Talk:Bonsai

User: Croujay - I contributed information regarding the habitat, geographic location, and feeding habits of the citrus long-horned beetle with a focus on the beetle as a parasite and invasive species outside of its location of origin in China. I discussed how its parasitism is affecting the fruit tree industry. I also focused on its sensory receptors, specifically the olfactory receptors that are specifically chemosensory and detect pheromones. I gathered my research through scientific articles on the beetle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croujay (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

2 Images

Very poor selection of first two photos of article.
The "classic" Japanese photos are not a bunch of bonsai on a bench.
The Brooklyn Botanical Bonsai does not have a solid backround, needs a hair cut and is not necessarily the "front" of the tree.
We can do much better than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.235.2 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - changed to somewhat more representative bonsai photos at top of article. Sahara110 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

History split

There has been an extensive new section on bonsai history added, with a lot of detail and references. What are our feelings about placing the bulk of the bonsai history in a stand-alone article, with a reference pointing to it from the main article? Sahara110 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY for guidance. (There's about 50KB worth of total prose here, currently).

I'd tentatively agree. The history section currently needs a summary-style explanation/pointer for penjing added, and some more images. No rush though. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will tuck it into my thinking cap for a later review. Sahara110 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have put in place an alternative approach: the current article has been shortened by splitting the Cultivation and care material out to a separate article. This change has the effect of making the current article focus much more closely on the Japanese history and culture of bonsai, while taking the majority of the culture-free materials out where they can be referenced equally comfortably by articles on related practices like penjing. Sahara110 (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived the 2003-2009 threads, at Talk:Bonsai/Archive 1. Feel free to un-archive any threads that still needed attention. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose Merge with Penjing articles

Penjing contains largely the same material, there are very little differences in the essence of the article. Bonsai and Penjing is essentially the same art practiced in different countries: All of them are derived from the same Chinese art. Now, you might argue otherwise, but what makes this art different is that they can't be too different, and the reason is very obvious: plants can only react in so many ways to different handling techniques. Splitting the article would be like having two different articles for dandelions under different names.

I will say this but this is only my personal feelings. I was reading the Chinese Penjing site, and I clicked the English redirect, as the English site, with more contributers usually had more information. I wasn't surprised that the article was under the name Bonsai, but I was surprised that this art is somehow made completely and exclusively Japanese. It was only as I finished the article did I see a link to the article Penjing with exactly those "missing" informations. (history, etc.)

Now, I'm don't feel that the article should be somehow exclusively or predominately Chinese, I believe that the Japanese people contributed as much to the development of this art. I only feels that it is redundant and confusing to split them into two articles.

So I have two things I'd like to propose. First, I feel that this article should be merged with the Penjing article on the grounds of simplicity and less confusion. It is just as well to redirect the words Pengjing to Bonsai, since Bonsai is how this art is known in the English language along with many other things. And two, I know I didn't state this above, but anyhow, I suppose that this art is practiced elsewhere in the world and not only in Japan and China, so perhaps another section on practice of this art in other countries is nessesary.

If you have any comments, proposals, or concerns, you are welcomed to discuss this here or on my page.

p.s. I posted this same proposal on the Penjing discussion board as well, repetition was intentional.

Gw2005 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bonsai and Penjing not the same. Therefore should be separate. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the styles are sufficiently different, the penjing article is well focused - and the resulatnat article would be big enough to merit splitting.μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with merging the two articles

If I may address the contents and organization of the English-language articles only, I would like to suggest that merging is not appropriate for these two topics. The development history of the Penjing and Bonsai articles in Wikipedia (EN) has focused on organizing the available information to appropriately concentrate information on the Chinese penjing tradition under the Penjing article, and similarly focus on the Japanese bonsai tradition in the Bonsai article. At this time, there is a good deal of material unique to each subject, and therefore separate articles are indicated. (See below, however, for comments on the possible sharing of material on care, cultivation, and display.)

Comments on your discussion

I have a few specific comments on some of your points:

• "Penjing contains largely the same material . . ."

The current versions of the two articles in Wikipedia (EN) are quite distinct in their contents. Please see below for a section-by-section comparison of the articles.

• "Bonsai and Penjing is essentially the same art practiced in different countries."

Penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, and possibly others are art forms using similar materials (e.g., trees, containers). But they are practiced in different cultures with well-established and different historical, cultural, and aesthetic values represented using those materials. The Wikipedia content is best organized to provide a clear narrative on the distinct history, values, and expressions of each art form in its own article or articles.

• "It was only as I finished the article did I see a link to the article Penjing with exactly those 'missing' informations."

Although one or both articles may have been obscure in their linking when you viewed them, as of now both articles link to the other at the beginning and the end. An interested reader can find and use either or both articles as needed. Links can be found in the opening paragraphs, as well as in the See also sections at the end of both articles.

• "Splitting the article would be like having two different articles for dandelions under different names."

I think it might be more like having (two or more) separate articles on:

* Two-handed swords: Zhanmadao and Nodachi

* Hardy containers: Chinese ceramics and Japanese pottery and porcelain

* Refreshing beverages: Chinese tea ceremony and Japanese tea ceremony

The list of examples is nearly endless. A shared history or other similarities do not argue for merged articles. If sufficient unique elements appear in the descriptions of two terms, the reader will find two articles more focused and usable than one.

