Talk:Tree shaping

Judging support for a descriptive phrase

Since the RfM for Arbosculpture has closed as No Consensus (for better or worse) I would like people to seriously consider the only other option that fully complies with Wikipedia Policy. Note this is not an RfM or anything "official" like that. I just want to gauge support and possibly work out ideas on what would be an acceptable phrase to use. Since my original proposal has been archived I will re-post the essentials below:

Supporting references

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

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

General discussion of 'Using a Descriptive Phrase'

This is the only option that prevents WP from influencing the naming debate. It is compliant with all WP policies, and will resolve all title related disputes. If at some future date one name gains a consensus in the artistic community the title can be changed to reflect that. That being said this is not a "Holding title" or a temporary remedy, it is the best title that can be applied currently. All WP articles and their titles are subject to change, if at some point the term being used for any WP article falls out of common use the title can change. In this case if one name becomes the term clearly used by the artistic community as a whole the title can be changed to reflect that, just as it would be for any other article.

My first suggestion would be "Training plants into useful objects". Five words, only half of the ten word suggested limit put forth in the WP:MoS. It covers what the art is without any association to any practitioner. It is a Verbal noun. "Useful" is broad enough to mean both objects used as tools etc. and those used as art, while "objects" covers those works harvested and those that remain growing. "Training" (or "Growing") implies living plants which excludes shaping wood with tools etc. As far as I can see this is short, simple, and resolves all the issues about the title. It does not allow any editor to use WP to promote or attack any particular name, and most importantly it cannot affect the real naming debate that is going on in the artistic community. I will place other suggestions below.

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

Possible options

• "Training plants into useful objects" Colincbn (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Growing plants into useful objects" Colincbn (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Forming objects out of living plants" <=Actually, this one is "growing" on me (^_^) Colincbn (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support any of the above. I do not support any name for the article which readers might think is the actual name of the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture is still the best name but we are where we are. Perhaps once further academic sources develop desciptions for the art in future, the issue can be looked at in a more sensible manner, without SPAs and involved editors being given undue weight. Given the WP:COI attention on this article a descriptive phrase would at least prevent Wikipedia being used to further off wiki disputes (the most damaging of the issues arising from the current unsatisfactory name). Of the above options I would favour "Forming objects out of living plants". The 'useful' in the other suggestions seems to me unhelpful as several of the circus trees for example are more decorative / artistic than useful as such. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Colin you are putting the cart before the horse. First, the policies you are quoting are wrong when applied to tree shaping and the other title options. Is anyone claiming Pleaching, tree training or tree shaping are neologisms? If not WP:NEO doesn’t apply. We do have short-hand terms,so in this case we should choose the one with the most reliable refs. You have stated here Tree shaping doesn’t have refs, but I and other editors disagree. I believe Pleaching and Tree training also have refs though not as many as tree shaping. The part of WP:Title you are quoting doesn’t apply,we aren’t inventing a new name, we would be following the refs. Let's establish whether or not tree shaping is the wrong name first. You have stated twice on Blackash’s talk page that you think tree shaping may be the best name, while also stating here that there are no refs. Let's find out if there are reliable refs,if there are. I guess you would then support leaving the article at tree shaping. ?oygul (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC) ++

If we are going to choose the one with the most reliable refs it would be Arbosculpture. I do think tree shaping is a great name for the art, but it is unacceptable as the name of the article at this time. Colincbn (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also WP:NEO applies because all policies always apply. NEO points out what to do if a subject does not have a consensus name. Colincbn (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that “all policies always apply”. The WP:NEO clearly states it’s about neologisms by the leading statement “Articles on neologisms” as Tree shaping is not a neologism this part WP:DICTIONARY policy doesn’t apply. The part of WP:NEO you have quoted even gives its exemption when it talks about no short hand term exists. We have a range of short hand terms that have been used in media, but first we need to establish whether or not tree shaping has reliable refs.?oygul (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Pleaching means something else as the article on the subject shows.

'Tree training' means something else, it refers to the standard practice of training fruit and ornamental trees. It is quite different from what is described in this article..

'Tree shaping' means something else, it generally refers to the practice of pruning or lopping, generally large mature trees, to produce a natural shape. Ask any arborist.

