Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 18

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

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

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

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

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

Martin are you saying these two refs are not reliable? Blackash  have a chat 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Indian Magazine
 * 2) London financial times


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


 * Martin have a look at this before link and that should address your questions above though please note Instant had been changed to Manual.
 * Martin I don't know whether to be flattered that you believe my writing has improved so much that I could be a writer for the London financial times or horrified that you would believe they accept my level of writing skills. Anyway joking aside. These articles where not written by me (or Peter).
 * Indian Magazine writer is SWATI BALGI
 * London financial times writer is Susannah Snider
 * With that cleared up. Yes Susannah contacted us at Pooktre and did a direct quote. In that quote I mention there are two methods. As a leader in this field I believe it is reasonable to assume that I would know if there is more than one method or process to achieving a shaped tree.
 * Indian Magazine writes quote "Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping. Instant Tree Shaping...Gradual Tree  Shaping"  with some details. Later in the article they write up the questions they asked Pooktre and our replies.
 * So my thinking is we have two reliable sources that state there are different methods/process. We could then have a summary of the different methods on tree shaping, with the details on the appropriate sup pages (as Colincbn suggested). Blackash   have a chat 00:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not opinion from secondary/tertiary sources, they are simply reports of your own opinion, even if they were not written by you. Is there anything that shows that anyone else hold this opinion?  Who does 'manual tree shaping'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Financial Times piece is definitely an interview (though it is published in a major outlet), so should be treated as a primary source. The other one though, on my first glance at least, appears to be a secondary source, not a primary one. There are definitely parts of that (the interview section) which should be treated as a primary source, but the portions which were written by Balgi would normally count as a secondary source. Or has there been a discussion on it somewhere where it was deemed unreliable? --Elonka 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not see anything about methods that were not directly based on the opinion of Pooktre. The thing that particularly puzzles me is the 'instant tree shaping' now apparently called 'manual tree shaping'.  I have not seen any sources that show this even exists or pictures of what it achieves or indications of who performs this process.  Perhaps Blackash could explain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, whether or not it is based on Pooktre opinions is not the defining factor for determining a primary or secondary source. If something is a direct quote, it is primary.  If something is written by the reporter though (even if based on an interview), then that is a secondary source.  See also WP:PSTS for more info on this. So in this article, where it says in the lead, "“Tree Shaping” is the art and technique of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants into furniture and accessories," that is a secondary source because it's written by the reporter. But in the Q&A section where one of the answers is, "Most people think Tree Shaping takes too long," that's a primary source because it's a direct quote from the interviewee.  Does that help clarify? --Elonka 17:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion here is about methods of arborsculpture. Blackash claims that there is a method which she variously calls instant or manual tree shaping.  I do not see any secondary source to support this claim.  Also she seems unable to tell us where this method is used and by whom. I have not seen any sources that show pictures of what this method achieves or indications of who performs this process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, this is a secondary source, and includes a glossary of terms, in a valid fashion. So it is not helpful to say "I do not see any secondary source." Of course, there is also the issue of neutrality, and whether the source is representative, or simply a minority view. Per WP:UNDUE, if a secondary source is saying something that no other secondary source is stating, that's a separate issue, on which I have no opinion.  But let's please be clear that it is a secondary source, not primary. --Elonka 16:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, I feel it is not polite to claim I'm unable to tell you something when
 * I give this link above that detailed the different methods with images and references.
 * I stated above "I'm going back to editing approximately once a fortnight. So don't worry if I don't reply straight away, I will get back to you."
 * You have been involved in some of the discussions involving the different methods/techniques, you have even removed two of the images form the article to do with the techniques, so I believe it would be reasonable to expect you understand that is what the link I gave to you was about.
 * Also Martin please note I haven't "variously calls instant or manual tree shaping" I headed the section instant tree shaping and when Richard Reames protested I asked for some suggestions of a different heading and Colincbn changed it to manual stating that any one could change it if they could think of something better. I believe I've commented on this before where we both have be in discussions together. Blackash   have a chat 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka it makes sense that quotes are primary and what the report writes is secondary. Which means this quote "Broadly, there are two approaches to tree shaping Instant tree shaping ...... Gradual Tree Shaping..." is secondary as it is the reporter talking. As to where they got their information there are primary sources available. Richard Reames details how to grow a chair and fence at his web site and in his two books. Dr Chris Cattle has how to grow his stools on his web site, sells kits and his method has been published in a book. Treenovation.com details the Aeroponic root shaping and has had a American uni write an article about this method.
 * I would like to point out one of the reasons given for deleting the pooktre article was that it wasn't very interesting without the method of achieving our trees. It is also the most asked question we receive in emails.
 * We have both primary and secondary references of the fact there are more than one method/process and we have primary and secondary references for the details of those methods. So what is wrong with doing as Colincbn suggests, a brief summary on Tree shaping of the different methods with the details on the sub pages.
 * I would like to note that we don't need sources for everything, only material that a reasonable person might contest. WP:V Would a reasonable person contest that there is more than one method/process to achieving a shaped tree? Blackash   have a chat 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1.1
I rearranged the information about methods at tree shaping back into understandable order, with headings. I also add the images back, as they add interest to the different methods. That captions I added to the images "lead the reader into the article" as suggest at the MoS captions Even though we have cites for instant tree shaping I think Duff use of Established tree shaping could work. Blackash  have a chat 03:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I also have a cite for pleaching method (which is the instant method) from the Sunday telegraph in the uk. I'm just waiting for the correct date is only published 1 or 2 weeks ago. Blackash  have a chat 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why splitting the difference will not do.
When coming to a dispute, the natural approach for many editors is to try to find some middle ground or split the difference. Why not call the article 'Tree shaping/arborsculpture' or the like?

The answer is that this is not a dispute between two names or even two groups of editors. This is a matter concerning the independence and integrity of Wikipedia. The question is, do we allow the personal and commercial interests of editors to influence our decision making.

There is no reason according to WP policy, logically, or morally that we should not allow a name because it was coined by someone with an interest in the subject. The term 'big bang' was coined, somewhat jocularly, by Fred Hoyle to describe the theory that competed at the time with his own 'steady state' theory. Despite this, the name moved into general use by both sides of the debate. No one thinks more or less of Fred Hoyle as a cosmologist be cause he though up a simple name for something that needed one. No one suggests that we should not use that name here because it is partisan.

So it is with 'arborsculpture'. We all know that it was coined as a generic term by Richard Reames to describe what is the subject of this article, a subject that previously had no specific name. It is not for us to question why he did this, whether it was to promote his own books and standing within the horticultural community or whether it was to help his fellow horticulturalists by giving a name to a specific art that had previously not got one. What is important is that the name was accepted into horticultural usage, as is shown by its use in several reliable sources including an authoritative horticultural reference work. This does not imply that Richard Reames is a better or a worse horticulturalist than any one else or that he is a more or less important practitioner of the art.

There is only one name that accurately and precisely describes this very specialist art and there is no valid reason that we should not use it. To do anything else is to allow private and commercial interests to exert influence and control over Wikipedia, damaging its independence and integrity and opening the floodgates for further commercial interference.

To those who come to this page, including the closing admin, this may seem to be just another statement of my opinion. All that I would ask is that you take the time to study the history of the dispute, the sources, and the motivations of the editors, and the need for WP to be independent from personal and commercial interest of editors before you state your view on the subject or act to close the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The motivations behind the creation of a term is not the issue and no one is really arguing that there are policy reasons that bar any particular name. The crux of the matter is whether arborsculpture has become the predominant term for this art or not. Based on what I read above, it is just another term that, along with others - including, apparently, tree shaping, is sometimes used to describe the art. If someone is willing to demonstrate that this is the term of choice for the art, then I'll be happy to support a move but until then I don't think it appropriate to use that title.--rgpk (comment) 20:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the sources quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be more specific let us go through the references in the tables above originally created by Blackash.


 * Let me start with one simple fact regarding the references. Every time we find the word 'arborsculpture' mentioned, we know that it refers only to the subject of this article.  Why?  Because it has no other meaning, it was invented to give a name to this specific art.


 * The same does not apply to any other word or term, especially 'tree shaping'. Read the references given by Blackash.  For many of those that actually use the term 'tree shaping' there is no reason to believe that they refer to the subject of this article.


 * We should try to put ourselves in the position that this commercial dispute never happened. Is there a word that we can use to describe what this article is all about.  Yes, one word is a clear answer to this question.  'Arborsculpture' refers specifically to the subject of this article, it is in horticultural use.  Why should we not use it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) :::The list on this page seems fairly conclusive that arborsculpture is not the dominant term for this art. Take this reference, for example. It talks about the shaping of trees and specifically mentions Reames. Then it goes on to say "Richards calls his creations arborsculpture..." (page 225), specifically associating that term only with the things that Reames does. That indicates to me that - as late as 2010 when that book was published - arborsculpture was being used mainly by Reames and was not in general usage. BTW, you're probably not aware of this but discussions relating to a move request should generally be confined to the appropriate move request section. Creating multiple sections to push a viewpoint, as you are doing, could be construed as being borderline disruptive. I'm sure that's not your intention but could you please confine your comments to the RM section above (or at least stop adding new sections)? --rgpk (comment) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark: "Tree shaping" has a couple of problems:  (1) I dont see many sources that use that specific phrase to describe what the article is talking about; and (2) it is way too vague and confusing: most readers will think that "tree shaping" means topiary.  The title of the article needs to be more specific.  I thought "artistic tree shaping" might work, but another editor pointed out that that also could be confused with topiary (plus, the sources don't use "artistic tree shaping").  As Martin points out, "arborsculpture" may not be perfect, but it is the lesser of two evils.  --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander, as I say in my !vote above, I have no problem with the article being somewhere other than tree shaping. However, I don't like the idea of using a term that is not generally accepted and is simultaneously a commercial one. If arborsculpture were to be the predominant term then I would gladly support it regardless of its commercial status. --rgpk (comment) 13:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly is no term that is better accepted than 'arborsculpture'. Just because Richard Reames calls his work arborsculpture (note the lower case 'a') that does not mean that the term is not used elsewhere.  Have you read the references?  It is a very specialist art so that we are never going to find any term for the art in widespread use.  The point is that arborsculpure is the only name used specifically for this art.  If you disagree with that last statement please suggest another name that is used specifically for the subject of this article.


 * Had there not been the long commercial dispute on this subject I cannot believe that there would be any significant problem in finding a name for this subject. Note that all the new editors who came here in response to the RfC supported arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well stated, Martin Hogbin. In particular, this, "There is only one name that accurately and precisely describes this very specialist art and there is no valid reason that we should not use it.  To do anything else is to allow private and commercial interests to exert influence and control over Wikipedia, damaging its independence and integrity and opening the floodgates for further commercial interference.", concisely summarizes my shared concern.
 * Although certain participants in the commercial dispute over this subject have repeatedly insisted otherwise, there is still no evidence demonstrating that arborsculpture is a commercial term. It is not. The term arborsculpture is not at all controversial or confusing in horticultural circles, where it is commonly used to specify the subject of this article, as demonstrated by that usage in the preponderance of reliable authoritative references.   d u f f   02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of talk about this supposed "preponderance of reliable sources", but I've yet to see it. There are some sources, yes, but it is not overwhelming or even a majority. Also, many of the sources have some connection to Reames, and so exhibit a systematic bias towards his particular point of view. AfD hero (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with any POV. Proposing a generic name for something does not represent a point of view.  People who use the name 'big bang theory' do not subscribe to any particular POV they are simply using a name, coined by Fred Hoyle, to refer to something that did not have a name before.


