Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

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 Since my original proposal has been archived I will re-post the essentials below: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)

I believe the above text I asked to be include would be appropriate once I give the media details that I have. WP:RS and WP:SPS don't apply to that text as it's talking about the books not using them to add content to wikipedia. Blackash have a chat 04:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was saying: WP:SPS are reliable sources when used about themselves and also in certain other limited circumstances (that's why I said to read the policies carefully, figuring you may have more room than you expect to use them): it's WP:NOTABILITY that matters then, but, as I know not of the intricacies of this topic—I bought a Bonzai tree once and tried to grow a rosebush—I leave matters of notability for the more competent to judge. The "demonstrated public interest" has nothing to do with making it a reliable source, but has to do with establishing notability.

I believe, but I am uncertain, if one was to reference an extremely well-known author, even, say, St Augustine or St Irenaeus or the Holy Bible or Cicero or Livy or Plato or Aristotle or Gibbon out of a work published by a small press or vanity press (as many old titles are republished at exorbitant prices on Amazon as such, often photocopies: I think photocopies would probably count as RS), it would be considered a WP:SPS (as no one could tell if it was adulterated or not, unless it was found in a proper copy and verified; I have used a print-on-demand copy of Adversus Haerases by St Irenaeus by Ex Fontibus on here, as it's re-typeset but includes the original pagination, etc. in the margins, and the original footnotes - but it still probably could be challenged until I could get it from the Loeb Classical Library or ACW or ANF1 [edit note: the last two are some of the main collections/scholarly standards of early Church Fathers in translation and are ridiculously expensive]). (PS Sorry for the massive indenting - I didn't see that there was an outdent right above me, as it wasn't marked with {{outdent}}. I've fixed it and added a space so people can see it.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:28, 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)

As a reminder to everyone, this article is under ArbCom sanctions, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping#Remedies. Specifically, Blackash, Slowart, and Sydney Bluegum are banned from discussing the name of the practice. Technically, Blackash violated the ban by posting the above comments, so I have posted a reminder to Blackash's talkpage, and if Blackash continues posting comments, I'm going to start handing out blocks. John Chrysostom, if you have specific questions which are direct to Blackash, you may ask, and Blackash may give brief replies, but other than that Blackash, Sydney Bluegum, and Slowart are not to participate in this particular discussion. --Elonka 04:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

John, you have walked into something of a hornets nest here. There a has been an Arbocom case, which I started, concerning the COI of the banned editors above. Despite the banning of these editors, however, and a two thirds majority to move the page, the decision was made by a passing admin to keep it at the current title of 'Tree shaping', a made-up term which is not used to refer to this art in any reliable source. If you have the time and patience I can explain it all to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin I strongly disagree with your comment "'Tree shaping', a made-up term which is not used to refer to this art in any reliable source." Tree shaping is a descriptive phase that does have multiple refs from newspapers, magazines, governments and colleges. list of refs ?oygul (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For consensus in article naming.

I move, as per WP:UCN, WP:PROMOTION, and another policy that is on the tip of my tongue, to conform the lead to my original edit, preferably with a full restoration of it, in order to remove all contentious material, possible COI, or self-promotion from the lead. In any case, feel free to propose alternatives. This discussion is open to all editors who are allowed to participate (pay attention to Elonka's comments above). Note: if "arborsculpture" was also coined as a proprietary term (I realize now it may have been, but, upon first look, it is etymologically related to the topic at hand, unlike "Pooktre" [edit: I had to look the term up, as I thought it may have been a French word, like "Le Parkour" - heh] which is clearly not related, so I assumed it to be neutral) by a competing tree-sculptor, it by all means should be struck from the lead as well under the same reasoning I have given above. No promotion or commercialization should be tolerated, no matter who is doing it on whose behalf. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a long history to all of this see my comment above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin the title of this section is misleading. JohnChrysostom is discussing the lead sentence. Please don't drag this back to a title discussion. Please discuss the words in the lead. ?oygul (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

JohnChrysostom Pooktre should be in the lead for multiple reasons.

WP:ToAN “significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned”

Silktork pointed out Pooktre has similar/same sources as arborsculptue showing their use as the general name for the field.

This is a very specialize field and Pooktre is the leader in this field.

Pooktre is also talked about in most of the books on this subject.

Afd hero pointed out, the alternatives names in the lead show readers they have come to the right page.

A quick google search shows Pooktre is far more significant in this field than any other alternative name.

Colonel Warden commented “WP:NAMECON which states, "Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. ... In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.". I therefore maintain that our lead should reflect the variety of names used for the concept, as described within the body of the article and supported by sources such as Science Daily.”

There are other reasons but this is a starting point.

