Talk:Tree shaping

Link Rot & other Questionable Sources

Ref 23 "Garden Symposium 2008" on the main page has died but I found it on the wayback machine here is the link [2] Will someone please fix the ref link. Blackash have a chat 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. I checked the wayback link you provided. It contains no information pertinent to the sentence it purports to cite, so far as I can see. If you see something else, please show me. Since the citation link is indeed rotted, and thus there is no way to discern whether it ever supported the sentence it purports to support, I'm removing the citation & placing a citation needed tag at that sentence. I looked for a suitable citation myself & didn't find one yet. I'd be very pleased to add any supporting citation you may find in your search. duff 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll get the cite for this by early next week. Blackash have a chat 09:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I question why this editor (Blackash) wants to link to an advertisement for an old workshop. Not only are advertisement unreliable sources but this editors focus on finding discussing and adding links to Reames work for the apparent purpose discrediting him, is yet another example of the misuse of the retractable privileges of speaking here.Slowart (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about removing references to old articles just because we can't access them anymore. We don't, for example, remove references to out of print books or old academic journal articles that are difficult to find. AfD hero (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

@ AfD hero: I agree completely. In this case, the reference in question was not an article, academic or otherwise, nor was it a book of any sort. It was a brief promotional announcement for an upcoming lecture. As the diffs illustrate (and will always illustrate, should anyone wish to extract that weak cite and bring it back), the reference did not support the material it was purported to cite. It was not a reliable source anyway, and neither did (or was) the document at the wayback link provided. The material still needs to be cited or is subject to removal. I may be misunderstanding your point, so please let me ask, do you see some aspect of that differently or feel as though not enough care was taken? duff 06:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I trust your judgement in this matter. AfD hero (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Following the link, It tells of a workshop where you can shape a chair between 9am and 1pm with another workshop starting at 1pm. That means approx 3hrs to shape a chair. This demonstrates he has a method,and it is fairly instant. Yes ,this is a weak citation. His books can be used as a reference for the 1 hour or afternoon shaping time frame.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a judgement call and there are several points against it. Those points being that it is commercial/promotional material so claims are potentially biased or exaggerated, that it is not written by a neutral third party, and that one would have to do some level of deduction/synthesis to go from what is written there to what is claimed here. If we ever push this article for GA or FA status, these are points the reviewer would almost certainly bring up. AfD hero (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be really GREAT to be able to use his books as references to cite this point (and several others), but since his books are self-published and since it's not been established clearly yet whether he's an expert in his field or not, and since there's been protracted controversy here about that question, we can't use them for that. By the same token, we can't use the statement in question either, as the only reference for it is not considered a reliable source, for the reasons just stated. It seems like a paradox, but it isn't really. The path is clear and rooted in policy, unless there's a reliable source to cite this statement, it has to go. So do all the other statements that rely on only either or both of those books, with the possible exception of statements within his mini-bio, where biographical information can be cited by those books. I don't like it either, because there's precious little material available to cite on specific techniques such as this, but we're not writing a how-to and we can't. We also can't play the source material both ways: expert when it's deemed strategic to include information & then not expert when that better supports omission of information. That won't fly here either, much less at GA/FA review.duff 18:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that we don't need sources for everything, only material that a reasonable person might contest. WP:V AfD hero (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@ AfD hero:I think that's a good point and well placed. I'm still saying the article should be based entirely on reliable sources, though & I think you are saying that, too. Many points in the article, as it stands, have been based upon, and are copiously cited to the two sources that are Reames' work. Blackash maintains that those two sources consist of self-published non-expert SPS that can't be used to support much that she prefers not to find in the article. I'm trying to entertain that idea seriously, so please help me grasp this if you've got hold of it: If the source of the information in the main article body is unworthy of citation for one point, how can it be worthy for another and what is the objective basis upon which to make that call? For parts that might not need sources, what's your opinion or the policy on the best way to determine which portions don't need sources?

I would say there is no fixed formula, but we should use our best judgement on a case-by-case basis. With regards to Reames books, I think we should definitely use them on points that are uncontroversial. On controversial points, we might still include it, but preface the sentence with "according to artist Richard Reames, ...", similar to how articles on political news topics operate. AfD hero (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF quote:-

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I used this as guild, for the info out of Richard's books. The techniques cited to Richard's books were about how Richard shapes his trees. Bending trees is an activity. The wording was factual. It wasn't making third parties claims. All the techniques were directly related to Richard's style of shaping. There is no doubt as to its authenticity. It was only part of the overall article. Plus I've now found that some of Richard's cites can be referenced else where aswell. Blackash have a chat 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both; that was extremely helpful. Bending is a technique used both alone and in combination with other techniques, by several (but perhaps not all) of the notable practitioners covered; citeably so. No practitioner's chosen combinations of techniques have thus far proven so notable as to be known as a Method meriting citation by reliable sources, much less separate sections describing each 'Method'. These facts strongly support the current NPOV direction we are taking with the Techniques section.

If for some reason Reames' combination of techniques (or the Pooktre Method, or anyone else's) becomes so notable as to be referenced by any reliable sources as a 'Method' specific to them, then that named Method might merit an individual article covering it, at which point we or some future editorial team should discuss that & possibly cover that Method, identifying its originator(s) (of course) there in that article.

Please Note: This is a fuzzily similar but fundamentally different question than that one which asks, "What is this whole body of craftworks and artworks called by reliable sources?," so please don't mistake or misquote any of this as my thinking on that question. That question, thus far, remains a poorly understood and unresolved one, largely due to the confusion generated by conflating it with this question, which is, "Are there any notable Methods referred to by reliable sources?". I am very glad if we have (at last!) resolved this one, for now: At this time there are NO reliable sources indicating any clear, well-established, "Reames' Method," nor any other "ArtistXbrand's Method". This realization should render the meaning of the other question much more straightforward and far simpler for everyone to grasp. duff 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Refs for two methods

These refs below write about two methods. Duff are you saying these refs are not reliable sources? If so why?

• Indian Magazine [3]
• London financial times [4] Blackash have a chat 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would not ask me to do this and instead just recognize it yourself; that which must be SO clear to even the most casual observer. These two press clippings, linked from YOUR website, are both based on extensive interviews with YOU, wherein YOU have made this very case to the interviewer, in support of the superiority and prescience of YOUR OWN METHOD. They are not even a little bit OK as citations to support the point you seek to cite. Both articles are replete with quotes from YOU and are so clearly slanted at YOU that I can hardly understand how you could consider them to be neutral and reliable sources; particularly after having put up such a fuss about articles that could even possibly have been interpreted as influenced in any way by Reames. Do you honestly find this material to be a reliable and neutral source for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'? If you do, once more I am floored. duff 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The second article, which is originally from The Financial Times' Weekend Magazine at http://www.ft.com/magazine, consists ENTIRELY of a direct quote from YOU. It begins, "In her words:". 'Susannah Snider' placed her byline in an odd place on this clipping, within the quotation marks, but these are not her words. These are your words. The names you give for the publications and titles are also, as usual, incorrect, but that's a comparatively minor issue.

I'll say this again: the results of yours and your partner's work are spectacular, but you really should not be trying to exert this type nor this level of influence on the editorial team writing this Wikipedia article. duff 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The real question you should be asking about these references is: Are Peter Cook and Becky Northey experts in this field? Are these sources self published? If the answer is we are experts and these are not self published sources then my understanding is that these references would be reliable sources. Which are you questioning? That we are experts? Or do you think we self published these articles? Blackash have a chat 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are questionable and yes, I am definitely questioning them. That is the topic at hand. They are unduly self-serving, they are being used to support synthesized claims about the 'Methods' of third parties, and there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. I'll ask again, since this was my question, and you may have missed it, "Do you honestly find these two sources to be reliable and neutral sources for citeable proof of distinct 'Methods.'? One other question you might ask of yourself, perhaps, is whether or not it is appropriate for you to participate in or exert any influence whatsoever in discussions pertaining to your own expertise, including the determination of which questions editors should or should not be asking. I want to make it very clear that I do not wish to debate with you any further on any of these questions. I volunteer my time here and I do that because I love this project, Wikipedia, not because I have any interests to defend or anything at stake with my editing at all, and not because I like to waste precious editing time and self-generated power arguing in talkpages with conflicted interests over their own expertise. That takes all the joy out of editing and I come here to write. duff 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Self-serving is to do with self published. I didn't publish these sources.
• Duff it is your opinion it is synthesized, can you cite that?
• Third parties claims is also to do with self published.
• Duff's quote "there is reasonable doubt as to their authenticity." I have the emails from the editors about these media clippings. I would be happy to forward them to an admin so their authenticity can be checked.
• Again in case you missed it. Are these references self published? Are the people quoted experts? These are core policies to deciding if these references are reliable or not.
• Why are you joining the issues of neutrally and sources together?
• Giving references, listing some evidence and pointing out you should be focusing on content style questions is not unreasonable behavior. Blackash have a chat 14:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I will try to answer point by point:

• 1. You didn't technically publish them, that's accurate, but you so completely and verifiably influenced their publication as to make those specific references highly suspect as to their neutrality in regards to the points you are now insisting that we include in the article and use them to cite.
• 2. In doing so, you made claims fabricating a third party's 'Method' that you are now using to establish some credibility for your claims of 'Methods'. That is a fabricated claim, followed by a separate synthesized claim based upon the fabricated claim.
• 3. See #2 & #6.
• 4. Those emails might be interesting, as they almost certainly document what I have just explained, but they are probably not essential.
• 5. See above. And no, it has not been clearly established that the person(s) who were quoted therein (you) were or are experts in this field; hence my concern.
• 6. Because sources which have clearly been influenced by biased opinions and fabricated claims are not reliable sources. That is exactly why policies here clearly state that these policies: neutrality, verifiability, and no original research are to be interpreted in harmony and should not be considered in isolation from one another.
• 7. Refusing to answer simple content-related questions, consistently deflecting those questions by forming strawman arguments to argue different questions, inflating claims of your own expertise and using these inflated claims to argue over matters of content and reliable sources; these have become patterns of yours that are incompatible with the Wikipedia editing experience. As I understand the word 'reasonable', these patterns themselves are "reasonable", in the sense that you have your "reasons" for executing them. However, those reasons put you squarely in the camp of many other editors with a CoI, who violate community norms by consistently insisting on exerting their own non-neutral PoV upon other editors and upon articles in which they have a direct interest. This is not acceptable and it has become a problem for other editors. You've been warned both gently and firmly about this countless times and many levels of dispute resolution have been unsuccessful in coaching you to stop. Since you have pretty much ignored those warnings and continued to push your PoV in those ways and others, now we are all involved in time-consuming arbitration to try to resolve that problem.

I remain eager to consider any sources that solidly document any individually established and distinguished 'Methods' for this craft. Can you submit ANY authoritative reliable sources corroborating this, or not? duff 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff you seem confused.

• 1. If an article is written by independent international media about Pooktre doesn't mean it is automatically dismissed, though that seems to be your view.
• 2. You shouldn't be dismissing references because that don't fit your WP:Truth.
• 3. See #2 & #6.
• 4. Duff you claimed "reasonable doubt as to their authenticity". My offer to forward the email to admin would establish their authenticity.
• 5. Duff since you are so one eyed on this issue of expertise I not surprised by this statement.
• 6. Why are you mixing up neutrality and published media?
• 7.Duff you don't ask simple questions, you write essays full of misinformation, spin and points written to cover different bases sometimes apposing views. Yes a couple of editors like yourself have asked me to not talk here, but other editors have stated I can talk on this topic. Duff you know this. If my editing was as you state the arbitration would not be still on going. We are now up 52 days as of today. Multiple admins have commented there the issues here are more about content than any misbehavior of any editor. I've seen how you sort out references, you are bias. How do you change a "new solid and authoritative reference" to a "weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref" why point out pooktre is used generically in it. Blackash have a chat 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, thank you for your concern, but I am not confused at all. Again, please refrain from mischaracterizing my editing in the multiple ways that you have here and instead, please answer the simple question: "Can you submit ANY authoritative reliable sources corroborating your claim, which solidly document any individually established and distinguished 'Methods' for this craft?" duff 01:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Duff you make you point here that any article based on information about Pooktre artists is not authoritative. Since you keep insisting you are not bias I guessing the same would hold true for any article based on Richard Reames. So using your view I don't have any thing. Though I don't agree with you and that is why I have listed at the reliability noticeboard. Blackash have a chat 14:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Echoing and expanding Martin Hogbin's unanswered questions upthread when you submitted the same source this morning, to cite the the '3 separate methods'. Is this author an expert? Can you provide links to the article or the full text? This doesn't seem like a very authoritative source, on it's face, but I'd like to evaluate it fully and fairly. We really need a horticultural journal or another resource with some weight and editorial snuff.duff 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

I had commented to Duff that he should take some of the references he was questioning to reliable sources noticeboard. He seems very busy editing else where, so I've listed there about 3 different issues. [5] Blackash have a chat 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Citations

Tree News

Could the submitter please provide a link to evaluate the source material for this citation: <ref name>=treenews: Citation| unused_data = John May| title = Tree News | publisher = | pages = | isbn = | date = Spring/Summer 2005</ref>, which is used to support this controversial point: At the Tree shaping#Other names section, cites a generic use of the phrase "Tree training" to describe the overall craft.