 * Regarding sources, I would be happy to go through all the sources in Blackash's table with you if you like. You will see that there is only one term used in sources to refer exclusively to the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The only name that is completely specific
I do not think this fact has been mentioned before. There is only one name which can only refer to the subject of this article. Imagine a reader of this article who wishes to see some examples of the art. In their local newspaper they read, 'Visit this gardens to see some fine examples of tree shaping/arborsculpture/tree training/pleaching/pruning. It is a long drive but well worth the effort.

If the article said 'tree shaping' what would the reader expect to find? Possibly a large garden where several of the large mature trees had been pruned or lopped to create a natural looking landscape, possible some examples of topiary, but least likely of all, examples of the subject of this article. Similarly with pleaching, they would probably expect to see trees trained into a raised hedge or to form a quincunx. On the other hand if the article said 'arborsculpture' there would be no doubt that they would see exactly what this article describes. Now we can, of course, give alternative names for the art in the article, but why would we not use as the article title the only name that uniquely refers to the article's subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just passing by here on the way to somewhere else - so this is a drive-by comment. I don't see how 'arborsculpture' is any clearer than 'tree shaping'. Shaping = sculpture, and tree = arbor. So they are the same. However, arbor can also be thought to be a pergola, which might cause some confusion.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you can at least stay to hear the answer. No one is claiming that 'arborsculpture' is self explanatory but it is a word coined to refer specifically to the subject of this article; arborsculpture is never used to mean anything else.  'Tree shaping' is used with many different meanings including one in regular use by horticulturalists to mean something completely different. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it really was the case that arborsculpture is untainted with other possible associations then there wouldn't have been years of debate and dispute. The very reason why people have objected to that name for this article is that it is linked to Richard Reames. My feelings on the matter is that an article on arborsculpture which discussed Richard Reames and modern art techniques would be appropriate, and that could run alongside a more general article on the shaping of trees. I think the history of the development of this article has been unfortunate. It has tried to do two related but slightly distinct things right from the start - it has tried to provide a general article on the various methods of shaping trees, and has tried to define and explain arborsculpture as a term and as an activity. A possible solution to this situation is for there to be two articles: - Tree shaping, which would cover the history and practise of the varying ways of shaping trees; and Arborsculpture which would be about the specific technique of tree shaping as discussed by Richard Reames. There would be some cross-over between the two articles, but there wouldn't be (hopefully) any conflicts of interest, or muddling of purpose and focus. Tree shaping covers the functional, the fun, the curiosities and the art, while Arborsculpture covers the recent art only. I would see Arborsculpture and Pleaching, for example, as being sub-articles from Tree shaping. The main discussion then, would be about which practitioners it would be appropriate to discuss in the Arborsculpture article. Arthur Wiechula and the War-Khasi people are not artists, so they would be discussed only in the tree shaping article, though it would be appropriate to mention them in the arborsculpture article if they have been directly seen to be a significant influence on the modern art. I really do not want to get drawn back into this debate - I only popped onto this talkpage last night as I had forgotten the name of the Connected contributor template, which I knew was on this page, and I glanced down to see how the discussion was coming along. I am disappointed that the same arguments are being recycled, and this dispute has made no progress at all. I would urge people to seriously consider alternative solutions to the dispute rather than simply fighting over the "right" name.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Commercial considerations such a you have raised have no place in WP. If we were to take account of every personal and commercial rivalry in our articles, WP would be a continual fight with vested commercial and private interests.  Reams coined a name for the art as a whole and indeed there are sources where the name 'arborsculpture' is applied to earlier practitioners.  It is not the job of WP to resolve or interfere in commercial or personal disputes, our job is to report the world as it is and as reflected in reliable sources.  There is only one word used exclusively for the subject of this article and, like it or not, that word is 'arborsculpture'.  Who invented the word is immaterial. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should simply go with the name used by most sources. Where we disagree is that 'arborsculpture' is the only term used by sources. Indeed, when this matter has been investigated over the years, and can be checked right now on Google and GoogleBooks, it appears that "tree shaping" is used as much and possibly more than "arborsculpture", and that while both terms have a tendency to go to the main proponents of those terms - "tree shaping" to Pooktre, and "arbnorsculpture" to "Reames", there is far more examples of "tree shaping" going to the general act of shaping trees as outlined in this article than that of "arborsculpture" which is much more narrowly focused. This article as it stands is not about "arborsculpture", it is about shaping trees.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, this is just plain wrong. I would be happy to go through the sources with you if you like.


 * Please explain to me how 'arborsculpture' is narrowly focused. It refers to exactly what this article is about, namely forming of trees into useful and artistic shapes, usually incorporating inosculation.  Are you claiming that 'arborsculpture' refers to something else?


 * Do you accept that the term 'tree shaping' is already in much more common daily us to mean something completely different? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence and sources
Two supporters of 'Tree shaping' has said that it is used in reliable sources. Please show me which sources (excluding those that are very closely connected with Blackash) use the term 'Tree shaping' to refer unambiguously to the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, Blackash give this comment to Duff when he asked for references before the name change. I'm coping and pasting the comment:-

"Duff you asked for references for Tree shaping related to this art form, that pre-date the name change and don't have to do with Pooktre. To date I have found nine, mostly though Google books. Please note these are before July 2008. The article was moved on 10 January 2009. There are more references for Tree shaping as a term for this art form after this date as well.


 * 1. The garden book
 * 2. Planting Design
 * 3. My father "Talked to Trees
 * 4. Tradition and innovation in French garden art: chapters of a new history
 * 5. How to grow a chair The art of Tree Trunk Topiary
 * 6. Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet
 * 7. Organic Gardening: The Natural No-Dig Way
 * 8. Tricks with Trees
 * 9. Between earth and sky: our intimate connections to trees


 * For more information on each reference please go to Book details with quotes from each source." end comment.
 * It seems to me these books have nothing to do with Pooktre maybe we should ask, to check? ?oygul (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For more information on each reference, study those sources, not that spreadsheet. Omitted from your quote, ?Oygul, was the datestamp of Blackash's quote, which was July 1, 2010 (2:15 am, 1 July 2010, Thursday (1 year, 2 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−7)), wherein she answered a somewhat different question than the one I had asked of AfDHero on June 27, a few days before. Here's the |archive of that discussion, which was on point and worth a careful read.
 * I did not ask Blackash for, "references for Tree shaping related to this art form". What I asked  was this, and I asked it of AfDHero:
 * "Please present a single reliable source demonstrating the use of the term 'tree shaping' to describe this craft. I'd like to see one. We dug through dozens of spurious resources, eliminating many which were just clearly not RS, using RSN where there was some doubt and reaching consensus point by point. NOT ONE reliable resource was found or presented. NOT ONE! It's all documented here, if you've got the time, and has been re-referenced again and again and again."
 * Admin note: I have edited the above post to remove a personal attack. --Elonka 15:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor's note: That's a mischaracterization of the deleted quote and I'd like Elonka to reconsider labeling it thusly. Contrary to the message received on my user page about Elonka's deletion, the deleted portion of the quote (me quoting myself) was not intended as and did not constitute a personal attack. Not when it was first written in 2010, and not now.  The request content was factual and did not contain speculation.  The reasons for the specificity of the request are well-documented in the discussion page archive. Though it's content may not sit well (or even need repeating to convey the point today), I posted an accurate quote of the request, as made. Facts are facts, and frankly, I don't like them either, but they're still facts. I considered editing that phrase out, simply for clarity, when I posted the quote yesterday, but that seemed inappropriate also, in a corrected quote.  I don't mind if it's omitted from the present discussion, but I certainly do mind my comment (quote) being mischaracterized in that way.   d u f f   00:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The failure by many editors to acknowledge the origins of the current situation have been most unhelpful. The is not an attack, but is a simple statement of the fact that a campaign has been waged on the Internet since 2008 (and possibly before), and it is known and acknowledged that Blackash is the person behind that campaign. Information about this can be seen in my comment with timestamp "07:55, 12 March 2011" in this ANI archive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackash's quote (quoted in the post by ?Oygul above) and the table offering "more information on each reference" with "Book details with quotes from each source" which is linked therein, were both prepared by involved contributor, Blackash. That spreadsheet table itself is not a reliable source.  Thus,  not surprisingly, the references provided led then & still do lead now to the following actual sources and results, directly demonstrating the point in MY quote, which begged that question.  What sources??

To wit:
 * 1. Does not refer unambiguously to the topic of this article; refers vaguely to tree trimming and topiary; does not cover the topic of this article: these useful creations
 * 2. Does not refer unambiguously to the topic covered in this article. Figure 6.44, on page 164 of this source (the single occurrence of the phrase 'tree shaping' therein) is the title a borrowed sketch from an outside architectural firm (credited), used as one of dozens of similar sample plan drawings given as examples of various types of landscaping contract specifications. The sketch is of a common landscape nursery practice of staking a newly planted tree into an S-curve and could possibly serve as a reference for framing an S-curve.  No other reference to tree shaping is made in the book.   While the simple bending-and-staking method illustrated in the drawing is one of many established horticultural practices that might be combined with many other nifty ideas and to create one of these arborsculptures, it does not begin to imagine the scope of this practice of creating useful objects, much less discuss the practice covered by this article.
 * 3. This one is not linked, but according to the snippets Blackash provided in the chart, it refers exclusively to the work of one of the covered practitioners in this article BUT: Does not contain the phrase "tree shaping" within, and was written by the daughter of that practitioner, also a non-expert source. Doesn't support what it's claimed in support of.
 * 4. Contains the phrase 'tree shaping' but does not refer even vaguely to the subject of this article; refers to a different and well-understood agricultural practice . A non-source.
 * 5. Refers unambiguously to the subject, calling it 'arborsculpture'. Covers several of the practitioners covered in this article. BUT: was written by the other connected contributor, and is a self-published study of the topic by a practitioner who was not an expert at the time of its publication.  It can cite details about that practitioner/publisher: WP:ABOUTSELF, but has to be treated as a self-published non-expert source: WP:SELFPUBLISH. A questionable source.
 * 6. ditto the above. While a case could probably be built that the author of both books is, in fact, an expert, thus far such a case has not been made and it has only been established that that the author is a self-published connected contributor and is one of the arborsculptors covered in the article, who hasn't made any claim of expertise on the subject that I'm aware of. Another questionable source.
 * 7 Does not contain the phrase "tree shaping" anywhere within and does not refer even vaguely to the subject of this article; refers to something different  . A non-source.
 * 8 This one is not linked, but according to the snippets provided in the chart, Ivan, a TV personality and fellow practitioner, writes that he calls his own work "tree shaping", calls Aharon Naveh's pretzel tree "extreme tree shaping" and says that Richard calls his works arborsculpture. Authoritative?  Maybe. However his opinion is not reflected by other sources I'd consider more scholarly, reliable, & authoritative.
 * 9 This source clearly differentiates this craft from topiary and refers unambiguously to the same subject covered in this article as "arborsculpture", and does not call it "tree shaping": "A few gardeners of vision, patience, and humor have used this capacity [self-grafting] to engage in what they term "arborsculpture." Goes on to refer clearly to Axel Erlandsen as "The grand old man of arborsculpture" and describes his works by name. This is not a source for what it's claimed to support.


