Talk:Yucca brevifolia

How cold hardy?

How cold hardy are Joshua trees? If they area planted in a raised bed (to keep the roots dry) can they be grown in areas such as USDA zone 5 or 6 that are cold but not a whole lot colder than their natural habitat? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.208 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan of a Joshua Tree

Should there be something here about the lifespan of a Joshua Tree? How old can a Joshua Tree get?

Hard for anybody to know, because as the article says, it "lacks annual growth rings, making it difficult to determine the tree's age". I vaguely remember reading about someone experimenting with C14 dating, dunno where I saw it. Stan 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, one of the subspecies forms clonal clumps, so the clump wil be older than any of its above-ground ramets.--Curtis Clark 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I live near the national park. The rangers say the average lifespan is about 150 years, between 145 to 155. Anyone know how I cite a pamphlet from a national park? Shinku Hisaki (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

branch of a joshua tree

We have had some abnormal amounts of snow fall, and the weight of the snow has broken one of the branches on the Joshua tree. Can I plant that and have it grow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.188.223 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunatly not. If you have any more questions concerning Joshua Trees, you may contact The Joshua Tree Nursery located in Joshua Tree, Ca. jtnursery.com

Not a Joshua tree?

I'm not convinced that Image:Joshuatreesydney.jpg is a Joshua tree; it looks more like a Dracaena or some such. The branching pattern and lack of old leaf bases are both uncharacteristic for Joshua trees.--Curtis Clark 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is not a Joshua tree. At first I thought that it wmight be a cabbage palm, but after comparing, it does look like more like a type of Dracaena to me as well. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it called a Joshua tree?

I told my kids that's cause the trees are way old, dating back to, like, the time of Joshua, but no confirmation or disconfirmation here. --Mikedelsol (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the article explains the name, under "Ethnobotany".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the explanation of the name there either. It doesn't really make sense to have it in that section, I'll move it to the top. Druff (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensible proscription of original research I have not amended the entry, but the name origin story would seem to be unverifiable but commonly repeated folklore. I've written about this here. - Chris Clarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.140.223 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not enough consensus for a move, especially considering that WP:Naming conventions (flora) is heavily disputed and in flux right now, so it doesn't really qualify as a reliable rule to rely on in these debates. Given that, a move is not advisable at this time. Once NC(flora) is accepted as a convention, this requested move may be revisited.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Yucca brevifolia → Joshua tree — According to WP:NC(flora), articles about trees/plants should be titled based on their "common name". The scientific name should only be used if it is the most common one, however "Yucca brevifolia" (which is not even mentioned in the lead section) is definitely not as common as "Joshua tree". Although there are several titles listed in the lead section, I believe "Joshua tree" is most common and most appropriate, especially since there is a national park named after the tree. — –Dream out loud (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[This rationale is in error on several points. Hesperian 00:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. This name is unique (among English names), unambiguous, and well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yucca brevifolia is also unique, unambiguous and well known; so you haven't given a reason for favouring a move. Hesperian 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support the name "Joshua tree", but note that contrary to the note at Wikipedia:Requested moves#11 December 2008, Yucca brevifolia is mentioned in the lead, right after the common name, in italics just as it should be. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title "Joshua tree" is ambiguous; Yucca brevifolia is unambiguous. Joshua tree (disambiguation) should be moved (back?) to Joshua tree. --Una Smith (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't ambiguous. The proper name Joshua Tree, so capitalized, is ambiguous, but may have a WP:PRIMARYUSAGE - it redirects here. But that is not what is proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Joshua tree" vs "Joshua Tree" is splitting hairs, and irrelevant in the context of search users. --Una Smith (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It might irrelevant in the context of search by users, but it is not irrelevant to the issue of whether there is a primary usage for each of the two spellings (without and without the T capitalized), the answer to which is yes. The title about each primary topic should be reflected accordingly. And using a name that is virtually unknown outside of a specialized area is not solution to a search problem, if that's what you're trying to address. Note that Joshua tree currently redirects to this article, which has a hat note to the dab page. I see no problem, and actually an advantage, to sending any user searching for the park or town by entering "joshua tree" to this article about the namesake first. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support unique name that is primary topic. Other uses listed at Joshua tree (disambiguation) are derivative. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Derivation does not establish a primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By itself no, but it is one element and in this case none of the other ambiguous names are remotely close. The Joshua Tree album is the only entry likely to be more widely known, and as a title has a distinctive name. older ≠ wiser 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.,Mainly because it seems this change is motivated to corrupt a functioning naming policy, and no good reason has been presented why this HAS to be under Joshua tree. Hardyplants (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fascinating assumption of motive; it would be a personal attack on those of us who supported rephrasing the guideline, but Dream Out Loud has not even joined that discussion, nor edited any WT page since September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, merely because this could be used as support for widespread use of common names at the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Considered on its own merits, this is a clear case where use of the common name does not damage the encyclopedia. I have no objection to either article name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per "use common name." Arguments about it affecting other policy slightly irrelevant IMHO. SteveRwanda (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you participated in that discussion?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; WP:NC, a policy, states "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Those who participated in the discussion at WT:NC (flora) will be aware that I have already checked what verifiable reliable sources in English call this particular plant. For those who didn't participate over there, here it is again:

  "The ideal source from which to obtain a physical description of Y. brevifolia is a monograph on the genus or family. Surprisingly there seems to be nothing of significance published since the brief and very general treatment of Verhoek (1998) "Agavaceae" in Kubitzki, K. (ed.), The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants III. This uses scientific names throughout. If you wanted to get into morphological variability, you might dig up Valentovich and Sandquist (2007) Morphological variation of Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae) among seven population in the Mojave Desert, which also refers to this plant by its scientific name.

  The ideal source(s) for the species' systematics?: Presumably Pellmyr et al. (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas, which uses scientific names throughout. Possibly also Clary & Simpson (1994) Taxonomy of the genus Yucca: taxonomy and molecular biology and Clary & Simpson (1995) Systematics and character evolution of the genus Yucca L. (Agavaceae): evidence from morphology and molecular analyses. I haven't seen these last two papers but I bet you London to a brick that they use scientific names throughout.

  For distribution and habitat? Biogeography is an understudied and underpublished area. For most taxa there is no atlas available but in this case there is a three-volume set by Hochstätter (2002) entitled Yucca, Yucca II and Yucca III. Y. brevifolia would be in Yucca II. I haven't seen these books, but they give me the impression of a self-published work that may not be completely reliable. It might be necessary to go to local floras, like CalFlora, in which the relevant page is entitled "Yucca brevifolia". This information might be supplemented by papers on historical and future distribution such as Dole et al. (2002) The relative importance of climate change and the physiological effects of CO2 on freezing tolerance for the future distribution of Yucca brevifolia.

  For horticulture? I recommend Irish (2000) Agaves, Yuccas, and Related Plants: A Gardener's Guide. Our species is treated on page 239 under the title Yucca brevifolia.

  There are of course some articles that use the common name. There seems to be a cluster of them focussing on mutualism between Yucca and the Yucca moth. But in general, the preponderance of reliable sources that I would anticipate citing in a high quality article on Y. brevifolia uses the scientific name, not the common name."