I found a very interesting detail about the above-noted citation in particular (currently @ #68 in the reference list):

• It had been previously added to the article, formatted as <ref>May, John (Spring/Summer 2005) "The Art of Arborsculpture" Tree News (UK), p. 37</ref>, and among several other oddly disappeared footnotes, had been cited as evidence of the generic use of the term arborsculpture in that same section, during discussions to determine whether or not arborsculpture was indeed a generic term.
• It was later deleted from the article entirely, reason unknown.
• It was then still later returned to the article in a different cite format with different content: <ref name=treenews>{{Citation| unused_data = John May| title = Tree News | publisher = | pages = | isbn = | date = Spring/Summer 2005}}</ref>, which erroneously omits the article's title and places the publication name instead at the title field, whereupon it was then used to cite this different information: use of the term 'tree training' as generic for the craft, but it was not re-cited at the term arborsculpture.

I am going to standardize the citation format for this cite to the primary cite format we're using, and populate that with the information we do have about it from both attempts to cite it. I'm also returning the previous citation to the Tree shaping#Other names section, next to the term 'arborsculpture', because its actual title clearly indicates a generic use of the term to describe the craft, which is why the citation was put at that location to begin with. For now, I'm leaving the cite at 'tree training', in the same section, as we can't tell whether it does or does not contain any information that would support the use of the term 'tree training' as an 'other name' for the craft, until we see the material.

I can't help wondering if the actual title of the article was inconvenient, conflicting as it does with the point of view being pushed, but it may instead have been a coincident series of good-faith oversights, which I'm prepared to assume. Could the editor(s) responsible for the flip please explain the reasoning behind these changes and also please provide links to the original article, in its entirety, for evaluation as to whether it is a reliable source for anything?duff 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have standardized the citation and found some other interesting information in the process of attempting to do so.

Here's what I came up with for a standardized cite, inclusive all fields I was able to track down:

• <ref name=TreeNews>{{Citation|first=John|last=May|title=The Art of Arborsculpture|publication=Tree News http://www.treenews.org.uk/|page=37|date=Spring/Summer 2005|publisher=The Tree Council http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/}}</ref>

The interesting part is that Blackash had already reached out and touched the author of that article on his personal blog, shortly after he announced that new issue of his Tree News magazine, on 2005-06-22, with this responding post of hers to his announcement, wherein she did not identify herself as Rebecca or Becky Northey as she has usually done when countless similar missives have been sent as part of her off-wiki campaign. Instead, she used her anonymous blogger profile [6], and it is likely that if he read the message, he did not know who it was from.

I sent the author a message on that same personal blogger page today, using my only blogger profile (which is an open one), asking if he could provide a copy of the article in question, for our evaluation. If I get any response, I'll be very glad to share it here and update the citation usage accordingly.

This has taken most of the day, just getting to the bottom of this one muddied citation, correcting it, and documenting the correction here. Time had been spent already once before, when the original citation was first lobbed in. That's hugely wasteful of editorial effort, but it is necessary work in order to get the article right and also to ward off this very subtle but pervasive form of manipulation and misuse of the language and of Wikipedia. There are MANY other citations to be hammered, AGAIN, due to quiet and unnoticed deletions of MANY properly sourced and properly formatted citations. The entire campaign was at quashing the organic spread of a word coined by a perceived commercial rival. I am glad that it has ceased in the article space, because this is really tedious and disheartening stuff. duff 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There. I have added back to the article all of the deleted citations to authoritative reference material that had somehow dissolved away during my absence. You'll find most of them linked at the word arborsculpture under Tree shaping#Other names They'll all have to be re-attached to any remaining material that they used to properly cite and new, more interesting things will surely be said in place of the deleted article text that is buried deep within the diffs of the many changes that wrought this loss. Please look each citation over carefully as there's a lot of good stuff there.

It should be very clear to all present and future editors, by both the scope and quality of the references returned, which had been improperly deleted, as well as that of the nine new authoritative reference sources (YAY!) that have been located by the efforts of SEVERAL other people besides myself (THANK YOU!!), that the generic name most commonly used to collectively describe this craft by authoritative sources is arborsculpture.

The funny thing is, it really doesn't matter what this article's title is. That ship has long sailed, as I've tried to make clear before. The point is that this IS what it IS called, and so that is where the resources are to be found. Knowing that makes it SO much easier to develop the article to its full potential, because now that this point is unmistakeably clear and very well referenced, we can now plumb all those excellent references for what will now seem like brand new material (and some of it is) with which we can greatly improve this article. And, we can search for the thing itself, not some pale ambiguous leaping shadow of a thing that doesn't actually exist and that no one is writing about. That's what really matters!! Oh, and ah...yeah...29 authoritative sources is the new total by my count. So what is the process (following the completion of the currently pending arbitration, of course), to reassert the process of returning this article to its original title? Cheers! It's my naptime. duff 09:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ASLA

This citation was already @ the word arborsculpture, in the Other names section, but I thought I'd take a methodical approach and check this whole string of cites out to be certain they are valid. Not sure who added it, but here it is: Citation| title = Landscape Architecture| journal = American Society of Landscape Architects| volume = 90| issue = 10-12| date = 2000| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=QXpMAAAAYAAJ&q=arborsculptor&dq=arborsculptor&as_brr=0&ei=kiIOTIaWCoWqlATP7pSDCg&cd=4 It is difficult to evaluate as it's a tiny Google Books snippet that doesn't even show the sentence containing that word. It looks like (from the link) that it was added I've sent a message to Brad McKee, editor-in-chief of the ASLA Journal (http://www.asla.org/), requesting a copy for our evaluation to see if it's useful or not. If I get a response, I'll post a copy where everyone can check it out. According to the Google Books link, it uses the word 'arborsculptor' on page 30 in Volume 90, Issues 10-12. While that's probably barely enough for establishing generic use of the term in a reliable source, we really need to evaluate the context within which it's used, obviously, to cite it any further than that in the article. I'm leaving it in for now, awaiting a response from Mr. McKee, and if anybody's already got this article somewhere, please advise. duff 07:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the art

Duff you seem to started the discussion on what the name of the art described in this article is. For some reason you seem to have started this discussion in the article itself rather than where it should be, which is on the talk page. No point in the article needs 29 references!

I have copied the section from the article to here where (less references and tags) it can be discussed. Once again, I would ask all editors with a direct personal or business interest in the subject not to involve themselves in this discussion because the have an obvious COI.

Since this discussion is likely to lead on to the best name for the article, I suggest that we consider the names as candidates for the title of this article.

I still support waiting, though I'll participate in civil discussions. The text of the other names section is incorrect and unsupported by citations. In particular, this sentence "The result has been no standard name for the artform to emerge." is false, deliberately misleading, and unsupported by any citations, with the notable exception of those whose content is purely biased and demonstratedly influenced by the editor/artist who wants it kept. This sentence, "Richard Reames refers to it as arborsculpture.", while accurate, is also misleading as it suggests in context that he is somehow wrong or renegade to do so, which is also patently false. I placed the tags because simply removing the text would likely have been contentious, but it isn't right either to just let stand in the article statements whose neutrality and accuracy are so obviously lacking. Careful study of the material provided at each source that I painstakingly re-coded and re-attached will make that very clear, but I think it will take some time for editors to consider each source, since they are actually really good and weighty sources. I am not seeking a hasty decision that will later need more arguing, so how about we let it ride for a bit and see what emerges? duff 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This section (of this talkpage) should be retitled "Other names section" and we should work on this section and get it right first, before any further discussions on changing the name of the article, IMO

I don't think either sentence noted above adds much to the article and I propose deleting both. I also am not convinced that the second sentence,

• "There are very few practitioners around the world, each with their own name for their technique.",

is neither entirely accurate nor needed to open this section. There are probably a lot of enthusiasts out there doing this in one form or another, who aren't famous at all or interested in becoming so, and who just think it's a pretty cool thing to do with their own backyard trees. We don't want to be deliberately exclusionary or support this idea of some lofty club of aesthetes, when the unbiased sources do not suggest that either. Some practitioners have achieved some notoriety, and we've got those pretty well covered in that other section.

The other two sentences stand well on their own, and they explain in a non-controversial and factual manner, what the section contains. :Check this out:

"Throughout its history, various words have been used to describe this craft. These are the terms most commonly encountered:"

Simple.

Then, I would strongly suggest removing those which are not actually commonly encountered. Specifically, TreeGoshing has a single reference for its use, proposed rather offhandedly in the source it comes from, and it cannot be said to be commonly encountered. I have no idea what goshing actually is, but it isn't a common name for this craft. Pooktre is not a common name for this craft either, and the nature of that brand has been well-established in previous discussions. It should also NOT automatically redirect to this article, as that is also misleading, in precisely the same way. Keeping that proprietary term in a list of synonymous generic terms for this work is not right. Pooktre is only synonymous with the proprietary works of the Cook/Northey team. The same is true of its use in the lead and in other places in the article. A listing under Examples, right along with Gilroy Gardens and Fab Tree Hab, is most the appropriate place for that. Arborsmith Studios should be there too and there should be well-referenced articles developed to cover both, from a neutral and compleeeeetly unbiased point of view. There should be See Also sections in both articles, pointing to this article. That's what both are: examples of this craft. duff 19:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Section from article

I have deleted the section and the refs, they are still in the article itself if anyone needs to refer to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I did a quick check of a couple of the refs. 24 We're going to Live in the Treees,. This one uses pooktre as well as arborsculpture generically 5 The Tree Circus,. This one is basically a book review written like an article note the plug for Richard's book. I will go though these on Tuesday when I have more time. Note how Duff didn't add the arborsculpture/pooktre cite to the pooktre entry though he added it to the arborsculpture entry. Blackash have a chat 04:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. I did not bother with scouring these citations for references to Pooktre, because this is not an article about Pooktre. Pooktre is not an 'other name' for the artform. It is your brand. Must we re-establish this at every single juncture?