 * Do you now see the pattern? It isn't subtle at all and never has been. It's been a long train of blatant, deliberate, consistently shoddy citesmanship by a commercial entity to push a contrarian commercial POV, its been going on for years, and it's sucked in more than a few to wade in shallow and muddy the water.
 * One so-so-source. So, that request still stands, see?  d u f f   10:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Duff, the real problem here is that editors just passing through, unlike yourself, do not see this. It is far too easy to count up the references for each name and call it a scoreless draw. The fact is that everyone (except those with a COI or SPAs) who has actually taken the time to read and understand the references has come to exactly the same conclusion, that there is one word used in sources for precisely the subject of this article and it is 'arborsculpture' (actually I forgot Colin, who prefers a descriptive phrase). Everything else is a diversion with no history of actual usage referring specifically to what this article is about.


 * My real worry is that the closing admin (if we get one) will not take the time and trouble necessary to see what you have just pointed out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin I share your view & your concerns. I won't find pride or take part in a writing project that holds the ideals this one claims to and yet succumbs to pressure from commercially biased fabrication of faulty sources, whatever the reason for such a compromise might be.  I won't participate in muddying. It violates my most strongly held principles about writing.  We don't throw the reliable academic information sources under the bus in favor of trotted-up ones.    d u f f   00:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is multiple pieces of misinformation, before Arbcom I would have corrected this, but as it about the title I'm unable now to do so. I believe this very situation is why Martin took me to Arbcom. So that pro Arborsculpture group could make what ever statements they wanted with out being call to account. Blackash  have a chat 01:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My considered opinion
Dear fellow wikipedians,

I will no longer be participating in the project. Having been at the heart of this debate for several years, my considered opinion on the subject is as follows:

Support:
 * Tree training
 * Tree shaping (art), Tree shaping (artistic), and the like

Neutral:
 * Tree shaping
 * Circus Trees
 * Living Art
 * Biotecture, Botanic architecture, and the like
 * Descriptive phrase 5 words or less

Oppose:
 * Arborsculpture
 * Pooktre
 * Pleaching
 * Grown furniture
 * Descriptive phrase more than 5 words

AfD hero (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Afd hero, are your views based on any WP policy, logic, or sources? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My worst fears have been realised
This is an unimportant topic about which I do not care, but the decision above shows that it is possible for a single editor with a commercial COI to improperly influence Wikipedia. The systems for dealing with and preventing this are not strong enough and need to be strengthened. Maybe this is just too trivial a case for anyone to care about but as a matter of principle it stinks. My faith in the integrity of WP has taken a sever beating.

Maybe there will be other ways of resolving this problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would have been more supportive if the closing admin had actually discussed the various options, but I didn't see any depth in their analysis. After going to Arbcom and dragging on for over a year, the admin should have written a small essay summarizing the situation and possible courses of action.  The uninvolved editors basically wasted time participating in this Talk page.   Oh well.  Onward and upward.  --Noleander (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and to be fair to the closing admin, I should point out that on their Talk page they suggested starting a new RM that starts where the previous RM leaves off. So there is still light at the end of the tunnel :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see closure of some sort on this issue. Unfortunately, the choice of Arborsculpture is what is the stumbling block, apparently stemming from different assumptions about the purpose and scope of this article (see the discussion at User talk:SilkTork). If the current title is not good enough, moving it to another 'not good enough' title is not the answer and, again unfortunately, that was the focus of this recently closed move discussion. I note that colincbn has expressed reservations about arborsculpture above and perhaps he would be willing to lead the search for a new title? --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that one way to proceed would be to run a poll, and ask everyone to submit three possible article titles that they could live with, in order. Don't let anyone choose "just one" title:  Everyone has to submit three. Then we could take a look at the results and see where we stand? --Elonka 18:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I think you have completely missed the point. You generally stayed aloof from the actual name discussion and therefore, in common with the closing admin you have failed to see what this is all about.  I imagine you think this is a rather silly argument about what is the best name for the subject of this article?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone not come up with an accurate descriptive title for this practice, that isn't associated with any particular practicioner(s) thereof? It seems to me that "tree shaping" is not such a title, since it can equally well mean pruning trees into shapes, not grafting them as this article describes.--Kotniski (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think there were a few suggested above in the Talk page. I liked "Artistic tree shaping" but someone pointed out that that could be confused with Topiary (which is the same argument some have used against plain "Tree shaping").  But your question is spot on:  Can someone put on their thinking-cap and come up with a title that is not perceived as proprietary, and wont be confused with topiary,  and will satisfy everyone? --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is worse than that. 'Tree shaping' is in regular use by arborists the world over to mean the common practice of pruning or lopping, generally mature, trees to give them a natural shape. Just Google "tree shaping" "arborist" and then search the links for 'tree shaping'.  If you are still in any doubt, just contact any arborist and ask if they do tree shaping and what they understand by the term. To save you the trouble here are a few links to show what 'tree shaping' really means.     These are all from the first page of a Google search. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I regret having suggested that Blackash be permitted a talk page exemption from the topic ban enacted at ANI (March 2011) because editors who quickly review discussions on this topic generally overlook the central problem: Blackash uses civil language to promote the term "tree shaping" on Wikipedia, but Blackash has been doing the same in Internet forums for years, and has a business COI regarding the term. No discussion is ever able to progress due to walls of text, and key points are ignored (for example, see my comment above with timestamp 10:31, 24 August 2011, where I ask whether there is any doubt that arborists do use the term "tree shaping" to mean something completely different from the subject of this article). One possible way forward would be to rewrite this article so that it focuses on what "tree shaping" is generally regarded to mean. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That, I think, would be rather unhelpful - we shouldn't be destroying an article on a valid topic just because we can't agree on a title for it. Seems to me the right thing to do at this stage is to move it from Tree shaping (which we know is the wrong title, per what Martin says) to Arborsculpture (which is at least a reasonable title for the topic, and was pretty much accepted in the above move discussion). Then (a) if someone wants to write a new article about the shaping of trees in general, they can try; (b) if someone can come up with a better descriptive title for Arborsculpture, they can propose it.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, I assume that you have followed my links and seen why this name 'Tree shaping' is not just a not-very-good name for the subject of this article but completely wrong and misleading because it is regularly used by the arboricultural community to mean something completely different from the subject of this article. Would you agree.


 * As you seem willing to look at the actual facts, perhaps I could try to convince you of another thing, which is that 'Tree shaping' has never been used as a term for the subject of this article (except of course by one practitioner). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I thought I was convinced of that already (hence my previous comments).--Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq I would like to point out misunderstandings you have about my off wiki and on wiki behavior.
 * off wiki The vast majority of my comments online about wikipedia's title change, was in the months after the title change. Blue Rasberry tried to address this for Colincbn . All my comments online were clarifying who created the trees shown in the images, their owners' preferred name, that Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames methods and/or title change at wikipedia. I haven't bothered with pointing to wiki for the last 22 months or so, as I now demonstrate about the name of the art-form with the published books on this field.
 * on wiki "uses civil language to promote the term "tree shaping"" I use civil language because I don't care what the title is as long as it doesn't lead to one artist or has a method linked to it. One that meets wiki policies as well is the way to go. I've repeatedly offered real suggestions for the title name that meet wiki policies and that were not tree shaping, also I created the set of tables showing sources and quotes for the different title suggestions. Yet you still seem to believe I'm pushing for the title tree shaping on wiki, please understand that is not where I coming from. Just to be clear my comment is about Johnuniq's misunderstandings of my behavior. Blackash   have a chat 10:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This fiasco has burned me on editing WP to the point I have turned off auto log in, and avoid even looking at my watch list anymore. I am thinking RickK may have been right. That being said here is a link to the section above where I have given some examples of a descriptive phrase that will comply with policy. Colincbn (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Following up on those older suggestions, how about Artistic tree training, that title would emphasize the training of the branches vs "tree shaping" which has the undesireable topiary/pleaching connotations.  Another idea:  Tree sculpture. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Colin, I absolutely understand how you feel. It is crazy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for administrative action (removing banned editors' comments)
One of reasons that admin's find it hard to deal with this RfM is that the votes of banned editors still remain in the RfM section. Arbcom was fairly clear. The banned editors were allowed an opening statement and to answer specific questions addressed to them by other editors, apart from this they were not allowed to contribute to the discussion or final decision.

In order for the true situation to be clearer I would ask for all contributions from banned editors that fall outside this strict remit to be deleted and all future contributions from them to be immediately deleted and, if necessary the ban to be enforced by block.

I also think that, ?oygul is clearly as much of a SPA as Sydney Bluegum (see my report on ?oygul's contribs) and that, as such, their comments should also be deleted, in line with Arbcom's views on the subject during arbitration. At the very least we should go back to Arbcom and ask their opinion on the matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin as you know, this has already taken for clarification which resulted in the Arbitrators supporting the limited comments from banned editors. Quote from Arbitrator Jclemens at the clarification "'The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely.'"


 * Where is your report? If it is above then I disagree with you and I also showed why here.


 * Martin, where did Arbcom state editors' comments are to be deleted if they are new or SPA editors?  Blackash   have a chat 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough. There is too much wiki-lawyering going on here, as editors are getting bogged down in the discussion of process, and not about the article itself, so I'd like to offer some clarifications here:
 * This talkpage is only to be used for discussing the content of the article, and the name of the article.
 * A decision has already been made on who can participate, and how they can participate. That issue is no longer a topic for discussion here.
 * If there are further concerns about process, they should be brought up in the proper venues, and not here on this talkpage. Appropriate venues are: My talkpage, a dispute resolution noticeboard, or an administrator noticeboard. --Elonka 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved. A number of admins have looked over this discussion. At best, they see a very narrow consensus to move. The majority however say they would close it as NC, and that is how I am going to close the discussion. NW ( Talk ) 03:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC) NW ( Talk ) 03:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous related discussions: * January 2009 AfD * March 2010 AfD * June 2010 Requested move * 2011 Arbitration case

Tree shaping → Arborsculpture – Relisted. Discussion still active. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A decision on the appropriate name for this article was requested by Arbcom.
 * The original title of the article was 'Arborsculpture before it was improperly moved to 'Tree shaping'.
 * 'Tree shaping' is a misleading name not used in reliable sources that is widely use to mean something different.
 * 'Arborscupture' is the name used for this specialist art in reliable sources - see discussion above.
 * The generic name 'arborsculpture' is the only title (other than a descriptive phrase) meeting the requirements of WP policy. 10:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus here to move the article.


