Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20


Tidying up

This article contains a good deal of useful information on the topic, and is a good resource. I think it's time to consider it for Good Article listing. I'm going through the article tidying up a few issues before nominating it. I'll raise queries here as I go along. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See also

A See also section is generally not required by the time an article is at Good Article level, as it is expected that related topics would be mentioned (and linked) within the main body - per WP:See also. Why are the three tree cutting articles listed? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be there. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed all except Fab Tree Hab. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Fab Tree Hab

The See also section links to the Fab Tree Hab article. There is only one source for the topic. Is it notable enough for a stand alone article? I can see it being related to the Tree shaping article, and so perhaps a mention in the article itself is worth considering. Would it be worth considering merging the main points of the Fab Tree Hab article into Tree shaping, and then redirecting the title here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree keep article. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to have some information on Fab Tree Hab in the article. It can then be removed as a See also link. I don't think this is a priority though, and can be part of ongoing development. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The best section would be in Plantings for the future. As the Fab Tree Hab is still a concept. Blackash have a chat 12:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
added it in and will build it up some more over the next few days. Blackash have a chat 11:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
External links

The external links need looking at in reference to WP:EL. When an article is developing, some links can be useful to provide additional information, but at the point where an article is ready to be listed, the article should provide enough information to stand alone. Exceptions are listed at WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, such as copyright material, cast lists, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems we most likely we don't need the external links anymore then. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Time component

This section needs additional sources to support what is being said. However, I'm wondering a) how useful the information is to the general reader, and b) if it needs a section to itself. Perhaps it could be condensed to a couple of sourced sentences - or considered for complete removal. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with removal of Time component section and suggest removal of Instant tree shaping and Gradual tree shaping. The references may have issues.Slowart (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll look more closely at this before taking any action. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The time taken to achieve a tree shaping depends on the method used. So really this section should be worked into the methods section. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Multiple editors have commented that having the methods in the article is what makes it interesting. There also have been comments that the methods is what the reader was looking for in this article eg Sydney Bluegum. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Species options

The section which lists the trees which have been used for shaping appears to be of little or no value to the general reader. The section starts by saying that any tree can be used, then provides a laundry list of trees that have been used. There are no encyclopedic facts regarding the characteristics of these trees, so it appears to be merely a data dump. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree, remove. Slowart (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with this move. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Citations

I have marked those sections and sentences which would appear to benefit from additional citations. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I'll check this out tomorrow and see what I can find. Blackash have a chat 03:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Found Ian Hicks book again will read tomorrow and see if I can find some refs for Grafting/framing/Pruning. Blackash have a chat 12:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Lead

The lead will need some attention per WP:Lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I think when the above matters have been addressed, the article can be nominated for listing as a Good Article. I think this is doable within a week. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Given history of the page I think a week is being optimistic, but this is great news and I'll help if I can. I believe that some of the current references are suspect and should be vetted. Slowart (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking a week to be ready for nominating for GA so it's not quick failed. There will be a delay before the article is picked up for review, during which further improvements can be made. The delay can be several months! And then there's the review itself. The reviewer is likely to pick up points missed by contributors, and there will then be a period of working on the article to finish off the final concerns. The whole process may take anything between one and six months - maybe even longer! SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you indicate some of the sources you have concerns about. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This, #22 Swati Balgi (September 2009), "Live Art", Society Interiors Magazine (Prabhadevi, Mumbai: Magna Publishing)http://pooktre.com/pdf/Innovation.pdf Slowart (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems OK - India's leading design magazine. Is it because the copy is hosted on Pooktre's website? SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's a poor reference because it is a interview with only one artist, sourced presumably from this one person. "Instant Tree Shaping" and "Gradual tree shaping" should be sourced from at least one more reliable source where the story is independent of this one artist. Slowart (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ummm how do you know it was only sourced from one person? Or who they talked to or researched apart from that?
To quote Elonda on sources.