Septentrionalis, I asked you over there whether you endorsed WP:NC, and you seem to have avoided answering me. I'll ask again: do you endorse WP:NC? Hesperian 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have never heard of Yucca whatever, but have often heard of Joshua tree. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is not a scientific reference. Yucca brevifolia might be an appropriate title in a scientific reference on flora, but the idea that this obscure name (little known among the general public) be used instead of the widely known Joshua tree as the title of the Wikipedia article about this topic, which clearly has primary usage for the name, and for which "Joshua tree" is unquestionably the most common name, is not supported at all by any (undisputed) naming policy, guidelines or conventions, so far as I know. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! Wikipedia is a reference about popular culture, pseudoscience, and political POV. Anyone who thinks they can learn any science from Wikipedia should smoke some salvia or weed and chill out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NC(flora). The wording there seems rather clear. Out in the US West, I have never heard it called anything but a Joshua tree. Maybe the scientific name is also included on the nursery tags, but it is still the Joshua tree. While not a reason in and of itself, Yucca brevifolia gets 31,000 hits and Joshua tree (in all its uses) gets 3,000,000. So since the tree itself is the primary usage it would appear that the is a case for this also being the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you're fond of google, try plugging in ["joshua tree" OR "Yucca brevifolia"], sifting out the false hits on national parks, albums, movies, cities, etc, and check what the title and predominant use is for the pages that are actually about the plant. I did this for the first 100, and the result came out about even. Google doesn't support your position at all. Hesperian 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, WP:NC(flora) is a proposal right now, not agreed upon, and this very article is one of the debating points. One of the things that we want to be careful about is that this article doesn't become used as justification for multi-month debates on the thousands of other plant articles. Stan (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If general Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions were adhered to in naming these articles, there wouldn't be any debate. That's why they are established, to prevent exactly the kind of problems that occur when "specialists" try to wiki-lawyerize category-specific rules that contradict, rather than complement, the general rules. I'm all for category-specific rules that spell out what to do in a given category when the general rules fall short, but the specific rules should only be there to complement, not contradict, the general rules. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This coming from someone who doesn't want our specialised guideline to conform to the general WP:NC policy that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." [1] How do you rationalise such a self-contradictory position? Hesperian 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but specialist sources don't count. The important thing is that Wikipedia not challenge a user's existing knowledge by suggesting there is more to a discipline than they already know.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What shits me isn't so much the disregard for specialists as the sheer hypocrisy of the position. A mob came to WP:NC (flora) to ram WP:NC down our throats. The latter was policy, and we were told in no uncertain terms that we had no right to a mere convention that wasn't precisely in accordance with it. After neutering our convention in the name of the WP:NC policy, they are now willfully ignoring WP:NC policy in this new debate, since they have discovered that it doesn't actually say what they want it to say. Hesperian 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, amen to that. Be careful what you wish for! Stan (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I apologize for failing to clearly explain the basis for those reverts, though that does not justify your jumping to conclusions about what it was, and stating that I was being hypocritical with respect to following WP:NC (which, BTW, is arguably pushing WP:CIVIL). As you know, the wording I objected to was, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the taxon". I have no objection to the current wording, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call it". The problem with using taxon in that context is that taxon implies use of the scientific name for that taxon, because of the dual meaning of the term (one meaning of taxon is a taxonomic group, the other meaning is the scientific name of such a group). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now while the bigger picture is being sorted out at WP:NC (flora). Melburnian (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UCN. This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a work of taxonomy. — AjaxSmack 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: It may not be wise to rely on the current version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), as it is in flux right now. Check the edit history and the talk page. Longstanding consensus there was to always use scientific names; no new consensus has yet been reached. In light of that, a move here seems premature. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I know the naming conventiosn for floara are currently under discussion, but in general, all articles should typically be titled by their common name, not necessarily their "official" or "scientific name". Compared to other flora related articles, Oak is not titled Quercus, Sunflower is not titled Helianthus annuus, Poison ivy is not titled Toxicodendron radicans, and so on and so forth. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunflower is mis titled, it should be Helianthus annuus or Common sunflower, sunflower covers a lot of different plants. Oak for the most part is limited to Quercus - so not much confusion there. Poison Ivy is a commonly used name for two different related plants and their different forms. Hardyplants (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The naming of other plants may be more difficult; indeed, the present text of WP:Flora says so. But cases like this should not be confused by that; however rare they may be, they should be treated in the way clearest to the lay reader. (One of the comments on WT:Flora was that such cases were always understood to be exceptions; the current discussion is in large part whether and how to say so explicitly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More people would know what a Yucca is than what what a Joshua tree is, lots of people can relate to yucca and this species is a treelike form of Yucca. I do concede that this is as close to a universally recognizable vernacular name for one single species as one is likely to find; even if the name does not represent the entire species, some forms and subspecies have other names. Hardyplants (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hardyplants. Also, inspection of the interwiki links to other language Wikipedia favors Yucca brevifolia. --Una Smith (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the usage of other languages (or may be); this, however, is - or should be - the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants, more people might know what a Yucca is, but I know lots of people who know both Yuccas and Joshua Trees, and I've never heard any of them ever call a Josua Tree a Yucca. That is, the plants that are commonly referred to by lay people as yucca does not include the Joshua tree. By the way, that's why the park is called Joshua Tree National Park, and not Yucca National Park (nor Yucca Brevifolia National Park). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conservation status

The text in this section seems to be quite biased and inappropriate for an Encyclopaedia project.