There's no indication that the ISA Texas citation is a book review. The book seems to have been mentioned in passing and anyway, there's no rule that authoritative sources must not mention Reames name or book to be considered reliable. On the contrary, his work has been formally cited in several sources and that's the mark of a respected work. Feel free to run ISA Texas up the flagpole @ Reliable Sources if you think it's a good investment of time, or I may do that myself. Do you have a link to the full text of the Tree News citation for us to evaluate or not? duff 05:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No this article is about the art form as a whole, techniques and their practitioners. Pooktre is part of this art form and as SilkTork pointed out some people chose to use pooktre in a generic sense as well. Blackash have a chat 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, please answer the question: "Do you have a link to the full text of the Tree News citation for us to evaluate or not?" duff 01:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No I don't have a link to the text, I have a copy of the article. And before you asked I don't have permission to host it. Blackash have a chat 14:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ok and I understand. That's actually good and makes it more straightforward anyway. So that I can evaluate the full original text of the citation for myself, please email a copy. I'd also like to evaluate your copies of the full text of these citations you provided, including the publisher's details:

• Hao Jinyao (11 May 2009), "The art of Tree shaping", Culture"
• McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times
• "No need to pull up a stump:Short of garden funiture?", Sunday mail, 6, April

(and the first one is)

• May, John, The Art of Arborsculpture, Tree News Spring/Summer 2005: , The Tree Council http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/,+p. 37

Perhaps if other editors would also like to see a copy of the original text of these citations (and accept email) you can send them copies too, so that we can discuss them and discern whether or not these are reliable sources and whether they support the points they are claimed to support. Thanks much.duff 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Duff for a writer you have a pretty shaky understanding of copyright. Whether it is reproducing the articles online by hosting or just sending an email both are violation of copyright without permission. Blackash have a chat 01:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, there is no problem in quoting small sections of copyright material, just the paragraph that supports what you say would be fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, I'm aware of that, as I've typed up a few sentences from sources on the 6th of June 2011 for you. But that is not what Duff was talking about. Blackash have a chat 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've evaluated the Jiwatram/PopSci reference again, I think you're right...it's pretty weak and mostly of a promotional nature, reflecting and circular-referencing the forward-looking AFTAU/Plantware/Treenovation article, which we've also got to find a better-source replacement for where it's cited, by the way. This one made a BIG circle! It also makes the mistake inherent in all that circle of references of referring to Pooktre without capitalization. Since we know that Pooktre is a proprietary brand, and not a generic term for the craft, this inaccuracy alone renders the source material questionable. Together, that's enough to toss this one, as it hasn't anything new to add to the article, either. I'll remedy that now. Good catch. duff 06:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In, less than one day Duff changed his opinion about Jiwatram/PopSci ref. From a "solid and authoritative references" to being "it's weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref to AFTAU/Plantware/Treenovation material". The only thing different about the ref is I made Duff aware that pooktre was used generically, and as that doesn't fit with Duff's truth he removed it. Duff in his comment above is making out I suggested removing it!!! I did not. Blackash have a chat 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This citation (Popsci) and the other readily identifiable circular references mentioned are promotional material and not reliable sources. They have been so determined, multiple times, by multiple editors, during discussions in which you participated. Leaving them in after that has already been determined serves no purpose related to the improvement of this article. I have already explained that I recovered the citations I added, after they had all been oddly deleted, and that I would go through them carefully to establish their reliability, which I had begun to do, and which I will return to shortly. Please refrain from characterizing my editing in the way that you have here.duff 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff your edit summary states " added 9 new solid and authoritative references", that not recovering that is adding new. I disagree with you about your removal of the cite and that is why I listed at the reliability noticeboard. Blackash have a chat 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Well, there's yet another reason why a copy-paste of a whole referenced block from article space over to talk space is not so good: I deleted the reference here instead of there, by mistake. I tried reverting the deletion and striking the citation here instead,so it would stay for posterity, but it can't be stricken because it's a citation, so striking doesn't work. So, I'm deleting it here, again, & I'll now go over to the 'real' reference, on the article page, and delete it properly. Martin, can we strike this copied section post, as I suggested, so that it does not confuse anyone else that way (such as me, again, for example)? If it's left here, it'll actually have to be edited exactly the same way as the main page every time we make any change in the real article involving any of these citations, which means twice as much work editing whether it's fixed or not. If anyone forgets to make both edits, this information won't be current & we'll keep working on things here that are already solved there, such as this instance. I think we can work with what's on the main page and just edit that where it needs to be edited. duff 06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I want to point out is that I've got a tight section up above at Talk:Tree shaping#Questionable sources, where I'm documenting each questionable citation and hoping to bring each one to a decisive stay-or-go position. I just documented a question there that I have about the ASLA citation. I'd like to move this discussion on the Jiwatram/PopSci citation up there too, to keep the citation investigationz together under one heading, partiularly if Martin does decide to strike or delete this copy/paste section. duff 07:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I will either fix the mess above or delete it, in which case we will have to refer to references in the article in our discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, I've just now reordered the citations at that point (in the article, @arborsculpture..but not here) to permit a more systematic continuing analysis of each for quality and relevance to the article up @Talk:Tree shaping#Questionable sources. That may either complicate or simplify your decision, though it's not intended to influence it; rather, to help get this essential work done before any formal discussion on the article name begins. duff 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry people, the references need fixing or removing (which will make subsequent discussion difficult). What should we do? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think copy/pasting large sections of referenced articles into talkspace ever works well, for this reason (above). You've got to go back and find all the original refname entries and copy them over too, or the multiply cited references will appear to be broken or missing where you paste the block. I've done it, it's extremely tedious and duplicitous, and it's probably not worth the effort, IMO. They are all in the article already, where they belong, and we can refer to that easily as we discuss one issue at a time, as much as possible and as deeply as needed, understanding clearly and resolving issues as we go along.

This may not be what you meant (but in case it was), PLEASE do me the favor of not removing the citations wholesale from the article, without some sort of good reasoning for their omission from the article they support. I put a lot of time into gathering them back together again, studying them, and re-wiki-coding them & I would be extremely disappointed to have wasted all that time again. I'm also planning to USE those citations to further improve the article. I don't see any broken citations in the article and there are few poorly formatted ones left; none recently added. Do you? duff 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again for the mess. I am not going to remove the references from the article but I do not think that they serve any purpose there, certainly not 29 of them. In fact the section serves no purpose, it should be here. Maybe, if I have time I will try to fix the references here in the way that you describe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all and no apology is needed. I completely understand the reasoning for the copy/paste & I think the reasoning behind doing it is solid. It's just tricky to do right and the relative return on the investment of time to get it right is low. By, "You've got to," in my prior comment, I meant only that in order for that to work right it's got to be done that way; not that "You've got go back and fix it." That was a poor choice of words and sentence structure on my part (easily misunderstood), I'm seeing, and again, I'm not recommending, much less insisting, that you go back & fix it.

Were it my choice to make (having made this very same mistake myself already), at this point I would either simply delete it, or strike the copy/paste (using the <s> and </s> wikcodes), and make a little note about it right there, rather than taking the arduously more tedious approach of fixing it. It is not my choice to make though, as it is your posting, and I won't mind at all either if you do decide to slog it out anyway and fix it. I've done that too.

I'm not strongly (or even weakly) attached to keeping the Other names section in the article. I do think that it does serve a purpose though, temporarily, while we are hashing out the present issues and proving up these points. The same temporary purpose is served by the long string of citations. In principle, I wouldn't be against moving the section to here on the talkpage, but again, in practice that would require some very tedious work of copy/pasting multiply cited refnames from throughout the article, in order to prevent the loss of sources and reference material. I'm not sure it would be all that helpful. I don't want to do that piece of work and I don't feel it would make our discussions any easier.

Ordinarily I would agree that 29 references on one point seems excessive. However, because of the original article name change and the voluminous dispute surrounding it, in this case it is the only practical way to preserve the sources relevant to the article, so that they can be exploited properly to develop the article. It's needed only because we are busily tiptoeing around the elephant in the room, so to speak. I'm open to other ideas that don't consume so much time that their implementation precludes improvement of the article. Until we do get the current sticky issues resolved and get those sources better integrated into the whole article, I don't think it really hurts the article to have this long string of (accurate) citations after that word. It's simpler from a practical standpoint to move the refnames up from one edit window, into the old & new material they will support, than it would be from two edit windows on separate browser tabs; and less likely to produce frustrating errors and omissions too. It also provides one clear and very succinct representation of the actual number of reliable sources that use that term to describe this work. Even if it was for that reason alone, I think the Other names section should at least temporarily be kept (but its text improved for neutrality and accuracy), while we try to come to some reliable source-based understanding and consensus over these other issues. duff 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff is well aware that putting 29 references after a word is CITATION OVERKILL as Duff had previously linked to this wiki essay before short section here. Duff has shown an understanding of this concept Duff's comment only section here as well as in the other linked section and in his comment above. Duff knows how to create a sub-page, then link to the talk page header and could have easily done this to "preserve the sources relevant to the article". If Duff wanted to improve the article he could have added the content from the references and then cited them though out the new text. Duff added these citations to prove a WP:POINT as can be seen in his edit summary here, not to improve wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do understand the concepts. I also know how to politely indent my comments for clarity in an ongoing thread and I know how to create a subpage, without removing any existing citations from an article, sir. I could have chosen any of the ways he describes here and instead I chose this way, which was far more expedient and violated no policy. Time is precious. As I explained above in great detail, it makes more practical editorial sense. If he chooses to assume bad faith, in spite of my clear explanation, so be it. He is wrong. duff 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary he cites reads, "added back another quietly deleted citation point, which had been cited there to establish and prove the clear preference for one generic term among reliable sources." The summary is accurate and detailed. Note carefully the position of the comma. I have added the bold italic here to highlight the tense that I very specifically used in the summary to indicate the original circumstances of the citations' location on the page, which he has failed to grasp. duff 04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

[[7]] This previous effort by Griseum may be useful. Slowart (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It was and it is. Thank you. duff 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are wayy too many citations in the alternative names section. I would suggest either picking the best 2-3 and removing the rest, or if you feel it is important to have all of them, group them like so:

<ref>
*{{cite}} 
*{{cite}}
*{{cite}}
</ref>

AfD hero (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, they are definitely too important to remove at this point, so let me give some thought to the other approach you suggested and I'll give that some attention tonight. duff 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For now could you just move them here? I did this once for the same reasons last year sometime. I fully understand the reasons for wanting them, but I think there is a better way of going about it. Colincbn (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if the other names section shouldn't be moved entirely to here. I don't think leaving the citations where they are is so problematic, but the way the other names section is presently used, shouldn't it in fact reflect the actual number of citations to that usage as compared with the other names listed there? It's not undue weight at all, but please explain the better way of going about it that you are thinking of. I don't mind working up the citations as bullet points, as suggested by AfD Hero, and I'll knock that out right now.duff 23:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There it is, as suggested. A single citation at each Other name, with the rundown as bullet points in the reflist. I guess it's better by some measure, though I think the other way was a lot less messy. duff 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How to choose a name

If we are going to decide on a name for this article,it should be based on the relevant policy, which is WP:NAME. We should also take account of the guidance proposed by Elen of the Roads, which was:

Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

We also need to consider WP:NEO in our decision.

I was expecting to start this discussion after the completion of arbitration but it seems to have started now, I would like to ensure that it happens properly. Does anyone object so far? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Or should we leave this subject until after the arbitration is complete? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very good idea to lay out the policies that are or may be involved in such a move before starting, but my opinion is still that we should leave any further discussions around whether to change & what to change to until the results of the arbitration are clear; after its completion. If I seemed to suggest otherwise, elsewhere, it was contrary to my intent and I will do my level best to stay on course.

I agree with most of what you have said here and with Elen of the Roads' guidance. I share your goal of ensuring that any discussion of name changing happens properly. In this case, such a change would almost certainly require another RfM. Before we launch that rocket, there are several key points of concern in the article right now that really should be addressed before that actual discussion & RfM take place, so that both can be conducted using accurate information. These points are under consideration above, now, independent of any changes to the article title; however, the successful resolution of these points of concern will more clearly inform those talks. Can we agree to hammer out those problems first, wait for the results of that & of the arbitration, and leave the title temporarily? duff 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

More study notes: WP:NAME#Considering title changes (better known as WP:TITLECHANGES) is the section of WP:NAME that is most directly applicable to what is proposed for later discussion and what we will at some point be considering. By that I do not mean that this section should be considered in isolation from the rest of that policy, nor from the other core policies; but that it is the section of that policy that deals specifically with our problem. duff 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

More study notes: The section on neologisms pointed to at WP:NEO is a sub-section of the Policy WP:NAD, which is entitled "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", and applies mostly to dictionary-class articles. This article has developed well past that stage, over a period of many years, so the policy at NEO may not be applicable here.

There is a Wiktionary article on our article topic here arborsculpture, which uses a fractional slice of the same sources that we do. Its article history shows its evolution (without any discussion except edit summaries, notably) beyond some of the same claims that have been made here, by the same editors, over basically the same time period. Note that there is no article in Wiktionary entitled 'tree shaping'.

