Hosta

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Plants C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Horticulture and Gardening C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources:

arborsculptor Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL arborsculpture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL arbortecture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL biotecture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL biotechture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL grown furniture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL living furniture Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL pleaching Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL pooktre Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL tree shaping Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL tree training Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

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

PS Really great article. Thanks all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also need to open an RfC on the subject.

Merge or not?

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

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

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

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

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

Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pleaching has been used for this art,we can merge there if tree shaping is out. found this [2] ?oygul (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed decision on scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arborsculpture

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

"If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

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

"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."

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

"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." (From WP:TITLE)

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

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

Supporting references

Ref 1

'We also plan to demonstrate arborsculpture,which is a unique method of bending and grafting shoots to form unusual designs and structures. We plan to create a fruit tree chair, a three-sided ladder to make the high fruit more accessible, a gazebo, fences, and other structures'.^[1]

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

Ref 2

^[2]

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

Ref 3

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

Horticultural Reviews, Volume 35 Edited by Jules Janick Copyright & 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 442. section 4. Creation of Unusual Growth Forms.[3]

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

Ref 4

'Erlandson began his foray into arborsculpture in the 1920s. ^[3]

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

Ref 5

'Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees'. ^[4]

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

Ref 6

' Arborsculpture' is the art and technique of growing and shaping trunks of trees and other woody plants by grafting, bending and pruning the woody trunks (dating back centuries).'^[5]

This is a local trade journal.

General discussion of 'arborsculpture'

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

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

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

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

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

Could someone please put this into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by Martin Hogbin

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

3 Good academic source

4 Good source, refers to another practitioner's work as 'arborsculpture'.

5 Good academic source.

7 Academic source.

10 Good source (International society of Arborist)

11 Academic source, includes name in glossary, attributes name to Reames.

14 Local source.

15 Academic source.

16 Book by academic press

18 An academic source

19 Magazine article.

20 Appears to refer to fruit tree training rather then the subject of this article.

21 Magazine article showing another practitioner who calls his work 'arborsculpture'.

22 International horticultural reference book.

23 Trade magazine.

24 Academic web site.

25 Published book

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

The majority of the arborsculpture refs are about Richard Reames's self published Books, book reviews, interviews with him or workshops, basically self promotion. Martin how can books, self published by Richard Reames be independent of Richard Reames? ?oygul (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I missed out all work published or written by Reames in my comments above. I also missed out any sources that seemed to be directly based on interviews with him. Have I missed any? Which sources do you say were written by Reames? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

Supporting references

Ref 1

Discussion of the validity of this reference or source.

General discussion of 'Tree shaping'

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

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

Tree shaping refs quotes source links

Could someone please put this into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that these tables are all the work of Blackash. There is nothing wrong with that but I do find it odd that they should appear so late in the day. It is easy to do a reference count on each title but this is extremely misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are they duplicates of what is already on the subpage? Or if not, should they be moved to the subpage? --Elonka 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do seem to be duplicates, I have not checked for minor changes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

1 This does not use the term 'tree shaping' and there is no indication that it even refers to the subject of this article.

2 I cannot find the picture, it could refer to topiary and something else for all we know.

3 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

4 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

5 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

6 This clearly refers to tree shaping as understood by arborists to mean the pruning of trees to obtain a natural shape. It has nothing to do with the subject of this article.

