Jump to content

Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

New Basket Tree image

Very nice shot and thank you for it, Slowart!duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment re sock puppet accusation on the relevant page. Slowart -I cant believe you have talked about the very nice shot and thanked duff for it when you asked me the question Why have are you here? I dont understand the question and I dont have to explain what when, how, or why, I am involved. People makes mistakes and I dont think it should be thrown up at them. The arbour sculpture camp seem to attack editors rather than comment on the content. The title 'New Basketree' Should it be Basket tree ? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Read it again, please, Sydney Bluegum. That was my comment, thanking User:Slowart for the cool new image submitted. As for the section title, it matched the original image's filename, and isn't a big deal on talkpages (or on image filenames), but I've fixed this talkpage section heading so it won't confuse anyone else. I left a comment on your talkpage as well, on the editorial issue.duff 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus ignored? Why?

This comment was made today by Blackash, above, in a (now-stale?) discussion thread on this page Talk:Tree shaping#Shaping woody plants?.

By your continual use of the wording uninvolved editors came to a consensus implies all the other editors in the survey were involved which is not true. There were other uninvolved editors who did not agree with you. Blackash have a chat 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel this should be nailed down firmly, again, so here we go again, for the umpteenth record:

No such implication was intended, though you may color it as you wish. Nonetheless, a clear consensus did emerge as noted, (one you might call broad, though not sweeping, nor unanimous, which, again, is not required or even desired as an outcome), during a protracted 4-step process of consensus-building beginning at Proposal to Move, and then again during the RfC which was needed after that discussion, and then again during the subsequent discussions on changing the page title, and then again during the Rfm which culminated in a very clear consensus, between the following editors: User:MDVaden, User:Griseum, User:Duff, User:Colincbn, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Slowart, User:Quiddity, and I believe, also User:Johnuniq, which I will be very pleased to summarize AGAIN, with quotes, if that's really necessary, in another new section, as time permits. This consensus and the process to get to it passed the smell test, the vote test, the vast-preponderance-of-reliably-sourced-citations test, the WP:CONSENSUS test and the WP Policy test. What more proof or demonstration could anyone possibly need? duff 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the only editor to get this vibe from Duff's repeated statements of "given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors" Regents Park's reply to Duff hinted at it quote "made by all uninvolved editors" [1]
The fact the you and a group of editors have a consensus that the article should be moved to Arborsculpture didn't bear fruit in Duff's requested move Give it 12 months or so and see how things stand then about the word arborsculpture. Let work on improving the article. Blackash have a chat 07:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Please don't feed the trolls. As the reciprocal self censoring offer has been rejected, I'll briefly chime in. @ Sydney Bluegum what is your connection to this topic ? Why have are you here ? Single purpose accounts at this stage of the title debate will be suspect of course, same for the new ISP # accounts. Well reasoned, well cited varifiable sources and statements should now trump emotions and quick favors from friends.
It is important to note that the article was vastly improved and expanded by 4 times over by editors who disagree with the current title and prefer 'arborsculpture' instead of 'Tree shaping'! @ Regents Park, Your conclusion may have been flawed IMHO, when you said (archive 9)"The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one." I think the policy you refer to was written with assumption that improvements and expansion were done by a multiplicity of editors who likely agree with the title, this was not the case at all.
COMMON NAME Policy says, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." Logically, a move back to the original stable name of 'arborsculpture' will resolve this issue that was crated by WP bold move. Reverting the bold move may be the solution to the problem. Slowart (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Reverting the bold move is the solution to the problem; I concur.
Re: preceding critique of fruit-bearing: It bore adequate fruit to the task, and no, thank you, (Re: 12 month wait and free advertising of the trademark/service mark in the interim.) Instead, we'll proceed as planned, K? Please stop attempting to exert any influence on the page title and/or content, Ms. Blackash. Your pressure is unwelcome. Read this carefully: Vast preponderance of reliable sources. I know this because I actually have been working on and improving the article, studiously, as you are well aware, and which you should not (please) also do, as implied by your "Let work on improving the article." By the way, is the omission of the 's from that, any indication that you meant "let me", instead of "let us", like let's? If so, please know that enough eyes have this page on their watchlist now that no further shenanigans will stand, and keep that in mind. Peace. duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys Regents Park has clearly stated in hasty close what to do if you disagree with the result of Requested move dispute resolution process