However, it still may be of some value to also consider the encyclopedia article at Neologisms, which is also linked to and used to define the word 'neologism' in the WP:NEO sub-policy. While the encyclopedia article is not Policy, it still may be useful to consider that therein it currently states: "When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism." and also, "Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism."

Another possibly valuable point on neologisms is made in this Guideline for the Manual of Style: Manual of Style (words to watch) at Manual of Style (words to watch)#Neologisms and new compounds. duff 01:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

As discussed above, we must decide on the most appropriate title for this article based on usage in reliable sources. Before starting, I think it is worthwhile considering to which types of source we should attach the most weight. If we are to use a particular word or term we need to show that it is in widespread use to refer to the subject of this article. It might be beneficial to consider how we would rank sources before looking at specific names, so I have started a list for discussion below. I would also add that sources close to the originator of a name should be downgraded.

I have started a list for discussion:

Very High

Books on horticulture by internationally respected publishers.

Horticultural dictionaries and glossaries by internationally respected publishers.

General dictionaries by internationally respected publishers.

High

Major national newspapers.

Academic publications

National general horticultural publications.

Medium

National specialist journals and magazines.

Online dictionaries.

Web sites of horticultural organisations

Low

Trade journals and magazines.

Self-published books.

Local newspaper articles.

General web sites. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Niwaki be included under Related Practices?

I was recently searching for techniques to make landscape trees appear older, and came across the Japanese art of Niwaki. I think at least supplying this word will be helpful for others in my situation. Jake Hobson is an English practitioner and author.

PS Really great article. Thanks all.

71.209.29.11 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just googled Niwaki techniques and got 12,300 results so I look into it in the next couple of days and see what I can add. Blackash have a chat 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki has an article on Niwaki already. I go through the refs I've found online and build this article up a bit more and then I have a better idea how and if it fits with this article. Blackash have a chat 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Arborsuclputre ref

Duff this ref's (John (Spring/Summer 2005), The Art of Arborsculpture, The Tree Council http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/,+p. 37) link leads to 404 page could you please fix this and/or give me the quote so I can add it to the subpage? Thanks. Blackash have a chat 00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart can you get a hold of this ref and give a quote? Blackash have a chat 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have two months

We have been urged by Arbcom to sort out the title and scope for this subject in two months. They said:

The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.

Before we look at the name, we should consider, whether this article would be best merged with another and what exactly is the subject that we are discussing. I have started two sections below and added my thoughts.

We also need to open an RfC on the subject.

Merge or not?

I do not see any obvious article into which this one should be merged. To my mind the article has always been about a very specialised but clearly defined art. I therefore think it should not be merged. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Living sculpture would be my choice if we were to merge. However considering the size of the two articles this subject would dominate. We would then need to trim this article down. Rather than that I suggest not merging and simply giving this article a title that is appropriate to its scope. Colincbn (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. See my comments below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would google pleaching to search this subject. The current article's name seems logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?oygul (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The current title is regularly used by arborists to mean something completely different. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Again, in my opinion there has been little argument about this. The article has always been about the production of useful or artistic objects from living trees and other plants. It nearly always seems to involve inosculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Part of the naming dispute has been whether "woody plants" or only "trees" are covered by this article's subject. Also if the term "tree shaping" is supposed to be descriptive, why are so many ways of shaping trees not included (such as using sandpaper and chisels)? Therefore if this article is about a subject with limits we should clearly define what those limits are in order to facilitate smooth collaboration. Colincbn (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly does not include all forms of shaping trees. That would include topiary, pruning, pleaching, trimming and tree shaping as performed by arborists to give a natural shape to mature trees. In my opinion the scope of the article is clear, it is the current title that is wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree of course. I just think we should list, or otherwise clarify, what does fall under the scope of this article so we don't get into another "Woody plants vs. Trees" dispute. Also I think it will help point out to those new to the issue why so many of us feel the vague term, that was arbitrarily decided, "Tree shaping" is not appropriate. Colincbn (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the scope I think the woody plants/trees issues was something of a diversion. In my opinion the article does not extend to training a grape vine round your greenhouse but it would include making a chair from a vine, if such a thing has been done. This should be a matter of fact that is easy to decide from the sources.

I am planning to start a new section on the name, where we look at possible names in detail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. I dropped in to see if there had been any progress. At least one admin has offered to keep an eye on proceedings as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I've got the related pages on my watchlist, but haven't seen anywhere that I needed to step in, so I am content to let the editors here work things out on their own. If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to ask, otherwise I'll stay out! --Elonka 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Is it worth adding any option over whether the page should be upmerged to a broader-scoped article? Are there any candidates? I am unfamiliar with this field - the closest I've come is trying some bonsai and informal espalier which didn't go so well.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That was the point of 'Merge or not?' above. There seems to be a sudden lack of interest in this article now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "lack of interest", I think it is more like "burn out". After sludging through multiple ANIs more RfCs and RfMs than I can remember and finally getting to ArbCom, just to have the worst offender unbanned with no Arbitrator even responding to my request for clarification makes me wonder if it is even worth it. Colincbn (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand how you feel Colin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested and watching, but who did you think was unbanned? Did I miss something ? Slowart (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You had better check, but my understanding was that you and Blackash could submit your evidence for your preferred article names at the start but then you had to shut up, on both the article and talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But only about the name. So if you want to fight over whether "woody plants" as well as trees can be used, go ahead. If you want to fight over whether ring barking is an acceptable technique, go ahead. If you want to spend endless hours writing poorly sourced fluff about your own business and then wasting more hours on frivolous ANIs over it getting removed, that is fine too. Of course you never did those things, but others have. Colincbn (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to hear that, I really hope that dose not happen. Slowart (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, I think it would be of great benefit to us all if you could fill in your preferred name(s) for this article using the templates I propose below and give as many supporting references for each as you can. Blackash, I suggest that you do the same.

Martin? Until you/someone files an RFC about the title I will not be engaging in any title talk. Blackash have a chat 09:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for some groundwork to be done first but I have no objection is someone want to call an RfC now. Why not add the references for your preferred name first? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pleaching has been used for this art,we can merge there if tree shaping is out. found this [8] ?oygul (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pleaching has been considered as a name but it does not really describe the subject of this article. Sorry, I forgot to sign this Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed decision on scope

I propose that the scope of this article should remain essentially as it is described in the article itself on this date. I can see no reason to expand the scope or to reduce it. Please indicate agreement or otherwise below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin where was pleaching considered,there are plenty of references for Axel Erlandsons work.?oygul (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

?oygul, are you suggesting that we expend the scope of this article or narrow it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saying merge with pleaching.?oygul (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case it would have been better to have put you comment under 'Merge or not?'. The article says' Pleaching is a technique that may be used to train trees into a raised hedge or to form a quincunx'. That is not what this article is about. I suggest that you wait for the outcome of this discussion before adding images of this subject to the Pleaching article.

Article name

As no one else has done anything on this subject I am starting the discussion on the article name. I am proposing a rather detailed discussion of the subject. This may seem rather long winded but will help newcomers to join in the discussion and it should lead to a definitive decision on the subject.

I propose the following format: Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture

This was the original name and as per WP:TITLE we use the first non-stub name if there is a dispute.

"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."

If any editors still think there is a reason not to use this title, the only other option is to use a descriptive phrase as called for in WP:NEO

"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. 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."

These are the only two options that comply with WP policy. After uncountable hours of deliberation, multiple ANIs, multiple RfCs, and even an ArbCom it is clear that there is no one accepted term for this art.

"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." (From WP:TITLE)

We cannot just "think up a name", we must either use the consensus name (there is none), go with the first non-stub name (Arborsculpture), or use a descriptive title (my preferred choice). That's it, those are our only options. It is really not that complicated. Colincbn (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Supporting references

Ref 1

'We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture,which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures. We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures'.

This seems like a reasonable academic source to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 2

This looks like a reliable source but I cannot follow the link. It is also a non-US source, showing the name has spread to other countries. Can anyone add the relevant text here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 3

'Grafting to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful sculptures (Fig. 9.2)'

Horticultural Reviews, Volume 35 Edited by Jules Janick Copyright & 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 442. section 4. Creation of Unusual Growth Forms.[9]

This seems to me to be a use of the word in a publication by a well-respected publisher. The publishers describe the publication thus: 'Horticultural Reviews presents state-of-the-art reviews on topics in horticultural science and technology covering both basic and applied research. Topics covered include the horticulture of fruits, vegetables, nut crops, and ornamentals. These review articles, written by world authorities, bridge the gap between the specialized researcher and the broader community of horticultural scientists and teachers. All contributions are anonymously reviewed and edited by Professor Jules Janick of Purdue University, USA, and published in the form of one or two volumes per year'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 4

'Erlandson began his foray into arborsculpture in the 1920s.

This as a journal of a US national organisation. It uses the word arborsculpure to refer to the work of an earlier artists, thus showing the word has moved into general parlance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 5

'Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees'.

Another US academic source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ref 6

' Arborsculpture' is the art and technique of growing and shaping trunks of trees and other woody plants by grafting, bending and pruning the woody trunks (dating back centuries).'

This is a local trade journal.

General discussion of 'arborsculpture'

There are many other references to the use of this name but some are too closely linked to the name's originator to show that it has moved into general use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(Martin, I think you should sign the above statement) Arborsculpture is also the first non-stub title, as such there is a very strong argument for using it. However, many editors have expressed a reluctance to go back to it because of its association to an active WP editor (the man who coined the term). If anyone still does not accept it, the only possible alternative is to use a descriptive phrase. I would be ok with either option as they both follow Policy, but I would prefer to use a descriptive phrase as I feel using arborsculpture will mean that WP is taking sides in the off wiki naming dispute between practitioners of the art. Colincbn (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement signed. I really think we should ignore all the old, commercially based, arguments, they have nothing to do with WP policy. The question simple is, 'Has the word moved into general horticultural use?'. Of course, we need to bear in mind that this is a very narrow topic so we would not expect to see that many examples. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is typo in section title: "'arborculture" -> arborsculpture. --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have amended it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Supporting references

Ref 1

Discussion of the validity of this reference or source.

General discussion of 'Tree shaping'

I have not added any references for the use of this name because it is in my opinion a non-starter. It is extensively used throughout the arboricultural community to mean something completely different from the subject of this article, namely the pruning of, generally mature, trees to achieve a natural shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the consensus name in the artistic community, nor is it the first non-stub name on WP. Therefore it is unacceptable (plus it means something else). Colincbn (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Using a "Descriptive Phrase"

Supporting references

There are no "Refs" for this (obviously), but there is this:
WP:NEO
"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. 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."

And this:
WP:TITLE
"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."

General discussion of 'Using a Descriptive Phrase'

This is the only option that prevents WP from influencing the naming debate. It is compliant with all WP policies, and will resolve all title related disputes. If at some future date one name gains a consensus in the artistic community the title can be changed to reflect that.

My first suggestion would be "Shaping living plants into useful objects". Six words, four less than the ten word suggested limit put forth in the WP:MoS. It covers what the art is without any association to any practitioner. It is a Verbal noun. It is a quote from one of the sources provided by Blackash. And most importantly it cannot affect the real naming debate that is going on in the artistic community.

And remember the Policy above: "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". Colincbn (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be my second choice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a significant problem, however, with using a descriptive phrase. In order to accurately describe the subject of this article I believe that the phrase would need to mention 'inosculation'. If you look at the pictures in the article, every one uses this process. The problem with 'inosculation' is that it is a rather obscure looking technical term that will not be known to most people.

This article covers the shaping of plants into both useful and artistic shapes. Without mentioning 'inosculation' it is not clear how a phrase could distinguish this subject from the training of fruit trees into the useful and artistic espalier and fan shapes for example.