Just to be clear, whether or not it is based on Pooktre opinions is not the defining factor for determining a primary or secondary source. If something is a direct quote, it is primary. If something is written by the reporter though (even if based on an interview), then that is a secondary source. See also WP:PSTS for more info on this." --Elonka 17:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Blackash have a chat 05:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into what the magazine is sourcing. I just looked into the nature of the source itself, which seems fine. OK, I just did a search for "Instant Tree Shaping", and I'm on page 7 of Google and have found little other than Wikipedia mirrors, so it doesn't appear to be a notable term. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There are various refs talking about methods or techniques. There is clearly 3 different ways to shape trees. What the headings are don't really matter to me. We need headings to differentiate between the methods. Blackash have a chat 04:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The Instant Tree Shaping has one reliable ref. There is this ref London financial times august 8/9 2009 http://www.pooktre.com/images/media/ft-story.jpg but it's a direct quote from me so I didn't add it. Or you could also add a ref from our book as a supporting ref. I didn't add it either as it is self-published and I'm one of the authors. Peter Cook being the other.
3 Methods of Tree Shaping
Every Aspiring Tree Shaper should be Aware of
ISBN 978-1-921571-41-1
Gradual tree shaping has more than two refs but I didn't see the point of adding more.Blackash have a chat 04:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm thinking there may be a little more tidying up than I initially thought. I am not giving up on the article, though I am putting it on the backburner for a little while to work on a couple of other things. I'm taking this page off my watchlist for the moment, so I'll not be seeing any comments here until I come back to the article later. Perhaps in a month's time. I don't want to leave it too long. If I haven't come back in two months, and nobody in the meantime has taken the article to GAN, then please give me a ping on my talkpage. I do think there's a lot of good stuff here, and this would, with a bit of work, make a Good Article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Methods

I replaced the training section in the gradual method as it shows how it is different then the two other methods. Why was it removed? Blackash have a chat 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this misundersting found missing text and placed it in the right place. Blackash have a chat 10:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wondering why the images in the methods section were removed. A picture says a thousand words. Blackash have a chat 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is already image rich. The drawings were the least informative of the images. I was finding it difficult to deal with them as I edited that section, then realised they were not helpful in themselves, so the struggle to keep them in the article was disproportionate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally like images in articles. The images in the methods section but can wait until we sorted the wording out for ease of editing. Blackash have a chat 10:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names

SilkTork there had been lots of talk about how this section should be worded. This discussion is the most on topic and gives the my reasoning behind the wording. Colincb had also edited the wording in alternative names as well. Blackash have a chat 11:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried rewording the section based on the old text as a couple of points were lost/blended into each other with the rewording. Restating what tree shaping is in this section is not very interesting to the reader. Blackash have a chat 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"There has been various names used to describe this art-form" is not appropriate as tree shaping is a bit more than an "art-form". "Each practitioner around the world has their own name for their art" is now pushing the point about "art". "The result has been no standard name for the art form to emerge" is pushing "art" for the third time in three sentences. "Though Richard Reames calls the whole art-form arborsculpture." Now we have four mentions of art in four sentences. Without meaning to, the section ends up appearing to be pushing a POV that tree shaping is an art, and that would not be acceptable at Good Article level. The point of the section is merely to let readers know that there are alternative names, though it helps to give the reader some awareness of where the names are most associated, which is what I was doing. The section wasn't perfect, but it was not problematic (which it is now), and it was more informative than it is now. I will restore to my last edit, and let's move it forward from there rather than move it backwards. I like collaborative editing. I do feel uncomfortable with reverts. If you have a significant problem with my edits, please discuss it rather than reverting. If you are unable to do that, then I would rather stop editing here and move elsewhere. I don't wish to fight anyone! SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
SilkTork Great! Collaborative is the best! As you know I have always discussed edits. WP:CYCLEYou have some very valid points.
  • Your new intro sentence is much better than either earlier versions.
  • I agree with the art comment.
  • to give the reader some awareness of where the names are most associated, I agree with. Blackash have a chat 04:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Long time ago I had short description with each name. Should I work on doing that again with good refs. Example

  • circus trees
Used to refer to Axel Erlandson's trees which he originally named Tree circus. Ref
Used by the Growing Village Pavilion at the world expo in Japan in 2005. Ref
  • eco-architecture
Used for the concept of using trees and other plants as walls in sustainable buildings. Ref
Green design architecture/eco-construction Ref
Green wall systems for buildings and the built environment wherein plants are grown vertically in modular panels. Ref
  • grownup furniture
Dr Chris Cattle calls his trees "grownup furniture" ref. Or wouldn't that work? Blackash have a chat 04:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Refs