Either take the recommended action about the title or stop talking about it. Blackash have a chat 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, gal, No, there is also the option to talk about it, and there is no big hurry, as long as its done right. I have that link, thank you. Again, let me reiterate: Please stop attempting to exert influence on the page title and/or content, including the content of discussions on the talk page, and the directions taken by other editors relative to this page, Ms. Blackash. Your suggestions and ideas are welcome, but your pressure is unwelcome.duff 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackash has, from my outsider's viewpoint, demonstrated a better understanding of our naming guidelines (and a greater ability to separate the content of one's comments from the person making it) than many of those opposing her. As such, I would consider her suggestion to be a wise one. Filling this talk page with rhetoric or quite plainly false assertions that there is consensus for a move is not conducive to getting some action here. FWIW I saw the suggestion "tree art" on the previous talk archive which looks uncontroversial, if you'd like to restart the naming discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How many more than eight in agreement would you call a consensus for a move to arborsculpture, the name with the vast preponderance of reliable sources cited for it? Those are not false assertions, much less plainly false ones. Those are repeatedly demonstrated and well-documented facts, and continuing to suggest or assert otherwise makes no sense. It's therefore not clear what your definitions of 'non-controversial' and 'consensus' might be, though one valuable approach might be to read how wikipedia defines those concepts, WP:CONSENSUS.
Blackash herself restarted the matter on July 5 but did not like the result, so now proposes to control the discussion by hushing it. Please note the comment copied to start this new section, to be nailed back down, rather than just leaving it dangling, posted late onto the end of a stale prior discussion),
Thanks for staying neutral, Thumperward, and you are right about this: there is no need for further rhetoric from 'any' quarter, as action is already underway, as previously stated, on the basis of the evidence already documented. I support a simultaneous two-pronged approach: vigorous article improvement by uninvolved editors and effective reduction of involved editor page management. There are several 'outside' viewpoints, including mine, from editors who 'do' work on this article, in support of that approach.
Same objections to 'tree art' as previously clearly stated (and consensus there as well: two opposed, one neutral, and even the submitter withdrew support for the submission, and agreed with the opposition, making 3 opposed & one neutral; you can study that survey here: Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 10#Survey for a move to Tree art). That proposed title is only slightly less problematic than is the current title, which also has a clearly established serious commercial conflict. These objections are partially similar to problems with current title:
  • From the "clearly descriptive and precise" angle, this specific craft involves not just any trees, but only live ones, and also not only trees, but any live woody plants (including shrubs and woody vines (which are not trees), of which some are inosculant.
  • Also, though some is, it ain't all art; so this proposed title failed all of those tests.
  • Also, from the common usage angle, no reliable sources call it that. We are not supposed to be busily thinking up new terms for what has already been named. "Wikipedia reflects but does not prescribe current usage". Arborsculpture "is the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." There already is an "obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources", so finding consensus to support it (or to support some other name) is both unnecessary and inappropriate. When is 2:<1 of reliable sources not a significant proportion?
Before we embark on another complete waste of editing time, re-re-reinventing a well-functioning wheel, might I suggest that instead, we all go read these carefully:
The main policy on article naming:
and come back and discuss it again a slightly later moment, when we're not all burned out on the wrestling match with the involved editor? Meanwhile, parties that should be following possible COI policies can just go ahead and follow them, and see what good develops under all these dedicated eyes and fingers. duff 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Duff you seem confused, I didn't restart the discussion about the title but was commenting on your insistence on using terminology such as uninvolved editors came to a consensus and what that seems to imply.
  • Arborsculpture is not the common English-language name of the subject of the article. Tree shaping and variations was and is used as a descriptive or generic name for the art. references to books for Tree shaping and variations. Please see Undue weight for more detail.Blackash have a chat 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Slowart comments moved from User talk:RegentsPark

The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable variable sources. The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California press When you said... “pooktre title as well as the arborsculpture title appear to get almost the same Google hits (not a minority viewpoint here!)” ? no one was suggesting using "Pooktre" as a title. Total Google web hits on arborsculpture or tree shaping won’t tell us much at all due to marketing. Tree shaping on the web is one thing, but [tree shaping on Google books] and [tree shaping on Google scholar] is quite a different search. Both show many "tree shaping" hits but all appear to describe some other practice in fruit tree industry. [Arborsculpture on Google Books] has many hits specific to the topic of this page with some [Google scholar arborsculpture] hits. If being nutral and fair is important then [arborsculpture Google Image] clearly shows that arborsculpture is used to describe the work of many of the various artist, where as "tree shaping" is used to describe the work of Pooktre almost exclusively.[google images tree shaping] You also said.“Finally, there seems to be no question that arborsculpture is a term coined by an individual practitioner of the art.” This fact would not exclude the word from being used in a title. Thanks for looking a bit longer and deeper into this, Slowart (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Slowart, you are focusing on only a few of the arguments in my close decision. I have read it again, linked here for your reference, and believe that my close was correct because the weight of the arguments were in favor of not moving it to Arborsculpture. I believe that was the consensus from the long and extend move discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I focused on just a few of your arguments, the ones I found relevant. Not to say any of them are irrelevant. Did you look at the new evidence using Google Book,Scholar and Image? Slowart (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still here and completely agree with Colin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I also remain and also concur with Colincbn, Martin Hogbin, & Slowart on all points stated. duff 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy or Reality

The article needs to reflect reality (real Photos) not fantasy (drawings of what people think they can grow or achieve). Many books have drawings that reflect people's imagination but that is not what the tree shaping artform is about. RR in his book says the tree people are highly significant so why is the photo not there? Becky's Mirror was at World Expo 2005 and is the first harvested piece with shaped roots. This mirror is a world first so why was the photo removed?

The article has the word arborsculture woven through it. One of the editors on their talk page suggested that the article be changed to reflect the title as a way of getting the title changed back to arborsculpture. In the archives, when the article was a quarter of the size that it is now, the word arborsculpture appeared more than thirty times. Does this mean now the article is 4 times bigger, the word arborsculpture will appear more than 120 times - Does this mean the article is becoming more balanced?

I originally came on to learn about methods and successful tree trainers eg Chris Cattle and his well balanced little stools. Now I am forced to take sides in this debate to find this knowledge.

I have commented on this before and will raise it again. Arborsculpture when googled is a marketing funnel for RR and his books and other merchandise. He states in his bio he coined the word in 1995. He has branded other artists against their will.

