Talk:Bonsai

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed - changed to somewhat more representative bonsai photos at top of article. Sahara110 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Images 

message: 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)
thread_title: Archive

message: 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)
replies: text: Incredibly useful overview. Much thanks for the efforts to lay it out. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree with merging the two articles

message: 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)
replies: text: Incredibly useful overview. Much thanks for the efforts to lay it out. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure and content of the two articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Concerns with "How to"-ness of article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe... but that may be a bit much Ajrules30670 AJ (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Page for a bonsai tree?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bonsai. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: State of references

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Should the bonsai article remove "Japanese" from its definitions and descriptions?

message: how much is bonsai tree  Megannerussell (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bonsai trees  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor Writing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese and Korean names for bonsai 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of Bonsai