Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 17

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?    d u f f   20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * More study notes: WP:NAME (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.   d u f f   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.  d u f f   01:18, 13 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?   d u f f   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.    d u f f   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?   d u f f   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?"  d u f f   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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   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, 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.   d u f f   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. 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.   d u f f   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?    d u f f   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 and 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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   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.    d u f f   04:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * It was and it is. Thank you.  d u f f   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: 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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   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.   d u f f   05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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 ?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)

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.

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)

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, 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, 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)
 * (request for supporting text) Removed last June by editor Duff Discussion on talk page 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping, 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 here, 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)

Arborsculpture refs quotes source links
Could someone please put this into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion by Martin Hogbin
I am going to ignore sources by Richard Reames, originator of the term, and sources based on interviews with him and just point out the independent reliable sources, that clearly use the word 'arborsculpture' to refer to the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 3 Good academic source
 * 4 Good source, refers to another practitioner's work as 'arborsculpture'.
 * 5 Good academic source.
 * 7 Academic source.
 * 10 Good source (International society of Arborist)
 * 11 Academic source, includes name in glossary, attributes name to Reames.
 * 14 Local source.
 * 15 Academic source.
 * 16 Book by academic press
 * 18 An academic source
 * 19 Magazine article.
 * 20 Appears to refer to fruit tree training rather then the subject of this article.
 * 21 Magazine article showing another practitioner who calls his work 'arborsculpture'.
 * 22 International horticultural reference book.
 * 23 Trade magazine.
 * 24 Academic web site.
 * 25 Published book

All the above references (except 20) clearly use the name 'arborsculpture' to refer to the subject of this article. They are all independent of Richard Reams. Ref 22 is particularly authoritative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The majority of the arborsculpture refs are about Richard Reames's self published Books, book reviews, interviews with him or workshops, basically self promotion. Martin how can books, self published by Richard Reames be independent of Richard Reames? ?oygul (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that I missed out all work published or written by Reames in my comments above. I also missed out any sources that seemed to be directly based on interviews with him. Have I missed any?  Which sources do you say were written by Reames? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Tree shaping refs quotes source links
Could someone please put this into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware that these tables are all the work of Blackash. There is nothing wrong with that but I do find it odd that they should appear so late in the day. It is easy to do a reference count on each title but this is extremely misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they duplicates of what is already on the subpage? Or if not, should they be moved to the subpage? --Elonka 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do seem to be duplicates, I have not checked for minor changes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Use of some part of the verb 'to shape' in the same sentence as the word 'tree' does not constitute use of the term 'tree shaping'.


 * 1 This does not use the term 'tree shaping' and there is no indication that it even refers to the subject of this article.
 * 2 I cannot find the picture, it could refer to topiary and something else for all we know.
 * 3 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 4 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 5 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 6 This clearly refers to tree shaping as understood by arborists to mean the pruning of trees to obtain a natural shape. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article.
 * 7 Appears to refer to training of a tree not the subject of this article.
 * 8 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 9 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 10 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 11 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 12 Actually calls the art 'Tree trunk topiary'
 * 13 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 14 Does not refer to the subject of this article
 * 15 Clearly refers to the art as 'arborsculpture'.
 * 16 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 17 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 18 Actually refers to the art as 'Arbor Sculpture'.
 * 19 No evidence that this refers to the subject of this article.
 * 20 Actually uses the term, 'Extreme tree shaping' to refer to this art.
 * 21 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 22 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 23 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 24 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 25 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 26 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 27 Obviously this article calls the art 'arborsculpture'.
 * 28 Local magazine article based on interview with Blackash.
 * 29 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 30 Gives three other names, including 'arborsculpture'.
 * 31 Local magazine article about Blackash's business.
 * 32 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 33 Chinese newspaper article unable to check.
 * 34 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 35 Magazine article about Blackash's business.
 * 36 Quote from one of the co-founders of Pooktre, Blackash's business.
 * 37 Another Pooktre article
 * 38 The article calls the art 'arborsculpture'.
 * 39 Quote from one of the co-founders of Pooktre.
 * 40 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 41 Local magazine article about Pooktre tree shapers
 * 42 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.
 * 43 Just quotes the words of Blackash's business.