 * Comment. Arborsculpture is not the only title meeting the requirements of WP policy. It is one of two, the other being a descriptive phrase (note: this does not mean a made up term that doubles as a name for the art) as mentioned above. However, Arborsculpture does also comply with policy and as such I will not oppose it. Colincbn (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I have amended the rationale accordingly.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Oppose Having now read all the talk pages and surrounds. Arborsculpture is controversial from the beginning from multiple editors.
 * This article was shifted from Arborsculpture to tree shaping because Arborsculpture was not neutral. It is still not neutral. Tree shaping was chosen because it is broad and therefore neutral. I can’t type passed the c in Arborsculpture without Richard Reames appearing in the drop box of Google. It seems Google is in no doubt where Arborsculpture leads. I believe Colonel Warden’s statement is spot on in the last RFM. [post removed]
 * Please read the earlier RFM for more examples of how Arborsuclpture doesn’t meet policy.
 * There is a sub-page that has over 40 references with quotes for Tree shaping or a variant thereof, example: “he shaped and grafted trees” “shaping trees” “shaped trees” “tree shapers” etc... to do with this art form . 13 of which are from published books. 10 of those are directly about the practitioners, methods or the history of this field. There are plenty of references for multiple names of this field at the sub-page There are tables for easy scanning with quotes making it easy to compare.
 * Arborsculpture is used in 6 books two of which are self published by the creator of the word arborsclpture.
 * Showing that Arborsculpture is not the common name compared to tree shaping, and others. This is a newly emerging field without any clear name as Colincbn has stated elsewhere. I feel that all this bickering over the word Arborsculpture could be solved by up merging the article into pleaching.
 * Also have the people who have previously show an interest in this article been notified to give their opinion? Similar to how it was done for the last RFC? ?oygul (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ?oygul: ColonelWarden If you oppose "Arborsculpture", which alternative title would you recommend and why? The current title, "tree shaping" is too similar to the topic of topiary, true? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already stated Pleaching would work in my comments here. Tree shaping has the most refs close to a third. A disambiguation as mentioned by AFD Hero, Blackash and Colincbn this follows policy. Noleander your wording of Tree shaping (artistic) seems good. ?oygul (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @?oygul: "Pleaching" is a far different discipline than the topic of this article. Pleaching in an architectural formation of bushes/trees to make a wall or hedge. It is not by any means the same as artistic tree shaping (which results in furniture or abstract shapes). But it sounds like you could live with "Artistic tree shaping" or "Tree shaping (artistic)"? --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander Pleaching has 16 refs, either as a name or as a techquine. When I started editing Pleaching, Martin and Duff tried to chase me off. Yes to your suggestions. ?oygul (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity: has not participated in this current discussion. The above comment was a copy/paste by, repeating a statement by ColonelWarden from June 2010. It should probably have been provided via a diff rather than a copy/paste, so I have edited the comment accordingly. --Elonka 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake ... I've corrected it above. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: It should be noted that user :?oygul has very few contributions to WP, and most of them have involved this article ... see edit history here. Im not suggesting bad faith on their part, nor am I suggesting a WP:SPA issue, but still it may influence the weight of the !vote. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander, you are trying to influence this discussion in your favor by attacking the credentials of your opponents. You have not posted a similar notice after andrewpcotton's statement (that agrees with you) even though he has less posts. AfD hero (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no point in debating the style of another editor here, but I did a quick check on the SPA claims. Andrewdpcotton has 242 edits in a wide range of articles, since September 2006. ?oygul has 74 edits since April 2011, in a much smaller range. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all kicked off over the weekend hasn't it. Just to clarify I am not a prolific editor by any means but have been about for 5 years and have mainly worked on articles about Scotland and Cycling (including making some major edits I am very proud of, that have since featured in multiple mainstream media articles). I rarely edit talk pages and this is the first RfM or indeed any community vote I have participated in. I happened to see this article via the ArbCom page and then read the article itself, finding it a fascinating topic about a new and exciting artform. Congratulations to all editors who have written and improved it. The reason I chose to comment, as an entirely uninvolved editor, is that I felt (having read all 16 pages of archives) that the problems on this page have stemmed from worrying too much about what titles and content suit the practitioners of the art and too little about what titles and content suit the readers themselves. With the exception of not breaching WP:BLP guidelines, surely our first focus as an encyclopedia should be what is most helpful to the reader, and indeed this is what WP:TITLE is all about. As a reader and editor who has not contributed to this page and has no connection to the topic, it seems to me that arborsculpture has emerged as a generic term in reliable sources to encompass the entire artform and thus it is the most useful title of the page for the casual reader. It is more Concise than a descriptive phrase, It is more Precise than either the current title or Pleaching which are commonly used to describe something else, it is Recognisable to anyone with a passing knowledge of latin as meaning Sculptured Trees, and follows the general horticultural tradition of using latin compounds to describe emerging new practices. Happy to WP:AGF that people who argue otherwise do so out of thoughts about what is best for the encyclopedia, but to me arguing about which name helps which practitioner is unhelpful and irrelevant to what is best for wikipedia. Borderline WP:SPA accounts, who have chosen not to contribute to Martin's helpful Article Name discussion above but instead merely complain that Richard Reames gets good Google results for the phrase arborsculpture so we shouldn't use it, seem less helpful to the discussion. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (additional comment) 'The controversy surrounding the word arborsculpture starts on the first post in 2007 and continues through 17 archives to the present day. It is one long argument by numerous editors over the use of this word. ?oygul (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per ?oygul.
 * Comments:


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


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


 * No one is suggesting that you had a conflict of interest or that the move was not done in good faith but the article was moved with very limited discussion to a made-up name that is very widely used to mean something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only a few paragraphs up, Andrewpcotton directly accused my merge as being a conflict of interest. AfD hero (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not read it like that. I think he was referring to other editors who had a COI. Where did the name 'Tree shaping' come from?
 * AfDhero: If you oppose "Arborsculpture", what title do you suggest? Are you suggesting "Tree shaping"? "Tree shaping" is not acceptable because to most people that means topiary, which is an entirely different topic from the topic of this article, namely artistic tree shaping. --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin: User AfDhero has (at this time) about 450 edits, and nearly half of those relate to this article, or related articles. This may influence how heavily their !vote is weighed. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been editing math and science articles anonymously since 2004. For this article I stick to a single non-ip user account so as not to cause confusion. It shows the weakeness of your argument that you have to resort to ad hominem posts against my account. AfD hero (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @AfDhero: No problem. Can you answer my question from above: what title do you think is best for this topic, and why? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could also tell me where the name 'Tree shaping' came from. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer Martin and Noleander's questions, let me explain a little about the history of my involvement with this article.
 * I came to the article by way of Pooktre's AfD. At the time, there were 2 articles covering the artistic shaping of trees - Pooktre and Arborsculpture. The arborsculpture article was basically a puffery promotional piece for Richard Reames books and works, and the Pooktre article was largely promotional fluff for the work of Becky Northey and Peter Cook. Just by chance it happened that Pooktre was nominated for deletion first. Neither article was encyclopedic in their current form, but it was evident to a few people in the AfD that there was a notable topic in there if the articles were combined and written in a neutral tone. I went ahead and did the merge, and rewrote a lot of things. The name "tree shaping" was suggested by another neutral editor in the AfD (either MgM or Rror, I don't remember) since it was neutral, generic, descriptive, and used in sources. Since I couldn't think of anything better I used that.
 * I don't know if "tree shaping" is the best name, but I do know that Arborsculpture is not. A name I've advocated in the past is "Tree shaping (art)", to keep in line with disambiguation policy since "tree shaping" is also used for other things. However this didn't seem to gain any traction when I mentioned it a year or so ago. Arborsculpture is highly controversial both in the history of this article, and among the artists, and by choosing it we would be advocating one neologism out of many - influencing the naming debate rather than cataloging what is already there. It is telling that no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work. *I'm striking this since Reams has listed a few other tree shapers who use his term and I believe him. Nevertheless the number of people who use it is nowhere near a majority.
 * In any case, I'm irritated at what has transpired over the last two years. Ever since I did the merge, a small band of editors has been agitating to rename the article arborsculpture. Every few months they restart the debate on the talk page, or open a RfC or RfM, simultaneously using every wiki-legal means to silence those who disagree (eg, the treatment of Sydney Bluegum, and now ?oygul ). Up until now result is always the same - no move since arborsculpture is non-neutral. In the past discussions, countless neutral editors and at least 2 admins have, after weighing the evidence, decided arbosculpture is not appropriate. Well the pro arborsculpture editors have been so persistent over the course of years, that everyone else got tired of the endless rehashing of the same old points and moved on, and now it might finally get renamed against the will of the silent majority. AfD hero (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am equally irritated, on the other side. It's only because the recent Arbcom case topic banned a certain editor that we are able to have a discussion—on previous occasions it was impossible to get any momentum because one editor kept pushing their line. If someone could show an actual problem with "Arborsculpture" (apart from irritation about how the article was once a puff piece), I would seriously consider your alternative title "Tree shaping (art)" which, while a little ungainly, is a serious contender in that it clearly states that the topic is not "tree shaping" as understood in the industry. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Support The claim that "tree shaping" is a generic term for the art is not correct—for many people working with trees, "tree shaping" refers to judicious pruning to encourage a tree to grow as naturally as possible given its circumstances (treeshapers.com, treesurgeonglasgow.co.uk, fruit trees, advice on tree shaping, usda.gov). The previous requested move (and pretty well all previous discussions) were dominated by commentary from Blackash (who is now topic banned from this discussion), and I believe the previous discussions were tainted by that commentary with the result that some editors believe there is a problem with "arborsculpture" when there is no evidence for that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am an uninvolved editor, and I also initially thought there was a problem with "Arborsculpture" because it looked like a brand name promoted by one author, perhaps in violation of WP:NEO. But after reading the sources more carefully, I determined that it is not promotional in anyway, and - after examining all the other candidate titles - "Arborsculpture" is the best overall title for WP. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Arborsculpture breaks the core policy of Neutral point of view. Throughout the history the neutrality of arborsculpture has been the elephant in the room. To title this article aborsculpture would go against the Name part of that policy. Aborsculpture is not the most commonly used name as can be seen by the large number of refs for other names. To change to arborsclpture would be creating a title that is bias and clearly this policy says this should not be done. Tree shaping has the most refs by far, of the suggested names. It should be ok to use it as the title, does Wikipedia follow the refs or not? ?oygul (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is 'arborsculpture' not neutral? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tree Shaping does not have the most refs. That list is inflated by adding many that simply use both the word "tree" and the word "shape" in the same sentence regardless of their use as the name of the art. Also many of those are not scholarly, or even reliable, sources. I would agree that Arbo is also not used in the majority of sources, but certainly "tree shaping" is not either. Therefore we can either use a descriptive phrase, or use Arbosculpture as it is the original non-stub title. We cannot make up a name or use one that is not used in the majority of reliable sources. Colincbn (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Colin, this is exactly the type of discussion we should be having. I started a section above in which we could assess the sources supporting each name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping&action=edit&section=62
 * Colincbn, 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. You keep trying to make up a descriptive phase but we have 40+ refs here that are either tree shaping or a variation there of, that is what the policy you quote calls for, yet you want to dismiss them. There are 13 books, international publications from universities, government, large newspapers and magazines from around the world. These refs are about the practitioners in this field. ?oygul (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As a title that is supported by reliable sources, and best meets the main guidelines at WP:Article titles: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. "Tree shaping" is not at all precise, and in fact is extremely ambiguous, since it describes many different practices. It is also not recognizable, at least to this amateur gardener and student of pruning and shaping trees in the more traditional landscaping context. "Arbosculpture" is descriptive while being concise. Any other precise and descriptive title would be overly long, for example Shaping trees into furniture and art. And again, it is supported by reliable sources—even though they are not unanimous on that particular name, they do support its use as an article title on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out the WP:MoS suggests a title limit of ten words and your example above is only half that. Also Policy specifically states "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
 * However Arbo also meets policy so I can see why you would support it. Colincbn (talk)


