Jump to content

Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Arborscuplture is a Neologism

Arborsculpture is a word coin by Richard Reames [1] Quote from Arborsculpture Solutions for a small planet. He says that Quote "With the publication of my first book How to Grow a Chair, I coined the word "arborsculpture,". (page 3)

  • 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 you don't disagree about this being a Neologism.
  • Please explain why Arborsculpture should be the exception to Wikipedia's Neolegism guidelines. WP:NEO Blackash (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • A word coined 15 years ago doesn't quite count as a Neologism. Words like "internet" and "website" aren't much older. But Blackash's claim is beside the point and this editor's tactics have changed from day to day. "NEO" is just three letters of the "alphabet soup" that has been hurled at me. An extreamly misguided formal accusation of SOCK was another. Blackash asks me to "Please explain why Arborsculpture should be the exception to Wikipedia's Neolegism guidelines." I ask why would Blackash's edits be expempt from WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability guidelines? Why would we ignore Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term in favor of Blackash's personal opinion that "Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees"? --Griseum (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [same as IP 208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199]

Arborscuplture

I've been asked to take a look at what is happening on this article. My observation is that tree shaping is about all types of tree shaping, including arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. And that an editor could create an article on arborsculpture which would be about Richard Reames (as there are a number of sources for arborsculpture and Richard Reames. It would be acceptable to mention arborsculpture within tree shaping, and if there is significant material on arborsculpture in tree shaping, then arborsculpture would need to be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead, as would Pooktre. I am unsure of using the word arborsculpture as a general substitute for tree shaping as there doesn't appear to convincing evidence for that. As such the current opening statement: "Tree shaping, also known as arborsculpture", would need sourcing, and if no sources could be found, should be altered. I would support a more neutral wording, such as "Tree shaping is the art and technique of growing and shaping trunks, branches and roots of trees and other woody plants...Tree shaping is similar to espalier, bonsai and sometimes includes some topiary... There are a number of tree shapers and methods, including Richard Reames' arborsculpture and Pooktre by artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey. SilkTork *YES! 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

struck my own response I'll give this more thought and research, tomorrow. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of your assessment is correct, except (Richard Reames' arborsculpture) "Arborsculpture" is widely used today in it's original context as first published in 1995. The word is exemplified by the work of Axel Erlnadson and now has come to define other historical examples and current use defined more by the medium than the techniques in use today. Random sampling of these links inclusiv of arborsculpture subtracting Reames the word is used in general for the art form exclusively. [[2]] The possessive reference in the header is only partly true. But sources are Chuck Ingels, Farm Advisor at UC Cooperative Extension, Sacramento Sacramento, California Area[[3]]Tracey Link senior project University of California, Davis The Thirteenth of June, 2008 [[4]]Arborsculpture.de registerd in germany. Arborsculpture related items come up on e-bay, an old Krubsack postcard is there now. it's not just Richards Reames' it is the most commonly used title for whole art form in general, and for the work of Erlandson and Krubsack in spacific. The first 13 out of 5000 images on Google show other artist work not Richard Reames tree work. [[5]] I'm flattered, I coined it, I use it, but I don't think I own the word.Slowart (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Example of Slowart / Reames, misrepresenting Arborsculpture as standard english. In Richard Reames book Arborscupture Solutions for a Small Planet page 94 Nirandr Boonnetr (a Thailand speaking person) is talking about starting to shape trees in 1985. quote "In his own words (edited for standard English) I belive arborsculpture is the work that I asked God to reveal to me in the last 20 years." Arborsculpture was coined in 1995 and and is not yet standard English, with this misrepresentation of the word Arborsculpture it is hardly surprising that when Nirandr listed his chair tree and table tree on ebay that he used the word Arborsculpture. This is one example of a self-fulfilling citation. Richard Reames has been building a platform and branding others for 15 years with Arborsculpture while also teaching a method. Blackash (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this business about foreign language translation is relevant. The only thing this anecdote supports is my belief that Blackash's edits are motivated by personal dislike of Reames. If Reames has successfully made his coinage popular the article should reflect than. His motives over the course of 15 years and whether he should or shouldn't have worked to popularize the word is none of our business. Likewise, if Blackash wants to write magazine articles or a book or give interviews disparaing the term "Arborsculpture", that's none of our business either. When someone is USING Wikipedia to make a word popular, to define a word, or to exclude certain things from a definition of a word, that is our business, especially if the people making Wikipedia manipulations are professionally involved with the subject matter. Reporting that "when Nirandr listed his chair tree and table tree on ebay that he used the word Arborsculpture" highly supports my assertion that arborsculpture is a generic term. --Griseum (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nirandr Boonnetr speaks and writes English as a second language. He works with trees, calls the art arborsculpture, wrote and submitted the word choice "arborsculpture" on p94. and p95. of mentioned book, his submission begins... In his own words (edited for standard English), Because we felt his sentence structure and word tense needed help. Your assumption is wrong, please curtail the personal attack.Slowart (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this business about translation is a worthless distraction. As attacks go, this particular attack seems both impotent and a more than a little silly -- it's the sort of thing that leave the attacker worse off for sure. I'm much more interested reading what Blackash has to say about evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term. I'm eager to read PROOF that supports Blackash's persistent claim that arborsculpture is some biased term that must never ever be applied to tree shaping in general. I'm curious to know why the various writers that refer to Erlandson, Cottle, and Krubsack as arborsculptors should be disregarded. I want to know why the numerous published definitions of "arborsculpture" as less important than the definition that Blackash wants to establish. --Griseum (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Our issue with the word Arborsculpture is, it's linked with a method. The method used is the instant shaping method.
In both of Richard Reames books, Arborscuplture is linked to a method or technique.
How to grow a chair The art of Tree Trunk Topiary.
  • Richard Reames teaches his method of how to shape a chair and other designs with trees. While using the word Arborsculpture. Exmaple page 57 "Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking and scoring." (Richard Reames uses the instant shaping method)
Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet
  • Richard Reames also teaches his method of shaping trees into a chair, in this book as well.