This list is nothing more that a smokescreen. It has been prepared by an interested party looking for evidence that the term 'tree shaping' has moved into general horticultural usage to refer to the subject of this article but when you actually read the cited sources you find that the evidence does not exists. Of course, people talk about shaping trees but this is just normal use of the English language to describe an action, it is not evidence of a name in common use. None of the sources is particularly authoritative, there are no academic sources or horticultural reference works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A book may describe a person as shaping some clay to form cups or vases. This does not mean the art is called 'clay shaping', it is called 'pottery'. A book may describe a person shaping a shrub into the shape of a duck by clipping it. This does not mean the art is called 'shrub shaping', it is called 'topiary'. Similarly we have references that talk about people shaping trees onto artistic shapes. This does not mean that the art is called 'tree shaping', it is called 'arborsculpture'. Curiously there is more evidence for the use of 'arborsculpture' in the above sources than there is for 'tree shaping'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * About half of the tree shaping refs are using it as the name of this art, the others are using it as a descriptive phase. Various editors have stated the title needs to be a descriptive phase.The large majority of these refs are about the practitioners in this field. There are 13 books, international publications from universities, government, large newspapers and magazines from around the world. ?oygul (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We cannot use a descriptive phrase that might be confused with the actual name of the art. 'Tree shaping' fails on all counts: it is not an accurate and clear description of this specific art, it could mean many other things, like topiary or training of fruit trees; it might be confused with the actual name of the art, which WP policy does not allow; and it is, in fact, used widely in horticulture to mean the pruning of mature trees to maintain a natural shape.


 * We need to show that a specific name is used in horticulture to refer to the subject of this article. In deciding this we should apply the same criteria that we do to 'arborsculpture'.  That is to say, no sources written or published by the originator (or original proponent) of the name and no sources that directly result from interviews with that person.   We should also only count sources that clearly use 'tree shaping' (not, 'has shaped trees' for example) as the name for the subject of this article.  I am not sure that any of the above sources meet those criteria. We should then consider how authoritative those sources are.  Are there any that you think make the grade? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As monitoring admin, I have no opinion on the title of the article, but I would point out that ArbCom did say in Principles 10 & 11, that a descriptive phrase might be allowable: "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." So it could potentially be appropriate to use a term that does not appear in sources, if it is a compromise title which the editors here could agree on by consensus. Where article titles are concerned, as long as enough editors are participating in the discussion, a broad community consensus can trump sources. --Elonka 14:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, you seem to have missed out the first part of the principle, which was  'Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. 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'. Clearly, with a very specialist art such as this, we are not going to find any name in widespread use or in many standard dictionaries, however we do find one name in a major horticultural reference work and in several academic publications, and that name is 'arborsculpture'.