The real issue at discussion is whether the two topics contain, or should contain, substantially the same material. This analysis deserves some room, and the following section contains my evaluation of the current article contents.

Structure and content of the two articles

Contents of articles (Wikipedia EN)

Bonsai article section	Penjing article section	Comments
1 - History	1 - History	The contents of the two History sections are distinctly different, as one might expect. The Bonsai article does address the shared history with the Chinese tradition in subsection 1.1 (A concept and early versions), but continues through detailed sections on approximately ten centuries of Japanese history on the development of the bonsai tradition. The Penjing article provides similar levels of detail on penjing history and tradition. These two sections cover distinct, different material and should not be merged.
2 - Cultivation	(no equivalent)	There is no exact equivalent of this section in the Penjing article, although it might be expected that Penjing section 5 (Maintenance and care) would cover the same subjects. As noted below, the Penjing section 5 (Maintenance and care) simply points to the Bonsai article.
3 - Care	5 - Maintenance and care	The Penjing article points to the Bonsai article here, adding no penjing-specific details.
4 - Aesthetics	2 - Penjing aesthetics, 3 - Categories	The Penjing article covers two topics related to aesthetics. Penjing aesthetics is a brief overview of the aesthetic goals and practical applications for penjing. Categories introduces the idea of penjing styles, which are elaborated in section 4 (Styles). Relating specifically to the penjing wenren mu style, this section also lists several penjing-specific aesthetic features including gugao and jianjie. The Bonsai article provides only a brief overview of aesthetic goals in the bonsai tradition, and points to a separate detailed article that describes general and detailed aesthetic objectives of the bonsai tradition. The two discussions appear to be distinct and different, as the Penjing discussion relates specifically to the influences of Chinese aesthetics and culture, while the stand-alone article Bonsai aesthetics refers to the Japanese aesthetic tradition, including such concepts as mono no aware and wabi-sabi. There may be similarities between the penjing and the bonsai aesthetics, but the two traditions are evidently different in many ways. These two sections should not be merged.
5 - Display	(one paragraph in section 2 - Penjing aesthetics)	The Penjing article touches briefly on display, and it is not clear whether this is a complete description of the penjing tradition in display, or a summary that could usefully be expanded: Penjing is also often used indoors as part of a garden's overall design, since it reiterates the landscape features found outside. Penjing pots grace pavilions, private studies and living rooms, as well as public buildings. They are either free-standing elements within the gardens or are placed on furniture such as a table or bookshelf. Sometimes a lattice display stand is built which adds particular prominence to the penjing specimen and exemplifies the interplay between architecture and nature. The Bonsai article describes the aesthetic and practical aspects of bonsai display outdoors, in the home, and in exhibition. Some parts of this discussion appear to be unique to the Japanese tradition, such as the use of bonsai in a tokonama display. Other parts of the description, such as outdoors display and exhibition display, may apply equally well to the display of penjing. The brief discussion of Containers in the Bonsai article does not provide much detail on the nature and usage of bonsai pots, and the Penjing article has almost no specific information on penjing containers. If this sub-section of the Bonsai article were expanded or detailed in a separate article, it is likely that the the discussion of bonsai pots would not have the same content as that of an article describing penjing containers. The two traditions differ significantly in the shapes, sizes, materials, finishes, decorations, and symbolism of containers used for display of potted trees. Rather than merging the Bonsai container discussion with a possible future Penjing presentation of material from the penjing tradition, these two topics should probably be covered separately.
6 - Common styles	4 - Styles	The Bonsai article describes a common view of bonsai styles based on trunk configuration, number of trunks, and setting (e.g., in soil, over rock). The names of styles used, such as chokkan and kengai, are specific to the Japanese tradition. The Penjing article describes a multiplicity of styles based more on the Chinese region or school that is most closely associated with the style. The two types of description are not equivalent, and they each reflect the culture of their respective nations of origin. There does not appear to be any major similarity that would argue for merging the two sections.
7 - Size classifications	(no equivalent)	In the Bonsai article, this section introduces Japanese terms like mame and shohin used to describe the size of bonsai specimens. There is no equivalent information in the Penjing article. Because this terminology, and possibly even the concept of size classes, is unique to the bonsai tradition, there is no reason to merge this information with the Penjing article.
8 - Indoor bonsai	(no equivalent)	This section of the Bonsai article points to a separate article describing the unique cultivation issues associated with growing potted trees indoors. The Penjing article mentions indoor placement for penjing but provides no specific details. Insofar as the article on Indoor bonsai contains mainly exposition on cultivation and care, it may be considered as equally useful to both Penjing and Bonsai articles.

An argument could be made for separating the information on cultivation and care, which is in the most part culture-neutral, and pointing to the new article(s) from both Penjing and Bonsai. This work has already occurred, for example, in separating out the cultivation and care of indoor bonsai. Removing the term "bonsai", or adding references to "penjing" and "hon non bo", might make the Indoor bonsai article more useful. An alternative approach would be to add information to the Penjing article outlining unique penjing practices in cultivation and care. For example, there may be no penjing tradition of using Japanese Akadama soil in potting trees, as described under Care in the Bonsai article. If there are significant differences in cultivation and care, Wikipedia would be best served by expanding the Penjing article to describe them. There may also be culture-independent material under Display that could be separated out and used by both articles.