I would like to see a recent photo of a chair - not the drawing of the chair that was in his first book. Even a photo of the house would be good.

Other editors say Pooktre is commercial I have not found any evidence of this or any attempt at marketing when looking at Pooktre. Pooktre state they will collaborate with others. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Bluegum (talk • contribs) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(You need to add a blank line between paragraphs in order to get a linebreak. I've done this for you. However your paragraphs are still very confusing with mixed topics.)
The images were removed purely because of WP:WATERMARK. Now that Blackash has uploaded copies without a watermark, they could be put back in. (File:Person-tree.jpg and File:Becky's Mirror.jpg) I agree that the person tree image should be replaced. However, I hope a better image of the mirror (or a different "inclusioned" piece) could be added, as that mirror image looks odd (because of the cropped-background and fake-reflections).
You're not "forced to take sides" anywhere at Wikipedia.
Pooktre's commercial end is at http://www.pooktre.com/collaboration.htm , keyword "commissioned". -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
On word count: fantasy. As of this moment, the words 'shape' & 'shaping occur' 39 times in the article, including the current article name. The words 'arborsculpture' and 'arborsculptor' occur only 14 times, including once as the title of the book by that name noted in the text of the article, which is a significant reduction in the use of the term compared with the previously 1/4 size article mentioned.
Arborsculpture is a noun and the topic of the article; not a "marketing funnel," and repeating that catchy phrase every couple of weeks won't make it one. Perhaps that could be given a rest. It is indeed woven through the article, and rightfully so, as 'arborsculpture' is the term for the craft that has by far the most reliable source citations using it to describe the work detailed herein. The citations are what matters and other editors, including myself, have sounded them carefully to be certain that they are indeed reliable source citations.
So yes, we are working toward balance and appropriate weighting of terms now. A careful read of these talkpage archives will make clear that this follows a protracted and well-documented episode of the complete removal of the word, from this and several other articles, in a deliberate effort by Becky Northey, a professional rival of the word's coiner, to curtail all uses of the word, both here at Wikipedia and on the countless other sites across the internet where the word is used. Many sharp eyes are now watching to ensure that this does not occur again, at least here, as such efforts are insidious and considered improper uses of Wikipedia. You can read the full history of that, if you are that interested, in the archives of this talkpage. Otherwise, there's no need to feel forced in any way to take a stand on anything here, or take sides in any debate. One can read, edit, improve, challenge, comment, etc. as one sees fit, or not do any of that, and it's all warmly welcomed. Taking sides is not what we are here for at all.
Reames himself doesn't state anything in his bio, though he does comment here on the talkpage occasionally. He has largely withdrawn from contributing to both the article and the talkpage, as he has a self-admitted conflict of interest, by virtue of the fact that he is covered in the article. Northey is obligated to do the same, but refuses to recuse herself. Other editors wrote Reames' bio, based on the usual: reliable sources. It would be improper for him (or anyone) to write an autobiography. He coined the word. Of that there is no dispute, is there? If so, let's see a reliable source citation for such a dispute, or please put that to rest also.
I'm not clear on which drawing(s) Sydney Bluegum is protesting, as Weichula's inosculation sketch is the only drawing in the article at this time (and the only image we have for Weichula, so let's not delete it). Does it feel like something else is missing from the article, based on what a reader comes to learn? As a (mostly) reader of Wikipedia, what seems to be omitted from the article, if there's anything specific to describe, besides particular photos?
As for Pooktre, of course it is a commercial entity, but nonetheless, as has been stated many times before here by various editors and admins (and I agree): Pooktre is probably notable enough to merit its own article (as do many other commercial entities); one written from a completely neutral point of view, based on reliable sources, and submitted by a non-involved editor or editors interested enough to spend editorial time on it. I fail on that last point only, but surely someone will eventually pursue it. Meanwhile, it would not be appropriate to plaster the one company name back all over this article again, if that is what is suggested. A single prominent and well-detailed mention of the business name of one pair of artists, in the mini-bio of the relevant persons, is adequate for the purposes of an encyclopedic article about arborsculpture. duff 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sydney Bluegum, it seems you are continuing with the irrelevant argument that since the word “arborsculpture” is associated with RR, we shouldn't use it. This wouldn't be an relevant issue if he was dead for 100 years and it isn't a relevant issue now. If you wish to comment further, please take the time and effort to leave comments that we can all understand. --Griseum (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, I am talking about the fact that photos have not been put back and Drawings are not proof of tree training. I have not seen any recent photos of Richard's work. After 17 years a drawing just doesn't cut it for me . I was not protesting -simply making a statement . The drawing by Perreal 1516 in fantasy and created by his imagination.
Please do not tell me what to do as I have spent $s and time and you are supposedly uninvolved but I read the 4 seconds on sockpuppet. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the Person tree image - everyone should feel free to improve the caption.
Regarding the mirror: I explained just above, why I don't believe the mirror image should be replaced, so I won't repeat that here. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Careless editing

This was the first sentence of the article as I found it today: "Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture,tree training,botanical architecture, grown furniture and several other names, is the art of training living trees and other plants and their roots cultivated into ornamental shapes and structures." Everyone makes mistakes, but poor marks to whoever was so concerned about “improving” this article that they turned the introductory sentence into grammatical non-sense. --Griseum (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