 * What do you mean by a 'compromise title'? Compromise between what? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That if there is a title that all (or at least most) of the editors could agree on as a compromise, even if it is not a title that appears in any sources, that that would be acceptable. Has anything like that been suggested? --Elonka 22:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes this has been suggested, multiple times. There is one option that is consistent with Policy, does not bolster any commercial enterprise, is not just a "made up name" (which is prohibited by Policy), nor a name associated with any practitioner. I think you all see where this is going . A descriptive phrase might be long and somewhat unweildly but it solves every problem this debate is addressing. I have given suggestions below. And I would point out that Policy does trump community. That is why the scientologists etc. can't just swamp discussions anymore. Colincbn (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That option is discussed just below and it would be my second choice but it has not had much support. Why have a long and cumbersome title when there is already a name in common horticultural usage? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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 " [Edit: "Training plants into useful objects" is better; see below]. 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)
 * The technique is more that just training, it usually involves inosculation, that seems to be one of the defining features of this art although I accept that it is not always used. Training also usually refers to live plants, this subject also includes wooden objects cut from a plant after it has been formed into shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that is where the "into useful objects" part comes it. If the current RfM fails (I don't see why it would at this point though), I will start a new one for this option. Colincbn (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the current RM is closed as "no consensus", better would be to engage in discussion for at least a week to try and determine a consensus for a new name. If there appears to be a consensus, then go ahead with the RM. --Elonka 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is of course reasonable. I would point out however that many of the editors interested in this debate do not contribute to the discussion unless there is some "official" request etc. The lack of participation in the discussion between the end of the ArbCom case and the beginning of the current RfM is a good example of this. Colincbn (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true, and this may all be moot anyway since the RM hasn't closed yet. But if it does close as no consensus, a good way to proceed would be to start a fresh discussion section on the page and say something like, "Okay, there is no consensus to move the page to Arborsculpture.  But neither does there appear to be a clear consensus that Tree shaping is the best title.  Taking the "Arborsculpture" title off the table, are there any other compromise titles that would be acceptable?"  Then let everyone (including the banned editors, one comment each) make a statement, and see how things go from there. --Elonka 15:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the best way forward to me as well. Colincbn (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Colin and Elonka, I am still baffled as to what you mean by 'compromise'. Are you suggesting that we compromise between WP policy, which is  to use the name most commonly used in sources, and the commercial and personal interest of one of the editors here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if there is a compromise title that most editors would agree with, even if it's not directly supported by policy, that that could be a way forward. There have been some very thorny disputes on Wikipedia over the years that have been resolved by crafting some elaborate compromises. One of the classic examples is related to the dispute about how to refer to the city of Gdansk/Danzig, since it dealt with the name of a city that had shifting titles, and there were disputes about how to refer to it in cases such as when a person of one ethnicity was born in the city when it had one name, but they referred to it in sources by a different name, and how to handle things as the name changed repeatedly over time. This dispute went on for years and raged through multiple articles, but after elaborate discussions and votes, it was resolved as follows, with a template that was placed on many Gdansk/Danzig-related articles: Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Which doesn't mean that the botanical folks here need to come up with something as complex, but I offer it as an example that compromises are possible, even in extremely complex situations. The goal is Consensus.  Or as I describe it sometimes, the Pizza Principle:  For example, say we're all in a room and deciding what to get for dinner.  Half the room says, "Pepperoni only!"  The other half says, "We hate Pepperoni, we want Mushroom!"  So then, instead of arguing all night about which one is better, we ultimately just get a pizza that's half-pepperoni and half-mushroom, and "Tah dah!": Consensus.  :)  Getting back to our tree article here, it means that if a  broad consensus of Wikipedia editors agreed that the best title for this article was (to give a somewhat silly example): "A practice of shaping trees sometimes but not always referred to as arborsculpture", or "Tree Shaping (Arborsculpture, Pooktre)" or whatever, that that could work. --Elonka 17:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am all for innovative solutions and compromise but I cannot imagine that the 7 editors who have taken the trouble to read up on the subject and who have, on the basis of common sense, logic and WP policy, chosen 'arborsculpture' as the word in general horticultural usage for the subject of this article, will all change their minds and go for something along the lines of 'That weird thing that some people do with trees'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Pleaching refs quotes source links
I started copying and pasting the pleaching refs but it seems silly to recreate the work that has all ready been done. So I’ve just coped and pasted the tables in their entirety for new editors to scan and see if the refs are reliable or unreliable. ?oygul (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The table seems to take up a lot of space, but it needs to be here. Could someone put the table into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

?oygul's opinion on the above refs
 * 1)Used as technique, reliable
 * 2)Used as name, reliable
 * 3)Used as technique and name, reliable
 * 4)Used as technique, reliable
 * 5)Used as name, reliable
 * 6)Used as name, reliable
 * 7)Used as name, unreliable?
 * 8)Used as technique, reliable
 * 9)Used as technique and name, reliable
 * 10)Used as technique, reliable
 * 11)Used as name, reliable
 * 12)Used as name, unreliable?
 * 13)Used as technique and name, reliable?
 * 14)Used as name, reliable
 * 15)Used as name, reliable?
 * 16)Used as technique reliable ?oygul (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

Request for Clarification
I have made a Request for clarification of an ArbCom ruling that involves this page here. Colincbn (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the question is probably going to come up about whether or not the banned editors can post statements in the Request for Clarification: Slowart and Blackash are allowed to each offer a statement, if they choose.  Sydney Bluegum should probably not, since his ban is more far-reaching.  If Slowart and/or Blackash do choose to post statements though, they should limit their comments solely to the process and wording of the ArbCom ruling, and not use the statements as podiums from which to re-discuss the name of the article or their opinions of each other. The Clarification's only purpose is to debate whether the wording of the ban is clear, not to re-hash the entire case.