 * Oppose Arborsculpture is a specialist wording (neologism) that has been pushed to brand a unnamed art form. There are reliable book/media references to this. diff or discussion
 * Per the principles in Article titles:
 * Recognizability – Arborsculpture is not well known outside of people who know Richard Reames, his books or have read one of the few articles that uses it. Article titles should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess. "'' and that wouldn’t be arborsculpture.
 * Naturalness – "a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English. " Some combination of shaping/shaped/shape/train/training/trained trees is used in all articles to describe this art form. This would be most peoples first guess.
 * Precision - WP:PRECISE states that it is about adding precision "to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name", and adds: "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." Arborsculpture is too specialized. Tree Shaping is precise enough to identify the subject, but the title may be better as Tree shaping (artistic) or Tree shaping (art). Tree shaping has a 3th or more of all the references out of all the potential title names.
 * Conciseness - As most people haven’t heard of Arborsculpture it is not very descriptive. At least with the descriptive term of tree shaping people get an image in mind of what the art form is about. Partly because of fantasy eg lord of the rings, elfquest etc...
 * Consistency – Arborsculpture is not the most used word in the references. The vast majority of references for Arborsculpture are unreliable as they are based on two self published books by non expert Richard Reames creator of the word arborsculptue. The references are mostly: book reviews, Promotional material for workshops, or interviews with Reames.


 * As for Martin Hogbin asking how is Arborsculpture not neutral he already knows. Martin stated to me, "Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it."diff This lead to me creating the references with quotes page which the pro arborsculpture editors have mainly ignored.
 * Please don’t buy into its all because of one editor (me apparently) leading others astray and that is why this article is not now called arborsculpture.
 * It could give me a big head, if I started believing I have the power to mysteriously convince multiple editors my view is the correct one.
 * Its disrespectful of the other editors' intelligence.
 * As I see it, it comes down to me pointing out where the pro arborsculpture editors are not following policy rather than me being able to mysteriously convince multiple editors. As a result of the pro arborsculpture group repeatedly claiming this I create a page with editors’ quotes and links of editors who oppose. Blackash   have a chat 07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * "at the commencement of the discussion" Surly we are well past the beginning of the title discussion. Are rebuttals by banned editors being encouraged now ? Slowart (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Elonka: That provision you quote is from a discussion of the RfC, isn't it? Not the Request for Move? Or (stating the question another way) if BlackAsh is permitted to edit the article, and to participate in the RfC, and participate in the Request for Move - then what is BlackAsh banned from doing for a year? --Noleander (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously. From what I understand banned editors were to be allowed to put their proposals for a title in the discussion above one time and otherwise leave the rest to everyone else, with the caveat that they could answer direct questions. This is not her proposal (neither is her other post). It is an opposition to someone else's proposal. As well as a discussion on the merits of another editor. She was invited to give her proposal for her preferred name above and she opted not to. That does not mean she is now allowed to comment on other proposals. To echo Noleander "What is she banned from???" And even if you interpret the ArbCom decision to allow this, the comments on Martin that come after her five on-topic points should be struck because nothing in the decision allowed her to comment on other editors as a means of influencing the naming dispute.(note I do not support Arbo, I just support due process) Colincbn (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As was quoted above from the ArbCom case, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject. ... Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." As Casliber mentioned above, it is important that due process be followed here. As such, it makes sense that when there is an RM, each of the banned parties be allowed to make one statement, and to answer specific queries about that statement. Other than that, they are to stay out of the discussion. I should also point out that Blackash contacted me via email before posting, asking if it would be alright, and I said yes, and to keep the statement under 500 words. In my opinion, Blackash is complying with the ArbCom restrictions, and Slowart and Sydney Bluegum are also both allowed to make one statement in this RM, if they so choose. --Elonka 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals."
 * This is not a proposal.
 * This is not bacground rational for a proposal.
 * This is not the comencement of the discussion.
 * This is not an answer to a specific query.
 * She has made more than one statement during this discussion.
 * Colincbn (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackash, Colincbn is saying you haven't made a proposal for what is your preferred name for this art. So I am asking you what is your preferred name? ?oygul (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did touch upon Tree shaping (artistic) or Tree shaping (art) in my comment above, but basically I don't care what the title is as long as the title is neutral and follows the refs. Any of the suggestions in this rfm (except arborsculpture) to date seem fine. Or even up merge into pleaching if that would stop the discussions going around and around about the word arborsculpture. Blackash   have a chat 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Query to Blackash. Does any artist other then Richard Reames use arborsculpture to describe their art? Please give links, so as I can verify it, by looking at their web site or online refs?. ?oygul (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read all the references wikipedia has so far for this article Lots of links here to follow. In none of them does any artist use arborsculpture in regards to their own art. I have been in contact with all artists, (including international practitioners) via email, facebook or phone. I have asked them to check the work I did on treeshapers.net before it when live. I asked them to supply the name they use for their artwork and their history. No artist except Richard Reames supplied arborsculpture as the name. Every artist has their own name for their art. treeshapers.net Within the community of tree shapers there have been issues with the word arborsculpture from the start. The only two American experts in this field (Mark Primack and Dan Ladd) both have issues with Richard Reames's word arborsculpture. Mark Primack's diff Dan Ladd will not even put the words Arbor and Sculpture together.  Wikipedia is impoverished because Dan Ladd won't give any images of his trees while there is a possibility of his art will be branded arborsculpture. diff In short I’m not aware of any artist who chooses to use arborsculpture as a word to describe their art. I’ve been stating this since 2008 in talk pages here. I find it telling that Slowart/Reames states this claim is untrue for "many, many practitioners" and yet doesn't give any, that can be seen, to have done so.  Blackash   have a chat 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Andrewdpcotton can read the archives and make comments as a new editor on the page. This privilege was not given to ?oygul without 2 sockpuppet investigations. This is typical of the pro arborsculpture camp which has continually created a hostile environment. Filing cases of Sock puppets, accusations, rehashing of allegations across multiple boards, misinformation are all attempts to create disruption and bias. These tactics have been repeatedly used by the pro arborsculpture camp. The goal seems to be to keep the page disruptive WP:POINT. I think there is good reason that Colincbn keeps rising the policy of “revert to first non-stub name per Policy on title disputes.” Which just happens to be arborsculpture. To be fair Colincbn had struck this statement out, but now seems to be going back to it.
 * From my understanding, if Tree shaping was up-merged to the parent article of Pleaching, this would negate a large proportion of the previous arguments (As per Colin's arguement above). ?oygul suggested this and gave references to support this. This idea was squashed above by Martin when he was having commencement discussions by himself. I still think the title Pleaching is valid. Martin stated the Wiki article on pleaching is not about this artform. Wiki policy is to not quote itself. There are references in the Alternative name section and ?oygul’s ones above. Example "make him a master of tree pleaching" (this refers to Axel Erlandson- the worlds leading tree trainer) at 03 Pleaching listing. Of all the titles I prefer Tree training or some variation of this. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Sydney Bluegum. There is a possibility that and  are connected in some way personally or professionally. --Elonka 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Additional comments in the above post that were unrelated to the move request have been moved to the user's talkpage. is banned from participation in this discussion, except for being allowed to post one statement. If other editors have questions about this statement specifically as it relates to the naming issue, you are allowed to ask, and Sydney Bluegum is allowed to give specific replies. Comments unrelated to the naming issue will be removed. --Elonka 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, please note that User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace. This post should be removed completely.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm striking BlueGum's comments, based on the ArbCom ruling. Unlike BlackAsh, BlueGum was not entitled to comment. --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the "article scope" remedy, ArbCom stated, "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.". This applies to Blackash, Sydney Bluegum, and Slowart, so all three are allowed to make a single statement (no more than 500 words) in this RM. --Elonka 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, I do not think that caveat applies to Sydneybluegum as he is not an expert nor has "experience and familiarity with the area". He is a beginner to this craft. I think you should clarify what the ruling means with ArbCom. Colincbn (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A preponderance of strong academic references site arborsculpture. Such as (page 442) Among many groups of arborist and master gardeners and landscapers the word is well know and understood. One disturbing and false claim that "no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work." The truth is that many, many practitioners, professional and amateur alike use the word, some notable practitioners are Herman Block, Konstantin Kirsch and Nirandr Boonnetr while Chris Cattle removed the word from his web site shortly after I disputed the false claim with a link to his page.[] the archive shows Cattle's use of the word in Aug. of 2008 but changed by Sept 08. It's was really appalling to me see my colleagues drawn into this wiki war along with every blogger who ever used the word. Hopefully that is all behind us now and I'm sure that I also have been less than a perfect editor myself at times. As the one who first suggested the mutual ban, I'll keep this short and close with appreciation to everyone who came here to improve Wikipedia by investing your time in this worthwhile article. Slowart (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: as described at the ArbCom case, is banned by ArbCom from participation in this discussion, except for being allowed to post this one statement above. If any other editors have specific queries relating to the naming issue though, they are allowed to ask, and Slowart is allowed to offer specific replies. --Elonka 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals."
 * This is not a proposal.
 * This is not bacground rational for a proposal.
 * This is not the comencement of the discussion.
 * This is not an answer to a specific query.
 * Colincbn (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What Slowart did not say is Herman Block and Konstantin Kirsch are from Germany. Nirandr Boonnetr is from Thailand. I looked at their websites and nowhere does the word arborsculpture appear. One of the German sites has a English version it doesn’t appear there either. The only English speaking person is Chris Cattle, Slowart states, Cattle stopped using arborsculpture 3 years ago. The four people Slowart gives all have their own name for their art. Slowart creator of the word arborsculpture quote “many, many practitioners use the word arborsculpture”, Afd Hero said give me 3 notable practitioners. I am just going to ask for one, other than Richard Reames. My question to Slowart, can you name me one notable practitioner who refers to their own trees as arborsculpture, so as I can verify it, by looking at their web site? ?oygul (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I will not risk having you or anyone contacting my colleagues to try to drag them in to this battle and change there mind about using the word, as happened in the past. Hopefully you can understand that. Slowart (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't understand. I am not asking for their email. I am asking for their website. Can you give a link to where they have been interviewed by media and they use arborsculpture as the word for their own art? ?oygul (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support There is a discussion above which clearly shows that reliable sources support the use of the term arborsculpture. It is not relevant who coined the word or that the person who coined the word is the personal and business rival of one of banned editors here.  We must base our decision on whether there is evidence from reliable sources that the word 'arborsculpture' is used in to describe the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support A preponderance of both reliable sources and horticultural professionals have, for over a decade, used this word to identify this craft and the works that result from the practice of this craft; some of these works artful, others useful. Until my involvement in the conflict over this article's name, that was the only word I'd ever heard used to describe the topic and I'd never heard of Richard Reames, the coiner of the word.  As far as I know, that usage was completely uncontroversial when adopted and used in the 1990's to describe the unfolding story of the rescue of Erlandson's Tree Circus trees.  The word is elegantly descriptive of what it means to articulate & it reads as a natural English-language word for what it is.  The original article title was the correct title, as the word arborsculpture is the only word in common usage that points unambiguously at the topic covered in the article.  The current title is unacceptably vague and wholly misleading, as it is commonly used to describe an entirely different and very common practice in the tree care trade.  It was chosen arbitrarily without adequate participation or awareness of most of the editors working on this article at the time of the change, with the exception of the banned editorial team, the co-practioners of the craft (Blackash:Cook/Northey) who were most opposed to the original title, arborsculpture.  They, working together as Pooktre (Peter Cook Tree),also (not coincidentally) used and continue to use the phrase tree shaping as a service mark and brand for their own work and use the website www.treeshapers.net as a marketing funnel for their own work. Independently branding one's own works of arborsculpture with one's own trademarks seems reasonable, but those works, generically, are still arborsculpture & so are the works of the other craftspeople covered in the article.   On a personal note, I am so burned out by the tedium & contentiousness surrounding this one article, that I'm keeping it (and Wikipedia itself) at arm's length for a while, having contributed more than I could really afford to already.  I've popped back in to express my strong support for this proposal because principles of accuracy and truth around both trees and words are important ones to stand up for, and I do.   d u f f   22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't know what the correct title of this article should be but I'm uneasy about using a term that is a specific brand name of one practitioner. I would prefer to see some evidence that this name, arborsculpture, is overwhelmingly used by independent sources for the practice described in the article. Though there is some evidence (presented above) of the term being used by independent sources, I don't see the necessary overwhelming evidence above. Wikipedia has become the 'go to' source for information in our world and (this is a personal opinion), I believe we should take extra care to avoid promoting one term over other alternative terms and therefore oppose this move request. If Tree Shaping is not appropriate (though, as a layperson, I admit to be foggy on as to why that is the case), then a discussion on alternative names is appropriate but a move to a promotional term coined by one practitioner is not. --rgpk (comment) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I first visited this RfC, I thought the exact same thing, and I opposed "Arborculpture" for the same reasons. The problem is: there is no other decent name: this art form is rather obscure, and there is not a lot of documentation on it.  If we don't use "Arborsculpture" in WP, we have to pick some descriptive phrase, such as "Artistic tree shaping", that the sources do not use much ... but then WP would be promoting a phrase that the practitioners themselves do not use.  The reason I changed my mind is that "Arborsculpture", although it was a term coined by one particular practitioner, is now often used in a "lower case" sense.  So it is not used as a "brand name" any more.  To be clear:  I have no strong objection to the title being a phrase like  "Artistic tree shaping" ... I'm just pointing out that the alternatives to "Arborsculpture" also have drawbacks. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have no strong objection to using a descriptive phrase but would point out that to adequately and clearly describe the subject of this article it would have to be somewhat cumbersome, something like, 'Forming trees into useful or artistic shapes by inosculation'. Simpler terms have two drawbacks, firstly that they could be mistaken for the actual name of the art, which WP policy forbids, and secondly they could easily be mistaken for something else. "Artistic tree shaping" could just as well apply to topiary for example.