But based on the significant differences between the history, culture, and aesthetics of the two traditions, there appears to be no justification for merging the English Wikipedia articles on Penjing and Bonsai. Sahara110 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly useful overview. Much thanks for the efforts to lay it out. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

These links removed, as not being up to various WP:EL standards.

• Basics of Bonsai Care - Learn how to start your own bonsai and care for them.
• Bonsai Made Easy - Learn how to grow and care for these magnificent trees.
• Bonsai in the Tropics - Bonsai guides, tutorials, photos, videos, galleries and forums for basic and advanced bonsai.
• Bonsai Tree Care - A beginners guide to growing and caring for Bonsai Trees
• bonsai.hpage.com- A Comprehensive Guide to Bonsai Gardening.
• Bonsai Ireland- Light hearted guide to the serious art of Bonsai.

Possibly, some subpages of some of these sites, could be replaced as good external links? Particularly helpful to doing so, would be anything establishing the credibility of each site (eg a published historian runs the first link that remains in the article). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup and discussion. When I looked them over, I saw a large amount of redundancy, as well as spamming and promotional content. Given the depth and breadth of sourced information, it will be hard to find anything that isn't redundant. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No prob. This article suffers from a continual trickle of self-promotion. I tend to ignore it until a larger cleanup is needed.

It looks like there is good information in many of them, but I'm not a bonsai expert, so cannot tell if any of those removed sites are particularly insightful/informative/credible/reliable.

Ideally, I guess, we'd have a link to a decent Wikibooks:bonsai project, which would replace all of those how-to links. (What is currently at Wikibooks is too rudimentary/draft-stage to highlight in a link, I believe.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, making blanket accusations of self-promotion without evidence is a failure to assume good faith. So is describing a link as spam, especially when a cursory examination of Lucasio0's edit history and a search for the same link on other pages reveals no history of spamming on his part and no problem with this link appearing on other pages. Furthermore, these recently reverted links:

• Basics of Bonsai Care - Comprehensive beginner's bonsai care guide.
• The Art of Bonsai Project - galleries to show bonsai variations

are content-rich and non-commercial sites. A grand total of five external links is hardly an overpopulation problem, and we do not need to fix an overpopulation problem that does not yet exist. The links are accurately described, so we hardly need to act as selfless censors protecting the eyes of unsuspecting readers who might profit by following them. The redear can decide for himself. This is a large article on a popular subject. Unless we have evidence of wrongdoing our suspicions of the motives of the people who added these two links and our own person aesthetic preferences are not reasons to tag or delete them. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that "The Art of Bonsai" belongs within the EL section: it contains high-quality galleries of examples (eg) without advertising.
• I removed the list of links given at top (which includes bonsaicarebasics.com) because there were simply too many. If bonsaicarebasics.com is the best of those sites, as an example of a technical "how to" site, then I'd agree with replacing that link. (Some kind of evidence of its quality, would be helpful. For example, do mainstream bonsai magazines link to that site? or something along those lines...)
• I too am confused as to why Lucasio0 has been deemed as having a COI. Is there evidence of this, Ronz? That's a really imposing COI template (and level-3 spam template) you've left on User talk:Lucasio0... If not, please be reminded of WP:BITE (Be nice to the newcomers! Unless they're blatantly malicious, it doesn't help to "throw the book" at people) Found the evidence. COI provable.
• In regards to my own statement above, about the "trickle of self-promotion", I meant items like [1], [2], [3], etc (Search for "external" in the last 500 edits, for many more examples).

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not examine other sites that were deleted such as Tokonomoscrolls, only the two mentioned above. I'll be quite happy to accept your opinion on that one. I also have no problem with keeping the list down to a bearable number, by, say, keeping only the best of each when we have many kinds of links on overlapping topics. As it stands I think the cancer is in remission, and further chemotherapy will be more harmful than helpful.μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

artofbonsai.org is a mixed bag so to speak, and we shouldn't link to sites solely for thier galleries. I'm not strongly against it, I just wish the contents were of a more consistent quality.

I think the COI with Lucasio0 is obvious, but I'm not going to disclose anything until we hear from him per WP:PRIVACY. Until we do, it is acceptable to give him escalating warnings. Given his past vandalism and the details of the COI notice, I thought a level 3 warning was appropriate when he reverted without comment.

"Trickle of self-promotion" is putting it mildly. This article gets regular promotional spamming. If anyone doubts this, please ask for clarification rather than overlooking AGF.

My concerns, beyond the self-promotion and spamming, is the redundancy. We have a fairly well-referenced article here. If external links are not providing substantial additional information beyond what's provided in the article and the references, then those external links don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If anything, wikipedia is not a how-to, and the redundancy, if it exists, exists because much of this article is written as a manual on Bonsai.μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of problems with the article. I wouldn't mind the Care section being removed, a nice external link to a care site being included, and the two references for the Care section being moved to a Further reading section. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the evidence, linking username to site, so provable COI. The evidence lists his fullname and address, so I'll agree with Ronz about not pointing directly to it.

