Talk:Joshua Tree (disambiguation)

Requested move

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

Clear consensus not to move. There is some confusion in this debate over where the "burden of proof" lies in determining what article can be considered the primary meaning of a certain name. As with any discussion on Wikipedia, the burden of proof lies on those seeking to change the status quo. The current status quo is that Joshua tree is a redirect to Yucca brevifolia, with a hatnote leading to Joshua tree (disambiguation). The majority opinion clearly holds that the primary meaning of "Joshua tree" is the plant, Yucca brevifolia. That article was moved from Joshua tree to Yucca brevifolia on 2008-11-30, citing WP:Naming conventions (flora). A move request to revert that move reached no consensus because WP:Naming conventions (flora) entered a state of flux soon after the move. That discussion centered on the naming convention, not on what the primary topic was (and reached no consensus), so it cannot be used as support for the move requested here. In all, the majority of editors, and the strength of the arguments, are clearly in support of keeping this page where it is.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tree (disambiguation) to Joshua tree, over redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The plant is clearly the primary usage of Joshua tree, and so it should remain a redirect to the article about the plant, at least for now, as long as the article itself is not at Joshua tree. The recent (November) unilateral move of Joshua tree to its current location at (damn, I have to look it up every time, that's how obscure it is) Yucca brevifolia was done unilaterally and without even an attempt to achieve consensus. The even more recent discussion there shows that indeed no consensus exists supporting that unilateral move, and consensus is much closer to moving that article back to Joshua tree. Putting a dab page there now just complicates matters. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYUSAGE suggests ways to show (not merely assert) that a topic is a primary topic. So, Born2cycle, as you assert this, now please show it. --Una Smith (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally the burden should be on the proposer to explain why an article should be moved, in my opinion. You don't say so, but assuming your reason is that the plant is not the primary topic, shouldn't you be the one to demonstrate that? Station1 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Short answer: no. I do not have to demonstrate an article is not the primary topic, for two reasons:

A request to move the candidate primary topic to the ambiguous page name just closed, without anyone being willing or able to show that the article in question was the primary topic. That is ample evidence that it is not the primary topic.
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the burden of showing that a topic is primary is on those who assert a primary topic exists, not on anyone else.