As I am not used to the wiki I do not want to remove anyone else's work and would like some advice or opinions. [Comment added by 216.246.247.46]

I've made a start, though the editor in question seems quite tenacious. One piece of advice that I can offer is that you sign comments on talk pages using four tildes (this symbol ~) so that people can track who is talking. Euchrid (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now added a more "solid" reference from a scientific journal to support the main claim, namely that climate change may reduce and alter the species' range. The "giant sloth" theory does seem to me to require more a more reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that wikipedia is allowing an essay on global warming theory to be used as a reliable source. What are the credentials of the authors, and in what capacity have they performed their research? Global warming has been pretty much discounted. They ignore all the underwater valcanoes that have emerged in the arctic sea over the last 50 years, which would easily explain the shrinking ice cap there. They point to Greenland and note ice formation along the coast has melted, but ignore the fact that the ice mantal overall has increased by 100s of feet on that continent. Same with the antartic. Scientists have long established that the sea level has gone up and down many times over the last 500,000 years, long before the industrial revoluion and the automobile. Over the last few years there have been record cold temperatures everywhere. A few years ago it snowed in Israel for the first time in many years. They have been raving about global warming for 20 years now but the sea level hasn't risen one inch. I was shocked to learn that the biggest recipients of 'green credits' are the big oil companies who have big intereets in mass media, the main mouth organ that tries to promote global warming. When a major volcanic eruption occurs it spews out more CO2 and other green house gases in a few hours than all of New York produces in ten years and in little time it is scrubed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. So why are not auto emmisions also scrubbed out? If CO2 is heavier than air, how does it get way up into the atmosphere to produce the so called greenhose effect? Hello? If global warming scientists discover or acknowledge that there is no global warming they lose their grants, so they are not about to do that. Follow the money. What a circus. -- Robinlarson (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please only use talkpages to make specific suggestions for improving articles. Thank you.Euchrid (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Got carried away. What makes the essay a reliable source? Global warming and sea level rise is by no means an established fact. Robinlarson (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor does the article suggest that they are. It states that reliable sources (ie essays published in scientific journals) have predicted that the distribution will be reduced, not that it definintely will be. If there are reliable sources with an alternate point of view then they can of course be included, in addition to the ones alreadyy present. Euchrid (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for your last deletion are without basis. Re:Your edit summary: 1."Statement uses of POV language ("alarmists")". It is common knowledge that global warming advocates have been warning everyone of sea level rise, displaced indigenous peoples, melting ice caps, extinction of various plants and animals etc, etc, so it's no stretch of the imagination to refer to them as alarmists, as does the source used, and Coleman, founder of the weather channel is by no means in the fringe. If you think so you need to supply proof. Who says he is in the fringe? Global warming advocates? Does not the other source used in the 'Conservation status' section present its own POV, that because of global warming and the absence of the giant ground sloth, the Joshua tree faces extinction? This is not only an unproven POV but is indeed an alarming statement. In any case I have restored the statement but ommitted the term 'alarmist'. 2. "Fringe theory". Are you saying all the scientists and others who don't subscribe to the global warming theory are in the "fringe"? That is yet another unproven POV. Last. The reference used, Coleman's article, doesn't have to be about the Joshua tree in particular to address the theory of global warming used in the article. Please do not make up rules to support your own POV. Unless you can cite and link to an actual Wikipedia policy violation and 'show the actual violation in detail', or present any other legitimate reasons to delete sourced content, please abstain from trying to suppress other valid views. You are only trying to advance your own POV and giving it undue weight by doing so. This is a fair assesment of your behavior since you didn't edit a few words you were in disagreement with, you wiped out the entire statement. -- Robinlarson (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The source which you are using, the op ed "Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?" has nothing to do with Yucca brevifolia, or anything related to this article. It never mentioned 'yucca brevifolia', 'joshua tree', or any other name for this article's topic. It has no place here. This article is about the yucca brevifolia, not global warming, and the sources chosen need to reflect that. Euchrid (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are trying to assert something that is not a wilipedia policy. To repeat, the Coleman article doesn't 'have to' be about the Joshua tree to address the point of global warming. I am not the one who introduced that topic to this page in the first place. If the article is not about global warming, then why don't we get any theories about this idea off the page entirely? Also, you can't bar a source simply because you don't happen to like the wording of the title. It looks like you're just reaching for ways to suppress other views. In any case, thanks for not deleting the last edit and provoking an edit war. It's important that this controversial idea be represented from both points of view and that the article remains fair and balanced. -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Page name