However, if other editors add the external link (either originally, or add it back after removal), the COI should no longer be relevant. Hence I'll repeat my original thought, which is that one of the links from the list above, should be determined as being a good instructional link, and included in the EL section. Whether this site, or another, is not within my area of expertise. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the last to have restored the link, I find it informative, and I have no connection with the site or the editor. I say leave the link. If this is a formal breach of the rules, however benign, the editor should be referred to the proper board.μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(People add links to their own websites (and books and movies and music) throughout Wikipedia – often in a well-meaning way as in this case, but occasionally just for commercial gain – on a continual basis. We don't clutter up the COI noticeboard (WP:COIN) with examples, unless there is something that needs to be discussed or investigated deeper (plus WP:NOTLAW). So in this case, we just move forward with the knowledge that Lucasio0 is connected to that website, and we can remind him about WP:COI details if such proves necessary. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I agree. The COI problems have been minimal and are not continuing. No action is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks

As noted above, the Wikibooks:Bonsai page needs additional content, so that might be a suitable location for the "Care" information. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If Care content would be suitable for Wikibooks, then so much the better. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing about bookifying.μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be as easy as copy&pasting from here to there. We just need to add wikibooks:Template:WikipediaCredit to the bottom of any page there, that receives copied material from here. Regarding editing-conventions there, vs here, Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikimedians looks like the best primer.

I'll try copying some details across now, to the Wikibooks:Bonsai/Care page.

I'm not sure what all deserves to be retained here (at the very least the images, but probably a lot more), so will not attempt any removals myself. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with "How to"-ness of article

I would like to look at the "How to" material as a possible separate article (continuing the discussion above), based on a proposition to see the Bonsai article focusing on the Japanese tradition of bonsai, rather than containing generic information on cultivating small trees in containers. The sections in question from the current article are primarily 2 - Cultivation and 3 - Care. These sections contain relatively little material unique to the Japanese bonsai tradition, although I believe that an understanding of bonsai (and of penjing, saikei, hon non bo, and so on) requires an understanding of the cultivation techniques as well as of the history and culture of the art forms.

At the same time, I believe the current Cultivation and Care material is encyclopedic - that is, I believe it belongs in Wikipedia. The material in Bonsai has been systematically drafted as a description of the unique or unusual features of plant cultivation for bonsai and similar arts (we really need a generic word or phrase for "cultivation of miniature trees in small containers" that is not the word "bonsai", and I am at a loss). There is a place in the encyclopedia for a description of processes, procedures, and special techniques, handled not as "How to" material but rather as encyclopedia-style description. I would call attention to articles such as:

• hydroponics - contains useful descriptions of hydroponic techniques and discussions of growing media, similar (as one might expect) to the Bonsai article's Cultivation and Care contents
• mining - the section Mining methods and procedures lists various techniques used in mining and provides a useful jumping-off point for related articles
• Integrated circuits - a fairly technical but still useful and interesting list of manufacturing approaches appears in the manufacturing section

I don't want to suggest these articles are exact parallels for the Bonsai article, or to compare the number of techniques or their organization in detail. But I do think the reader expects this type of information in the encyclopedia, and that Wikipedia can provide it in a compact, useful form that does not cross the line into the "How to" zone.

Wikibooks and "How to"

Speaking to Quiddity's point above, Wikibooks may benefit from similar material, clearly cast in a "How to" style. But I believe it would take a different and much more lengthy, detailed form. The Cultivation and Care sections of the Bonsai article provide a very brief and schematic overview of the the actual subjects of bonsai cultivation and care, compared to the popular literature on this subject. An example "How to" resource for bonsai now takes up three linear feet (~ one metre) in my bookshelves, or roughly 10,000 pages. A typical book on bonsai (please don't take these metrics too seriously, though I think the case can be made) has 2 pages on the Japanese history and cultural tradition of bonsai, 30 pages on keeping bonsai alive between stylings, and 150 pages on cutting, pinching, bending, wiring and otherwise styling an aesthetically effective bonsai specimen. That's a lot of "How to" material which Wikipedia's Bonsai article does not contain, and which would extend the Wikibooks contents very significantly were it ever converted over.

Proposal

To recap (with some emendations) an earlier post of mine:

There's a request on the Bonsai talk page to merge the Wikipedia (EN) articles on Bonsai and Penjing. I've already given my response, but when I was drafting it I began to wonder whether in fact the historical and cultural material for Bonsai constitutes a focused, Japan-oriented article (which would remain under Bonsai), while the relatively culture-free information on cultivation, care, tools, and perhaps display (each of which has a section in the current Bonsai article) might best be split out into one or more separate articles, which could be referenced by the Penjing article and by other articles about similar practices or art forms (e.g. Hòn Non Bô).

The reason for doing so is that there seems to be a continuing confusion over whether the Bonsai article refers specifically to the Japanese tradition in artful cultivation of trees in containers, or whether it is a generic term for potted plants that can be expanded to cover other similar practices. It's clear that the Japanese history of bonsai is unique to Japan, as is the Japanese tradition in bonsai aesthetics (already split into its own article). The Japanese terms for bonsai styles and sizes would also belong in a Japan-oriented Bonsai article, even though they are used by a wide range of non-Japanese practitioners. But cultivation practices, the unique care requirements for potted trees, display techniques, and probably the tools used by bonsai practitioners are likely to appear the same for a penjing enthusiast - hence the potential for confusion in the aim of the Bonsai article.