After editing for as long as you have been I think you know who you awarded the poor marks too. But in case you are not sure it was I. This is ironic as we all make mistakes. Please do not throw stones in glass houses particularly when you can't spell the word "incompehensible" add an r and stop the scarcism. If you want me to leave, as you seem to tell others quite often, be nice to me and I'll get bored and leave the soap opera. I see myself mainly as an end user of Wiki and would like to have proper and correct information. While reading Wiki some articles use 'also known as' and then list the names. 'Commonly called' is fine. I used the policy Manual of Style (lead section)and followed No 2 for the example for the lead sentence. I put back in trees, roots and reconfigured the sentence so it should be comprehensible to everyone. Instead of criticising, compromise and improve my edits so I can learn by your example.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing Griseum's spelling of comprehensible was a typo, but seriously Sydney, this kind of harping is just petty. I know this article is frustrating and things have gotten heated, but everybody needs to remember WP:CIV. We should be speaking with one another as if we were in polite company, which we are. — e. ripley\talk 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for mediation?

I think that if a consensus cannot soon be reached we may need to take the issues here to Mediation or Arbitration. I prefer mediation at first as they seem to be less heavy handed and more focused on helping editors to "get along", while ArbCom seams to be focused on administrative action like page protection and topic bans. I think we can work out our different stances through discussion, and we might get some use out of bringing in the "mediation cabal". Colincbn (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the editors here could get along or participate in any reasonable discussion. Every time anyone tries, the discussion gets filibustered by the same talking points repeated over and over. I'm also skeptical that the people here would actually respect any decisions reached by the mediation cabal, considering the past history of such things in this article. AfD hero (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has already been through an appropriate dispute resolution process and that was an RfC. Several new editors, including Colinbc and myself came here as a result and all agreed that one person here was pushing a commercial interest against all the evidence. Somehow that one editor got a number of others to support their PoV. All that is needed is an admin to take a proper look through the page history and at some of the evidence provided and then take the appropriate action, which is to move the article to arborsculpture and warn editors about pushing their commercial PoV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should be moved to arborsculpture, and neither do several other neutral editors including at least 2 admins. Blackash didn't brainwash me or them. People who disagree with moving the article came up with their opinion through a reasoned consideration of the evidence, just as you have done, except they came to a different conclusion. The atmosphere here is so hostile that people opposed to moving the article have slowly but steadily left to pursue other less stressful things. AfD hero (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to know your reasoning for keeping the article in its current home 'Tree shaping', which is a term used by arborists worldwide to mean something completely different from the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't be serious... We've had this discussion over and over and over. I'm not going to contribute to another cycle of rehashing the same old points. AfD hero (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am perfectly serious. If you do not want to answer my question perhaps you could direct me to wher you have answered it before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by 'arborists world wide to mean something completely different ' Martin Hogbin. Arborsculpture to me means to sculpt(carve or cut ) usually with a chainsaw or a tool called an arborteck to create a model out of a log. It it obivous that you have'nt googled 'arborsculpture' and followed the marketing funnel( that catchy phrase again)to Richard Reams who you seem hell bent on promoting.AfD hero Please explain to the contributors of the page that you are not talking about editor Blackash. I am going to include a few other alternative names on the list.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course. The term 'Tree shaping' is in common use to mean the general pruning of trees to obtain a good natural shape. That is not what this article is about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
AfD, Martin has followed the term to various locations around the web. He has researched this craft a lot in the last few months. So have I. He asked a question about the term "Tree Shaping". He did not even mention the word "Aroborsculpture" while he was asking it. I know I am not "promoting" Reames, I have never met him, never read one of his books, nor am I likely to do either. I am simply worried that there are some WP Policies being ignored, and as Martin has said "Tree Shaping means something else".
The first and main policy I am worried about is this one:

"Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub".

Please note this is Policy, not a guideline or an essay. This is what makes WP work. Without following these the whole thing falls apart. Now I don't think when you changed the title without posting a Request for Move you realized how much controversy would be stirred up. I think you simply thought it was a quick way to avoid controversy. But that is not what has happened, for various reasons. At this point I think policy is clear that the move should be reverted and then a real discussion on whether a new name is necessary can commence. I don't even care what it ends up being, but I would vote against "Tree Shaping" as that is not what this article is about.
As for "Hostility". Let me say that even though I disagree with Blackash on some points, and I have been frustrated because of it, I don't "dislike" her. In fact I am 100% sure that on almost any other topic we would have the same or similar opinions. I think she has a conflict of interest and that is making it hard for her to separate what is good for her craft from what is good for WP. I also think she believes I "support Reames". I find that unfortunate because I have told him the exact same things as I have told her in regards to his CoI. I am also not saying the article name should remain "Arborsculpture" forever or even for the foreseeable future. I am saying the name should be kept per-policy until a successful RM to change it is completed. Because that is WP Policy. That is my sole reason for my current stance. And I believe Martin's is the same. Colincbn (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As a owner of a 4000 stone fruit orchard I employ workers to prune trees. I do not tell them to shape the trees. The desired result is a vase shaped tree to promote a good crop. This is a completely different process to what the article is about. If tree shaping has too many applications then what about tree training.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct but irrelevant. 'Tree shaping' is the term routinely used in English-speaking countries to describe the pruning of, mainly ornamental, trees to maintain a good natural shape. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Martin a word can have more than one definition, which is why in the real world we have dictionaries, and why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. Blackash have a chat 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than a disambiguation page I would vote for a descriptive title that does not need disambiguation. I would much prefer reverting to the original name, per-policy, while we work it out. However, if we can all agree to work together amicably to quickly resolve the issue I would be willing to concede that point. Colincbn (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Why choose a title that needs a disambiguation page? There must me a suitable neutral title that we could use, at least while we decide on a final home. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just seriously discuss alternatives to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping instead of just moving the page temporarily? Colincbn you have mentioned Tree training as title idea, this wording has been brought up before. Both Slowart and I have agreed to it. I think SydneyBlueGum may have mentioned it but I can't remember where. There are some references to it being used in this art form, though not as many as Tree shaping. Tree training Blackash have a chat 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As I said I am willing to concede my wish to return the article to the first non-stub title provided we can make progress on finding a name that reaches consensus. I have never thought that the name needs to become and remain Arborsculputre. I just feel that the original title change happened without consensus and that should be remedied before we start hashing out a new title. But if we can come up with something that everyone can agree with (even though we might not all get everything we want) I will concede that reverting the change first is unnecessary.