 * As a side note, I would also point out that all three editors are still allowed and encouraged to continue editing Wikipedia. Slowart and Blackash's bans are only focused on the naming issue.  Sydney Bluegum's ban is from the entire tree shaping topic area.  But all editors are still allowed to edit anything else they want, so if they wanted to help out with any of the other millions of articles on Wikipedia, their expertise would be appreciated (for example, at WikiProject Plants?).  Indeed, in my opinion it would decrease stress levels all around if all editors here were to try and edit some other article, at least once a day.  It can be very refreshing and encouraging to work in a part of the project that is not in conflict, and it looks really good on your contrib list to see that editors are helping out in other places, rather than focusing exclusively on one article that is in dispute. --Elonka 14:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka my preferred editing style is about once a fortnight, when I get to do this I edit for about 8-12 hours that day. On those days I'll edit on this topic, but I also do a lot of orphan editing because I like looking for references and that helps deorphan. I edit this way because that is what best suits my life style. Blackash   have a chat 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was looking through Category:Articles that need to be wikified the other day and saw this article that's been tagged for years: Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. It could use assistance, even in things like basic wikification and formatting of the lead.  Not saying you should help there, but just that there are definitely lots of places like that around the project where help would be much appreciated! --Elonka 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Full Disclosure
I actually think "Tree Shaping" is the best name for this art form. I really do. Mainly for the same reasons Blackash chose it in the first place. It is used in Elfquest as well as being related to wording in other fantasy books I happen to love (The Lord of the Rings being the first to come to mind). I know anyone who has watched this page will be surprised by me saying this, but look at it this way:


 * This discussion is not "What is the best name for the art?" but "What is the best name for this article?"

WP has policies, and with very few exceptions they are not to be broken. The debate about what the best name for this art is must take place between the artists outside of WP. However, inside WP we must figure out the best name for the article. But this should be simple, because policy makes it simple. We use the name that has the majority of reliable references. This does not mean the one that has the most references, that would only be a Plurality. It means 51% or more. And I have never seen anyone claim their preffered title has that. Therefore we can either use the first non-stub title, or a descriptive phrase. I do not think Arborsculpture is the best name for this article. But it was the first non-stub name, therefore I do not oppose it either. Someone once asked if this article had been deleted and merged into Pooktre instead would I argue that as an acceptable title? My answer is an emphatic Yes. Because that is policy, not because of my preference for any particular name. I have on several occasions suggested to Blackash that she writes some books on the subject. If she did the name "Tree Shaping" would have that much more weight in the off wiki naming dispute and be that much closer to being the majority term. I hope she does sometime soon. But until such time as a title with a clear majority comes forth policy only allows two potential titles: A descriptive phrase or Arborsculpture. Colincbn (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP policy asks us to use the term most commonly used in reliable sources. Because this art is so specialist we do not expect to find a word in common everyday use but there is one word that is used in academic and other authoritative sources for this art, and it is 'arborsculpture'.  If this commercially and personally motivated fiasco had never occurred there would be little discussion and argument and 'arborsculpture' would be the natural title for this specialist art form.  I think we need to completely disregard commercial and personal pressure and make a decision only on what the reliable sources say.


 * You also seem to have overlooked the fact that 'tree shaping' is very widely used by arborists and horticulturalists to mean the pruning or lopping of, generally mature, trees to produce an attractive natural shape. If you are in any doubt about this just phone any arborist in your area and ask them what they understand by the term 'tree shaping'.  Many of them do not approve of the process but they do know what it means, and it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk)


 * Both of those points sound good on the surface, but they don't hold under further scrutiny. The "move" was really a merge, as was recognized specifically by arbcom. I could just as easily have moved pooktre and then merged arborsculpture into it - would you then say the title should be pooktre? With respect to the disambigation issue, that is a problem that thousands of wikipedia articles face, and the standard practice is not to seriously change the name, but rather to append a qualifier in parentiesis - eg, Tree shaping (art), or Tree shaping (horticulture). If those are the key reasons why you support this move, then I hope you will consider possibly changing your votes. AfD hero (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AfD hero, we cannot just make up a name, we have to use a name that is used in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AfD, did you actually read my post? If you had you would not have had to ask that question. Colincbn (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not support this RfM. People keep thinking I am "Pro-Arbo" when I have made it clear I am not. Colincbn (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you don't support this RfM, would you give some thought to voting to oppose it above? AfD hero (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a point of clarification on RMs. Though they may look like votes, they are not votes.  Instead, they are discussions, with each participant simply posting a word at the front (support/oppose/comment) as a summary of their opinion.  The closing admin will not be counting votes, but will instead read the entire discussion, judge the strength of the arguments, take surrounding factors into account, and then make a determination of consensus.  See also WP:NOTVOTE and WP:RMCI.  To help clarify things, experienced Wikipedians might sometimes word things as "Please be sure to weigh in with your !vote," which is usually pronounced as not-vote.  Just FYI, --Elonka 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thanks Elonka. That is why I labeled my post in the RfM as Comment, I do not support Arbo, nor do I feel it is a violation of policy, and therefore do not explicitly oppose it either. I just want people to stop focusing on "what is a better name" and start focusing on "what does policy say". Colincbn (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've participated in a lot of these things over the years, and have come to the conclusion that, despite all the high-minded talk about things not being a vote, in reality the numbers matter. AfD hero (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case both methods give the same result. There is a clear majority for 'arborsculpture' and it is entirely in accordance with WP policy.  I was hoping that, without the COI interference, we could now have a polite discussion on the correct choice of name for this article according to WP policy. I laid out a section where we could discuss exactly what the sources say and how authoritative they were but nobody wanted to play.