Unfortunately there is no other encyclopedic term in English for "the artful cultivation of small trees in containers", so labeling new articles without using the word "bonsai" could be problematic. It would be a shame to move material out of the Bonsai article only to render it difficult to find because of neologisms or other forms of unclear titling.

I do believe that the current care, cultivation, tools, and display sections are encyclopedic and should remain in Wikipedia. But I am not sure whether they should continue in the Bonsai article itself now. If these topics are to be moved out, I am not sure what the new articles would best be called.

If my suggestions about the current Bonsai article took hold, I would hope to see:

• the Cultivation and Care material in roughly its current form split to one or more new articles, which would have brief but useful titles that did not confuse this set of plant-cultivation techniques with the history and culture of penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, and other related arts
• similarly, the material on tools and display split into new articles
• the articles Bonsai, Bonseki, Penjing, and Hòn Non Bô pointing to the new article(s), just as Bonsai now points to Indoor bonsai (an overview of the techniques and suitable subjects for indoor cultivation of small trees in a container, and another article that - if we agree to separation of content regarding the Japanese bonsai tradition from the techniques of small-tree-in-pot cultivation - should probably not have "bonsai" in the title) and Penjing points to Bonsai

If this approach is acceptable, I'm happy to tackle the editing. But I'm still at a quandary about naming the new article(s) so that we do not confuse readers or inadvertently conceal information that many would search for under the term "bonsai". Comments? Sahara110 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonsai as strictly applied in the Japanese use of the term has a fairly strict definition and has been exported worldwide. The positive connotation of the term has led it to being misapplied to other practices that are probably best classified as under a broad aegis of container gardening. Penjing is also tied closely with the theory and art of chinese gardens. Both articles can be independent if they focus on the culture and tenets as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have put a good part of the proposed new structure in place. The Cultivation and Care sections have been split to a new article, Bonsai cultivation and care. In the original Bonsai article, these two sections have been summarized and there is a reference link to the new article. I was not able to determine a workable replacement for the word "bonsai", which has entered English as the generic term for "artistic cultivation of small trees in containers", so the new article will need some wording in the introduction to emphasize that the contents are equally valid for similar practices not descended from the Japanese tradition of bonsai. I have left the Display section in place and unmodified for now, in part because the material there is drawn from externally references specifically on bonsai (the Japanese tradition) and may not apply to penjing, hon non bo, etc., as written. Sahara110 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Magical Miniature Landscapes has long been a legitimate multi-page external link to the Bonsai article. I noticed recently it had been removed and essentially replaced by the one page All You Need to Know About Bonsai. When I added MML back in, TheRedPenofDoom removed it noting that "no indiction this meets WP:EL." What is up with that?

Yes, I am the web master of MML. And it is the source of much of the references used in the History section of the Bonsai article (and Penjing, and a few others). MML is an internationally-recognized compilation of detailed, authoritative and sourced information on the history of bonsai and related arts. It is not a how-to; it is not a puffy quick read. It is an on-going 13-year-old site based on my researches that go back 26 years on this subject. Is this no longer good enough to be an external reference? RJBaran (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page for a bonsai tree?

Now that WP has a page for a lion, how about a page for a tree? see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/centuries-old-bonsai-that-survived-atomic-bomb-gets-honored-70-years-later/ juanTamad 04:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe... but that may be a bit much Ajrules30670 AJ (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bonsai. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bonsai-wbff.org/shimpaku/shim2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No Spam

Really, no posting random words... Ajrules30670 AJ (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Pre GA comments

Hi @Arpit.arun.mishra: and thanks for nominating this article for GA. But GA criteria require that the nominator should be the major contributor of the article. You barely have two edits to this article. I understand that @Sahara110 and RJBaran: are major content contributors on this article and hence their opinion on if the article is ready for GA or not is needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting my input. I am not sure the article Bonsai is ready for GA (Good Article) status. It has been reviewed by the WikiProject Japan team and found to meet only the "C" class standard at that time. I did ask for suggestions to improve it then, but did not receive any enlightenment, so the article's approach and content remain substantially as they were. If clear editorial direction for the needed repair and refinement can be listed, I am glad to contribute content and organization, as I'm sure other editors are as well.

Until the weaknesses identified by the WikiProject Japan team (and by some others - I see that the WikiProject China and WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening teams also rate this article a "C") are addressed, I can't see it being promoted as a GA. Perhaps User:RJBaran may feel differently.

Sahara110 (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tackling some of the GA (Good Article) review comments

I'd like to work on some of the items mentioned in the Good Article review that concluded this was not a Good Article (Talk:Bonsai/GA1).

(1) The first item with a concrete fix is this observation:

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Some strange use of bolding, e.g. "Slant-style conifer".

I have removed the unnecessary formatting from the image captions as indicated.

(2) Reference did not impress reviewer:

Unclear why "Pyramid Dancer" is a reliable source for bonsai issues (NB: the links are broken, so I can't tell who they were originally). 