I removed this ref, http://www.soton.ac.uk/~doctom/talks/botanical-engineering.pdf I could not find anything in it to support the text under "Structure". Looks like e paper, sourced entirely from web sites anyway. [1] Slowart (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone find "Artist tree", Better Homes and Gardens, December 2012: 140, Thanks Slowart (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
We have a copy what do you want to know? Blackash have a chat 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
What does it say to support the 3 times it used in the Gradual Tree shaping method? And who wrote the article? Slowart (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Better Homes and Gardens spent a day filming our trees. Their story has now been shown across Australia twice. It's Australia’s leading gardening mag is part of the 7 network they showcase their upcoming T.V. stories as well as other interesting stories. We were asked for images at the time of filming for the magazine.
  1. Gradual tree shaping starts with designing and framing.[20][24][25][26]
  1. Quote:- The Pooktre technique for shaping trees is a gradual process which begins when the trees are young. While the method they use is time consuming,....
If I remember correctly I originally put the ref in just after Gradual tree shaping part of the sentence, it's since be moved to the end.
  1. There is a small area just behind the growing tip that forms the final shape. [24] [27]
  2. The shaping zone, [24] [27]
  1. For the above two Quote:- The Shaping Zone is the most important part of the branch when it comes to fashioning a tree's form. It's a small area of the branch, just behind the growing tip.... This zone is where the final form of any tree is determined ....
Blackash have a chat 09:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
So the refrence is a T.V. segment, titled "Artist tree", Better Homes and Gardens, December 2012: 140 and quotes are from Pooktre on the film? That would make it a primary source, no? Slowart (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No, the ref and above quotes are from the article in the Better Homes and Garden mag. The BHG mag article doesn't just parrot what was said in the show. Peter or I are not interviewed in the article, so no it's not a primary source as we are not talking, the text was written by the reporter so it is a secondary source. Blackash have a chat 22:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/better-homes-gardens/gardening/articles/a/-/16553235/pooktre-garden/ it ? Slowart (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that web page shows only part of the article. For the full article you will need the printed and published BHG mag. There is some images and text missing in that link from the full article. I have the printed and published BHG mag in my hand that I brought at the supermarket. The article is on page 140. Blackash have a chat 07:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you add the authors name to the ref? Slowart (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Blackash have a chat 05:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

clarification needed

SilkTork what did you mean by adding clarification needed to this sentence. "Greek Klismos chairs legs had been trained for the correct curvature in 500 BC."

Was it a word that needed simplifying or did you mean it should have more detail then this one sentence? Blackash have a chat 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


I've now removed the sentence, and reprinting it here: "Greek Klismos chairs legs had been trained for the correct curvature in 500 BC.{{clarify|date=April 2013}}<ref name=TheGarden/><ref name="TheIndependent" />". I tagged it initially as the wording was unclear and ungrammatical. I just did some research to see what the meaning might be, and found several sources which indicate various ways the chairs could be built. Of the two sources used for the statement, one I can't read, and the other is a newspaper article. The sources I located are more detailed on the subject - but unfortunately none suggest the wood was grown. It does seem that nobody knows for sure, so training the wood is as possible as other means, I suppose. A possible reading could be: "The Greek Klismos chair had a back and legs that followed a long and elegant curve, quite difficult to create;[4] and which may have been carved from a single piece of wood,[5] or by using mortice and tenon joints,[6] or by bending by steam,[7], or by training the wood.[8]" Or something shorter, like: "The Greek Klismos chair had a back and legs that followed a long and elegant curve, quite difficult to create;[9] and which may have been constructed in several ways,[10][11][12], including by training the wood.[13]" How as this is speculation, I wonder how pertinent it is to this article. Useful to the Klismos chair article, but I'm uncertain as to its placing here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


I've also removed this sentence for the same reasons above: "The earliest known surviving examples of intentionally shaped trees are the three-legged stools grown into curved shapes in Ancient Egypt. 1570-1305 BC An example is on display at the British Museum." SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I added the sentence about the chair while working on a different part of the page from the two refs I gave. So what you found is very interesting and given the extra info you have found I agree with you that it's not useful to the reader here. Blackash have a chat 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked into the sentence: "Living trees were used to create garden houses in the Middle East, which later spread to Europe. In Cobham, Kent there are accounts of a three-story house that could hold 50 people." This comes from the same source as the above, an article in The Independent. I looked up the mention of Cobham, and found the original source for the story: [14]. This appears to be a tree house. Difficult to ascertain from that description exactly how the tree house was made, though to feel that the tree was deliberately shaped into a house, one would have to take this sentence: "the branches were spread about so orderely, as if it were done by art" to mean that the branches were deliberately trained to grow into the right spread and shape. This is a speculative reading, and I feel uncomfortable that it is being presented as fact, though I can understand its placing in the article, given that it comes from a reliable source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
How about "In the publication of Sole Paradisus Terrestris (1629) John Parkinson had written about a late sixteenth century tree house residing in Cobham, Kent. The trees' branches may have been trained to shape. It was a three-story tree house that could hold 50 people. The tree house disappeared with out a trace [15]" Or we sould just remove this part? In Cobham, Kent there are accounts of a three-story house that could hold 50 people. Blackash have a chat 23:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