7 Appears to refer to training of a tree not the subject of this article.

8 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

9 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

10 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

11 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

12 Actually calls the art 'Tree trunk topiary'

13 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

14 Does not refer to the subject of this article

15 Clearly refers to the art as 'arborsculpture'.

16 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

17 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

18 Actually refers to the art as 'Arbor Sculpture'.

19 No evidence that this refers to the subject of this article.

20 Actually uses the term, 'Extreme tree shaping' to refer to this art.

21 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

22 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

23 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

24 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

25 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

26 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

27 Obviously this article calls the art 'arborsculpture'.

28 Local magazine article based on interview with Blackash.

29 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

30 Gives three other names, including 'arborsculpture'.

31 Local magazine article about Blackash's business.

32 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

33 Chinese newspaper article unable to check.

34 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

35 Magazine article about Blackash's business.

36 Quote from one of the co-founders of Pooktre, Blackash's business.

37 Another Pooktre article

38 The article calls the art 'arborsculpture'.

39 Quote from one of the co-founders of Pooktre.

40 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

41 Local magazine article about Pooktre tree shapers

42 Does not mention 'tree shaping'.

43 Just quotes the words of Blackash's business.

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

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

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

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

We need to show that a specific name is used in horticulture to refer to the subject of this article. In deciding this we should apply the same criteria that we do to 'arborsculpture'. That is to say, no sources written or published by the originator (or original proponent) of the name and no sources that directly result from interviews with that person. We should also only count sources that clearly use 'tree shaping' (not, 'has shaped trees' for example) as the name for the subject of this article. I am not sure that any of the above sources meet those criteria. We should then consider how authoritative those sources are. Are there any that you think make the grade? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As monitoring admin, I have no opinion on the title of the article, but I would point out that ArbCom did say in Principles 10 & 11, that a descriptive phrase might be allowable: "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency." So it could potentially be appropriate to use a term that does not appear in sources, if it is a compromise title which the editors here could agree on by consensus. Where article titles are concerned, as long as enough editors are participating in the discussion, a broad community consensus can trump sources. --Elonka 14:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, you seem to have missed out the first part of the principle, which was 'Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals'. Clearly, with a very specialist art such as this, we are not going to find any name in widespread use or in many standard dictionaries, however we do find one name in a major horticultural reference work and in several academic publications, and that name is 'arborsculpture'.

What do you mean by a 'compromise title'? Compromise between what? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That if there is a title that all (or at least most) of the editors could agree on as a compromise, even if it is not a title that appears in any sources, that that would be acceptable. Has anything like that been suggested? --Elonka 22:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this has been suggested, multiple times. There is one option that is consistent with Policy, does not bolster any commercial enterprise, is not just a "made up name" (which is prohibited by Policy), nor a name associated with any practitioner. I think you all see where this is going. A descriptive phrase might be long and somewhat unweildly but it solves every problem this debate is addressing. I have given suggestions below. And I would point out that Policy does trump community. That is why the scientologists etc. can't just swamp discussions anymore. Colincbn (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That option is discussed just below and it would be my second choice but it has not had much support. Why have a long and cumbersome title when there is already a name in common horticultural usage? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using a "Descriptive Phrase"

Supporting references

There are no "Refs" for this (obviously), but there is this:
WP:NEO
"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."

And this:
WP:TITLE
"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."

General discussion of 'Using a Descriptive Phrase'

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

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

And remember the Policy above: "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title". Colincbn (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The technique is more that just training, it usually involves inosculation, that seems to be one of the defining features of this art although I accept that it is not always used. Training also usually refers to live plants, this subject also includes wooden objects cut from a plant after it has been formed into shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is where the "into useful objects" part comes it. If the current RfM fails (I don't see why it would at this point though), I will start a new one for this option. Colincbn (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the current RM is closed as "no consensus", better would be to engage in discussion for at least a week to try and determine a consensus for a new name. If there appears to be a consensus, then go ahead with the RM. --Elonka 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course reasonable. I would point out however that many of the editors interested in this debate do not contribute to the discussion unless there is some "official" request etc. The lack of participation in the discussion between the end of the ArbCom case and the beginning of the current RfM is a good example of this. Colincbn (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and this may all be moot anyway since the RM hasn't closed yet. But if it does close as no consensus, a good way to proceed would be to start a fresh discussion section on the page and say something like, "Okay, there is no consensus to move the page to Arborsculpture. But neither does there appear to be a clear consensus that Tree shaping is the best title. Taking the "Arborsculpture" title off the table, are there any other compromise titles that would be acceptable?" Then let everyone (including the banned editors, one comment each) make a statement, and see how things go from there. --Elonka 15:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best way forward to me as well. Colincbn (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin and Elonka, I am still baffled as to what you mean by 'compromise'. Are you suggesting that we compromise between WP policy, which is to use the name most commonly used in sources, and the commercial and personal interest of one of the editors here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that if there is a compromise title that most editors would agree with, even if it's not directly supported by policy, that that could be a way forward. There have been some very thorny disputes on Wikipedia over the years that have been resolved by crafting some elaborate compromises. One of the classic examples is related to the dispute about how to refer to the city of Gdansk/Danzig, since it dealt with the name of a city that had shifting titles, and there were disputes about how to refer to it in cases such as when a person of one ethnicity was born in the city when it had one name, but they referred to it in sources by a different name, and how to handle things as the name changed repeatedly over time. This dispute went on for years and raged through multiple articles, but after elaborate discussions and votes, it was resolved as follows, with a template that was placed on many Gdansk/Danzig-related articles: Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Which doesn't mean that the botanical folks here need to come up with something as complex, but I offer it as an example that compromises are possible, even in extremely complex situations. The goal is Consensus. Or as I describe it sometimes, the Pizza Principle: For example, say we're all in a room and deciding what to get for dinner. Half the room says, "Pepperoni only!" The other half says, "We hate Pepperoni, we want Mushroom!" So then, instead of arguing all night about which one is better, we ultimately just get a pizza that's half-pepperoni and half-mushroom, and "Tah dah!": Consensus.  :) Getting back to our tree article here, it means that if a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors agreed that the best title for this article was (to give a somewhat silly example): "A practice of shaping trees sometimes but not always referred to as arborsculpture", or "Tree Shaping (Arborsculpture, Pooktre)" or whatever, that that could work. --Elonka 17:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for innovative solutions and compromise but I cannot imagine that the 7 editors who have taken the trouble to read up on the subject and who have, on the basis of common sense, logic and WP policy, chosen 'arborsculpture' as the word in general horticultural usage for the subject of this article, will all change their minds and go for something along the lines of 'That weird thing that some people do with trees'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaching

Supporting references

Ref 1

^[6]

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

Ref 2

"pleached trees at the Tree Circus" ^[7]

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

Ref 3

^[8]

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

Ref 4

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

"living examples of pleached structures includes the Red Alder bench by Richard Reames and the Sycamore Tower by Axel Erlandson." ^[9]

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

Ref 5

Section heading: "Pleaching"

"Pleaching is a form of living architecture." "...involves plaiting or weaving living branches together to form a structure." "...or can form more ambitious configurations(see Figure 4.68)" Which is an image of Pooktre's ballerina tree. ^[10]

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

Ref 6

"The most immediate example of early tree architecture and pleaching is found in the overgrown 3/4 acre lot that houses what used to be known as "the Tree Circus"" ^[11]

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

General discussion of this prospective name

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

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

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

Pleaching refs quotes source links

I started copying and pasting the pleaching refs but it seems silly to recreate the work that has all ready been done. So I’ve just coped and pasted the tables in their entirety for new editors to scan and see if the refs are reliable or unreliable. ?oygul (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table seems to take up a lot of space, but it needs to be here. Could someone put the table into a collapsible bar for easy access. ?oygul (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Elonka 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?oygul's opinion on the above refs

1)Used as technique, reliable

2)Used as name, reliable

3)Used as technique and name, reliable

4)Used as technique, reliable

5)Used as name, reliable

6)Used as name, reliable

7)Used as name, unreliable?

8)Used as technique, reliable

9)Used as technique and name, reliable

10)Used as technique, reliable

11)Used as name, reliable

12)Used as name, unreliable?

13)Used as technique and name, reliable?

14)Used as name, reliable

15)Used as name, reliable?

16)Used as technique reliable ?oygul (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next prospective name

Supporting references

Ref 1

Discussion of the validity of this reference or source.

Ref 2

General discussion of this prospective name

Concluding discussion on article name

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Martin are you saying these two refs

1. Indian Magazine [11]
2. London financial times [12]

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

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)[reply]

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).

1. Indian Magazine writer is SWATI BALGI
2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From what I can see, this[15] 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)[reply]

Martin, I feel it is not polite to claim I'm unable to tell you something when

1. I give this link above that detailed the different methods with images and references.
2. 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."
3. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The wording of the ArbCom ban on Blackash is, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.". In terms of the edit here,[16] it involves an adding of a reference, in a place where a reference was requested. The reference was already elsewhere on the article, and (to my knowledge) is not challenged as unreliable, so I'm not seeing any clear violation of the ArbCom sanction. As for the edit summary when Blackash replied here on the talkpage, where specific other editors were targeted,[17] that was not particularly helpful. Blackash, in the future, please try to keep edit summaries neutral, thanks. --Elonka 15:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[18] (request for supporting text) Removed last June by editor Duff [19] Discussion on talk page [20]Slowart (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on a discussion with arbitrator Casliber (talk · contribs) here,[21] I believe it would be alright to allow each of the three sanctioned editors to make one (1) statement in the RfC with their own opinion on the naming issue. I was thinking that a statement of no more than 200 words would be about right. What do other editors on this page think? Would that be reasonable, or would you prefer that they stay out of the discussion entirely? --Elonka 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A section on the 'Pleaching' article