I once tried moving this article to a name using 'inosculation' only to have it summarily moved back with an admonishment not to be so silly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think inosculation is needed in the title. For example Richard Reames makes handles for axes and shovels and the like that don't use it. Colincbn (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Training plants into useful objects" would work as far as I can tell, and it is one less word. "Useful" is broad enough to mean both objects used as tools etc. and those used as art. Training implies living plants which excludes shaping wood with tools etc. As far as I can see this is short, simple, and resolves all the issues about the title. And it does not allow any editor to use WP to promote or attack any particular name. Colincbn (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Pleaching

Supporting references

Ref 1

There is no quoted text to show that this reference shows that 'pleaching' is a generic name for the art. It is a local newspaper source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 2

"pleached trees at the Tree Circus"

What exactly is this source and what is the quote referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 3

It is not at all clear what is being referred to as pleaching in this source. The work is also referred to as 'braiding' and 'grafting'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 4

"...load-bearing structure which a weave of pleached branch..." about the Fab Tree Hab

"living examples of pleached structures includes the Red Alder bench by Richard Reames and the Sycamore Tower by Axel Erlandson."

Here 'pleached' clearly refers to a technique used rather than the final product. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 5

Section heading: "Pleaching"

"Pleaching is a form of living architecture." "...involves plaiting or weaving living branches together to form a structure." "...or can form more ambitious configurations(see Figure 4.68)" Which is an image of Pooktre's ballerina tree.

Again 'pleaching refers to the method used as in can form more ambitious configurations Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 6

"The most immediate example of early tree architecture and pleaching is found in the overgrown 3/4 acre lot that houses what used to be known as "the Tree Circus""

Tree architecture and pleaching suggests that these are two different things. Martin Hogbin (talk)

General discussion of this prospective name

[I have reformatted this in line with other entries] Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pleaching is a technique generally used for hedges. The subject of this article generally refers to a different art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the above references gives any indication that the word 'pleaching' has moved into general horticultural usage to refer to the art that is the subject of this article. The article on pleaching shows that this word is generally used for something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Next prospective name

Supporting references

Ref 1

Discussion of the validity of this reference or source.

Concluding discussion on article name

I have made a start on this. Is anyone else interested? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I have started with 'arborsculpture', not because I have any connection with the term or its originator but because I believe, from looking at the sources, that it is the only word that might be considered a generic term for the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to look at the quality of sources when considering a name. Most small businesses can get a mention in a local paper or a commercial trade magazine if they put their mind to it. This does not in any way show that a word has moved into general use.

Definition of a term that clearly refers to the subject of this article in a journal such as 'Horticultural Reviews' is a completely different matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Methods

The whole techniques section has been blended by Duff losing the fact there are different process to achieving a shaped tree. before and after. I think Colincbn's suggestion of a brief description on each process written on this article with the differing techniques on the practitioners' page is a valid suggestion.

This would then address the problem of WP:SPS for Richard Reames's process. Dr Chris Cattle has plenty of refs for both his process and what he is doing in this field. To start a page for Dr Chris Cattle would we use Dr Chris Cattle or Chris Cattle? Blackash have a chat 12:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Now things have settled down again I'm going back to editing approximately once a fortnight. So don't worry if I don't reply straight away, I will get back to you. Blackash have a chat 12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Any discussion of techniques must be based on what is written in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've some refs for Dr Chris Cattle, I'll just need to go through and see if Dr Chris Cattle is used more then Chris Cattle for the title. I will of course start the article in a sandbox. Blackash have a chat 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin are you saying these two refs

• Indian Magazine [10]
• London financial times [11]

are not reliable? Blackash have a chat 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They are both article written by yourself and they are therefore reliable sources about the methods that you use. I do not think that they are particularly informative about how others work. You do not say much about what you call 'Instant tree shaping'? What exactly is this and who does it? Are there any pictures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban ?

Excuse me, but I thought Blackash was banned from editing the main space. This "ref" just added, is her hometown paper, added to support "other names" for the title. ^ a b c McKie, Fred (April 20, 2005), "Warwick artist grows wooden 'jewels' for World Expo", The Southern Free Times. I think it is an interview with Blackash but I can't find it online. Ellen can you give some guidance please ? Is this the kind of editing that is allowed ? Slowart (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart my edit was replacing a citation needed with the correct reference that was already there at the end of the next sentence. Slowart you know that the Community restrictions were superseded by the Arbitration ban. Which allows editing of the main article and related articles. Final decision Blackash have a chat 06:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, your edit comment was, 'I wish colincbn and you would stop adding spin to your comments'. Please do not attack other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question of the community topic ban needs to be clarified, although it is quite possible that the there is some unambiguous wording that I have missed. If the community ban was overturned, I would have expected some very clear wording to that effect in the Arbcom findings. This is not a big deal, and if it turns out that an inadvertent breach has occurred there will not be a problem, but we should seek clarification. One thing is clear, namely that the above comment from Blackash is too confrontational—if there is some clear wording to answer Slowart's question, please explain where to find it without the unnecessarily pointed expression. Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the ArbCom ban on Blackash is, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.". In terms of the edit here,[12] it involves an adding of a reference, in a place where a reference was requested. The reference was already elsewhere on the article, and (to my knowledge) is not challenged as unreliable, so I'm not seeing any clear violation of the ArbCom sanction. As for the edit summary when Blackash replied here on the talkpage, where specific other editors were targeted,[13] that was not particularly helpful. Blackash, in the future, please try to keep edit summaries neutral, thanks. --Elonka 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was challenged, if fact the major issue, IMO was the amount and number of bad references added by blackash (that were later removed one at a time) to support the title "tree shaping" and or any other name that was not arborsculpture. Allowing more of this sort of (self) referencing about the Title and Other names will just perpetuate the exhausting situation. Slowart (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please point me at the discussion about that particular source? In the meantime, other editors are welcome to copyedit the section. --Elonka 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

[14] (request for supporting text) Removed last June by editor Duff [15] Discussion on talk page [16]Slowart (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart/Reames had also removed the text and refs in the past diff which resulted in this discussion with me giving quotes from the references' text. That resulted in the wording that end up in the article. Blackash have a chat 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did give Duff quotes from articles, including the one Slowart is now questioning. my diffs A quick check of the multiple diffs Slowart gives shows Martin has just removed the questioned ref today. diff not Duff in the past. I don't believe Martin's response to remove cited material is the correct way to address this. As this is about the alternative names should Slowart or I be even discussing this? Blackash have a chat 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed a claim that there is no general name for this art because we are still discussing that question. The reference was from a local free newspaper and is not nearly reliable enough to make such a bold statement here. Let us look at all the literature and come a consensus before making bold statements in the article about what this art is called. That is what we have been asked to do by Arbcom. We need to set up an RfC but I suggest it would be better for us to do some groundwork first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, can anyone name 3 different notable artists who all use the same name for their work? AfD hero (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD hero, I have started a detailed discussion on the name of this art above, your contribution there would be most welcome. In reply to your question it is not clear what you mean by, 'who all use the same name for their work'. Some artists give their own specific work a distinctive name, such as 'Pooktre' and some do not. Others have proposed generic names for the art in general, some of which may have been taken up by the horticultural/arboricultural community. We need to decide whether there is any generic name that is used to describe this art and, if so, what this name is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that Arbcom did explicitly change the previous topic bans, see Community restrictions superseded. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping#Remedies, the editors Blackash, Slowart, and Sydney Bluegum are banned from discussions about the name of the article. They are still allowed to edit (non-name-related) parts of the article, and to participate in (non-name-related) discussions on the talkpage. Uninvolved administrators (such as myself) are also authorized to use discretionary sanctions on any users in this topic area, after appropriate warnings. There's a bit of leeway right now since we're trying to figure out the exact scope of the ban, but all of the mentioned editors are strongly encouraged to proceed very cautiously here, in order to avoid sanctions. --Elonka 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on a discussion with arbitrator Casliber (talk · contribs) here,[17] I believe it would be alright to allow each of the three sanctioned editors to make one (1) statement in the RfC with their own opinion on the naming issue. I was thinking that a statement of no more than 200 words would be about right. What do other editors on this page think? Would that be reasonable, or would you prefer that they stay out of the discussion entirely? --Elonka 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, provided that they strictly limit themselves to a single, brief statement and do not abuse the hospitality by treating it as a way to re-engage. I would also say that if any single editor objects to such statements, we should respect that objection. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: The name of this article

This article has recently been the subject of an arbcom case where the following final decision was made:

The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.

There are sections above where scope and merging are discussed. There is also a section for proposed names with supporting references. Those proposing names are requested to use that section and to follow the existing format. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Need specific questions - I'd be happy to help out. Can someone list the two or three key issues that need to be resolved? Just a brief statement, best phrased as a question (e.g. "Should the article be renamed to ...?", or "Does the article give too much weight to topic ABC in violation of WP:Undue?", etc). It's okay to include links up to older discussions in the Talk page, but the issue(s) need to be re-stated here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The most important question is,' What should be the name of this article?' Candidate names, with supporting references are shown in the section above. No doubt, other possible names will be added in time. We also have the possibility of using a descriptive phrase. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant section is just above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the proposed names are Arborsculpture, Tree shaping, and Pleaching. I also see in the lead paragraph of the article the terms Tree training and Pooktre. The WP:Title guideline makes it clear we must use the most common name. Google hits are not determinative, of course, but they are an important data point. Looking at google hit counts:

• Arborsculpture - 53K (47. in GBooks) - Neologism; somewhat promotional
• Tree shaping - 200K (474 GBooks) - Too broad, doesnt focus on art.
• Pleaching - 45K (5K in GBooks) - "Pleaching" has its own article, and is a subset or variant of this topic
• Tree training - 148K (3K in GBooks) - Too broad, doesnt focus on art.
• Pooktre - 47K (2 in GBooks) - Neologism; somewhat promotional
• Biotecture - 476K (308 GBooks) - Not accurate: this is use of plants for insulation/structure
• Living art - 2M (44K GBooks) - Way too broad: encompasses animal/human art
• Grown furniture - 9K (78 GBooks) - Very few Google hits. A subset of this article.
• Tree art - 1M (2K GBooks) - Too ambiguous: could mean paintings of trees
• Descriptive phrase such as Artistic tree shaping or similar - Not consistent with WP requirement to use name used by sources

My initial feeling is that the scope of this article is focusing on artistic tree-training and thus "tree shaping" and "tree training" are too broad because they involve many other tree-growing disciplines that are not artistic. Hence Arborsculpture or Pooktree seem like the leading candidates. More questions: (1) Regarding these candidate names: Is there any national localism involved? In other words, is one term used in UK, and another term used in USA? (2) is there any kind of point-of-view or bias involved in these terms? (3) Are any of these terms too broad or too narrow for the topic of this article? For instance, is "tree shaping" a too-broad term that is a superset of the topic of this article? (4) Are any of the terms used in a derogatory sense? --Noleander (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You may find this list interesting it is a sub-page with the table list of potential title names with references, quotes and links (when I could find them). I'll be adding more refs next week. Blackash have a chat 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some more candidates to the list above, from that subpage. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, one thing I'm seeing is that WP is missing articles on these specific disciplines. For instance, WP does not yet have articles on Biotecture or Grown furniture or tree art (paintings). So, if there is some kind of dispute over this article, one resolution may be for the various "factions" (apologies for using WP:battlefield terminology) to create new articles on these various disciplines. WP:Content forks are permissible, WP:POV forks are not permissible: but I'm seeing a need for some legitimate content forks. This particular article, as written now, appears to be focusing on artistic tree shaping, and the titles Arborsculpture or Pooktre seem best. Once a Grown furniture article is created, we can talk about cross-linking, etc. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Between the two leading candidates Arborsculpture and Pooktre: Pooktre has a couple of disadvantages: (1) it is based on "Pook" which is the personal nickname of Peter Cook, an artist that specializes in this kind of tree art; and (2) it is not as understandable to the casual reader as "arborsculpture". For those reasons, "Arborsculpture" may be preferable. --Noleander (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Does anyone have any objection to using "Arborsculpture" as the title of this article (and defining the article's scope to be tree-shaping art; and creating other articles - listed above - as needed)? --Noleander (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a very long history to this dispute which resulted an Arbcom case in which in two editors were banned (subject to some conditions) from this discussion because they had a commercial conflict of interest. These editors were Slowart (Richard Reames) who originated the term 'arborsculpture' which he intended to be a generic term for the art, and Blackash (a Co-founder of Pooktre Tree Shapers) who use Pooktre as a proprietary term for their work.