The word arborsculpture is controversial, as can be seen by reading the various quotes from other editors on this talk page quotes with links Blackash (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The months old opinions of editors aren't proof of anything other than that editors had opinions. I've become very familar with how Blackash operates and know how selectively this editor quotes (or doesn't quote) other editors as it suits them. I'm utterly unimpressed by this particular tactic and still hope Blackash will make an effort to find independent sources with something relevant to say. --Griseum (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I don't think Pooktre or Arborsculture should be mentioned in the lead. I belive it is placing undue weight on both words. Dr Chris Cattle's Grownup Furniture (he uses the gradual shaping method) has alot of references and is not mentioned in the lead. If the last sentence said something like There are a number of tree shapers and various methods. It has also been called botanical architecture.[1] Would seem to be fairly neutral. There had been a list of trees removed. I originally compiled this list from various locations, both published and online. As this is one of the common questions we receive in e-mails, I think this would be of value to people reading the article. Blackash (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the section on Axel Erlandson has less secondary sources, then Arborsculpture or Pooktre and therefore the least notability according to wikipedia guidelines. Blackash (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished that anyone would think that. --Griseum (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Lead. The lead should be a summary of the article. The lead should be a shorter version of the article. The main points of each section in the article should appear in the lead. The lead needs building up. SilkTork *YES! 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The part about the tree shapers seems more balanced now. Blackash (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I was reading WP:Lead and it recommends that if there is two or more alternative names to create a "Names" or "Etymology" section [6]. How about it? Blackash (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I created an Alternative names section and listed the names from the refs, and put the words in alphabetical order. I used this page as a guild [7] Blackash (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Selective Information

User:Blackash is campaigning numerous Wikipedia pages supposedly to gain a "consensus". Anything that has been said, at any time, that seems to support User:Blackash POV is regurgitated again and again. Other feedback given to User:Blackash on this issue hasn't been so prominently plastered around. Examples:

  • The message on User talk:Blackash's talk page in which User:AfD hero says (in part): "Next we have the issue of the word "arbosculpture". Now I know you don't consider Arbosculpture to describe all tree shaping, but there are some people that do...The current edit removes the first part of the sentence, and reads "The word Arborsculpture is used for a particular style of tree shaping". This presents your point of view, but in wikipedia we have to present a Neutral Point of View..."
  • The message on Wikipedia:Content noticeboard in which User:Benjiboi writes: "arborsculpture", IMHO, is likely a notable enough neologism based on AfD's of neologisms"

Please note that both User:AfD hero and User talk:Benjiboi have much more to say along the lines of "justify inclusion or exclusion, if there is a naming debate explain it" etc. They didn't come down firmly on one side or the other and I don't insinute that they did. I'm just pointing out the sort of relevant comments that User:Blackash doesn't include her in multiple, lengthy, and repetitive posts.--208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

@ 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 When I make my points, I link to the relevant sections so that editors can decide for themselves. Blackash (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term

Of course we can find sources which say something to the effect that "arborsculpture describes the work of Richard Reames" as he did coin the word. The problem is there are also many sources which use the term but do NOT connect the word with Reames in any way nor with his particular methods. Reames himself considers it a generic term; "Arborsmith" is the term he's chosen as a business identity. I haven't see any sources other than those closely derived from this article which specifically exclude non-Reames techniques from the term "arborsculpture". Here are a few examples that use "arborsculpture" either without being technique-specific or grower-specific or use it to refer to the work of people with nothing to do with Reames (such as Axel Erlandson and even Pooktre).