I think it would be better to have photos of shaped chair trees to represent the methods. Slowart I see you have uploaded some images to wiki before. Would it be possible to provide wiki with a photo of your bench chair that is all over the web? [16] It would provide a good example of your method. ?oygul (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

At this time I support SilkTork's thought that the article is already image rich. Slowart (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Although a great photo to use is the Krubsack chair in large size. Noting he started with 6 foot trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krubsack_chair.jpg But I see that is already in the part on Krubsack. Slowart (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
If not for this article, the Richard Reames article would be improved. I feel the photo would lend more credibility to the article.?oygul (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference checking

I started checking into the refs in the method section, one "My father talked to trees" contains some of Axel Erlandson's old drawings. To use it to support the words text "Some practitioners start with detailed drawings" while true is original research. From the sampling I have done so far many of the references have issues of one sort or another. So I'll hold off until we can edit and condense a lot of it maybe reduce the workload. I think the Methods with the 3 subsection section should be reduced to one or two paragraphs in total. Slowart (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Slowart you are ignoring the words on the page. Quote "My father often made drawings of the designs he had in mind for shaping trees." I also know of ref where Mark Primark states Axel used acurate/detailed (not sure which from memory alone will check) plans and then I can also add it if needed but seems like ref overkill. Would a reasonable person question that some designs start with detailed drawings? Blackash have a chat 23:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The ref supports the fact that Axel Erlandson made drawings of his intended designs. But it does not support "Some practitioners start with detailed drawings" just using it as one an example, maybe not a great example Slowart (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Slowart/Reames I have issues with you editing this section in article as you have repeatedly requested this section to be removed, and you don't seem to understand what makes reliable ref. I request that if you want to change any thing in this section discuss your proposed changes first. Blackash have a chat 23:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think anyone can edit anything, anytime. I think the Methods section with the 3 subsection section should be reduced to one or two paragraphs in total.Slowart (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I disagree the methods should be retained and added if anything. The info about the different methods has been requested by various editors. We have plenty of reliable refs to support the inclusion. At WP:EP quote "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." Blackash have a chat 05:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Ummm just found in your self published book (which is ok as a supporting ref) where you Richard Reames are talking about Axel Erlandson drawings of his designs quote "... shaped trees that he would first draw on paper. Some of his plans were detailed to withnin 1/3in. (0.84cm.) using drafting tools. Blackash have a chat 23:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Good to know, but irrelevant, IMO. Slowart (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

POV

The methods section is not written from a neutral point of view yet. The drawings, the references and the text express a single POV, to make a point. Even posting a drawing of one of my photos? To skirt around copyright apparently. Slowart (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Slowart you know this has been discussed before. [17] [18] It's not a tracing. It is a representation drawing of your living bench chair. I chose the bench, as its a pivotal piece in your books and media publicly. It was also grown using the instant method as describe in the article. So it's appropriate for that placement. The idea behind the drawings is they are based on mature living examples. Also they don't have any background, thus the shapes of the trees are easily seen. WP:YESPOV quote "... the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." Blackash have a chat 08:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Why not use the Krubsack chair photo then? Cleary copyright has expired, it has a clear background and was shaped using 6 foot trees. It's clear to me that your trying to make a point about Reames work and this is pushing your single POV. At this point we definitely will require neutral editors to be involved if we are ever going to move this article into the good article category. Slowart (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Krubsack's chair looks like it may have been done by a mix of methods. John_Krubsack#Chair quotes Krubsack so its a primary source about how he did it. Unlike Reames's bench or chairs it wasn't bent up in a afternoon. What point do you think I'm trying to make? Blackash have a chat 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think your promo for your e-book titled 3 Methods of Tree Shaping explains in detail the points you would like to make. http://pooktre.com/extra/3/files/search/bookText.xml At this time, the methods section is just not neutral. No matter the style, all arborsculptures can remain living or be harvested. And the last sentence should go somewhere else, "Some of Axel Erlandson tree's took as long as 40 years to assume their finished shapes." This applies to all styles also. Slowart (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That link you give is hard to read. It's easier to read here. As I've stated above I haven't used this book as a source. Correct me it I'm wrong but it seems to me you don't want the article to have the different methods listed with info on each in the article. Blackash have a chat 00:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Your wrong, I just want it to be written from a neutral perspective, that's all. Slowart (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ck then, it seems we are in agreement with keeping the different methods and info on the page. Lets work through it on the talk page, so as not to have lots of cross editing happening on the main article. I'm thinking we could together work on a paragraph at time. I've copied and pasted the first paragraph. Keeping the refs in mind how would you change this paragraph. Blackash have a chat 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
changing the article below

