maintenance. Yet there is a resemblance. On the other hand, woodworking is not generally sculpture, even though sculpture can use woodworking. And I've done years of woodworking, which involves cutting, merging, moistening and shaping, staining and more. That's partially why I think Arborsculpture could be in its own category. My second preference would be the merge into Living Sculpture. In some ways, woodworking may be a good example to look at as we decide this. A vast amount of woodworking is very sculpture-like. But there was also Pattern Making like where woodworkers used to make a gear for a tractor out of wood prior to the casting process in manufacturing. That profession was replaced by computerized technology, but was the highest echelon of woodworking skill. But the pattern maker woodworking could hardly be considered scupture.Mdvaden (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As a main contributor, the originator of the RfC & the RfM, and yet still just another disinterested editor, I agree also. My opinion, in order of preference, is precisely the same order as noted by both MDVaden and Martin Hogbin, with the last two options being options of only last resort. If Colincbn's proposed solutions are in order of preference, then the four of us have consensus (so far) on the preferred solution, which is a return to the original article name. Please also carefully note the compiled concise history of the original improper name change at Talk:Tree shaping#The reason, above, which I shall anchor shortly. Duff (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think all the above solutions follow WP policy and are therefore are equally valid. If I was to list the order of which options I personally feel best fulfill our goal of creating an encyclopedia I would list in the order Martin suggests above. Colincbn (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ditto what Colincbn said (except, without deletion as an option. WP:NEO is not relevant here. The word arborsculpture is provably accepted, by all the usage in reliable sources listed previously, and also, this article is not on the word "arborsculpture" itself. NEO is primarily about delineating the appropriateness of articles like Truthiness and Jihobbyist where the article is about the word itself). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a very good and well-stated point; one that I didn't quite grasp from reading WP:NEO. Maybe it needs an edit or two also. Furthermore, I note (peripherally, because I take your point that NEO is not relevant here) that the two words you cite, Truthiness and Jihobbyist, were coined in 2005 & 2008, respectively; and that nonetheless both articles about both words themselves, stood the test of NEO, as evidenced by their continued existence on Wikipedia. Duff (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So is there anyone who disagrees with the above interpretation of Wp policy, and if so in what ways? Colincbn (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I'm here after seeing this on RFC. It seems like discussions here are proceeding apace, and I have read some of the past discussions, but am refraining from comment for the moment. Mostly just wanted to let people know that I've watchlisted the article and will make comments as I think I can be helpful. — e. ripley\talk 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_9&oldid=1091484601"