(a) The "Pyramid Dancer" references appear to be early links to Robert Baran's (User:RJBaran) published articles on bonsai history and culture. It would appear that the source location has changed from "Pyramid Dancer" (now not found) to "MagiMiniLand" (found at http://www.magiminiland.org/), and it seems the same articles appear in the new location. Someone more hep to the Wikipedia external link legalities should decide whether MagiMiniLand can be used as an accepted source. In the meantime, I will check each "Pyramid Dancer" reference and verify that a valid link is included, as well as change the appearances of "Pyramid Dancer" in URL references to so that the confusion raised by naming the missing site does not continue.

(b) I can't speak to the quality of the one missing reference identified by the reviewer, but the link noted is indeed dead. I removed the sentence supported by the broken link, which is in any case redundant to an explication of the term "bon" that appears earlier in the article.

(c) The link for this reference was dead: "Hachi-No-Ki". Pyramid Dancer. Retrieved 2010-04-07. I found what appears to be the matching article on the MagiMiniLand site and substituted it into the reference,

(d) After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for several references.

• Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints, to 1600
• Japanese Paintings: to 1600
• Tokugawa Iemitsu's Pine
• George Meister's dwarf tree observations
• Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints, 1600 to 1800

Sahara110 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Continuing from bullet (d) above:

After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:

• The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts
• Dwarf Potted Trees in Paintings, Scrolls and Woodblock Prints
• Earliest Known Photograph from Japan that includes a Dwarf Potted Tree by Pierre Rossier, c.1861
• Expositions Known to Have Had Bonsai Present
• Bonsai Book of Days for February

Sahara110 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:

After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:

• Dwarf Trees from Current Literature
• Bonsai and Other Magical Miniature Landscape Specialty Magazines
• "Count Okuma's Dwarf Trees" from Francis E. Clark in The Independent
• The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts, 1900 - 1949
• Bonsai Book of Days for September
• Kokufu Bonsai Ten Shows, Part 1
• Kyuzo Murata, the Father of Modern Bonsai in Japan, Part 1
• The Imperial Bonsai Collection, Part 1
• Kyuzo Murata, the Father of Modern Bonsai in Japan, Part 1
• Some of the Serious Conditions in Japan After World War II
• The Conventions, Symposia, Demos, Workshops, & Exhibitions, Part VI
• Yuji Yoshimura, the Father of Popular Bonsai in the Non-Oriental World (also corrected faulty reference URL)
• The Books on Bonsai and Related Arts
• Saburō Katō, International Bridge-builder, His Heritage and Legacy, Part 1
• Bonsai Book of Days for April
• The Conventions, Symposia, Demos, Workshops, and Exhibitions, Part 6 (also corrected faulty reference URL)
• About Bonsai Pots and Potters
• The Nations -- When Did Bonsai Come to the Various Countries and Territories?
• Club Newsletter On-Line (also corrected faulty reference URL)
• To Boldly Grow: Some Celluloid Bonsai (An Overview)
• How Many Bonsai Enthusiasts Are There? (also corrected faulty reference URL)

This completes the replacement of previous publisher "Pyramid Dancer" with current publisher "Magical Miniature Landscapes" in web references for this section. Note that some reference page titles were updated silently to match the current page titles at the referred-to site.

Sahara110 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:

After verifying that reference links pointed to supporting articles, updated publisher from "Pyramid Dancer" to "Magical Miniature Landscapes" for the following references:

• About Bonsai Pots and Potters
• Japanese Styles of Bonsai

That seems to be it - I see no more references to "Pyramid Dancer" in the article. I hope this addresses the reviewer's concern about the superceded publisher, and I am glad to have rehabilitated a few outdated links as well. As time permits, I will take a look at other observations from the Good Article reviewer and see whether I can address any of them.

Sahara110 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Time to address a larger challenge. The reviewer suggested a copy-edit, particularly to the History section:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose needs some work for GA standard. The history sections use a lot of short, stubby paragraphs - often only one sentence apiece - which don't flow together. I'd strongly recommend a heavy copy-edit.

I have created the page Bonsai history to contain the full content of the current article's History section. The current History is to be summarized, with some minor rewriting to smooth the flow as suggested by the reviewer.

Sahara110 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The History section in Bonsai has been reduced in size roughly from 3,650 to 2,350 words, or about 35%. The first two sub-sections were mainly reduced through strategic removal of sentences, but the third required both removals and additions to appear cogent. The fourth sub-section has not yet been addressed. More can doubtless be removed, as the new Bonsai history article contains the full original content. But this reduction should suggest the "section too long" warning be removed, and I have done so.

Sahara110 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Further reductions of the History section bring it down to just under 2,000 words, leaving it about 55% of its original length (roughly 71K to 53K characters).