 * Colin, I would be interested to hear in what way you think 'arborsculpture' is not the first choice according to policy.


 * AfD hero, could you tell be exactly where the name 'Tree shaping' came from, with a diff if possible. From the history it seems to have just been plucked out of the air. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You've already asked me this question multiple times in multiple forums, and I have already answered it, eg, see the RfM above. To reiterate, it was mentioned by a neutral editor at the Pooktre AfD. AfD hero (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a diff please.


 * We do not usually decide on article names just because they are 'mentioned by a neutral editor'. Where did the term come from?  Was any evidence provided at that time that the term was in general usage to describe the subject of this article? Were you aware at the time that 'tree shaping' is widely used in horticulture to means something completely different?


 * I appreciate your good work in trying to put an end to an unseemly commercial conflict on WP and in combining the two commercially orientated articles into a general one on the common subject. However your choice of article name happens, by what may just be stroke of bad luck, to be a particularly misleading and inappropriate one. I am somewhat puzzled by your continued attachment to it.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find the diff just as easily as me, as it has been listed in several discussions you have previously participated in, or is easily found via a search. I will do your homework and post the diff for you if you agree to then apologize for badgering me with questions you already know the answer to. AfD hero (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done my homework and the situation looks very murky. The best I can find is this comment:


 * *Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not clear exactly what Mgm is suggestiong but 'Tree shaping' seems to be wikilinked. Was this an existing article?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they were both redlinked at the time. AfD hero (talk) 17:13, 27
 * OK, that explains it. It still still a bit obscure though.  What does 'Tree shaping (especially bonsai)' mean and how does it relate to this article?


 * The one thing that is clear is that there was absolutely no discussion of 'Tree shaping' as a title before this article was moved there. As I originally said the title seems to have been plucked out of the air.    Why are you so keen to keep it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD hero: Above you say "those points sound good on the surface [but they are wrong]", but I don't think one key issue has been addressed: does anyone doubt what Martin wrote concerning what an arborist would think "tree shaping" meant? If so, why would there be a doubt, given the many links that have been posted to demonstrate what Martin and I know to be the case. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of community consensus
Discounting those who have been banned from this discussion:

8 editors have supported the move to arborsculpture including 5 previously uninvolved. 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

4 have opposed the move, all of whom have been part of the original discussion. 12:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument to move is based only on WP article naming policy

The argument against moving is based on the fact that the word arborsculpture was coined by Richard Reames.

I think that community consensus in both quantity and quality is now clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: the discussion is not yet closed, and consensus will be determined by an uninvolved admin. In the meantime, anyone else who wishes to comment (except, of course, for the banned parties) is welcome to do so. --Elonka 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC


 * This is not a vote. A title needs to meet policy. Simply stating tree shaping means something else is not a valid argument. As that is easily fixed and tree shaping does have the most reliable refs by far. Pleaching also has some reliable refs so we could up merge there.
 * It has been shown that Martin knows neutrally is an issue. I think we all agree arborsculpture is a neologism. Policy states neologisms can’t be used, the history of this talk page shows there is controversy over the use of this word. Slowart this is your chance to disprove this claim "no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work." Please do so. This is a specific query to Slowart. ?oygul (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not an appropriate location to direct queries to Slowart. Instead, Slowart was allowed to make one statement in the RM above, and to respond to specific queries there. Please direct your questions to Slowart in that location, though I would also caution that editors should not keep repeating the same question. --Elonka 06:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t ask Slowart again. ?oygul (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It has never been shown that Arbo is in fact a neologism. Even if it was, the section on neologisms says it is "preferable" to use a descriptive phrase, not that it is required. I have not voted to support Arbo specifically because of this, but that does not mean its use is prohibited. Colincbn (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing admin asked for clarification
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 [] 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)
 * Thanks for the clarification. --Elonka 04:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)