Having removed commercial interference from this discussion we should now be very careful to choose a name based on WP policy on the subject. In particular we must look for the name that is actually used in reliable sources. The section above is intended to show which names, if any, are used generically in reliable sources for the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: Okay, so you're saying you object to "Arborsculpture" because it is a neologism that is promoted primarily by a single individual (perhaps with a conflict of interest). So, which title would you recommend? Something generic like "Tree shaping art" or "Artistic tree shaping"? --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not meant to give that impression at all, just that we all need to be specially careful about the way we make our decision, I am trying to do things strictly according to WP policy and ignore the commercial interference that we had in the past. As it happens, my own preference is for 'arborsculpture'. The article name section just above has references from very reliable sources that show to me that 'arborsculpture' is the generic term used by the horticultural community for this art, it also the original name of the article. Perhaps you could add your opinion to that section and any other names that you think are viable alternatives. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies ... I misread what you were saying. I think I understand now. See my new comments at the bottom of this section. --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A section on the 'Pleaching' article

Martin you are censoring pleaching to say something else Y??oygul (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything; I have no power to do so. If you want to add pleaching to the article name section above together please do so, together with refernces to show that it is used by the majority of reliable sources to refer specifically to the subject of this article.

Martin I was talking about the pleaching article were you twice removed a pleaching image by Axel Erlandson the second time after I added two refs. You and duff accused me of fighting and strongly warned me off. Martin's edit summary " Regardless of the refs this is clearly an atypical example of pleaching. It has been added only to prov a point regarding 'Tree shaping'" You removed with out discussion, I call that censorship. ?oygul (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It might have made it easier for me to understand what you were getting at if you had made your comment on the Pleaching talk page.

Are you saying that there is no connection between your proposal here to name or merge this article with Pleaching and your addition of an image of arborsculpture to the 'Pleaching' article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Back to this article

You all seem to be forgetting my recommendation above. Also We cannot just think up a name. This is Policy, so anything that is not the clear consensus name in reputable sources is out. Since there is none the only thing to do is to make the title a descriptive phrase. This is what Policy calls for. The only caveat is that "Arborsculture" was the first non-stub title so policy also accepts its use as well. This debate should therefore be "Descriptive Phrase vs. Arborsculpture" Nothing else, I repeat:"Nothing else" is acceptable according to policy. Colincbn (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Colin, except that I believe that there is also sufficient evidence from reliable sources to show that 'arborsculpture' has been taken up by the horticultural community as the generic name for this subject. There is no requirement that it should be the only name used just that it should be the name by which it is most widely known in reliable sources. Google searches are not particularly informative in this respect without careful analysis.

Elen put it this way:

Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

I believe we have evidence that there is single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources. Would you agree Colin? We are in danger of applying an artificially high standard for article names to this subject. Would you, or anyone else have objected to 'arborsculpture' had we never had the COI fiasco? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like there may be agreement that the two leading candidates are "Arborsculpture" and a descriptive phrase such as "Artistic tree shaping" or similar. Does everyone agree those are the best two candidates? --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Numerous editors have opposed arborsulpture as the title, as it is not neutral or descriptive enough.Requested to move title to arborsculpture I spent 3 hours today reading the archives, pick any archive at random you don't have to read very far before it comes back to arborsuclpture. I think the article should be merged to pleaching as it is the ancient and original name of this art. I've started adding some refs for pleaching here plus there are others on the potential title names page. ?oygul (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, pleaching is defined very clearly by reliable sources as interleaving the branches of multiple trees/shrubs to form an alley, arbor, windbreak or similar. This article is clearly about artistic tree-shaping, often involving a single tree. Also, pleaching is more of an architectural effort than an artistic effort. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

... and regarding that RfM that you cite here, that does have some informative commentary, but several of the editors are now banned, and the discussion was solely about renaming to Arborsculputre, in contrast to this RfC which is a de novo look at all possible titles. Also, that RfM left the title at "Tree shaping" which is an entirely unsatisfactory title, since most people would expect to find a discussion of topiary under that title. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@?oygul, what exactly is your objection to 'arborsculpture'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Noleander, I agree that 'arborculture' and a descriptive phrase are the best two candidates for an article name. In fact as Colin says, under WP policy they should be the only candidates. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if the consensus (which does not mean "unanimous") is that those are the two best alternatives, then what are the pros and cons of those two choices? Right off the bat, a problem with a descriptive phrase such as "artistic tree shaping" is that it (I suppose) is not used by the sources much. On the other hand, it is neutral and descriptive, and avoids the promotional brand-name issues associated with Arborsculpture. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no promotional brand name issues with 'arborsculpture'. The name was coined by Reames as a generic name for the subject of this article. It may be that he did this with the intention that getting his new name into general horticultural usage would promote his own standing in the horticultural community and help with his book sales. On the other hand, maybe he just thought that this art should have a distinct name and put together what he considered a descriptive name, along the lines of arboriculture. Who knows? But this is irrelevant to WP. Every word has to start somewhere. Fred Hoyle coined the term 'big bang' and he will always be connected with it but that is no reason not to use it. The question is simply, 'Has the word "arborsculpture" moved into general usage to describe the subject of this article?'. Bearing in mind that this art has only a handful of regular practitioners, I think the reliable sources that I quote above are sufficient to show that it has. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the title "arborsculpture", indeed, it seems understandable and descriptive (I had no idea it was a neologism until another editor pointed it out). The fact that the term was coined by Richard Reames is not fatal to its usage here as a title, but if Reames uses it for any kind of proprietary marketing (I don't know if he does or not) that would be a factor to consider. --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through Google books for "arborsculpture", and I dont see any issues with commercial interests, trademarks, or the like. Reames himself seems to use it in a generic (lowercase) sense. --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Most editors who, like yourself, have taken the time and trouble to look into this subject have come to much the same conclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The long and repetitive discussions on this topic have been too much for me to follow, but what I have seen has not changed my opinion from my first comment (timestamp 10:02, 13 June 2010), namely that "tree shaping" has a meaning not related to the topic of this article, and that arguments why the article should not be renamed to its original "arborsculpture" should be presented succinctly somewhere (if that has been done, I have missed it). I know that certain editors are not permitted to comment on this topic, but would someone mind providing a link to where reasons against "arborsculpture" are summarized. In the absence of such reasons (all I remember is invalid suggestions regarding neologisms), "arborsculpture" is the title that seems best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is the fact that tree shaping means something else is really not a big point against using it. We have disambiguation pages for that. The reason we should not use it is that it is not the name used in the majority of reliable sources. We cannot make up a name, that means anything that is short and easy to use as a name for the art is unacceptable, so "Artistic tree shaping" is still out, it needs to be a phrase, it cant be a simple term that we just make up that can substitute as the accepted name. Or it can be the first non-stub title "Arborsculpture". I would be for the use of Arbo on those grounds but many others have fought against it. If there are multiple editors who cannot accept its use than a phrase is all that is left. Colincbn (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we need argue about why 'Tree shaping' is a bad title. It is a made-up (in good faith) name that is not used in reliable sources and is not in general use to describe the subject of this article. To make matters worse it is in common and widespread horticultural use to refer to something different. It is a complete non-starter, arrived at in a well-meaning but inept attempt to defuse what was essentially a commercial dispute.

There has only been one editor with any serious objection to 'arborsculpture' and that was Blackash who objected on the grounds that it lead people to her personal and business rival Richard Reames. Other editors have, at times, been persuaded that we should take factors such as this into account but to do so would, in my opinion, allow commercial interests to override WP policy. The only basis on which we must decide is usage in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Within this RfC (which is a good fresh start, involving some uninvolved editors) I haven't seen an objection yet to Arborsculpture. I did fabricate a hypothetical objection (it was a term promoted by artist/architect Richard Beams for commercial purposes) but that turned out to be a hollow objection. @Colincbn - "Tree shaping" to me is a very misleading title: in my mind (and other readers, I suppose) it means topiary. Using disambiguation pages to steer readers to the right place is a last resort. If we have decent candidate titles like "arborsculpture" or "artistic tree shaping", we should use those before we use highly ambiguous titles and burden readers with disambiguation pages. --`Noleander (talk)

I agree completely, I am totally against the current title. I was just pointing out that the fact it means something else is not the reason we cant use it. I know that is a moot point, but Blackash has jumped in with the disambiguation argument most times it is used, so I just wanted to head that off. I am ok with Arbo as it fits policy. I am not ok with "Artistic tree shaping" because that is making up a name, which policy forbids. If we go with a phrase it must be long enough to not be substitutable as the name of the art, if it is we are violating policy. Colincbn (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Where can I read the policy that states "a phrase it must be long enough to not be substitutable as the name of the art" Please give link. ?oygul (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:TITLE

"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." Colincbn (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

?oygul, do you have any objection to 'arborsculpture' and, if so, what is it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for move to arborsculpture?

This discussion has gone quiet and we seem to be getting no new editors or ideas. It seems to me that the majority of editors prefer the name 'arborsculpture' and that at least some of the others find it acceptable. I therefore suggest that there is a clear consensus for moving this article to 'Arborsculpture'.

Elonka, do you think we should move now? If you agree perhaps you could make the move for us. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a request filed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? If not, I'd recommend going through that process, just to be sure. --Elonka 04:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the debate will heat up considerably once the official request is made. Colincbn (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, is that procedure really necessary when there is a clear consensus here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin, I do not actually see any debate. Are you suggesting that there are editors who are not making their views known here but gaming the system and waitinq quietly for a move request? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I just think there are editors who will not chime-in until the RM is made, some may be burned out and some may see any non "official" discussion as optional. I think there will be those for and against, so the debate we have been having for the last year will heat back up. Hopefully with the ArbCom probation in place the discussion will not be dominated by any commercial interests and we can make some headway. Colincbn (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In these cases, sticking as close to due process as possible is critical to prevent complaints down the track that due process wasn't followed. I consider that an official Requested Move as detailed below is highly prudent to conclude the discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Tree shaping → Arborsculpture –

• A decision on the appropriate name for this article was requested by Arbcom.
• The original title of the article was 'Arborsculpture before it was improperly moved to 'Tree shaping'.
• 'Tree shaping' is a misleading name not used in reliable sources that is widely use to mean something different.
• 'Arborscupture' is the name used for this specialist art in reliable sources - see discussion above.
• The generic name 'arborsculpture' is the only title (other than a descriptive phrase) meeting the requirements of WP policy. 10:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• There is a clear consensus here to move the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is not the only title meeting the requirements of WP policy. It is one of two, the other being a descriptive phrase (note: this does not mean a made up term that doubles as a name for the art) as mentioned above. However, Arborsculpture does also comply with policy and as such I will not oppose it. Colincbn (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I have amended the rationale accordingly.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - There was already an excellent discussion above in the RfC section, which had a very thorough consideration of all candidates, and the consensus was clearly "Arborsculpture". Consensus does not require unanimous agreement of all editors, see WP:NOTUNANIMOUS. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed rename. A google scholar search for "tree shaping" shows that it is most commonly used (in reliable sources) for a much broader spectrum of ways of affecting the shape of a tree (typically, various kinds of pruning). The subject of this article is not completely unrelated, but is rather more specialized. Kingdon (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support "Arborsculpture". Having read through the archives it seems clear that the inital move was flawed due to WP:COI issues and the only name that is both useful and supported by policy is Arborsculpture. Tree Shaping refers to an entirely different, commercial, horticultural practice so should be avoided as it is confusing and not specific to the practices described in the article. A descriptive phrase, while conforming with policy, would be less useful to the average reader looking for a good overview of the art of arborsculpture which is clearly a generic term for this artform as seen in the reliable sources above.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Having now read all the talk pages and surrounds. Arborsculpture is controversial from the beginning from multiple editors.

This article was shifted from Arborsculpture to tree shaping because Arborsculpture was not neutral. It is still not neutral. Tree shaping was chosen because it is broad and therefore neutral. I can’t type passed the c in Arborsculpture without Richard Reames appearing in the drop box of Google. It seems Google is in no doubt where Arborsculpture leads. I believe Colonel Warden’s statement is spot on in the last RFM.[18][19] [post removed]

Please read the earlier RFM for more examples of how Arborsuclpture doesn’t meet policy.