There are various methods to achieving a shaped tree.[2] Some are still experimental, or still in the research stage. [3][4]: 154 [5] These process use a variety of horticultural, arboricultural, and artistic techniques to craft an intended design. Chairs, tables, living spaces and art may be crafted from growing trees. Some practitioners start with detailed drawings or designs. [6] : 7 , [5] other artists may start with what the tree already offers.[7] : 56–57  Each process has it own time frame, techniques and a different level of involvement from the tree trainer. Thou some techniques are common to all methods. The trees may either remain growing, or perhaps be harvested as a finished work like John Krubsack's chair.

Comment about changes

Removed Proprietary name Pooktre. Removed Odd sentence "Some techniques used for shaping trees are unique to a particular process, whereas other techniques are common to all, though the implementation may be for different reasons." Removed stuff about experimental or research, as it adds nothing to methods. Slowart (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Slowart you are ignoring again, that multiple editors have already pointed that using a name whether it's "proprietary" or not in the article isn't a problem.
A reasonable person wouldn't question that each process has own techniques and some techniques are common to all methods. I've added those points back in.
Encyclopedias are for finding out information. People who are interested in the methods want the info that is available. The "experimental or research" is verifiable and of interest to the reader I've add a shorter version back in with an extra ref. Blackash have a chat 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No I'm not ignoring anything, If you think you have permission for some editor to violate wiki rules you are mistaken. Do you remember this from the last uninvolved neutral editor. ""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...").from St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 02:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[[19]] The article should adhere to WP:UCN and WP:NPOV as it pertains to entitling and naming." For you to insist that your priority name here is not only unseeing, but also clearly WP:PROMOTION. Your terms "instant tree shaping" and "gradual tree shaping" are not notable like Aeroponic culture is. Perhaps you need to hear this from other editors. Overall this article should sidestep the manipulation attempt by not relying so much on self published sources or single artist interviews. Slowart (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I refute your above statements and they are pointless without diffs. If you accuse me again without evidence I'll go back to AE. Please focus on content. What do you think of the paragraph as it is now? Blackash have a chat 11:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
O.K, AE may help. The paragraph is better that it was. Slowart (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to re-edit the above paragraph? Or is it now ok to go into the article? Blackash have a chat 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It may require editing once the next few paragraphs are re-written. But let me be clear, without neutral editors helping, I have no desire to continue. Slowart (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good article building

We really need to get some experienced neutral editors involved! Slowart (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

controversial edit

impsswoon there has been much discussion about the alternative names, the edit you have done is very controversial it has upset the neutrality of the lead.I removed all the other alternative names to restore balance,don't revert without discussion. ?oygul (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. I hadn't realized the issue was quite so sensitive. I think the intro needs to use a generic name, not any of the competing names given to the art by its various competing practitioners, and your edit is a good way to achieve that, with the competing names being given individual mentions in a subsequent section. -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It is indeed sensitive and your edit was wrong and Impsswoon's edit was correct. The names listed were generic names but 'Pooktre' is a trade name used by one company only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to another name?

It has been a while since the last RfC on this subject and there may have been a change in consensus. The current name has never been generally used for the subject of this article so I am going to suggest a move again to something that has actually been used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

OK: here are some Google hit counts, in descending order of hit count:

  • "Living art": 2,130,000 -- but most uses seem not to be in the sense of the subject of this article
  • Biotecture: 251,000 -- but most uses seem not to be in the sense of the subject of this article
  • "Tree shaping": 95,300 -- and most uses in first couple of pages of search results seem to be about the subject of this article
  • "Tree training": 92,500 -- but most uses seem not to be in the sense of the subject of this article, "<something> Tree Training" seems to be a rather popular company name formulation
  • Pleaching: 56,600 -- and the pleaching article's subject is very close to that of this one
  • "Pooktre": 37,100 -- but note that this is a proprietary, not generic term, and thus inappropriate as a generic article title: note that Pooktre themselves call the generic term "tree shaping" on their website
  • "Grown furniture": 3,210 -- but note also that this does not apply to tree training which is not furniture
  • Arbortecture: 1,970