A breif note google is in no doubt as to where arborsculpture or Pooktre leads and lets face it, they specialize in giving people what they want for any keyword, so Google makes money. Arborsculpture in no more neutral than Pooktre. Some of the admins have stated the commercialism of the alternative names doesn’t matter. ?oygul (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Let us see what John thinks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if the editors here could work towards finding a compromise that everyone can live with. Is there a solution that might be acceptable (even if marginally so) for all parties? --Elonka 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if the admins that have been involved here would look at the clear facts of the case. The name 'tree shaping' came from nowhere and has never been generally used to describe the subject of this article. Wikipedia does not compromise on facts just because some editors have a commercial and personal objection to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the job of Wikipedia administrators is not to make a decision on content, but to help provide a structured environment in which editors in the topic area can come to a consensus on how to proceed. As an administrator, I have no opinion on what this article is called, nor how the lead should be written. I'm perfectly content to leave that decision up to you folks, the editors who are working on the article, and participating in the talkpage discussions. I'm just here to help keep things stable so that those editors who are capable of compromise and consensus, are able to craft a solution. Any editors who do not appear to be capable of compromise, or who are violating policies in some other way (such as by using poor sources, or misrepresenting good sources), I may choose to remove from the discussion. That way the other editors who are capable of consensus, are able to proceed in a productive manner. --Elonka 20:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If only that were so but you may remember that despite a clear 2/3 majority consensus to move this article an admin made the decision not to move it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There may be a terminology confusion here. Majority is not the same as consensus. It is not uncommon for a discussion to appear to have a majority of editors commenting in one way, but the actual consensus may be something different. When administrators review these discussions, we don't (or aren't supposed to) count votes. Instead, administrators are to read the entire discussion, judge the strength of the arguments, and may sometimes give more weight to the opinions of uninvolved editors, as opposed to those who are regular participants in a particular discussion. See also WP:RMCI, Wikipedia:Consensus, and WP:CLOSE for more info on how this works. --Elonka 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you care to check you will see that every single uninvolved editor wanted to move the article to 'arborsculpture'.

The way in which these things are decided, not just in this case, is in my opinion, completely wrong. Are you saying that administrators have some kind of special powers to sum up a complex argument better than anybody else with just a cursory examination of the facts? In this particular case the arguments were obfuscated by interference from at least two editors who had actually been banned. The outside independent editors all took the time to look into the issue and its history properly and they all came to exactly the same conclusion and I cannot see any rational for an admin to overrule there decisions. Please also remember that I, and some of the other 'involved' editors, came in response to an RfC on this subject and have no connection or special interest in the subject. My only concern is the independence of WP from commercial pressure.

I am going to leave this for now and hope that we get some more independent editors who will take the time to look at what has happened here. I may take some things back to arbcom if I have the time as I think their original objective have not been properly realised. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The italicized sentence appears to me to make no sense. Am I wrong?

Many different tree species have been used for this art form, but some trees are better suited than others. Grafting is a unique and distinguishing feature evident in many examples of the work is the purposeful inosculation of living trunks, branches, and roots to form artistic designs or functional structures.

I think this should be two sentences, but I can't figure out how to break it up. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Grafting is a distinguishing technique use by most of the artists. It's used to join the living trunks, branches, and roots to form artistic designs or functional structures.

How's that? Blackash have a chat 13:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hugely better. I finally understand what the sentence is trying to say. Now, may I give it a try?

Most artists use grafting to deliberately induce the inosculation of living trunks, branches, and roots, into artistic designs or functional structures.

Thoughts? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the best of both. Go for it. Blackash have a chat 10:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead and do it right now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2012

Please replace (under Dan Ladd) He is based in Florida to He is based in Northampton, MA because that is now the case. You can verify this by email (dan@danladd.com). I am the webmaster for Dan. I would also like to add a photo to the page, which I will work on next.

Roblasch (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I've done it for now because it checks out on linkedin etc, and is neutral information that couldn't possibly be damaging if false, but could you please as a matter of urgency add something to that webpage so it can be given a reliable source. Email souring won't do. Otherwise it's liable to be reverted at any time. Egg Centric 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing this I knew he had moved but missed fixing it on the page. Blackash have a chat 01:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Please add this image to Dan Ladd's section of the page.

File:Dan Ladd Crepe Myrtle Arch.jpg

Beginning Stage of Latticed Arch by Dan Ladd

This is an example of some recent tree shaping work by Dan Roblasch (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding Book

I'm Becky Northey I'd like to add 1 of the books written by Peter Cook and myself. In this section Tree_shaping#Peter_Cook_and_Becky_Northey Suggested text

In 2012, Peter and Becky released a book. Titled 'Knowledge to Grow Shaped Trees' which teaches the Pooktre process of tree shaping.