  • ARBORSCULPTURE.ORG was the website of the NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group until just a few days ago.
  • Science Frontiersmagazine has written an original article (not a Wikipedia clone) called "Arborsculpture: A Living Art - and the Art of Living" about what it says is "a process commonly called arborsculpture."
  • Popular Science presents an article about "Israel's Tel Aviv University teaming up with eco-living company Plantware" and it is tagged: arborsculpture, architecture, eco tech, future tech, the environment. The article says "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre" -- in this case going a little to far by using pooktre (which no one is claiming as a generic term) as a generic term as well. NB different versions of this article are all over the web under different electronic "mastheads" and sometimes different pictures.
  • esciencenews.com has a version of the Tel Aviv article that offers this definition: "The concept of coaxing living trees into useful objects, sometimes called tree shaping, arborsculpture, living art or eco-architecture, isn’t new." As usual, there is no distinction between the term Reames coined and the other terms in circulation.
  • US Patent 7328532 relates to the Tel Aviv University tree shaping just mentioned. According to the text of the patent: "The art of shaping living woody plants is known as "arborsculpture", "preaching", "tree trunk topiary", "tree trunk shaping", "botanical architecture", "biotechture" or "permaculture". Presently known living tree configurations include, but arenot limited to chairs, tables, benches, entrance arches, tunnels, symbols, fences, bridges, garden rooms and gazebos. The living constructs provide obvious aesthetic and environmental benefits." Arborsculpture seems to be the preferred term here as evidenced by "Presently, arborsculpture is practiced by manipulating growth of the above-ground tissues (e.g., stem and branches) using traditional horticultural techniques such as pruning, trimming, bending, framing and grafting." They mention "The principle methods whichare presently used in arborsculpture are described by R. Reames" and also say "Accordingly, the process of shaping living woody plants usingtraditional techniques is very time consuming, excessively laborious and very costly." which contradicts User:Blackash's claim that "arborculture" is some sort of inferior shortcut different from tree shaping in general. Whether or not Reames is an influential pioneer, an opportunistic villain or somewhere in between isn't part of my argument (I don't care) but it should at least be noted that, in general, his work is well-regarded.User:Blackash's claim that Reames work is an inferior shortcut might be valid -- I don't know. What's important is that the word Reames coined is NOT generally associated with a "shortcut method" nor indeed a particular method at all.
  • Der Spigel, a magazine from Germany, says: companies like the Israeli firm, Plantware, have perfected these techniques as they have shaped trees into fruit bowls, toilet paper holders and street lamps; they call their work "arborsculpture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Department of Horticulture at Cornell University has a website about "Tree Sculpture" that says "Axel Erlandson’s tree circus is an amazing horticultural undertaking. Mr. Erlandson was an American arborsculptor who opened a horticultural attraction in 1947 featuring his uniquely shaped trees" Although Erlandson died in 1964, multiple independent sources all over the web call him an "arborsculptor" and his work "arborsculpture."
  • Dr. Leonard Perry seems affiliated with the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont. In his paper on Axel Erlandson he says "Erlandson would not tell anyone his secrets of arbor sculpture...about 74 of his arboreal sculptures remained"
  • Arborsculpture - An Emerging Art Form and Solutions to our Environment is a paper presented to the Faculty of the Landscape Architecture Program at the University of California, Davis. It is Erlandson's work, not Reames, which is primarily referenced. The paper gives this definition: "Arborsculpture is a naturally growing art form that is created by growing and shaping tree trunks and other woody plants into shapes as new layers of wood form. It is made for function, it is made as a creative outlet and it is made to explore plants as living organisms. Arborsculpture is a form of plant propagation that takes dedication, practice, experience, and knowledge of plant growth and structure. It is done using a technique called grafting which requires specific tools, and accessories. The trunks of the trees are grafted, bent, pruned and braced into shapes that are either ornamental or useful." Again, no distinction between techniques in regards to nomenclature.
  • Urban Planning, Design and Development Newtorkoffers the following definition: "Arborsculpture, Treechitecture -- Civic amenities, public spaces, and even housing could one day be formed by living trees. Researchers are looking into this new idea." (Editor's note: Treechitecture? Groan!)
  • Fair Oaks Horticulture Center of the University of California is using the term "arborsculpture" even for what appears to be merely traditional espalier demonstrating how popular and generic the term has become.
  • The Journal of Mythic Arts tells us "arborsculpture, especially chairs, was the peculiar habit of John Krubsack, a prominent banker in the very small town of Embarrass, Wisconsin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This (bloggy) site specifically lists Pooktre and others under the "arborsculpture" heading