 * On the other hand we have a name that has been used in reliable sources for many years, including some quite authoritative ones.  There is no WP policy or other reason that we should not use the name just because it was coined by a current practitioner of the art. We can never expect to see overwhelming use of a name for such a specialist subject all we can do is see what name the best sources use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. When this matter has been investigated over the years, and when I checked just now on Google and GoogleBooks, it appears that "tree shaping" is used as much and possibly more than "arborsculpture", and that while both terms have a tendency to go to the main proponents of those terms - "tree shaping" to Pooktre, and "arborsculpture" to "Reames", there are far more examples of "tree shaping" going to the general act of shaping trees as outlined in this article than that of "arborsculpture" which is much more narrowly focused. This article as it stands is not about "arborsculpture", it is about shaping trees. I feel there is room on Wikipedia for an article on arborsculpture, and it would be more appropriate to create that article than to rename this one.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations. It seems that "tree shaping" is certainly the wrong title, as that can mean all sorts of things, including just pruning. However, it looks to me that "Arborsculpture" is just one of several names used for this technique within the relevant circles, and an accurate descriptive name might be a better choice. Until such a descriptive name is successfully proposed, though, moving back to Arborsculpture seems the right thing to do.--Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good analysis. Arborsculpture is not an ideal title, but it is the best of all the alternatives available.  I suspect that over the next 3 or 4 years, more sources will comment on this practice, and one particular term will emerge as clearly dominant.  But for now, arborsculpture is the best candidate. --Noleander (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, thanks for your interest. The problem is that when you look more closely for other possible names for this article you find that (apart from one proprietary name) there simply are no other names that refer exclusively and unambiguously to what this article describes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread at WP:AN
Since this RM has been running for about six weeks now, and I'd rather not handle the close myself, I posted a request for assistance at the administrators' noticeboard. Hopefully we'll be able to get another admin in who can close this one way or the other. --Elonka 06:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've come here from AN with a mind to close this discussion. At a glance, we have nine people in favor of a move and six against, all with broadly defensible arguments. That's not a clear enough majority to be called a consensus, and so I would close the RfC RM as no consensus. But maybe continued discussion could help us to come to a clearer conclusion. What do other admins think?  Sandstein   08:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, just checking, did you get a chance to read the close from the 2010 RM? It had a thoughtful summary from closing admin (who participated in the current RM as rgpk).  Do you feel that the current RM is at basically the same point, or do you think it has trended in one direction or the other? --Elonka 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the old RM is relevant for determining whether we have a consensus in this RM.  Sandstein   21:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that no consensus is the unfortunate result, and that result needs to be accepted as the current status. Unless we have a very different RM, based on fundamentally different arguments, another RM in the next six-twelve months will be a waste of time. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The old AN thread was already closed and archived after Vegaswikian's (now reversed) close, so I have opened a new thread at WP:AN, to see if we can get another opinion or two on this. --Elonka 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting that at the AN thread, another uninvolved editor, has commented "Having read the reasoning I'm thinking that there is a very thin or almost no-consensus.  As such I really don't think a page move would be appropriate." So we now have Vegaswikian saying no consensus; Sandstein saying there is a narrow consensus in favor of a move; John Vandenberg saying no consensus; NuclearWarfare saying no consensus. --Elonka 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The newer AN thread has been archived, so I think we've gotten as many comments as we're going to get. Perhaps one of the admins could please close the RM discussion? --Elonka 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about aborted close
Someone posted a request that I comment here on my close and then reopening of the discussion. Since several editors commented to me on the close, hoping for a decision one way or the other and since the discussion was continuing outside of the formal discussion, I felt that in the interest of trying to reach a decision, reopening the discussion would be the sagest option. For a while I have been thinking that we should have a subpage of RM where administrators could collaborate on closing the more complicated decisions. So really the close would turn out to be a consensus of the input from several administrators. This discussion is probably a good example of where that might have been a good way to handle complicated closes. In the end, I still believe that based on the discussion, consensus was not there. However based on feedback after that close, I sense that some editors really want to work to establish a consensus. Given the many places this issue has been, that is not an unreasonable desire and I should not stand in the way of that effort continuing. I suppose the only questions remaining are how long should the discussion continue and can a consensus be reached? Finally, my actions should not be another side discussion that takes the focus off of the main issue here, the correct name for the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One admin's opinion about closing this RM
On Elonka's request, I am reexamining this discussion after Vegaswikian reverted their "no consensus" closure. On closer examination, I am changing my initial assessment to close this as a 9:6 "no consensus", for the reasons explained in the following. I don't intend to perform the actual closure, as I have no interest in getting actively involved in arbitration-related craziness any more, but for what it's worth here's my opinion:

The problem I initially overlooked is how to take into account the opinions of the three editors who have been topic-banned in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping. The RfC on this issue confirmed that they may participate in this discussion to, as per the remedy, "outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries". However, considering that they remain otherwise topic-banned from the whole subject matter, I believe that the Committee's intent in establishing this exception from the topic ban was to allow their expertise to inform the opinion of others, but does not extend to allowing their own opinions to be part of any consensus about how to name the article. For this reason, I would not take the "support" opinion by Slowart and the "oppose" opinions by Sydney Bluegum and Blackash into account for ascertaining consensus. The opinions of others, however, I would. In particular, I am not convinced by the argument that ?oygul is a single-purpose account.

This leaves us with eight people in favor of the move and four against. As we do not vote, we must next take the strength of arguments into account. While closers may not arbitrarily give more weight to the arguments they personally happen to agree with, they must weigh arguments in the light of community-wide consensus as established in policies and guidelines, that is, they must discount arguments that are entirely at odds with core policies and give less weight to those that conflict with guidelines. In this case, the relevant policy, WP:NAME, allows a great number of criteria to be taken into account subject to editorial discretion, including recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. Under these circumstances, I believe that a closer may not (in the guise of weighing arguments) authoritatively determine which criterium is the most important, or whether it applies to any of the proposed names, as was done in the 2010 RM closure; that is precisely what consensus (understood as a strong majority of at least policy-defensible arguments) needs to do. Therefore we may discount only opinions that have little or no bearing on at least one of the criteria of WP:NAME. There are none such; all remaining opinions are at least vaguely defensible based on parts of that policy.

This leaves the tally at eight to four in favor of the move. In my experience, a two-thirds majority of valid opinions is generally accepted in most Wikipedia discussions about content to constitute a consensus, if only a quite narrow one. What's left to determine is whether the low total number of opinions precludes us from finding a consensus altogether. I don't think that this is so. Realistically, given how obscure, unimportant and contentious the topic is, it is unlikely that any subsequent discussion will have many more neutral participants, so we have to make do with what we have.