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

I have already request this here, but now can show media interest in this book.

• 17/03/12 by Graham Williams (known as Willow), from 666 abc Canberra Radio.
• 17/03/12 by Phil Dudman from ABC North Coast NSW Radio.
• 08/04/12 by Clair Levander from 4BC Talking Gardening Brisbane Radio
• Newspaper article written by FALLON, FIONNUALA (Saturday, March 3, 2012). "The trees that shape our lives". The Irish Times (Ireland). Retrieved 08 March 2012. Talks about Pooktre method and gives our web site and a link to the sale page of the book.
• 09/05/12 WIN TV at 6.55pm show about tree shaping by Brian Sams. They asked about the book and gave a link to the book.
• 16/05/12 WIN TV at 6.55pm show how to shape trees by Brian Sams. They asked about the book and gave a link to the book.
• Bits ‘n Bytes Botanical – August 2012 International Dendrology Society's newsletter
• SubTropical Gardening magazine November Issue 29 page 87
• Better Homes and Gardens magazine December 2012 issue page 140

I'll add more as they come in. Blackash have a chat 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If any one has any objections to my requested text please speak. As the backlog of requested edits has only grown, I'll add on my next editing day, which will be in about a month's time. Please feel free to add it before then or make changes to the text. Thanks Blackash have a chat 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for raising this via Talk. I started off thinking, no problem, we can just add the book in a 'further reading' section - the Irish Times have reviewed it. However looking a bit more closely, they don't actually mention the book and am I right in thinking that SharBrin Publishing is your own publisher? Also I can't find any independent mention of the book at all and from what I can see the radio program mentions are not verifiable. You'll appreciate that that makes it a bit difficult under the WP:Notability policies. There is a real danger that any attempt to get the book on the page will immediately be reverted as WP:SPAM. I would advise some patience until the book has better coverage. This is not an advertising hoarding, after all. Regards Mcewan (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to get links for any of those radio shows where the book is mentioned? That would help/ Thanks Mcewan (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mcewan, Yes SharBrin Publishing is our publisher but the book did have 5 editors. I was working on User:Fred Bauder comment of "They should be included in the article only after there is demonstrated interest by the public in them." Which is why I thought the link in the newspaper was of interest. But I do understand where you are coming from. I know that there was an article in the Ipswich paper titled something like Top 5 Ways to improve your garden which was about shaping trees and in that it mentions our book at the end, but it been hard to get the details. There is a book review in organic gardener but it's not out until October and there a book review happening in Sub-topical Plants but not sure when it's going to be out yet. I look into the radio shows and see if there is any mention of it online. Thanks I'll wait until these other book reviews are published, and I'll bring it up on the talk page then. Blackash have a chat 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead ref

Martin the ref I removed is a dead link. I was fixing the links as suggested by Yworo at Richard Reames talk. Could you please give a valid link to the ref in question. Martin back up your claim of "?oygul removing references to arborsculpture again" with a diff. ?oygul (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You also changed the wording from 'arborscuptor' to 'Nurseryman and Author'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin I can't find a RS for arborsculptor. Can you? My understanding is dead links are removed please provide a valid link. ?oygul (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin please discuss these issues above, so we can come to a consensus. ?oygul (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Reames is the inventor of the term and a well-known practitioner of the art a RS is hardly required. If you insist that one is required, I am sure that with a little application you could find one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, Wiki follows the sources and wiki is not a dictionary. Martin you have also had WP:BLP#Reliable sources pointed out to you before. [3] Quote from "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, 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."

There is no RS for arborsculptor that I can find, I have removed it again. The WP:BURDEN is upon you if you want to put it back. Please don't replace it until you can find a RS for the term as per policy. ?oygul (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin I have also commented about your inappropriate edit summary on your talk page [4]. ?oygul (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you have. I do not consider it inappropriate to raise the fact that your edits often try to remove the word arborsculpture from WP and to denigrate the status of Reames. You might look at some of your comments about him on the talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin, in your comment just above you are again accusing me with no supporting diffs. What I find inappropriate is your tone in your edit summary. To clarify I will bold the text "Well blow me down if it is not ?oygul removing references to arborsculpture again." Please give links-diffs to support your various accusations. ?oygul (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To anyone else reading this I would suggest, not to take Martin at his word. As he seems to have trouble with giving diffs-links to support his claims. ?oygul (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

link here too

Fruit tree forms Seems to be relevant to this page. I was actually looking for tree shapes called Form Factors - there does not seem to be a wikipedia article in English on this. You can see more on this wiki: http://wiki.awf.forst.uni-goettingen.de/wiki/index.php/Stem_shape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.84.129 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this it's interesting, I'll look more into it when I edit next. Blackash have a chat 14:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)