There is a sub-page that has over 40 references with quotes for Tree shaping or a variant thereof, example: “he shaped and grafted trees” “shaping trees” “shaped trees” “tree shapers” etc... to do with this art form . 13 of which are from published books. 10 of those are directly about the practitioners, methods or the history of this field. There are plenty of references for multiple names of this field at the sub-page There are tables for easy scanning with quotes making it easy to compare.

Arborsculpture is used in 6 books two of which are self published by the creator of the word arborsclpture.

Showing that Arborsculpture is not the common name compared to tree shaping, and others. This is a newly emerging field without any clear name as Colincbn has stated elsewhere. I feel that all this bickering over the word Arborsculpture could be solved by up merging the article into pleaching.

Also have the people who have previously show an interest in this article been notified to give their opinion? Similar to how it was done for the last RFC? ?oygul (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

?oygul: ColonelWarden If you oppose "Arborsculpture", which alternative title would you recommend and why? The current title, "tree shaping" is too similar to the topic of topiary, true? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already stated Pleaching would work in my comments here. Tree shaping has the most refs close to a third. A disambiguation as mentioned by AFD Hero, Blackash and Colincbn this follows policy. Noleander your wording of Tree shaping (artistic) seems good. ?oygul (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@?oygul: "Pleaching" is a far different discipline than the topic of this article. Pleaching in an architectural formation of bushes/trees to make a wall or hedge. It is not by any means the same as artistic tree shaping (which results in furniture or abstract shapes). But it sounds like you could live with "Artistic tree shaping" or "Tree shaping (artistic)"? --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander Pleaching has 16 refs, either as a name or as a techquine [20]. When I started editing Pleaching, Martin and Duff tried to chase me off. Yes to your suggestions. ?oygul (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity: Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has not participated in this current discussion. The above comment was a copy/paste by ?oygul (talk · contribs), repeating a statement by ColonelWarden from June 2010. It should probably have been provided via a diff rather than a copy/paste, so I have edited the comment accordingly. --Elonka 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake ... I've corrected it above. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To the closing admin: It should be noted that user :?oygul has very few contributions to WP, and most of them have involved this article ... see edit history here. Im not suggesting bad faith on their part, nor am I suggesting a WP:SPA issue, but still it may influence the weight of the !vote. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, you are trying to influence this discussion in your favor by attacking the credentials of your opponents. You have not posted a similar notice after andrewpcotton's statement (that agrees with you) even though he has less posts. AfD hero (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in debating the style of another editor here, but I did a quick check on the SPA claims. Andrewdpcotton has 242 edits in a wide range of articles, since September 2006. ?oygul has 74 edits since April 2011, in a much smaller range. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all kicked off over the weekend hasn't it. Just to clarify I am not a prolific editor by any means but have been about for 5 years and have mainly worked on articles about Scotland and Cycling (including making some major edits I am very proud of, that have since featured in multiple mainstream media articles). I rarely edit talk pages and this is the first RfM or indeed any community vote I have participated in. I happened to see this article via the ArbCom page and then read the article itself, finding it a fascinating topic about a new and exciting artform. Congratulations to all editors who have written and improved it. The reason I chose to comment, as an entirely uninvolved editor, is that I felt (having read all 16 pages of archives) that the problems on this page have stemmed from worrying too much about what titles and content suit the practitioners of the art and too little about what titles and content suit the readers themselves. With the exception of not breaching WP:BLP guidelines, surely our first focus as an encyclopedia should be what is most helpful to the reader, and indeed this is what WP:TITLE is all about. As a reader and editor who has not contributed to this page and has no connection to the topic, it seems to me that arborsculpture has emerged as a generic term in reliable sources to encompass the entire artform and thus it is the most useful title of the page for the casual reader. It is more Concise than a descriptive phrase, It is more Precise than either the current title or Pleaching which are commonly used to describe something else, it is Recognisable to anyone with a passing knowledge of latin as meaning Sculptured Trees, and follows the general horticultural tradition of using latin compounds to describe emerging new practices. Happy to WP:AGF that people who argue otherwise do so out of thoughts about what is best for the encyclopedia, but to me arguing about which name helps which practitioner is unhelpful and irrelevant to what is best for wikipedia. Borderline WP:SPA accounts, who have chosen not to contribute to Martin's helpful Article Name discussion above but instead merely complain that Richard Reames gets good Google results for the phrase arborsculpture so we shouldn't use it, seem less helpful to the discussion. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per ?oygul.

Comments:

1) I did the original merge: arborsculpture + pooktre -> tree shaping. This was part of a random AfD discussion I was participating in. I did not have a conflict of interest.

2) Just now I notified everyone who was involved in the first RfM about this RfM (except those who have already commented here). AfD hero (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that you had a conflict of interest or that the move was not done in good faith but the article was moved with very limited discussion to a made-up name that is very widely used to mean something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a few paragraphs up, Andrewpcotton directly accused my merge as being a conflict of interest. AfD hero (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not read it like that. I think he was referring to other editors who had a COI. Where did the name 'Tree shaping' come from?

AfDhero: If you oppose "Arborsculpture", what title do you suggest? Are you suggesting "Tree shaping"? "Tree shaping" is not acceptable because to most people that means topiary, which is an entirely different topic from the topic of this article, namely artistic tree shaping. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin: User AfDhero has (at this time) about 450 edits, and nearly half of those relate to this article, or related articles. This may influence how heavily their !vote is weighed. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been editing math and science articles anonymously since 2004. For this article I stick to a single non-ip user account so as not to cause confusion. It shows the weakeness of your argument that you have to resort to ad hominem posts against my account. AfD hero (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@AfDhero: No problem. Can you answer my question from above: what title do you think is best for this topic, and why? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also tell me where the name 'Tree shaping' came from. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer Martin and Noleander's questions, let me explain a little about the history of my involvement with this article.

I came to the article by way of Pooktre's AfD. At the time, there were 2 articles covering the artistic shaping of trees - Pooktre and Arborsculpture. The arborsculpture article was basically a puffery promotional piece for Richard Reames books and works, and the Pooktre article was largely promotional fluff for the work of Becky Northey and Peter Cook. Just by chance it happened that Pooktre was nominated for deletion first. Neither article was encyclopedic in their current form, but it was evident to a few people in the AfD that there was a notable topic in there if the articles were combined and written in a neutral tone. I went ahead and did the merge, and rewrote a lot of things. The name "tree shaping" was suggested by another neutral editor in the AfD (either MgM or Rror, I don't remember) since it was neutral, generic, descriptive, and used in sources. Since I couldn't think of anything better I used that.

I don't know if "tree shaping" is the best name, but I do know that Arborsculpture is not. A name I've advocated in the past is "Tree shaping (art)", to keep in line with disambiguation policy since "tree shaping" is also used for other things. However this didn't seem to gain any traction when I mentioned it a year or so ago. Arborsculpture is highly controversial both in the history of this article, and among the artists, and by choosing it we would be advocating one neologism out of many - influencing the naming debate rather than cataloging what is already there. It is telling that no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work. *I'm striking this since Reams has listed a few other tree shapers who use his term and I believe him. Nevertheless the number of people who use it is nowhere near a majority.

In any case, I'm irritated at what has transpired over the last two years. Ever since I did the merge, a small band of editors has been agitating to rename the article arborsculpture. Every few months they restart the debate on the talk page, or open a RfC or RfM, simultaneously using every wiki-legal means to silence those who disagree (eg, the treatment of Sydney Bluegum, and now ?oygul [21]). Up until now result is always the same - no move since arborsculpture is non-neutral. In the past discussions, countless neutral editors and at least 2 admins have, after weighing the evidence, decided arbosculpture is not appropriate. Well the pro arborsculpture editors have been so persistent over the course of years, that everyone else got tired of the endless rehashing of the same old points and moved on, and now it might finally get renamed against the will of the silent majority. AfD hero (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am equally irritated, on the other side. It's only because the recent Arbcom case topic banned a certain editor that we are able to have a discussion—on previous occasions it was impossible to get any momentum because one editor kept pushing their line. If someone could show an actual problem with "Arborsculpture" (apart from irritation about how the article was once a puff piece), I would seriously consider your alternative title "Tree shaping (art)" which, while a little ungainly, is a serious contender in that it clearly states that the topic is not "tree shaping" as understood in the industry. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Afd Hero, let me explain why so many editors support the name 'arborsculpture'. Firstly, you were quite right to end the commercial squabbling between Blackash and Slowart and to combine the two articles into one. However, in order to choose a name for the combined article there are clear WP policies. We either stick to the original title or we use the name most commonly used in reliable sources (or if there is not one we use a descriptive phrase that cannot be mistaken for the name of the subject). We are not allowed to simply make up a name such as 'Tree shaping' (perhaps you could give me a diff to show exactly where this came from).

In a section above I have listed some possible names and asked for all editors to give evidence that each name is actually used in reliable sources as a generic name for this art. You are welcome to add to that if you wish. If the name 'pooktre' were used generically in reliable sources I would be pushing to use that name, but it is not. However there is evidence that 'arborsculpture' is used in independent reliable sources as a term to apply to this subject in general and not the work of just one artist. That is the name that we must therefore use. I have no connection with any of the other editors here and no special interest in this subject but I do have an interest seeing WP policy followed.

You say 'arborsculpture' is non-neutral. What exactly do you mean by that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The claim that "tree shaping" is a generic term for the art is not correct—for many people working with trees, "tree shaping" refers to judicious pruning to encourage a tree to grow as naturally as possible given its circumstances (treeshapers.com, treesurgeonglasgow.co.uk, fruit trees, advice on tree shaping, usda.gov). The previous requested move (and pretty well all previous discussions) were dominated by commentary from Blackash (who is now topic banned from this discussion), and I believe the previous discussions were tainted by that commentary with the result that some editors believe there is a problem with "arborsculpture" when there is no evidence for that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, and I also initially thought there was a problem with "Arborsculpture" because it looked like a brand name promoted by one author, perhaps in violation of WP:NEO. But after reading the sources more carefully, I determined that it is not promotional in anyway, and - after examining all the other candidate titles - "Arborsculpture" is the best overall title for WP. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture breaks the core policy of Neutral point of view. Throughout the history the neutrality of arborsculpture has been the elephant in the room. To title this article aborsculpture would go against the Name part of that policy. Aborsculpture is not the most commonly used name as can be seen by the large number of refs for other names. To change to arborsclpture would be creating a title that is bias and clearly this policy says this should not be done. Tree shaping has the most refs by far, of the suggested names. [22] It should be ok to use it as the title, does Wikipedia follow the refs or not? ?oygul (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way is 'arborsculpture' not neutral? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping does not have the most refs. That list is inflated by adding many that simply use both the word "tree" and the word "shape" in the same sentence regardless of their use as the name of the art. Also many of those are not scholarly, or even reliable, sources. I would agree that Arbo is also not used in the majority of sources, but certainly "tree shaping" is not either. Therefore we can either use a descriptive phrase, or use Arbosculpture as it is the original non-stub title. We cannot make up a name or use one that is not used in the majority of reliable sources. Colincbn (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin, this is exactly the type of discussion we should be having. I started a section above in which we could assess the sources supporting each name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support As a title that is supported by reliable sources, and best meets the main guidelines at WP:Article titles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. "Tree shaping" is not at all precise, and in fact is extremely ambiguous, since it describes many different practices. It is also not recognizable, at least to this amateur gardener and student of pruning and shaping trees in the more traditional landscaping context. "Arbosculpture" is descriptive while being concise. Any other precise and descriptive title would be overly long, for example Shaping trees into furniture and art. And again, it is supported by reliable sources—even though they are not unanimous on that particular name, they do support its use as an article title on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out the WP:MoS suggests a title limit of ten words and your example above is only half that. Also Policy specifically states "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.