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that there is a (narrow, but sufficient) consensus to move the article to "arborsculpture".  Sandstein  21:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting points Sandstein. I was hoping not to have to comment here again (whether the article be at Tree shaping of Arborsculpture) but your comment about my close of the previous move discussion - which I had (sadly) considered an exemplary RM close :( - deserves a response. In particular, I suggest your conclusion that a closer may not (in the guise of weighing arguments) authoritatively determine which criterium is the most important is wrong because that would reduce the job of the closer to counting the number of valid policy based arguments on either side and then going with the greatest number. The strength of arguments, however, varies along a continuum from very weak to very strong, and a closer should take the strength of both policy-based as well as guideline-based arguments into account when making a decision. One weak policy argument is not necessarily better than several strong guideline arguments. Regardless of all that, I believe 'neutrality in article names' is a policy and am surprised at your statement that there are no defensible arguments on the side of not moving this article. The way I see it, we have a weak policy argument (that Arborsculpture is the common name for the art - weak because it is not used by a large enough number of sources) and a strong policy argument in opposition (non-neutral titles should be avoided as far as possible). --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was unclear, but I believe that both sides have made broadly defensible arguments.  Sandstein   21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. My apologies then, I guess I misunderstood your comment above. --regentspark (comment) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Elonka asked me to take a look at this discussion. My first impression after reading the requested move discussion was that there was no consensus to move the article to arborsculpture. Sandstein above makes much of the tally and how two-thirds of valid opinions are generally enough for an administrator to judge a consensus. There is some merit in that, but I think that especially in contentious and narrow cases, there is more of a place for administrator discretion in judging the strength of arguments.


 * The normal way that I approach a requested move discussion is to look at what editors have opined in the context of the reliable sources on the matter. The neutral point of view policy states "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." However, from this, I think it is fair to regard the converse as true; if a name is not used widely in reliable sources and is not well-recognizable, then that is a red flag when neutrality issues are credibly brought up. Despite what some editors have claimed above, I do not see anything that resembles an academic or professional consensus on the matter.


 * One of the key objections to "Tree shaping" appears to be impreciseness&mdash;that tree shaping may logically be conceived to include pruning, normal gardening, and other horticultural practices. This is a valid objection, I don't think the objections to arborsculpture as not being sufficiently neutral are outweighted by that fact. I believe that RegentsPark explained perfectly fine in his June 2010 close why preciseness is not such a terribly bad thing.


 * Article titles states that "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." I think the parties here are just going to have to accept that neither side has a particularly strong argument. As a result, my inclination is just to leave it as is. NW ( Talk ) 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If we leave it as it is we are "inventing a new name", which as you point out above, we cannot do. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Colincbn, multiple editors have stated that tree shaping has reliable sources. So I disagree with you,when you say tree shaping would be “inventing a new name”. For instance SilkTork stated Tree shaping has more reliable sources than arborsculpture. If you still feel this way, I am willing to take some of the tree shaping refs from the sub page over to the RN board. ?oygul (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Participant discussion
Sandstein, thanks for your interest. I understand that the job of a closing admin is to assess the existing consensus rather than to join in the argument but in this case I would strongly urge you to take the time to study the situation in more detail. I and several other, originally uninvolved, editors with no direct interest in the subject strongly believe that this case represents a serious threat to the integrity of WP in that the commercial and personal interests of one editor (since banned from this discussion by arbcom) have somehow managed to override WP policy, sources, and common sense.

Before going further into the subject itself can I draw your attention to something you should be considering, which is the editors who have commented and voted in the move.


 * Support

Noleander - A previously uninvolved editor who came as a result of this RfM

Kingdon - A previously uninvolved editor who came as a result of this RfM

Andrewdpcotton - A previously uninvolved editor who came as a result of this RfM

Johnuniq - An originally uninvolved editor who came here around the time of the first RfM, I think.

First Light - A previously uninvolved editor who came as a result of this RfM

Slowart - This editor has been banned by Arbcom from taking part in the final discussion for having a COI. Originator of the word 'arborsculpture'.

Martin Hogbin - Myself. I originally came in response to the first RfC. I have no connections with the specific subject but was appalled by the way that commercial and personal interest were dominating the article.

duff - An independent editor who has been involved since quite early on and who has spent a lot of time studying and reporting on the various goings on here

Kotniski - A previously uninvolved editor who came as a result of this RfM


 * Oppose

?oygul - A near SPA who came here around the time of the Arbcom case. The sum total of ?oygul's contributions outside this topic are included in these four diffs:    

AfD hero - The editor who originally made the good faith move to the title 'Tree shaping', which name appears to have been simply plucked out of the air.

Blackash - This editor has been banned by Arbcom from taking part in the final discussion and therefore their opinion and vote should not count. Blackash was one of two editors banned banned from this topic by Arbcom for having a COI.

Sydney Bluegum - A SPA banned by Arbcom from this discussion for being an account whose only purpose seemed to be to support Blackash.

rgpk - An independent editor with no COI who closed the original RfM

SilkTork - Independent editor who has been involved for some time.

Please at least take the time to look at the background of the editors who have expressed an opinion and assess their weight as independent editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm Martin, interesting POV but not very accurate.
 * I'm going to correct a few of the mistakes/misunderstandings.
 * Martin's comment about Blackash "...banned from this topic by Arbcom..." I'm not banned from this topic, I'm allow to edit this topic and talk on this discussion pages as is Slowart. Arbitration report I do have a narrow ban from discussing the title, with the exception of one comment in discussion and I'm allowed to reply to questions. As is Sydney Bluegum and Slowart. This was clarified here.
 * Martin's comment about Sydney BlueGum "...banned by Arbcom from this discussion for being an account whose only purpose seemed to be to support Blackash." At Arbcom it was found that Sydney Blue was largely in opposition to User:Slowart rather than in support of me (Blackash). please read 6a to find most of arbitrators supported this finding. Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads's quote "After looking deeper, I think this is the more accurate description of his motivation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC). end quote."
 * Martin's comment about ?oygul "The sum total of ?oygul's contributions outside this topic are included in these four diffs:" This is wrong. A quick scan of ?oygul's contributions (only has about 160 or so) shows they have edited 14 other articles that are unrelated to tree shaping. A look a their user page shows they are trying to create a new article about weird shaped fruit.
 * Please note I'm talking about the inaccurates and not the title. There are other misunderstandings about different editors mentioned by Martin but my examples above should give the idea. Blackash   have a chat 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Sandstein) Sandstein, actually the arbitrators' supported Elonka's interpretation of Arbcom remedy. Elonka's quote
 * "I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions."
 * All the arbitrators supported allowing the banned editors to have an input into the RM. Quotes from the arbitrators.
 * "Elonka is implementing the remedy in the way that I anticipated when I first wrote it - the editors concerned had their opportunity to put their view, but every discussion did not degenerate into walls of text." quoted -Elen of the Roads who drafted the remedy.
 * "The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely" quoted Jclemens
 * "I agree that Elonka's interpretation of the remedy is eminently reasonable and in line with the committee's intent." quoted Coren
 * "The remedy's aim was to prevent good-faith comments from being squelched but scut down on opportunities for disruption, and keeping discussions of the involved editors short and succint seems to be the best interpretation of that." quoted Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
 * "Looks as though this is being interpreted in the manner intended." quoted Risker
 * I think discounting the banned editors is not the right thing to do especially if they have valid policy behind their their opposition.
 * I think regentspark pointing out about the weight of the different policies is an important one. In the closing instructions it states "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." and "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority" . You giving a "9:6 "no consensus"," or now "eight people in favor of the move and four against" comes across as vote counting. Not a weighing up of the different arguments. One of the things that is not obvious from the RM is that arborsculpture is a WP:NEO/neologism to quote Colonel Warden
 * "Arborsculpture seems inferior as plain English because it is pretentious and Latinate. And it is also a neologism and we should not show preference when there are competing neologisms for the same activity."
 * and that is the main reason there is 17 pages of talk here. The long history of problems with this word should also be taken into account, as the pro arborsculpture group have actively created a hostile atmosphere and most editors can't be bothered with the amount of time taken to get anything done on this obscure article. It appears to me the pro arborsculpture group is trying to be the last editors standing, then they will have consensus, it has taken them close to two years to get to this stage. Should we reward them for this behavior? Hey maybe that's just the way it works on wiki. Argue your point, don't comprise until everyone is sick of the discussion and gives in. Even better if you can get a group of editors to argue for the same result. ?oygul (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV refers to views expressed in reliable sources it does not refer to commercial viewpoints or the opinions of editors. If you can find any reliable sources that criticise the name 'arborsculpture' please cite them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(reply to Sandstein) Sandstein, thanks for your interest in this article. As you do not intend to become administratively involved in closing this RfC I would welcome your opinion on the strengths of the various arguments. The problem, as I pointed out to you is that superficially this looks like a rather silly argument about the choice between competing but viable names for an obscure article. The article is indeed obscure so you may wonder why a number of editors with no real interest in the subject (including myself) have become rather passionately involved in this debate. If you are interested, I would like to explain to you what is going on here and why this debate is of fundamental importance to the integrity of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am not interested.  Sandstein   21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC


 * Here is one Book Title: Tricks with Trees by Ivan Hicks and Richard Rosenfeld
 * Quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mount; TREEGOSHING (tree growing and shaping) might be better." ?oygul (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(query to NuclearWarfare) NW, what exactly do you mean by 'neutral' and 'biased'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

NW, If you are going to to ignore the 8:4 opinion to move the article (with all the previously uninvolved editors supporting the move) you should at least understand the arguments that have been made by those who support the move. 'Tree shaping' is not imprecise, it is regularly used to mean something completely different.

No one has ever claimed an academic consensus for arborsculpture but 'arborsculpture' is the only word used in reliable sources that refers specifically and exclusively to the subject of this article. We do not have a choice of words, we have only one word that is in actual use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(reply to admin discussion) So we are counting only the opinions of uninvolved editors for whether or not to close as "no-consensus" but we are not doing the same for whether or not we actually have consensus. Seems weird to me. Why not discount everyone who has been involved previously for the RfM too then? Colincbn (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please remeber that admins do not have any special powers of perception and decision making or any additional weight in the decision making process. If admins are going to make drive-by decisions without even cursory discussion of the subject then their thoughts should be ignored and they should merely implement proposal of the clear majority of editors here.  On the other hand an admin who is prepared to challenge statements made by editors here to determine their validity would be most welcome.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poll on title ideas
As a way of moving forward, let's please get a list of people's choices on possible titles for this article. Everyone may participate in this poll, including the banned editors. To participate though, you must offer at least three different choices of name. Entries with fewer than three choices will be removed. Possible titles do not necessarily have to be titles which appear in printed sources anywhere, so everyone is welcome to be as creative as they want. Also, this poll is not binding in any way, it is simply an attempt to gather information and see where everyone stands. Thanks, --Elonka 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Arborsculpture; Artistic tree training;  Tree sculpture.  [In order of preference: 1,2,3] --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tree shaping; Tree shaping (Art) or variation; Tree training; Artistic Tree training or variation; Living Art; Biotecture; Botanic architecture; Circus Trees; Up merge to Pleaching; or a descriptive title examples Creative shaping of trees, Trees grown into shapes, Trees shaped as furniture and art or Trees trained and grafted into art and craft. As long as the descriptive title has trees not plants and grafting not inosculation.  Blackash   have a chat 07:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleaching, Tree shaping, Artistic tree shaping, tree training artistic, Tree art or a variation on any of theses. ?oygul (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tree training, Artistic tree training or leave at Tree Shaping.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Training plants into useful objects, Growing plants into useful objects, Arborsculpture (because it was the first non-stub title). Colincbn (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Arborsculpture; Training woody plants into artistic and useful shapes; Training woody plants for art and utility. (in order of preference)Slowart (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tree shaping (art), Functional tree shaping, Tree art. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of poll
Sorry people but this is absurd. It is not the job of WP to make up names for things, it is the job of WP to use the names that are in general use, even if some people do not like them.