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

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

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

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

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

Back to this article

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

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

Elen put it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TITLE

"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Colincbn (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tree shaping → Arborsculpture – Relisted. Discussion still active. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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.[22][23] [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)[reply]

?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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@?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)[reply]

Noleander Pleaching has 16 refs, either as a name or as a techquine.[24] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• (additional comment) 'The controversy surrounding the word arborsculpture starts on the first post in 2007[25] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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[26] ). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[27] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I just want to point out the WP:MoS suggests a title limit of ten words and your example above is only half that. Also Policy specifically states "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

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

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

Per the principles in Wikipedia:Article titles:

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

  Arborsculpture is too specialized. Tree Shaping is precise enough to identify the subject, but the title may be better as Tree shaping (artistic) or Tree shaping (art). Tree shaping has a 3th or more of all the references out of all the potential title names.[28]

• 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.[29]

As for Martin Hogbin asking how is Arborsculpture not neutral he already knows. Martin stated to me, "Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it."diff This lead to me creating the references with quotes page which the pro arborsculpture editors have mainly ignored.

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

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

As I see it, it comes down to me pointing out where the pro arborsculpture editors are not following policy rather than me being able to mysteriously convince multiple editors. As a result of the pro arborsculpture group repeatedly claiming this I create a page with editors’ quotes and links of editors who oppose.[30] Blackash have a chat 07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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.”[31] 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)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sydney Bluegum. There is a possibility that Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) and ?oygul (talk · contribs) are connected in some way personally or professionally. --Elonka 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Support A preponderance of strong academic references site arborsculpture. Such as[32][33][34][35] (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.[[36]] the archive shows Cattle's use of the word in Aug. of 2008 but changed by Sept 08.[37] It's was really appalling to me see my colleagues drawn into this wiki war along with every blogger who ever used the word.[38] 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)[reply]
  • Note: as described at the ArbCom case, Slowart (talk · contribs) is banned by ArbCom from participation in this discussion, except for being allowed to post this one statement above. If any other editors have specific queries relating to the naming issue though, they are allowed to ask, and Slowart is allowed to offer specific replies. --Elonka 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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. duff 22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Discounting those who have been banned from this discussion:

7 editors have supported the move to arborsculpture including 4 previously uninvolved . 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

3 have opposed the move, all of whom have been part of the original discussion. 15:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I think that community consensus in both quantity and quality is now clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: the discussion is not yet closed, and consensus will be determined by an uninvolved admin. In the meantime, anyone else who wishes to comment (except, of course, for the banned parties) is welcome to do so. --Elonka 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC

This is not a vote. A title needs to meet policy. Simply stating tree shaping means something else is not a valid argument. As that is easily fixed and tree shaping does have the most reliable refs by far. Pleaching also has some reliable refs so we could up merge there.

It has been shown that Martin knows neutrally is an issue. I think we all agree arborsculpture is a neologism. Policy states neologisms can’t be used, the history of this talk page shows there is controversy over the use of this word. Slowart this is your chance to disprove this claim "no other notable "tree shaper" except Richard Reames uses "Arborsculpture" to describe their own work." Please do so. This is a specific query to Slowart. ?oygul (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not an appropriate location to direct queries to Slowart. Instead, Slowart was allowed to make one statement in the RM above, and to respond to specific queries there. Please direct your questions to Slowart in that location, though I would also caution that editors should not keep repeating the same question. --Elonka 06:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t ask Slowart again. ?oygul (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been shown that Arbo is in fact a neologism. Even if it was, the section on neologisms says it is "preferable" to use a descriptive phrase, not that it is required. I have not voted to support Arbo specifically because of this, but that does not mean its use is prohibited. Colincbn (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casliber, there is a section above at [[39]] where I started a detailed discussion of possible article names with the request for all editors to add proposals for a name, to give references from reliable sources to support their proposed name, and to discus the reliability and authority of those sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the clarification. --Elonka 04:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Clarification completed, and archived here --Elonka 07:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a Request for clarification of an ArbCom ruling that involves this page here. Colincbn (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question is probably going to come up about whether or not the banned editors can post statements in the Request for Clarification: Slowart and Blackash are allowed to each offer a statement, if they choose. Sydney Bluegum should probably not, since his ban is more far-reaching. If Slowart and/or Blackash do choose to post statements though, they should limit their comments solely to the process and wording of the ArbCom ruling, and not use the statements as podiums from which to re-discuss the name of the article or their opinions of each other. The Clarification's only purpose is to debate whether the wording of the ban is clear, not to re-hash the entire case.

