This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bonsai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Bonsai was nominated as a Agriculture, food and drink good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 18, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Bonsai was copied or moved into Bonsai history with this edit on 2016-09-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
I have a few specific comments on some of your points:
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.
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:
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)
These links removed, as not being up to various WP:EL standards.
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
To recap (with some emendations) an earlier post of mine:
If my suggestions about the current Bonsai article took hold, I would hope to see:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Really, no posting random words... Ajrules30670 AJ ( talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Sahara110 ( talk) 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Continuing from bullet (d) above:
Sahara110 ( talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
Sahara110 ( talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
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)
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)
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)
Sahara110 ( talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
how much is bonsai tree Megannerussell ( talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdzfly ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bonsai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Bonsai was nominated as a Agriculture, food and drink good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 18, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Bonsai was copied or moved into Bonsai history with this edit on 2016-09-20. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.)
I have a few specific comments on some of your points:
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.
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:
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)
These links removed, as not being up to various WP:EL standards.
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
To recap (with some emendations) an earlier post of mine:
If my suggestions about the current Bonsai article took hold, I would hope to see:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Really, no posting random words... Ajrules30670 AJ ( talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Sahara110 ( talk) 17:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Continuing from bullet (d) above:
Sahara110 ( talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
Sahara110 ( talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Another round continuing from bullet (d) above:
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)
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)
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)
Sahara110 ( talk) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
how much is bonsai tree Megannerussell ( talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
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.
[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdzfly ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)