So the main points are:

  • "Tree Shaping" has a more common meaning and is not universally accepted as the name of this craft
  • "Arborsculpture" is not clearly the term most used to describe this craft either.
  • Blackash and Slowart have a professional rivalry and the name of the art-form is one point of contention in that rivalry.
  • Both Blackash and Slowart have contributed good work to this and other articles throughout Wikipedia.
  • The article needs a name that is consistent with Wikipedia Policy and does not take sides in an ongoing dispute amongst the practitioners of this craft that does not yet have a clear resolution.

I may be missing something but I think the above points generally summarize the current situation. I also want to point out a few things about my position that I feel I may not have explained clearly:

  • I do not "support" either side of the debate about what the name of this art-form should be.
  • I think the debate is a necessary thing that should be engaged in by the practitioners of the art-form.
  • I do not think it is wrong to reference this article on blogs or other outside webpages (just remember what you are referencing can change).
  • I do think it is wrong to edit Wikipedia in order to give your arguments more weight in a debate outside of Wikipedia.

Now, with the risk of making this post too long, let me say I believe eventually a name for this art-form will emerge that has an unquestionable majority of verifiable sources to back it up. What that name becomes will have a lot to do with who publishes books or writes magazine articles about the craft. Good luck to both Blackash and Slowart on that, and may the best artist win. However we have not reached the point where any name has a clear majority. So what should we do? Well the Policy on neologisms says "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" (Note: I am not calling any term a neologism, I am simply pointing out that there is a policy covering the situation we are in).

So I suggest this for a name:

  • Shaping trees to form useful or artistic items

Yes it is long and awkward, but it is descriptive, it covers what the article is about, and it is general enough to include all of the techniques used by the various practitioners of the craft. Which is another point of contention between them. I avoided the word "inosculation" as that technique is not 100% necessary for a work to fit a description of this art, andI avoided the term "Tree training" as it seems bending already formed branches is considered a contentious but acceptable technique as well.

Does anyone take issue with the title I proposed above, or with the points I have attempted to make? Colincbn (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is fine with me as a holding title, whilst the issue of a correct title is discussed further. In the longer term it is not ideal because it is descriptive but does not mention the common feature of the art, which is inosculation.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
O.K. Shaping trees to form useful or artistic items is a good compromise, as a holding title while we look at the references for "arborsculpture" and "arbor sculpture". Should the word or any word emerge as the most referenced in verifiable reliable sources, then without further compromise the title should be settled, until such a time that another term develops a majority of verifiable reliable sources. Slowart (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm largely agnostic on this but would just ask, in the interest of saving space and word economy, that you consider "into" instead of "to form" (in other words, Shaping trees into ... ) - it's already on the long side so every character counts. — e. ripley\talk 15:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes I think that could be quite good:
  • Shaping trees into useful or artistic items
I think that until a clear majority of sources can be found to support a single term for this art this title is OK. The policy on titles says a title should, in most cases, not be over ten words. This is only seven. So while it is not perfect I think it will do until the greater artistic community settles on a generally accepted name. I would like to see how Blackash feels about this before moving forward with a title change though. Colincbn (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Colin , Your logic is faulty. I dont believe people will google the suggested title "Shaping trees into useful or artistic items". I really think we need to consider "Tree training" as the title doesn't give bias to any one technique. Training anything covers a range of techniques, be they harsh or gentle. For example Dog training can be done with rewards and attention or it can involve discipline like electric collars or whips. Dog training doesn't emply any technique neither does Tree training. Both Richard Reames and Dr.Chris Cattle use the term. Richard Reames trains trees into chairs in an afternoon. Dr.Chris Cattle takes months to train even and balanced stools. Different techniques yet both use the wording Tree training.