  • University of British Columbia Botanical Garden & Centre for Plant Research discussion forum shows arborsculpture is being used as a generic term
  • Tree Artistry is essentially a high-end landscaping business that greets visitors to business website with words "Welcome to Tree Artistry Arborsculpture!"
  • This is bloggy and partially-Wikipedia derived but it evidences people using arborsculpture as a generic term and even specifically referring to Axel Erlandson's work as "arborsculpture".
  • 10 best trees and shrubs for arborsculpture is another article using arborsculpture as a generic term.
  • Agriculture Views has an article called "Arborsculpture" that takes an extremely generic view that says, in part "arborsculpture is the technique of “sculpting” trees, or shaping and growing them in a certain shape. This technique is usually used in growing wood plants that can be used for landscaping, garden ornaments, plant decorations and for other aesthetic purposes.
  • Dwell.com did an article about Reames in which the following definition was given: Arborsculpture is the art of shaping living trees into furniture, sculpture, and shelters. Part grazing and grafting, pleaching and patience, it exists in the shady area between landscaping, gardening, and furniture design. Arborsculpturists figure that anyone can shape objects out of dead wood, but it takes a special set of skills to make things out of living wood, to allow the tree to flourish as you meld it for a human purpose." The idea that the term arborsculpture should only be to (as Blackash/pooktre says below) "an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees" is absent from this definition and all definitions I located.
  • CabinetMagazine.org also did a story specifically about Reames and also gives a generic definition: "Arborsculpture is the art of shaping tree trunks to create art and functional items through bending, grafting, pruning, and multiple planting." In my initial search, I excluded articles which refer to Reames whatso ever. I've gone back and included some as they offer explicit, relatively detailed, and decided generic definitions.
  • Sawmill and bandmill blog uses the term generically as do other "bloggy" sites like [art.commongate.com/post/Extreme_Trees Extreme Trees] and this and this and hundreds more
  • I'm not even sure what this is but the author here muses that Chinese footbinding "is really almost exactly the same thing as arborsculpture, only practiced on the human foot rather than a tree." Does ANYONE think this writer translates "arborsculpture" as "Richard Reames' particular method of tree shaping?" For realz, yo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Here even a photo of Pooktre co-creator has been tagged "arborsculpture"
  • Josienita Borlongan wrote an article about Axel Erlandson's work and calls it arborsculpture.
  • American Arborsculpturist Axel Erlandson and His Extreme Trees is the subtitle of an article which says in part "Axel Erlandson's passion for sculpting trees, also known as arborsculpture, started out as a hobby for the amusement of himself and his family..."
  • Axel Erlandson: An American Arborsculpturist is an article by the same author.
  • University of California "Landscape & Turf News" has a short article called "Arborsculpture: Horticultural Art" in which Reames is referenced and in which Erlandson's work is called "Trees sculpted by a master of the art in the 1940s and 50s". There's absolutely no implication that Reames was doing one distinct thing, Erlandson another, and these two things need separate terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griseum (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Go get papers" offers examples of this term being used in academic papers about tree shaping in general
  • I Dig My Garden, like many other gardening sites, has a "Arborsculpture" forum which is about tree shaping in general
  • folks posting pics on Flickr] are using the term arborsculpture for various types of tree shaping including basic espalier.
  • Treehugger.com has an article about tree shaping in which Reames is the main focus, but it also refers to "British arborsculpturer, Chris Cattle."
  • Try Your Hand At Arborsculpture For A Fun Hobby is an article in which the work of Chris Cottle, Lois Walpole, Richard Reams and others are collectively called "arborsculpture".
  • University of Tennessee has a site called "Environmental Semester." There is a link to the website of Dan Ladd. Ladd himself does not use the term arborsculpture on his site; he uses "botanical architecture" and "tree sculpting" instead. But in chosing a heading for the section which contains only Ladd's link, someone at U Tennessee chose to fall back on a better-known term and has entitled it "Arborsculpture: Gardening as an art form".
  • Living Tree Sculpture aka Arbosculpture is very interesting because it shows people using the term arborsculpture as a generic term only to be "corrected" by Pooktre who says "we believe that the way Richard shapes trees is too damaging and leads to unpredictable results. Which is the reason that we don't wish to have our work confused with arbor sculpture." This specific, realworld agenda is revealed by Pooktre/Blackashe on Wikipedia here and elsewhere.
  • The Art of Arborsculpture is an article picturing mostly Erlandson's work. Here Pooktre/Blackashe has commented "The peace symbol tree is the only tree that has been Arborsculptured, in this group of photos. Arborsculpture is one man's method of shaping trees. It is an instant, and inferior method of shaping trees. This peace tree shows the classic hallmarks of Arborsculpture. Uneven and stunted growth." Does ANYONE else make this distinction besides Blackash, a professional rival of the person who coined the word?