If we cannot do that then we must use a descriptive phrase that cannot be mistaken for the actual name of the subject (because, if we do this, readers will think that the name of the article is the name used in real world for the subject, which would be misleading). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got a good point there. But this artform is such an arcane practice, and there are very few sources on it, and as a result the discussion above has clearly demonstrated  no obvious commonly used name.  The WP:NAMINGCRITERIA guideline contains a five-pronged test for finding best titles, and it is clear that a weighing is required. Trade-offs sometimes have to be made.   There may be rare articles, like this one, where the "name is actually used by sources" prong is de-emphasized, and the "neutral" and "descriptive" prongs are favored.   In other words, it may be necessary to sacrifice the "sources use it" desire in order to get a title that is optimal in several other regards. --Noleander (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand the criteria for choosing a name but nowhere does it say that we can just make up a name, in fact, just above the criteria it says Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. I hope you see my point.  This is an encyclopedia where people come to find things out. If we just make up a name, people will think that the art is actually called known by our made-up name and that would be misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I hear what you are saying. I wonder if there are any WP articles out there that cover a topic that doesn't really have a well-defined name, and editors had to fabricate a name?   There must be some precedent for this situation.   Of course, a fabricated name is a last resort, but it may have happened a few times in other articles where the sources were scanty and conflicting.   --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For precedent on this type of situation, it might be worth perusing WP:LAME and Lamest edit wars/Names. --Elonka 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander please see above, specifically 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 [a made up name] 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."
 * Colincbn (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those guidelines. Because of WP:Title's guidance that you quote, I think (and have always maintained) "arborsculpture" is best.  But if the group comes to the conclusion that there is no accepted name for the practice, then a phrase like "artistic tree training" becomes viable in the spirit of the WP:NEO guideline: "when there is no accepted term ...  it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible".  --Noleander (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem with that is "Artistic Tree Shaping" is in fact a name. One could say "I practice Artistic Tree Shaping", or "I am an Artistic Tree Shaper", or whatever and it would not be weird. If we are going to avoid making up a name it needs to be something that cannot simply be transposed for Tree Shaping, Arbo, ect. Using something like "Training plants into useful objects" avoids this. Also the Manual of Style sets a recommended upper limit of ten words. This is only half that. And don't forget the "even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title" part. Also these are not guidelines these are Policies. Colincbn (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the editors here can come up with a consensus for a compromise title, even if that title is not supported by sources or policy, that would be an acceptable solution, per WP:IAR. The goal here is consensus. --Elonka 14:08, 30 September 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", not according to this. Colincbn (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be more time-wasting. We all seem agreed that the present title is wrong; we have at least one title that is better (though not perfect); why not move it there for now, then if anyone wants to propose one or two or three or ten even better titles, they will be able to do so and discuss at leisure. By leaving the article under its present title, we are knowingly misleading readers as to what "tree shaping" means.--Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting renaming to Arborsculpture, you are welcome to join me in the request I already made to the closing admin, asking them to reconsider their "no consensus" conclusion. I maintain that there was consensus, especially when one focuses on the uninvolved editors.   --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added to your request. There are several questions that arise from this, rather unexpected, closure by a different admin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotnishi, I disagree with your statement that all agree that the present title is wrong. Your logic about moving doesn't really make sense as you are effectively saying, move to arborsculpture in spite of the fact that the RM to arborsculpture has no consensus to move. This same argument was put forward well over a year ago after the failure the last RM to arborsculpture. If the pro arborsculpture group had just settled down and tried to find a real alternative we wouldn't all be wasting our time now. Instead they have offered to go to a "temporary holding name" (which is also a waste of time) while discussing what the real name should be. Arborsculpture has been problematic through out the history of the talk pages, why not just discuss the alternative titles. I put up some suggestion at the poll, what are your title suggestions? ?oygul (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anyone defending "tree shaping" since it's been pointed out that it normally refers to something quite different. While we accept that Arborsculpture might not be the best final answer, there seems to be no reason to leave the article at a title that no-one can rationally justify.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[Query to Blackash] Are you suggesting that works formed out of, say, bamboo or wisteria are not covered under this artform? Colincbn (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well colincbn bamboo has been mentioned in passing in the article but only as structural support for creating the living footbridges. Wisteria was added to Species because it was "known to inosculate" not because it has any references of any one actually shaping it in this art-form. When I started the list of tree species I had only added trees that could be cited to have been used for this art form. Duff wanted to add more and after some discussion I stated that maybe trees that have been used for espalier might work and that how we ended up with the list that is now there and the paragraph at the start of that section. I think it would be better to only have cite able species used for this art form in the list, but not enough to wade through Duff's walls of text or to drag in other editors to sort it out.
 * The main reason I object to plant has to do with the words people commonly use and tree/s is used 99.5% of the time online and in published media. In the references on the article % rate is a bit higher for the use of the word plant it's about 1.5%. Not enough to justify using plant instead of tree.
 * Basically when someone see a photo of this art form most people write tree not plant and tree is the word they will use searching for information about this art. One of the things titles should have is "Recognizability - Article titles should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess." Tree would be most people first guess not plant.
 * Also wikipedia reflects what is in references and tree is by far more commonly used than plant. Blackash   have a chat 11:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackash, your apparent satisfaction with "Tree shaping" implies that you disagree with the statements by Martin and others that this phrase does not normally refer to this artform. Can you clarify why you think it does?--Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski I'm going to give you a bit of history of why the article was moved and some of the reasoning. Arborsculpture was found to be not neutral as it leads mainly to one artist. At the time of the move the idea was to broaden the title until it become neutral. Following Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV section Article naming quote "might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Which is why tree shaping was picked in the first place, it is broader material and it had been used by published media about this art form cover a range of artists. Tree shaping was also considered to be more easily recognized name for readers than arborsculpture.
 * Tree shaping and its variations have been used as a descriptive term or as the name of the art form. Please read the table of refs that I put together, I give quotes large enough to see in what context the wording is used, publishing data, links where possible, dates and a brief description. refs for suggested titles To quote ?oygul "'...over 40 references with quotes for Tree shaping or a variant thereof, example: “he shaped and grafted trees” “shaping trees” “shaped trees” “tree shapers” etc... to do with this art form. 13 of which are from published books. 10 of those are directly about the practitioners, methods or the history of this field. There are plenty of references for multiple names of this field at the sub-page There are tables for easy scanning with quotes making it easy to compare.Arborsculpture is used in 6 books two of which are self published by the creator of the word arborsculpture. Showing that Arborsculpture is not the common name compared to tree shaping.' end quote"


 * It doesn't matter if a name or term has more than one meaning, Wikipedia has ways of dealing with this. I don't believe the bare title tree shaping is a problem as there are plenty of references, but really if its such a issue then I think adding a word like art or artistic to tree shaping should work or maybe a title like Creative shaping of trees.
 * As a point of general interest the English language changes and evolves and a word or a phase can over time actually evolve so much as to end up meaning the opposite of what it started as. Example prevent is mostly understood to mean to stop something from happening, yet it originally meant to go ahead and open the way or to guide. Which is why Wikipedia follows references, the only problem I see with this is how long will references be considered valid, when it comes to the definition of a word? What about refs 100, 50, or 20 years out of date? Where is the line drawn, to say that these old references don't reflect the world as it is now? Blackash   have a chat 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: now the original move discussion has been reopened by the closing admin, is this separate poll not superfluous? Can it be closed (at least temporarily) to allow the original move discussion to reach a conclusion (perhaps closure by a panel of admins, as was done recently in the China case?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So far every admin who has looked at the RM (John Vandenberg, Vegaswikian, Sandstein), has stated that it looks like a "no consensus", so it's probably just a matter of time before the RM is formally closed as such. It's already been open for six weeks, which is six times longer than most RMs run. The best procedure at this point is to close it, and find another way to proceed. --Elonka 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may interject here, Sandstein says above that on reflection he/she considers there to be a consensus to move to 'arborsculpture' and he/she also notes that he was initially confused by the 'votes' of banned parties. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Have any of these admins looked at the arguments to reach that conclusion, or have they just counted heads? All right, it might turn out that this new poll is a way forward, though I would prefer that it not be called a "poll" (more like a brainstorming session) and that the rather bizarre "fewer than three choices will be removed" clause be struck out (if someone's got just one good suggestion, we still want to hear it).--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the administrators who have commented are highly experienced admins who I'm sure read the discussions and didn't just count !votes. As for the poll format, it is what it is, and will not be changed at this point. It's not binding, it's just a way of gathering information, so it is my strong recommendation that everyone participate, and then we'll see where we stand and if it indicates any new avenues of discussion.  If not, we can always run a different kind of poll later. --Elonka 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's "not binding", then at least we should remove the suggestion that if you give less than three choices your comment may be removed. By whom, by what authority, and for what earthly reason? --Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping, ArbCom has placed this article within the scope of Discretionary sanctions, which gives administrators a certain amount of additional authority here. The reason I suggested three choices, was to try and get the discussion moving again, away from a polarized "I've only got one choice of article title that'll work for me, and all the others suck." Instead, the poll is intended to increase awareness of which editors here are open to compromise. --Elonka 14:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but as far as I can tell, we're all on pretty much the same wavelength - I don't see anyone saying they've got only choice of title they can accept, there just seems to be a general sense that the right title for this article hasn't been suggested yet. So if someone comes along and wants to suggest something (which might turn out to be the magic answer to our common problem), we shouldn't put them off by implying that they have to have three suggestions or we're not interested.--Kotniski (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other places on this page where they can make such a suggestion. Including at the (still open) RM. --Elonka 14:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by a consensus in this case. We have 8 editors, including all those who came to this RfM, who have voted for a move to 'arborsculpture'. We have four previously involved editors who have opposed it. There is no sign that anyone is going to change their mind. Is it more editors we need to obtain a consensus or are we demanding unanimity? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the title, however easy it might make it, we cannot simply make up a title. Regardless of consensus, we could not call this article 'Bricklaying' or 'Table tennis' because that is not what this subject is actually called. It is no different for any other title that we might make up, such as 'Tree training', however fitting it might sound to us, in fact that is worse because people may read the article and think that that is what this subject is actually called. That is completely contrary to the purpose and policies of WP, we cannot just make stuff up and include it here, that is a fundamental principle of WP which in my opinion is non-negotiable. Information in WP should be based on what is said in reliable sources not the musings of editors.

If anyone can show a valid reason why we should not use 'arborsculpture' then the only other option we have, as Colin points out, is to use a descriptive phrase, which cannot be confused with the actual name of the subject. To describe the subject of this article clearly that phrase is likely to be somewhat cumbersome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record I think "Training plants into useful objects" is the best descriptive phrase suggested so far. It is five words, only half of 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. "Useful" is broad enough to mean both objects used as tools etc. and those used as art, while "objects" covers those works harvested and those that remain growing. 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) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Growing plants into useful objects" could work too. Colincbn (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)