Why isn't the common term Joshua Tree used for the title of the page? When I did a google search for Joshua Tree the search result for Wikipedia was for The Joshua Tree, a name of some album, the likes of which is obscure or has never been heard of by most people. That was it! The Wikipedia article Joshua Tree National Park uses the common term, why isn't this page consistent with that article? Becuase of some album? Isn't that giving undue weight to the album? The common usage should be used for the title, with the scientific name noted in the lead section. Other pages for plants, fruits, vegetables and animals do this, including Douglas fir, Birch, Apple tree, Maple tree, Tomato, Grizzly bear, Lion, Gray wolf, etc, etc. Is the ablum more important that the Joshua tree in terms of undue weight and who gets the name? -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point. When I do the search, this article comes above the album. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All the results for Joshua tree were clearly spelled out Joshua Tree in bold and big lettering on the 'top line' of the search result. In my haste I skipped right over a search result because it read Yuuca brevifolia, which btw was not in bold, so we can only wonder what other readers will do, never having seen that ambiguous term in the first place. The more important point I was making however is that most wikipedia articles about plants and animals use their common name, out of concern for the common reader, and that the scientific name follows. This is the way it's done in most encyclopedias and texts. The other more important point was that we are reserving the title of Joshua tree for some U2 album. That article should be named The Joshua Tree (U2 album) and 'THE' Joshua Tree should rightly receive its well known and famous name here at wikipedia. I'll ask it again, how is it that the U2 album get's the name over the Joshua tree itself? The record is only known to a small group of U2 followers most of whom don't even read wikipedia, while the Joshua Tree itself is famous the world over. (Btw, the Joshua tree also grows in Israel and this article fails to mention it. I'll see if I can come up with a source for that, but this is common knowledge here in Joshua Tree land.) -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect; most plant articles are titled at the scientific name. Common names are usually ambiguous or are shared among a few species. Scientific names are precise and consistent. See WP:FLORA. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Rkitko is correct that a great many plant articles reside at titles based on their scientific names. This is in accord with the Wikipedia guideline on the naming conventions for plants, which is located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Exceptions to the general rule of scientific name titles, are enumerated there. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Plant article naming conventions. --Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If one places Joshua Tree in the main Wikipedia page search box the article entitled Yucca brevifolia comes up. Readers can readily see that this article is about the plant. If one is on the Wikipedia search page, and places Joshua Tree in the search box, the first line below the "Content pages" box is There is a page named "Joshua Tree" on Wikipedia. There is no need to rename the album, there is a clear dab hatnote at the top of that page. The only problem that I see is the need, present throughout the Wikipedia, for the user to read the pages that are presented instead of assuming that they are "false drops". I suspect that Robinlarson is talking about the Google search results page, since that is what is linked above. On the current Google search results page for Joshua Tree, The Joshua Tree album is the fourth entry, the second entry, Yucca brevifolia, is clearly about the tree. While the order of Google's results changes over time as their algorithms are refined, and while Wikipedia is not responsible for Google's output, it is valuable to look at those results especially when they create a problem. In this case they do not. --Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Joshua tree redirects here, I, for one, would support moving this article to that title per WP:COMMONNAME, and at least as a WP:IAR exception to WP:FLORA. --B2C 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikipedia history of the decision to adopt the naming convention to give plant articles their scientific names, and then see if you still feel that an "Ignore all rules" exception would be beneficial in this case. By the way, unless they are ambiguous, common names should always redirect to the appropriate flora article. --Bejnar (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Google search results, as noted, are out of our control and not a part of Wikipedia's concern. When searching for 'joshua tree', one finds this article. If the U2 album was the intended article, then there's a simple hatnote to follow. There is no good reason to go against the agreed norms of the relevant WikiProject; it makes sense to priviledges the scientific term, which will be universal, over the common name, which may vary from one place to another. Euchrid (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropping in from an extended wikibreak to comment, and then disappear again. "Joshua tree" is probably the commonest "common name" for Yucca brevifolia ssp. brevifolia, but the article is about all three subspecies, and the other two have different common names. So to call this article "Joshua tree" would be inaccurate. I suppose it would be possible to make a separate article about Yucca brevifolia ssp. brevifolia, but many would call that a content fork. Now back into my hole. --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)