If we are not going to use the word that dare not speak its name we must use a descriptive phrase, as suggested by Colin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski has shown a way to solve that problem by adding a hat note at the top of the page. Wiki also has other ways to cope with dual meanings of a word. As for pleaching it does have refs and I started adding content and refs and you removed them with the edit comment of "Regardless of the refs this is clearly an atypical example". On the subpage here there are about 16 refs, Wiki content is added by following the refs. ?oygul (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It says "no acceptable short hand term". Please don't misquote. And the policy is explaining what to do in this exact situation. You can't just pick and choose the policies you want to follow. There is no majority use name for this art, we can't just make one up, and we can't decide which of the various names used is "the best". So we avoid that mine-field altogether by not deciding on a name at all. Colincbn (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, your comment can be taken two ways. I am replying to one.“acceptable short hand term” Multiple editors and admins think tree shaping is acceptable,they can be found throughout the history. Colincbn you have already stated that tree shaping may be the best name,if it is found that tree shaping has many reliable refs, would you still have objections, and if so, what wold they be? ?oygul (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Noting that Colincbn (talk · contribs) appears to have retired from Wikipedia,[1] so may not ever be answering the above question. --Elonka 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be asking why a good and conscientious editor should suddenly retire from WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors retire all the time, for a variety of reasons. In any case, this is not the proper venue for that discussion, though if you would like to ask him on his talkpage, you are welcome to do so. Here at Talk:Tree shaping, best is if the discussion stays focused on the article. --Elonka 18:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

double up refs

The number of doubled up refs in the Alternative names section seems to have made their point. Could we now clean it up to the best 3 for each name? Maybe we could add the extra refs to one of the subpages, so they are not lost into the archives. Blackash have a chat 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea, a clean ref section will make researching this topic easier.Millertime246 (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through and tidied up the references section. I have kept a copy of what was in the alternative names here so no references are lost. At a later time I'll see if there is anything that can be added to the main article from those references. Blackash have a chat 01:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

primary ref

Martin the text and ref you provide doesn't meet policy. As you have stated before "must be made by reliable secondary sources" holds true for your edit as well. The ref you give is a primary source, please give a reliable secondary source.?oygul (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly valid ref. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This reference is a primary source, it's self published which makes it invalid. It's the only cite for the claim that Richard has taught at John C. Campbell Folk School. Which is a 3rd party claim so for that claim it needs a secondary source. Blackash have a chat 08:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources are considered less reliable that independent ones and, in cases where there is a disagreement between primary sources, secondary sources should be used to decide. In this case there are no sources which cast any doubt on the information given in the cited primary, self-published source, and the information is not particularly contentious so the cited sources is perfectly adequate. Are you claiming that the information is inaccurate or is there some principle shared with ?oygul involved here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other (which is why I didn't remove it) I was just pointing out policy. It has been call into question, and my understanding is unless you can get a secondary source it doesn't stay. Quote from WP:BLP#Reliable sources "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." Also WP:SPS says, 'if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. But I'm not going to remove it and now I'm finished with this discussion. Blackash have a chat 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin when looking at why a self published source is allow to be included one of the criteria is, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" from WP:SPS. I have grave doubts about anything on the www.arborsmith.com site. I was doing some due diligence on claims from this site and found multiple mistakes.

Here is a couple from one page to give everyone a taste,

On his web site page www.arborsmith.com/events.html it has the heading of Upcoming Arborsculpture Events

• It states RR will lecture at Western Chapter International Society of arboriculture at 1:15 P.M. on Friday April 30th. First clue is that 30th April of 2012 is a Mon and having read all the tree shaping archives I know that in Feb/March/April 2010 the term arboriculture was suddenly being used interchangeably with arborsculpture. After doing some checking I believe that RR may have lectured but in 2010. I couldn't find anything for 2011 or in 2012.
• It states RR will be teaching a week long class at the John C. Campbell Folk School in early November 2011. When I clicked on the link given the resulting page states the classes are full this year. I contacted the school and they wrote back saying there is no arborsculpture class.

When using google to check something it gives either RR website or wiki, looks very circular to me. It appears that there is some platform building going on and that is not what wiki is here for.?oygul (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Books

{{Request edit}} I'm Becky Northey I'd like to add the 2 books written by Peter Cook and myself. In this section Tree_shaping#Peter_Cook_and_Becky_Northey Suggested text

In 2010, Peter and Becky released two books. The first one was '3 Methods of Tree shaping'. Their second book 'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' teaches the Pooktre process of tree shaping.