However Arbo also meets policy so I can see why you would support it. Colincbn (talk)

• Oppose Arborsculpture is a specialist wording (neologism) that has been pushed to brand a unnamed art form. There are reliable book/media references to this. diff or discussion

Per the principles in Wikipedia:Article titles:

• Recognizability – Arborsculpture is not well known outside of people who know Richard Reames, his books or have read one of the few articles that uses it. Article titles should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess." and that wouldn’t be arborsculpture.
• Naturalness – "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English." Some combination of shaping/shaped/shape/train/training/trained trees is used in all articles to describe this art form. This would be most peoples first guess.
• Precision - WP:PRECISE states that it is about adding precision "to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name", and adds: "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary."

  Arborsculpture is too specialized. Tree Shaping is precise enough to identify the subject, but the title may be better as Tree shaping (artistic) or Tree shaping (art). Tree shaping has a 3th or more of all the references out of all the potential title names. [23]

• Conciseness - As most people haven’t heard of Arborsculpture it is not very descriptive. At least with the descriptive term of tree shaping people get an image in mind of what the art form is about. Partly because of fantasy eg lord of the rings, elfquest etc...
• Consistency – Arborsculpture is not the most used word in the references. The vast majority of references for Arborsculpture are unreliable as they are based on two self published books by non expert Richard Reames creator of the word arborsculptue. The references are mostly: book reviews, Promotional material for workshops, or interviews with Reames. [24]

As for Martin Hogbin asking how is Arborsculpture not neutral he already knows. Martin stated to me

“Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it.”

diff This lead to me creating the references with quotes page which the pro arborsculpture editors have mainly ignored.

Please don’t buy into its all because of one editor (me apparently) leading others astray and that is why this article is not now called arborsculpture.

1. It could give me a big head, if I started believing I have the power to mysteriously convince multiple editors my view is the correct one.
2. Its disrespectful of the other editors' intelligence.

As I see it, it comes down to me pointing out where the pro arborsculpture editors are not following policy rather than me being able to mysteriously convince multiple editors. As a result of the pro arborsculpture group repeatedly claiming this I create a page with editors’ quotes and links of editors who oppose. [25] Blackash have a chat 07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm collapsing the above comment by user Blackash, who was banned by an ArbCom case here, with the ruling "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject." (that was on 11 July, 2011). Clearly, this RfM is dedicated to the topic of what the title of the article is, so the ban applies to this RfM. In the interests of fairness, user Blackash was given an opportunity to comment in the RfC, above in this Talk page, that preceded this RfM. --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the collapsed header (please leave this to admins). The ArbCom remedies were clear: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.". My interpretation of this is that Blackash is allowed to make a comment in this RM, and respond to specific queries. I did re-format the post a bit for readability though, including the removal of some bolding, but the text is intact. --Elonka 17:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"at the commencement of the discussion" Surly we are well past the beginning of the title discussion. Are rebuttals by banned editors being encouraged now ? Slowart (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Elonka: That provision you quote is from a discussion of the RfC, isn't it? Not the Request for Move? Or (stating the question another way) if BlackAsh is permitted to edit the article, and to participate in the RfC, and participate in the Request for Move - then what is BlackAsh banned from doing for a year? --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. From what I understand banned editors were to be allowed to put their proposals for a title in the discussion above one time and otherwise leave the rest to everyone else, with the caveat that they could answer direct questions. This is not her proposal (neither is her other post). It is an opposition to someone else's proposal. As well as a discussion on the merits of another editor. She was invited to give her proposal for her preferred name above and she opted not to. That does not mean she is now allowed to comment on other proposals. To echo Noleander "What is she banned from???" And even if you interpret the ArbCom decision to allow this, the comments on Martin that come after her five on-topic points should be struck because nothing in the decision allowed her to comment on other editors as a means of influencing the naming dispute.(note I do not support Arbo, I just support due process) Colincbn (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As was quoted above from the ArbCom case, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject. ... Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." As Casliber mentioned above, it is important that due process be followed here. As such, it makes sense that when there is an RM, each of the banned parties be allowed to make one statement, and to answer specific queries about that statement. Other than that, they are to stay out of the discussion. I should also point out that Blackash contacted me via email before posting, asking if it would be alright, and I said yes, and to keep the statement under 500 words. In my opinion, Blackash is complying with the ArbCom restrictions, and Slowart and Sydney Bluegum are also both allowed to make one statement in this RM, if they so choose. --Elonka 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals."

• This is not a proposal.
• This is not bacground rational for a proposal.
• This is not the comencement of the discussion.
• This is not an answer to a specific query.
• She has made more than one statement during this discussion.

Colincbn (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Arborsculpture is the marketing funnel for Richard Reames/Slowart. Richard Reames certainly considers the word he coined as his "I just can't standby an watch a editor abuse my word my work" diff. Most references used for arborsculpture have emanated from Richard Reames. This therefore makes arborsculpture not neutral, as arborsculpture is not the most used in the references. It also makes it very controversial as the 16 pages of archives show.

I propose tree training or tree training art or the art of tree training. Axel Erlandson’s art was called tree training. The references for this are both the name of the art form and as a descriptive phrase. references

I’m disgusted with editors who supposedly want policy and due process and who failed to contact interested editors. The RFC was only listed in Media and Art. It should have been listed in Horticulture to encourage new neutral editors to obtain a wider community consensus. Martin (or Colincbn) should have also contacted the appropriate Wiki projects. I agree with Hilarleo that the Wikipedia community might have to start putting up with paid advocates.

Andrewdpcotton can read the archives and make comments as a new editor on the page. This privilege was not given to ?oygul without 2 sockpuppet investigations. This is typical of the pro arborsculpture camp which has continually created a hostile environment. Filing cases of Sock puppets, accusations, rehashing of allegations across multiple boards, misinformation are all attempts to create disruption and bias. These tactics have been repeatedly used by the pro arborsculpture camp. The goal seems to be to keep the page disruptive WP:POINT. I think there is good reason that Colincbn keeps rising the policy of “revert to first non-stub name per Policy on title disputes.” [26] Which just happens to be arborsculpture. To be fair Colincbn had struck this statement out, but now seems to be going back to it.

From my understanding, if Tree shaping was up-merged to the parent article of Pleaching, this would negate a large proportion of the previous arguments (As per Colin's arguement above). ?oygul suggested this and gave references to support this. This idea was squashed above by Martin when he was having commencement discussions by himself. I still think the title Pleaching is valid. Martin stated the Wiki article on pleaching is not about this artform. Wiki policy is to not quote itself. There are references in the Alternative name section and ?oygul’s ones above. Example "make him a master of tree pleaching" (this refers to Axel Erlandson- the worlds leading tree trainer) at 03 Pleaching listing. Of all the titles I prefer Tree training or some variation of this. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Additional comments in the above post that were unrelated to the move request have been moved to the user's talkpage. Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) is banned from participation in this discussion, except for being allowed to post one statement. If other editors have questions about this statement specifically as it relates to the naming issue, you are allowed to ask, and Sydney Bluegum is allowed to give specific replies. Comments unrelated to the naming issue will be removed. --Elonka 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, please note that User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace. This post should be removed completely.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm striking BlueGum's comments, based on the ArbCom ruling. Unlike BlackAsh, BlueGum was not entitled to comment. --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the "article scope" remedy, ArbCom stated, "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.". This applies to Blackash, Sydney Bluegum, and Slowart, so all three are allowed to make a single statement (no more than 500 words) in this RM. --Elonka 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I do not think that caveat applies to Sydneybluegum as he is not an expert nor has "experience and familiarity with the area". He is a beginner to this craft. I think you should clarify what the ruling means with ArbCom. Colincbn (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support A preponderance of strong academic references site arborsculpture. Such as [27] [28] [29] [30] (page 442) Among many groups of arborist and master gardeners and landscapers the word is well know and understood. One disturbing and false claim that "no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work." The truth is that many, many practitioners, professional and amateur alike use the word, some notable practitioners are Herman Block, Konstantin Kirsch and Nirandr Boonnetr while Chris Cattle removed the word from his web site shortly after I disputed the false claim with a link to his page. [[31]] the archive shows Cattle's use of the word in Aug. of 2008 but changed by Sept 08 [32]. It's was really appalling to me see my colleges drawn into this wiki war along with every blogger who ever used the word. [33]. Hopefully that is all behind us now and I'm sure that I also have been less than a perfect editor myself at times. As the one who first suggested the mutual ban, I'll keep this short and close with appreciation to everyone who came here to improve Wikipedia by investing your time in this worthwhile article. Slowart (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: as described at the ArbCom case, Slowart (talk · contribs) is banned by ArbCom from participation in this discussion, except for being allowed to post this one statement above. If any other editors have specific queries relating to the naming issue though, they are allowed to ask, and Slowart is allowed to offer specific replies. --Elonka 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals."

• This is not a proposal.
• This is not bacground rational for a proposal.
• This is not the comencement of the discussion.
• This is not an answer to a specific query.

Colincbn (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What Slowart did not say is Herman Block and Konstantin Kirsch are from Germany. Nirandr Boonnetr is from Thailand. I looked at their websites and nowhere does the word arborsculpture appear. One of the German sites has a English version it doesn’t appear there either. The only English speaking person is Chris Cattle, Slowart states, Cattle stopped using arborsculpture 3 years ago. The four people Slowart gives all have their own name for their art. Slowart creator of the word arborsculpture quote “many, many practitioners use the word arborsculpture”, Afd Hero said give me 3 notable practitioners. I am just going to ask for one, other than Richard Reames. My question to Slowart, can you name me one notable practitioners who refers to their own trees as arborsculpture, so as I can verify it, by looking at their web site? ?oygul (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing admin asked for clarification

Resolved

 – RM temporarily closed early due to miscommunication, but has been re-opened

I posted a query on SilkTork's talk page here asking for them to clarify the rename closure, since the RfC (above it in this Talk page) seemed to meet the ArbCom's stated requirements. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an absurd action by SilkTork, who seems to have closed this RfM on a whim. I am going to contact Arbcom to see if this is what they envisaged when they asked for a discussion on this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. SilkTork himself has contributed to the debate. There should have been a discussion allowed and an uninvolved admin should have done the close. I suggest a WP:ANI at this point with Silktork being banned from taking any admin action on this topic. Colincbn (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps ANI is too strong at this point, I am just flabbergasted that SilkTork would go directly against what ArbCom has told us to do. Either he, or an uninvolved admin needs to reopen the RfM. If not I will re-post it later today. Colincbn (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what I don't see (unless I am missing something?) is what terms some gardening encyclopedias might have in them and how they broadly or narrowly they define them. Actually I see Talk:Tree shaping/Alternate names and Talk:Tree shaping/List of potential title names. Ultimately are there only two options? If so, requested move is a feasible way to go. If not, then a three- or more-way vote. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Casliber, there is a section above at [[34]] where I started a detailed discussion of possible article names with the request for all editors to add proposals for a name, to give references from reliable sources to support their proposed name, and to discus the reliability and authority of those sources.

Those editors, regulars and newcomers, who have taken the time and trouble to properly engage in this process have come to the conclusion that 'arborsculpture' is the best name for this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I have reopened the discussion. I had been informed of the move request but not of the RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork, this has been a delicate situation and any consensus is going to be a challenge (i.e. someone will be unhappy). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork: Thanks for rectifying the situation. --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me also. Might I suggest that this RfM would be better closed by someone like Elonka, who has been following the discussion but not participating in it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not planning to close the discussion. Instead, I was planning to leave it to the other admins who routinely patrol WP:RM. --Elonka 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think then that it is important that any closing admin should be made aware that two of the editors who have contributed to the discussion were banned by Arbcom. Blackash was allowed to make limited statements at the start of the RfM but I cannot believe that Arbcom expected that they should be allowed to influence the final decision. Perhaps you could clarify this with Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that any admin reviewing this discussion, will be very aware of that fact. It's kind of hard to miss at this point. --Elonka 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is what Arbcom wanted and expected to happen. Blackash was banned for having a conflict of interest and Sydney Bluegum was banned for being an SPA. I think we should ask Arbcom for a decision on whether these two editors have acted within the terms of the Arbcom decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We do have an arbitrator monitoring the discussion... Casliber, do you have an opinion on this? Or are there any other administrators monitoring, who have an opinion one way or the other? --Elonka 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a comment above, to be sure an admin sees it. Sydney Bluegum is on thinner ice than the other two, but they all only get to skate once. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)