I've included some sites that are "bloggy". While blogs and other user-derived content sites carry relatively little weight in arguements over Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability there is nothing forbidding us from thinking about what we find there. "Arborsculpture" is a young word if we're trying to determine how people at large are using it for real, no BS, let's not blind ourselves. Blackash, please break pattern and do not leave a message on my talk pages selectively quoting policies you think are relevant. Both myself and another editor have asked you to stop doing this to my pages. Everyone note that I'm not even trying to get the article re-named, just to prevent Blackash from using Wikipedia to carry out a very blatant real life agenda. I have been asked to "prove" that arborsculpture is a generic term not limited to Reames-style tree shaping. I've given much evidence. Can anyone prove the opposite? --Griseum (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a typo. I changed 2 references to "arborsculpture" above. --Griseum (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. I don't care if the name of the artform as a whole is Tree shaping or Tree training etc... these name don't have a method link to them. Arborsculpture is linked to a method. Quotes from Tree shaping talk page Tree shaping talk page The word Arborsculpture is controversial. Blackash (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back a moment, WHY do you think you are allowed to use Wikipedia for that agenda? It's a clear violation of WP:COI. Answer this question! Tonight I discovered how you "chase" the word arborculture around the net and tell people they are using it wrong. Then you point to the Wikipedia article as proof (examples). That's your business, but when you want to control content of the very article you are using as a weapon against a profession rival, we got a problem. At this point, I'm not particularly interested in months old opinions of Wikipedia editors (and I supsect some may not have understood the extent of what you are trying to get away with.) I could just snap "WP:PROVEIT" and sit smug, but I won't. I've been editing for a few years more than you have and realize these sort of things can't necessarily be proven in a literal sense. Instead, how about at least some scraps of evidence supporting the exclusionist definitions you want us to publish? --Griseum (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The evidence presented above is convincing that the term "arborsculpture" is also used in relation to tree shaping in general, and not always to the work of Richard Reames. I don't, as yet, follow the arguments that using the term arborsculpture in a general article on tree shaping would have any impact on Pooktre. If there is likely to be some confusion, then that should be made clear in the article. We would look for more clarity and information at all times - provided it can be reliably sourced. I am prepared to listen to an explanation of how using "arborsculpture" in the general sense of tree shaping would be confusing in an article on tree shaping. The article, as I understand it, is not about Pooktre, and the section about Pooktre doesn't mention arborsculpture, though the section on Reames does say that he coined the term. I feel that is clear enough, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. SilkTork *YES! 11:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Our issue with the word Arborsculpture is, it's linked with a method. The method used is the instant shaping method. We use the gradual shaping method. When a method is linked to a word and that word is used as generic term for the artform, the assumption is anyone branded by the word uses the linked method. Our trees are unachievable using the methods laid out in Richard Reames's books Blackash (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I just gave you about 30 links indicating that people do not associate the word with a specific method. Is this really all you have to say? --Griseum (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the evidence above suggests that the word "arborsculpture" has become a thoroughly generic term, at least as much as "tree sculpting" and "living art" and "botanical architecture", and as currently used is disconnected from any specific method. (Unless there is new evidence to the contrary). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of trees

There had been a list of trees removed. I originally compiled this list from various locations, both published and online. As this is one of the common questions we receive in e-mails, I think this would be of value to people reading the article. Blackash (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

While I'd like to see all citable names listed somewhere in the article, Blackash's efforts to remove the word "arborsculpture" from the lead in favor of its inclusion in a poorly-formatted section at the bottom of the page are part of a clearly devious agenda. SilkTork put it there for a reason and it’s common to list a few alternate names in the lead. Given the overwhelming popularity of the name "arborsculpture", it might be appropriate for the lead to say "also known as arborsculpture and other names". Given what has transpired and the evidence that has brought forward by both sides, I don’t think Blackash would like the results if this article came up for another renaming discussion. “Tree shaping” is NOT the most common name for this practice, arborsculpture is. Some people don’t know when to quit. --Griseum (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_4&oldid=1091484569"