Sahara110 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

State of references

Glad to see this work to improve the quality of the article! Looks like the references need some work. I'll try to set aside some time if no one gets to it first. Tracking my observations so I don't forget to look into them: --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reference 11 is "Nippon Bonsai Association, pg. 144". I assume this is another citation of "Nippon Bonsai Association. Classic Bonsai of Japan" that's cited twice elsewhere. This needs verification and the citation fixed accordingly. I'd also assume that more information about the publication is available and should be added to the references. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  Added [4] for other content, then [5] for the current content. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Has there been any discussions about Robert Baran's (User:RJBaran) references? Not all are self-published, and those that aren't need the full citation information added. For those that are, they certainly seem well-written and researched... Given the coi, I'd hope there was some discussion somewhere about their reliability. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• I like the separation out into its own article of the history. All of my references are documented and I encourage review to help be sure they are correct.--RJBaran — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJBaran (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

bonsai: tray planting or japanese tray planting?

Bonsai in Oxford dictionary : The art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bonsai). It doesn't mean japanese tray planting specifically. Bonsai is a art form of tray planting, and Japan has their own art form of tray planting. However, it is totally wrong to say that bonsai is japanese art form. As we known, the art form of tray planting was created in China, and then spreaded to Japan.

Therefore, if you think bonsai is japanese art form, please ask the dictionary to change the explanation of bonsai to The japanese art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots and don't translate bonsai to 盆栽（In chinese 盆栽 just means the art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots, and it doesn't mean the japanese art of growing ornamental, artificially dwarfed varieties of trees and shrubs in pots. Maybe, you can translate bonsai to 日本盆栽， which is japanese + bonsai）. If you think japanese bonsai is just a branch of bonsai, please change the title of this item "Bonsai" to "Japanese Bonsai". Because the whole content is just about japanese tray-planting art.

--Zuimozhaizhu (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the bonsai article remove "Japanese" from its definitions and descriptions?

Every so often, Bonsai or its related pages are visited by an editor eager to make it known that other cultures have similar art forms, as you are doing here. I think that fact is clearly stated in the Bonsai article (and related ones, particularly History of bonsai and Penjing). But as a quick reminder that Wikipedia recognizes this concept, I'd like to introduce you to some of the existing Wikipedia discussions that address the Japanese connection to bonsai.

First, from Bonsai, Wikipedia says that "[t]he term bonsai is generally used in English as an umbrella term for all miniature trees in containers or pots". I believe this statement addresses your point about the dictionary definition of bonsai. In English, it is a term that may casually be applied to any small, potted tree. But in Wikipedia, the art of bonsai is defined much more carefully and accurately in the article on bonsai, where it refers explicitly to the Japanese art form. Casual conversation in English may conflate bonsai and hon non bo, or bonsai and penjing, or bonsai and saikei. Wikipedia does not.

In August 2010, an editor proposed placing the Penjing article contents within the bonsai article (see Talk:Bonsai#Propose_Merge_with_Penjing_articles). Wikipedia editors (including myself) suggested otherwise, in part for the following reasons - reasons that apply to your suggestion as well:

1 - The styles of penjing and bonsai are sufficiently different, the penjing article is well focused, and the resulting article would be big enough to merit splitting. Diminishing or removing (even a few) references to Japan and its culture, as you suggest, could reduce the distinctions between these related articles, diffuse their focus, and make them less useful.

2 - Penjing, bonsai, hon non bo, bunjae (Korea - no Wikipedia article yet), and possibly others are art forms using similar materials (e.g., trees, containers). But they are practiced in different cultures with well-established and different historical, cultural, and aesthetic values. Removing references to the Japanese from the bonsai articles, in whole or in part as you have suggested, would obscure fundamental information about the essentially Japanese art of bonsai, as would removing references to the Vietnamese from the article on hon non bo, or to the Chinese from the article on penjing.

3 - A shared history or other similarities do not argue for merged articles. If sufficient unique elements appear in the descriptions of two terms, the reader will find two articles more focused and usable than one. In relation to your request about removing some references to Japan from the bonsai article, we would be obscuring a useful distinction: the article Bonsai is about the Japanese art, not about similar arts in other cultures. Japan's centuries developing the art of bonsai do not deprecate or obscure the Vietnamese development of hon non bo, nor the Chinese development of penjing. Diminishing or removing the Japanese references in the Bonsai article would greatly reduce its truthfulness and usefulness. Let all three articles prosper, and let all three properly reference the related country and culture.

As an aside, you may have seen that the Chinese art of penjing does have its own Wikipedia article. It might be worth taking some time to work on it. A great deal of penjing history seems under-represented in the penjing article, particularly 20th-century history, which should be the segment most easily accessible from contemporary records and news. Similarly, the visual esthetics of penjing might be described more clearly and given more visual examples. Other areas could doubtless benefit from a keen eye and eager hand. A more detailed and informative penjing article could do much more to communicate the unique history and value of penjing than suggesting the removal of references to Japan and Japanese culture from the article on Japanese bonsai.

Sahara110 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

bonsai trees

how much is bonsai tree Megannerussell (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve the article. If you are commenting on the lack of prices, see WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOPRICES. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bonsai used as an umbrella term

A few weeks back, a roving editor removed the following sentence from the Bonsai article: "The word bonsai is often used in English as an umbrella term for all miniature trees in containers or pots." The reason given: "No evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread. Just wrong and confusing." I would like to propose returning that sentence to the article, as it has helped the article maintain the distinction between the Japanese art of bonsai on the one hand, and the various colloquial Western applications of the word on the other.