Please explain this statement "I avoided the term "Tree training" as it seems bending already formed branches is considered a contentious but acceptable technique as well".Colin this is your statement above. Where does this come from ??? I'm having problems understanding what this is about. Slowart, Blackash and myself dont have a problem with it and you, Colincbn have suggested it previously. Summing up, Tree training is neutral, is descriptive,is a wording people will google and it is referenced and is the only viable alternative. I don't think it would just be a holding or temporary name as suggested by some editors. Tree training is also the term Axel Erlandson used to describe his amazing work. Sidney Bluegum Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not a practitioner of this craft so I am no expert on techniques, but from what I understand one of Blackash's problems with her art being labeled "Arborsculpture" is that the books on "Arborsculpture" by Reams show techniques where already grown branches are "bent" into the desired shapes, whereas the "Pooktre" method never does this and only trains branches to grow along the desired paths. So if someone was to, for example, braid three already formed branches like one braids hair this would be arborsculpture but not pooktre. However you could achieve a similar result by training the branches to grow into a braid naturally using the pooktre method. I was trying to make the title as general as possible so it can easily cover all forms of this craft.
As for google, the article will still contain the terms tree training, tree shaping, and arborsculpture so it will still be one of the first things that shows up. Like arborsculpture does now. In addition I have outlined WP Policies above that the suggested name complies with, I don't think there are any policies that require one to consider Google. Plus I consider part of this compromise to be the notion that neither arborsculpture, tree shaping, nor tree training has clearly been adopted as the name of this craft by the majority of its practitioners. As such it is inappropriate for WP to take a stance on the issue and should use a neutral descriptive phrase. When the time comes that there is a clear consensus amongst artist as to the name of the craft the article can change to reflect that. There is no deadline. Of coures we could just return the article to its original non-stub title Arborsculpture as policy dictates. But I am looking for a compromise here. Colincbn (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think Colincbn is on the right track here.The selection of a generally acceptable alternative, even a cumbersome one, would hopefully free up all of you to work on the article itself. My suggestion is that you take his suggestion as a working start and either use it or modify it to the satisfaction of most of you.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is I oppose moving the title to a holding title. Where is Wikipedia policy suggesting to do such a thing? Instead have a serious discussion about finding a long-term title for the art form. (I already suggested this 08:25, 23 June 2010) Or if you set on proving Arborsculpture the word take it up the dispute resolution process now. I don't see a problem with Tree shaping but if the page was moved to Tree training that is ok as well. I have also found some more references for Tree training and Tree shaping I will add them soon at List of potential titles. Blackash have a chat 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the consensus on this page is that the current name is inappropriate; the dispute is over what should replace it. Therefore it seems entirely appropriate to move it to another title as soon as is possible, even if it's only intended to be there in the short term while the community decides on what should replace it in the longer-term, which given the history here could be a drawn-out process. Given all that, it seems appropriate to indeed have a holding title for now. — e. ripley\talk 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been no consensus yet that Tree shaping is inappropriate, the only semiformal consensus formed was not to move the title back to arborsculpture. That aside what is wrong with Tree training? There is no WP:NORUSH. Blackash have a chat 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Shaping trees into useful or artistic items
  • Let look at WP:TITLE quote "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
  • Your title suggestion doesn't meet quite a few requirements in WP:TITLE.


Colincbn tree training doesn't give any more weight to one technique over the other and as such is neutral. In point of fact Richard Reames uses tree training more than we do, though we have no objection to using the wording of tree training and would be happy to do so and Dr Chris cattle also uses tree training as did Axel Erlandson in a letter to (I believe it was) Ripley's Believe It or Not. Blackash have a chat 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
O.K. how about Training trees into useful or artistic items it's not perfect, as compromises seldom are, and it's only temporary until we compile the reliable sources and choose the corresponding title. Slowart (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Some problem as above, starts with a verb, is ambigusus and is not in reliable sources. Slowart a title for an article is not just about finding reliable sources. Do you now have issue with the simpler wording of tree training? Blackash have a chat 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A detailed answer

Colincbn you have some incorrect assumptions and have left out relevant facts. I will try and address your points as you listed them.

So the main points are:

  • Tree Shaping has more than one definition. (clarification of point)
Exactly, and the other one is much more common than this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It has more than 2 definitions. Tree shaping has been used for bonsai, espalier, pleaching, large scale pruning or in England to refer topiary. Which is why a disambiguation page was suggested. Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Tree shaping, shaping trees or tree shapers has been used as a descriptive or generic term by artists within this field including Richard Reames.
You provide no evidence of that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Umm you have read the list of potential title names you did comment there, that list has the evidence you are asking for. Richard Reames, Theodore D. Walker, Ivan Hicks, and Becky Northey/Peter Cook (Pooktre) use the wording. Others I know off hand, thou I sure there is more, John Gathright quote "There is great diversity in the practices, methods, and outcomes for this unique art form. Tree Shaping would seem neutral and generic to me! I would also encourage individual branding by all of the artists and practitioners'." discussion about the move to Tree shaping. On World Expo 2005 John says quote "We will create a park area of wonderfully shaped trees known as "growing furniture" or "circus trees" and communicate their joy." [2] John has sent in email with the wording Artistically Shaped Trees. I could forward that to anyone, emails are legal documents in Australia.
Mark Primack "I recommend that the 'plain English' title 'Tree Shaping' remain until such time that the subject does prove to be limited to 'sculptue' alone, or 'architecture' alone, or perhaps becomes a stand-alone 'art' of it's own.MarkPrimack (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)" RM to Arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Tree shaping was chosen because it is a broader more generic term than arborsculpture and follows Wikipedia policy of Neutral article naming.
I what way is it broader, except in so far as it means something else? It is not neutral, your company is Pooktre tree shapers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Our company is SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd and we only use Pooktre to refer to our art and methods. Tree shapers is not our Trade mark we use it as a descriptive wording to help people get an image of what it is we do. Martin now you protest about neutrally but when I pointed out Arborsculpture is not neutral as it leads to Richard Reames you said quote "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. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC).link It seem you don't apply wikipedia policies except when it suits to push your point of view. Really how is bonsai, espalier, pleaching, large scale pruning, or topiary so far different to our art-form as to mean something else?. All are related to this art-form and each other.Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Tree shaping has references of being in use for this art-form even before the title change. Tree shaping references
Most of those references, namely items 4,5,7,8,11,12,13,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,33,35,36 do not actually contain the term 'tree shaping' but simply some combination of a form of the noun 'tree' in varying degree of proximity to some form of the verb 'shape'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That still leaves 16 references there. Variations like shaping trees and such should stand as references. Yes the numbers quoted don't use the exact wording of Tree shaping, but majority use a variation of tree shaping some examples:- shaping trees, shaped tree, shaping of tree trunks, trees were shaped, shaped his trees, or even Richard Reamess use Tree shaping and tree-shapers. Oh but wait just above you state that tree shapers is close enough variation to tree shaping mean tree shaping can't be neutral. Really Martin make up your mind do variations count or not? Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried Googling 'Tree shaping'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have even done research into Google books, which is why I know that Tree shaping has more than 2 definitions. Blackash have a chat 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see that we have a rivalry with Slowart/Reames rather we don't want to branded with arborsculpture (or any word for that matter) that has a method linked to it, and/or leads straight to another artist. As arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames/Slowart and Pooktre leads to me and Peter. As such neither should be the title according to WP:NEUTRAL. Blackash have a chat 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The article needs a name that is consistent with Wikipedia Policy and does not take sides in an ongoing dispute amongst the practitioners of this craft that does not yet have a clear resolution. Colincbn (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something but I think the above points generally summarize the current situation. I also want to point out a few things about my position that I feel I may not have explained clearly:

  • Colincbn your suggestion to Martin talk after the failed attempt to move Tree shaping to arborsculpture, quote "If we can't change the title to match the article another option might be to change the article to match the title. In other-words rewrite the article to be about actual "tree shaping" and not Pooktre. Then the impetus would be on other editors to show the term "tree shaping" is not used to mean that which it is used to mean. Colincbn (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)" Any editor who proposes to do this to an article is not neutral on said article but is instead pushing an agenda to change the article for WP:POINT Blackash have a chat 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have pointed out that the title had changed on the web, after the title was changed from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping. Again I didn't change the title, in point of fact I didn't even know you could change the article's name at that time. Blackash have a chat 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, with the risk of making this post too long, let me say I believe eventually a name for this art-form will emerge that has an unquestionable majority of verifiable sources to back it up. What that name becomes will have a lot to do with who publishes books or writes magazine articles about the craft. Good luck to both Blackash and Slowart on that, and may the best artist win.Colincbn (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

However we have not reached the point where any name has a clear majority. So what should we do? Well the Policy on neologisms says "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" (Note: I am not calling any term a neologism, I am simply pointing out that there is a policy covering the situation we are in).

So I suggest this for a name:

  • Shaping trees to form useful or artistic items

Colincbn (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Let look at WP:TITLE quote "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
  • Your title suggestion doesn't meet quite a few requirements in WP:TITLE.