Book details for refs

'3 Methods of Tree Shaping' SharBrin Publishing ISBN:978-1-921571-41-1 Published 2012

'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' SharBrin Publishing ISBN:978-1-927571-54-1 Copyright 2010 Published 2012

If no-one has any objections to this text I'll add on my next editing day, which will be either a fortnight or in a month's time. Please feel free to add it before then or make changes to the text. Thanks Blackash have a chat 03:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your books are only available through your website, Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees, or as recently published Kindle ebooks [2]. They should be included in the article only after there is demonstrated interest by the public in them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If independent RS book reviews exist, then this could be included. --regentspark (comment) 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. I'll switch off the edit request. SmartSE (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe in a few months time Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees will have independent reviews. I'll now also submit 3 Methods of Tree Shaping for reviews as well. When I get the reviews I'll asked again. Blackash have a chat 05:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom comment " those books are WP:SPS and thus inadmissible as WP:RS" diff. Is partly correct and why I'm following the advice of the above editors to wait until I have media reviews of the books which would show a "demonstrated interest by the public" before asking again for them to be including into our section. Blackash have a chat 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

However, read WP:RS and WP:SPS carefully: such are reliable sources in a narrowly-defined area, mainly, in articles or sections about themselves. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

replacing name

I agree with the editor who created the hat note. Pooktre is the most relevant and should be in the lead. ?oygul (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you supporting the inclusion of a proprietary name in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin to date Pooktre is only proprietary in regards to our books and jewellery. Through we do call our art work Pooktre. Pooktre isn't business unincorporated or other wise, SharBrin Publishing is our business.Blackash have a chat 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm the editor who removed it. I was alerted to it possibly causing a problem on my talk page by the inimitable User:Elonka. I apologize if I upset a balance here, but bear with me as I tell it like I see it from a quick perusal of this talk page: "Pooktre" is a proprietary brand name (from the article, it's a portmanteau of the names of two tree designers), like calling the article on "Cocoa" (also known as "Hershey's"; see WP:PROMOTION or WP:ADVOCACY - I think it's one of those, but I rarely have to invoke them so I am uncertain). From the tone of the above poster, those interested in keeping it there have bad WP:COI, representing the "Pooktre" collective ("it is only proprietary in regards to our..."). The article should adhere to WP:UCN and WP:NPOV as it pertains to entitling and naming. I know nothing about the subject matter, but, based on what little I found on Google, "Pooktre" does not make the cut. "Arborsculpture" seemed to be neutral to me (as, unlike "Pooktre", it has an innate relation to the subject matter), but, upon reading the article, it was also coined, possibly as a proprietary name. If so, it should be removed from the lead as well. I hope a pair of fresh eyes helps. Edit: as far as the above section, those books are WP:SPS and thus inadmissible as WP:RS. I cut my teeth here on religion debates (and WP:BRD) so I apologize in advance for any perceived incivility, brusqueness, ignorance, or lack of understanding or previous consensus on my behalf.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom I take exception to your comment of "From the tone of the above poster, those interested in keeping it there have bad WP:COI, representing the "Pooktre" collective ("it is only proprietary in regards to our...")."

This comment leads to few misunderstandings.

• "those interested in keeping it there"

This implies any editor over the history of this article who added Pooktre or discussed adding it to the lead must be doing so from a COI point of view. Multiple uninvolved editors have discussed/added Pooktre to the lead for different reasons.

• ""Pooktre" collective ("it is only proprietary in regards to our...")." "

This implies to me that are large group of people who are "Pooktre"

The "our" in my comment refers to my life partner (Peter Cook) and myself (Becky Northey)

• "bad WP:COI"

This implies even talking is editing with COI.

Where in point of fact WP:COI encourages editors to talk about why and how of their COI. Doing so shows a level of honesty and good faith. Blackash have a chat 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. I saw only those comments on a quick perusal of this talkpage (no, talking isn't COI, and I'm not assuming bad faith, merely interpreting policies which you may be unaware of). As I have no knowledge of the subject, "Pooktre" seemed to imply a larger group (along with how it is included in the article): if it is two people alone, it is even less notable without something stating, "Tree sculpting, which was pioneered or popularized by these two people..." or "Tree sculpting, which has become synonymous with the "Pooktre method" popularized by X and Y in the public consciousness" or something to that effect. Based on a quick view of the talk page and jumping to conclusions, WP:COI, as far as I understand it, it would be best, if not required, if you do not edit something in a way that could be considered promotion: that is, bring your knowledge of tree sculpting to bear to improve the content of the article, but leave naming (if you have a vested interest in naming the subject) to disinterested editors. Note, that I have no idea if half of the people on this talk page are competing tree sculptors. If so - *gulp*. To draw an analogy, because, as always, I express myself poorly: Sure, I could edit about my seminary, either to praise it for Z or to bitch about it for AA, but I don't - however, I do edit many articles on Christianity, bringing knowledge gained there to bear. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)