If the editor's true reason for deleting the original sentence was that there is "[n]o evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread", I feel a vast cultural and commercial pressure pushing back. A few minutes on Google searching for "bonsai <something that is not at all a bonsai in the Japanese cultural sense>" brought me hundreds of disheartening counter-examples. The word "bonsai" has been treated by English-speakers like many borrowed terms from other cultures: variously simplified, generalized, parodied (*bonsai kittens*), misrepresented, and turned to commercial use to capitalize on its positive associations. Western use of the word "bonsai" is about as careful, focused, and respectful of the original meaning as its use of "sushi", "ninja", or "samurai".

Here is a minute fraction of the "bonsai thing" grab-bag, in which "thing" would not show up in the Tokyo bonsai exhibitions. Ever.

"Bonsai" vegetables

• Carrot Bonsai [6]
• Growing a Bonsai Potato [7]
• Vegetable Bonsai to be Shown at Chinese New Year Flower Market [8]
• Day of the bonsai vegetables [9]

"Bonsai" herbs

• Edible bonsai [10]
• Bonsai basil [11]
• Fabulous Bonsai Herbs [12]
• Basil Bonsai – You Can Grow That! [13]
• Rosemary Bonsai Care [14]
• Texas Sage Bonsai Tree (catalog page) [15]
• Lavender Star Bonsai (catalog page) [16]

"Bonsai" tropical and desert houseplants

• The Bonsai Plants Beautiful Adenium (Dessert Rose) Bonsai Plant (catalog page) [17]
• IKEA Ficus Microcarpa Ginseng (catalog page) [18]
• Resin Small Flower Pot Planter Corgi Garden Plants Succulents Bonsai Potted Flowers Desk Garden Supplies (catalog page) [19]
• Cactus Combo Bonsai [20]
• All Indoor Bonsai and Money Trees (catalog page) [21]

Assorted other "bonsai"

• Growing Cannabis Bonsai Trees: Separating Fact From Fiction [22]
• Bonsai: Various (catalog page) [23]
• Artificial Dracaena Bonsai Plant in a Ceramic Vase (catalog page) [24]
• Miniture [sic] Rose Bonsai (catalog page) [25]
• Jasmine Seeds Bonsai flower Seeds Home Garden Bonsai Flower Seeds Potted Plants Flowers 30 Particles [26]
• Grow a bonsai blueberry tree! [27]

The editor's assertion that there is "[n]o evidence that this incorrect usage is widespread" does not seem to be well-founded. "Bonsai" in Western use is not just an umbrella, it's an entire circus-spanning big top. It covers a multitude. Of sins.

This article is about a Japanese term and practice, and many of its contents are useful and true only in that restricted sense. The current section on classical bonsai styles makes no sense when discussing the bonsai potato or carrot. The Japanese history of bonsai does not apply to Resin Small Flower Pot Planter Corgi Garden. The three words "Cannabis Bonsai Trees" should never appear together. It does not hurt the article to make that clear. I would like to reinstate the prior wording.

Any comments?

Sahara110 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have pressed forward to address the peculiar focus of the Wikipedia article, viz., that it presents information primarily on the Japanese art of bonsai, and only tangentially refers to "bonsai vegetables" and other popular usages of the word "bonsai" in English:

The Japanese loanword "bonsai" has become an umbrella term in English, attached to many forms of potted or other plants, and also on occasion to other living and non-living things (e.g., Bonsai kitten). According to Stephen Orr in The New York Times, "the term should be reserved for plants that are grown in shallow containers following the precise tenets of bonsai pruning and training, resulting in an artful miniature replica of a full-grown tree in nature." In the most restrictive sense, "bonsai" refers to miniaturized, container-grown trees adhering to Japanese tradition and principles.

Sahara110 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Poor Writing

These sentences that start the third paragraph under HISTORY, Modern Bonsai do not make sense: "The First World Bonsai Convention was held in Osaka during the World Bonsai and Suiseki Exhibition in 1980.[40] Nine years later, the first World Bonsai Convention was held in Omiya...." How can the first World Bonsai Convention take place nine years after the first World Bonsai Convention? Also, in the first sentence "First" is capitalized, which it should not be. Dkelber (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Chinese and Korean names for bonsai

This article mentions Chinese and Korean bonsai names, are these necessary? Since Japanese bonsai and Chinese penjing exist as separate articles, I think there is no need to write Chinese or Korean names in this article. For example, penjing in China is called bonkei (盆景) in Japanese, and bokei still exists in Japan as a separate genre from bonsai. However, the penjing article does not mention the Japanese name bonkei. --薔薇騎士団 (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

After more than a week and no objections, Infobox Chinese was removed. Bonsai is a Japanese art form. If necessary, mention it in the penjing article.--薔薇騎士団 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Bonsai

Is the part in the article's headline that bonsai is the "East Asian art" appropriate? There is a separate article on Chinese penjing, where penzai (Chinese pronunciation of bonsai) is also mentioned, but it is described as the "Chinese art." There is also bonkei (Japanese pronunciation of penjing) in Japan. In the interest of fairness, I suggest that bonsai be described as "Japanese art." --薔薇騎士団 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

More than a week has passed and no objections have been received, so the article description was changed as suggested above. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)