As a side note, I would also point out that all three editors are still allowed and encouraged to continue editing Wikipedia. Slowart and Blackash's bans are only focused on the naming issue. Sydney Bluegum's ban is from the entire tree shaping topic area. But all editors are still allowed to edit anything else they want, so if they wanted to help out with any of the other millions of articles on Wikipedia, their expertise would be appreciated (for example, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants?). Indeed, in my opinion it would decrease stress levels all around if all editors here were to try and edit some other article, at least once a day. It can be very refreshing and encouraging to work in a part of the project that is not in conflict, and it looks really good on your contrib list to see that editors are helping out in other places, rather than focusing exclusively on one article that is in dispute. --Elonka 14:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka my preferred editing style is about once a fortnight, when I get to do this I edit for about 8-12 hours that day. On those days I'll edit on this topic, but I also do a lot of orphan editing because I like looking for references and that helps deorphan. I edit this way because that is what best suits my life style. Blackash have a chat 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was looking through Category:Articles that need to be wikified the other day and saw this article that's been tagged for years: Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. It could use assistance, even in things like basic wikification and formatting of the lead. Not saying you should help there, but just that there are definitely lots of places like that around the project where help would be much appreciated! --Elonka 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD, did you actually read my post? If you had you would not have had to ask that question. Colincbn (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not support this RfM. People keep thinking I am "Pro-Arbo" when I have made it clear I am not. Colincbn (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't support this RfM, would you give some thought to voting to oppose it above? AfD hero (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of clarification on RMs. Though they may look like votes, they are not votes. Instead, they are discussions, with each participant simply posting a word at the front (support/oppose/comment) as a summary of their opinion. The closing admin will not be counting votes, but will instead read the entire discussion, judge the strength of the arguments, take surrounding factors into account, and then make a determination of consensus. See also WP:NOTVOTE and WP:RMCI. To help clarify things, experienced Wikipedians might sometimes word things as "Please be sure to weigh in with your !vote," which is usually pronounced as not-vote. Just FYI, --Elonka 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Thanks Elonka. That is why I labeled my post in the RfM as Comment, I do not support Arbo, nor do I feel it is a violation of policy, and therefore do not explicitly oppose it either. I just want people to stop focusing on "what is a better name" and start focusing on "what does policy say". Colincbn (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've participated in a lot of these things over the years, and have come to the conclusion that, despite all the high-minded talk about things not being a vote, in reality the numbers matter. AfD hero (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case both methods give the same result. There is a clear majority for 'arborsculpture' and it is entirely in accordance with WP policy. I was hoping that, without the COI interference, we could now have a polite discussion on the correct choice of name for this article according to WP policy. I laid out a section where we could discuss exactly what the sources say and how authoritative they were but nobody wanted to play.

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

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

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

Can you provide a diff please.

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

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

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

I have done my homework and the situation looks very murky. The best I can find is this comment:

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

It is not clear exactly what Mgm is suggestiong but 'Tree shaping' seems to be wikilinked. Was this an existing article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were both redlinked at the time. AfD hero (talk) 17:13, 27

OK, that explains it. It still still a bit obscure though. What does 'Tree shaping (especially bonsai)' mean and how does it relate to this article?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about the sources quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.duff 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [40] 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)[reply]

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 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 (<personal attack removed>) 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) [reply]

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 [41]

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. [42]

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 [43] . 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 [44] . 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. [45]

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? duff 10:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]