At the moment, "tree trainingshaping" seems still to be the most popular version that is neither generic nor generally used for some other more common meaning. -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of those figures, don't you mean "tree shaping seems still to be the most popular version..."? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops: my bad. Corrected above! -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Impsswoon, can you point me to some reliable sources for 'Tree shaping' that are about the subject of this article and which are not based on WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope, although only after a very cursory search. Can you find any reliable sources that show common usage for any of these? All I can say is that the term "tree shaping" appears to be the most commonly used among companies advertising these services online, which, while not WP:RS, is at least indirect evidence for this being a WP:COMMONNAME: and there are lots of examples of sources calling it the "shaping ... of trees" and similar formulations. If I was to draw up a shortlist, it would be "Tree shaping", "Tree training", and "Pleaching", on the basis that this was an extension of the commoner technique of pleaching. -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Impsswoon quite a while ago, I created this list of potential title names. Please note there are many uses of tree shaping/shaping trees being used as descriptive term. Also I haven't updated this list for years. Since then tree shaping/shaping ... has been in published media I just hadn't bothered to update the list. Blackash (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I can now see that the naming of this article has been the subject of really intense dispute. I can't see any resolution for this in the foreseeable future, but would say that until the various participants in this discussion can all agree on a better name, this article is going to keep the "tree shaping" name on the principle of inertia alone. Instead of taking part in that discussion, I will now follow the advice of WP:STICK, and tiptoe slowly away from the issue... -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Good bye and good luck, I can see why you do not want to stick around.
Just for the record though WP:STICK is not appropriate here. A vital part of WP is WP:V and although, on a quick Google search it may appear that 'Tree shaping' is widely used, many editors are confused by the fact that the term is widely used in arboriculture, but for something completely different. More recent references generally refer back to WP resulting in a WP:COPYWITHIN. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Martin, if you think the 50 odd refs in this list [20] for Tree shaping aren't reliable take each one to the Reliability notice board. I have many new ones if needed. Blackash (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
As you may remember, I did go through every one of those references explaining why it did not support naming this article 'Tree shaping', I can look for that analysis if you like. There is also one overriding reason why 'Tree shaping' is an unsuitable name for this article and that is that the term is, as has for some considerable time, been used by arborists to mean something completely different. If you want evidence for that fact I can also provide it, it is not hard to find. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The OP does not seem to propose a new title for the page move. Without a specific suggestion, this is not actionable. Andrew (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are discretionary sanctions here still needed?

An uninvolved editor has asked the Arbitration Committee to review whether the discretionary sanctions are still required in this topic area, and to repeal them if they are not. If you have any opinions on this matter, please comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ayn Rand, Monty Hall problem, Longevity, Cold fusion 2, Tree shaping, Gibraltar. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes (I'm commenting here as I can't find the right place to comment)Blackash (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately your reply is too late. The discretionary sanctions were "rescinded" on 30 November following an Arbitration motion, see Special:Permalink/636014759#Motion:_discretionary_sanctions_housekeeping, also recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014). Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Thryduulf Blackash (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Munro

Gavin Munro started a project to mass-produce furniture by tree shaping. Should this be included in the article?

  1. notechmagazine.com
  2. dailymail.co.uk
  3. theguardian.com
  4. fullgrown.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scentoni (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I'm been working on doing a page for him for a awhile I'll add a summary to tree shaping. He has lots of good refs [Grown Furniture] Blackash (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tree shaping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done thanks for updating links. Blackash (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fischbacher, Thomas (2007), "Botanical Engineering" (PDF), School of Engineering Sciences @ University of Southampton {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CottageGarden was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference FriendsofTAU was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Richard Reames (2005), Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet, Oregon: Arborsmith Studios, ISBN 0-9647280-8-7
  5. ^ a b Volz, Martin (Oct/Nov), "A Tree shaper's life." (PDF), Queensland Smart Farmer {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  6. ^ Erlandson, Wilma (2001), My father "talked to trees", Westview: Boulder, p. 22, ISBN 0-9708932-0-5
  7. ^ Richard Reames (1995), How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary, ISBN 0-9647280-0-1 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_20&oldid=1077620929"