Yes it is long and awkward, but it is descriptive, it covers what the article is about, and it is general enough to include all of the techniques used by the various practitioners of the craft. Which is another point of contention between them. I avoided the word "inosculation" as that technique is not 100% necessary for a work to fit a description of this art, andI avoided the term "Tree training" as it seems bending already formed branches is considered a contentious but acceptable technique as well.Colincbn (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Colincbn on the 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC) you seem to think that Tree training would be ok quote "If I was allowed to choose a name I might go with "Tree Training" but that would be original research at best and we can't do that here." Since Ipointed out that Tree Training has references you ｈａｖｅ　discarded it without any real reasoning. Myself and Slowart were fine　ｗｉｔｈ　Tree Training　as　a　title，　Quote
    • "Really as long a the name is generic and descriptive we don't care which word is used for the name of the article. Blackash have a chat 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)"
    • "Tree training" as a title for this wiki page sounds good to me.　Slowart (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Tree training is in references about this art－form (I'll adding in more soon), it is something people might search for, it is descriptive, it is plain English. Though my impression from reading the above comments is none of points　really matter to the pro arborsculpture group. Who only want to change the title so they can point to it and say look this isn't suitable it really needs a simple name．　（I wonder what that could be.） In short as far as I'm concerned Tree shaping or Tree training as a title is fine. Blackash have a chat 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, in many of your points above I feel you are not assuming good faith on my part. I assure you that every point I have made above was a genuine attempt at compromise. I am not "pro arborsculpture". I am "pro policy". Also taking people's comments out of context is not appropriate. Yes I suggested "Tree training" but other editors have taken issue with that name for reasons mentioned above. So I have continued to look for a better compromise. I have continually supported the "first non-stub title" because that is what policy calls for and no other reason. But other editors have taken issue with that as well. So I am still looking for a compromise, and whatever that compromise is it needs to follow policy. I am not "against you", I am trying to work with you. If you are unwilling to compromise then yes we will bring this up the dispute resolution ladder, but please remember that part of that process is to work towards compromise before starting a request for arbitration. That is what I am trying to do. And to address one of your above points directly; I don't think that the term "holding title" is entirely accurate. I am looking for a neutral descriptive phrase that does not support one artist or group of artists that can be used until the artistic community can settle on a universal term for the craft, not so that the WP community can. It is not our business here to decide what the name of the craft should be, it is up to you and Slowart and the other practitioners to do so outside of WP. You pointed out yourself that there is no rush. the title can remain a descriptive phrase for as long as it takes artists like yourself to agree on the common name for this craft. Also the suggested title is a Noun phrase, which is perfectly acceptable under the policy for article titles, regardless of whether it contains a verb. I am also perfectly OK with using Training trees into useful or artistic items if everyone else is. Colincbn (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you better read noun phrase and pronoun. A noun phrase starts with a noun or pronoun. Not a doing verb like shaping or training. Blackash have a chat 01:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Whatever your intentions other editors have voiced the opinion that change is only for a holding title and not a true discussion. Colincbn the previous editors only issue with Tree training had been there were no references for tree training in use for this art form. After I point out that it has references you came up the idea it is some how linked to Pooktre techniques. I don't know how you got that idea. I will be interested in your answer to Sydneybluegum. Blackash have a chat 01:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by that as I already have answered Sydney above, you have even replied to my answer, although I think you are not seeing my point. Of course I don't have a problem with the term "tree training" as the name of this craft, I am the one who suggested it as a potential name of this article. However, as I pointed out when I suggested the name it would be Original Research as it would simply suffer from the same problems as any other term that attempts to put a title on an art-form that does not yet have a solid name amongst its practitioners. Specifically; someone could come up with at least as many refs, if not more, that do not use that term. So WP cannot present that term as the actual name of the craft until the artistic community decides that is the universal term for it. This is why I am looking for compromise. Please, please, stop thinking of me as your enemy. I am not trying to work to thwart you, nor to have the title changed to Arborsculpture for some nefarious purpose. I am simply trying to follow policy. I beg of you to at least try to believe that. I feel like I have stated my points quite clearly above. I am not even currently working to move the article to Arborsculpture, I am just looking for compromise. If you cannot or will not try to take part in that then yes lets move this along and begin an ArbCom case. But at least give an attempt at compromise before we do so. I don't think of you as an "enemy", please don't think of me that way. I believe that if you do accept that I am simply trying to do what is best for WP you will see that I have no schemes or plans behind the scenes to hurt you or your craft. I am only operating on what I see as best for the Wikipedia project, nothing more and nothing less. And I think you are a good editor who has contributed a lot of fantastic work here and on other subjects throughout WP, I just think it is hard for you, or anyone else in your position for that matter, to separate what is good for your craft from what is good for Wikipedia. That does not mean I think you are a "bad editor" or that I should "fight you" or anything. I just think on this one particular issue you are likely to see other's good faith attempts to better WP as a stance against you. I assure you that is not the case.
As far as your point on noun phrases vs. pronouns; I see your point. Perhaps "The art of training trees into useful or artistic items" is acceptable? It is still only ten words which is OK as far as the policy on titles goes and it addresses your concerns about leading with a verb. Colincbn (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Colincbn The points you didn't answer is how you came up with the idea Tree training is linked to a technique? You have demonstrated a clear understanding of the difference between arborsculpture techniques and ours, and I look forward to working at getting the methods into the article. Blackash have a chat 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I think as to the naming of the article Colincbn you started off on the wrong foot. You have started on the basis that the article name is a neologism and have used WP:NEO as a guide to creating a new title. This isn't the case. Tree shaping isn't a neologism so WP:NEO doesn't apply. There are various policies involved in deciding on a new WP:NAME, plus wikipedia core policy WP:NEUTRAL. Wikipedia also follows WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia doesn't prescribe it describes. (It is not up the artists to decide what the title is. Though the artists can point out where a title doesn't meet Wikipedia policies.)
So where does this leave us? I feel there is not a clear case to change from Tree shaping to a long awkward title name. If a change is to happen, changing to a similarly short title that is in reliable sources, meets neutrality (as it doesn't lead to any one artist), previously both Slowart and myself state it's suitable as a title and something wikipeida's users would naturally use to find the article. Tree training should be suggested as the new title as it meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies, if it is found that Tree shaping is not suitable. Blackash have a chat 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, is there any special reason for the extra indentation of the last paragraph of your reply. It is very confusing as it gives the impression of a dialogue between two people rather than a response from one.
I, like, Colin, came here as an independent editor to help resolve this issue. As it looks as though it may be some time until a true consensus is reached and as 'Tree shaping' is widely used to mean something else, I fully support Colin's suggestion to use a descriptive holding title while discussion continues. What exactly is your objection?Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Blackash, I think you have misunderstood me. I do not think it is up to the artists to decide the name of this article, I think it is up to the artist to decide a name for this art. There is a subtle but very important difference between those. Since the artistic community has not yet settled on a name it is not WP's place to choose one for them. Also, I do not think the title is a neologism. As I stated in my above post. I do think that policy on neologisms has very important points about article naming and how to avoid neologisms though. I have also pointed to the policy on title naming in general as a basis for my stance. To sum up, if there is no name that can be pointed to as the definitive name of this craft WP should avoid attaching any name to it whatsoever, until such a time that a definitive name arises from the community of practitioners of this craft. If a new neutral non-controversial title for this article cannot be decided upon then we should default to the first non-stub title until such a time as a new title gains consensus. That is the heart of my argument. Colincbn (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Colincbn, Tree training has had Slowart, myself, you, and Sydneybluegum all stated at one time or another that Tree training would work as a title. Tree training meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies. What’s wrong with Tree training? Blackash have a chat 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_12&oldid=1252152245"