In short, the disambiguation page should be moved to the ambiguous page name because Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Requested move established that the article to which Joshua tree redirects is not the primary topic. This requested move will put the disambiguation page where it belongs. Then the incoming links to it can be disambiguated per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand better now why you want to move this page - thanks. Looking at Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Requested move, however, it seems to me that that discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with whether the plant was the primary use of the phrase "Joshua tree"; rather the proposal and discussion was whether the common name or scientific name of the plant should be used as the article title in accordance with WP:UCN and/or WP:NC(flora), which is why no one addressed any question of a primary topic. It certainly did not establish that the plant is not primary use of "Joshua tree". (Also, I see nothing at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicating "the burden of showing that a topic is primary is on those who assert a primary topic exists.") Station1 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yucca brevifolia is not the primary topic here because that article is not about Joshua trees; it is about a species in which some members are called Joshua trees. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC talks about if there is a primary topic, how to establish that. It says nothing about needing to establish the opposite. --Una Smith (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the second sentence of the article says. In any case, I don't see what that has to do with this proposal; either way there is a plant called "Joshua tree" so the question is: Is the plant the primary use of the term? Station1 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. --Una Smith (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The plant is clearly the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All the other uses seem to be derived from the name of the plant. Station1 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support to remain consistent with WP:NC(flora), at least the way it was before 2 December 2008. --Jwinius (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unless I'm mistaken, article traffic statistics at [1] indicate that the album is the single most visited of the pages. This means that, at the very least, the plant is not the primary topic. Joeldl (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album is titled as The Joshua Tree, which may be incidentally confused with the plant (and which is why there are hatnotes). The stats won't tell you how many people entered "Joshua tree" were looking for the album. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, but we can guess. I think it's very easy to forget about the The in an album title. So my suspicion is that confusion is frequent enough to justify the disambiguation page being the primary page. Joeldl (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a way to tell from stats how many people landing on "Joshua tree" didn't want the plant. Subtract views of Joshua tree (disambiguation) from views of Joshua tree. It turns out that in November 14.5% of viewers at "Joshua tree" moved on to the dab page, either because they were looking for something else (maybe the album) or were curious as to what else was called Joshua tree. So I think the plant is the primary use of "Joshua tree" and the album is primary use of "The Joshua Tree". The only reason "The Joshua Tree" is on the dab page at all is because some minority (up to 14.5%) might understandably wind up on a page with such a similar name. Station1 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The main problem with your reasoning is that many of the page views of Joshua tree come from internal links, which have a high likelihood of being written correctly. It is unknown how many of the page views of Joshua tree (as the page was still known in November) came from people typing the name directly. The number of views of the disambiguation page should be divided by that unknown, but smaller, number, not by the overall number of views of Joshua tree. A second problem is that an unknown number of people give up when they don't find what they're expecting. Despite these problems, the overall number of views gives a sense of the relative importance of each topic, and we then need to use our common sense to estimate the potential for confusion. Joeldl (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the page views of Joshua tree come from internal links but I don't see that that makes a difference to this discussion. One method of landing on a page seems no less valid than another. Why discriminate? If editors are less likely to be confused by the two titles and 'searchers' more confused, it still averages out to at most 14.5% in the wrong place. If we assume for this conversation that those internal links "have a high likelihood of being written correctly" (and I do tend to agree with that assumption), isn't that an argument for the two terms not being unduly ambiguous? Otherwise, a lot of links meant for the album The Joshua Tree would be written incorrectly and wind up on Joshua tree, and the viewer would still need to click through to the dab page. Station1 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, we're trying to minimize the number of clicks needed for a person typing something in to get to the page they want. Editors who link to the pages, if they pay attention, will link to whichever page is the right one at the time. Internal links adapt to fit whatever the situation is. It's true that to a small degree, internal links are also a consideration in the sense that some editors don't pay attention. But counting page views resulting from internal links doesn't make sense as a measure of that because incorrect internal links get corrected over time. Joeldl (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if we double or triple that 14.5%, it's still a minority winding up on the wrong page. If this move goes through, 100% of those people typing in "Joshua tree" will wind up on a dab page, where none of them want to be. Whereas if it redirects to the plant, we are minimizing the number of clicks for at least some of those people, probably most of them, and maybe a large majority. Station1 (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's double, triple, quadruple or what. My guess is, it's substantial. And people tend to be less confused by a disambiguation page than they are by the wrong page with a tiny link at the top. Joeldl (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that last point, I think we simply have a difference of opinion and can leave it there. I did attempt to improve the hatnote on Yucca brevifolia just now for those looking for the U2 album. Station1 (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now disambiguated all incoming links to Joshua tree and Joshua Tree; many were incorrect. Incorrect links mean that at least a fraction of page views of the article about the plant are errors. Given that the plant is not the primary topic here, by far, it is likely that most views of the page were errors. That situation will continue until a dab page is put at the ambiguous title. --Una Smith (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Notice of requested move by Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Joshua tree is not ambiguous, and the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not ambiguous, why is there a disambiguation page? If we don't need the dab page, what will happen to the users who are looking for the town (especially if they are not sure what state it is in) or the U2 album?--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Septentrionalis is saying (or rather, the only way I can make sense of it) is that "Joshua tree" is not ambiguous, but "Joshua Tree" is. So there would be an argument for retaining "Joshua tree" as a redirect to the ~~species~~plant, and maintaining a disambiguation page at "Joshua Tree" or "Joshua Tree (disambiguation)". If this is truly his position, I cannot endorse it; people are not as careful with case as this would assume them to be. Hesperian 03:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification. The redirect would be to the article about the plant commonly referred to as "Joshua tree". That that article happens to also be about a species (or a taxa) is neither here nor there. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck?! Okay, point of clarification. The redirect would be to the article about the entity commonly referred to as "Joshua tree". That that entity happens to possess any other properties or characteristics is neither here nor there. Hesperian 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

end of copy--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is clear to me that Joshua tree should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think a case has to be made to show that the plant is not the primary use deserving the redirect. In this case, the data below shows that it is. The Joshua Tree has a similar but different name. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that the burden of proof lies on anyone who claims a primary topic exists. Anyway, the data below are proof that the plant is not the primary topic. The page view counter does not distinguish between titles when a redirect is involved. I have now disambiguated all links to Joshua tree and Joshua Tree, and the majority had nothing to do with the plant. Also, of those links that could go to the plant article, about half concerned the habitat type "Joshua tree forest", not the plant itself. For purposes of disambiguation, Wikipedia does not make fine distinctions based on differences of capitalization or the presence or absence of "The". --Una Smith (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This proposed move is the next step, following the result of Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed also at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Unilateral moves. --Una Smith (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the plant sometimes known as Joshua tree is not the primary topic of the page name Joshua tree. The page view statistics for November 2008 show that of the ~~62484~~64530 views of ~~Joshua tree and related pages~~articles on the disambiguation page, only 18220 (2928%) were of Joshua tree or Joshua Tree:

Joshua tree / Joshua Tree 18220 (Joshua Tree redirected to Joshua tree)
Yucca brevifolia 174
Joshua Tree, California 2976
Joshua Tree (film) 4
Joshua Tree (1993 film) 2046
The Joshua Tree 32349
The Joshua Tree (band) 316
Joshua Tree National Park 8445

--Una Smith (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
expanded --Una Smith (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disambiguating the ~40 incoming mainspace links to Joshua Tree; at least half intend to link to an article about something other than the plant. --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The cactus is clearly the primary usage of the term. All of the other usages are derived from the cactus. The fact that towns, rock music albums, and films that adopted the name of a cactus, and are popular topics on Wikipedia, does not change the fact that the cactus is the primary usage. Moreover, all of the other usages are proper names ("Joshua Tree", not "Joshua tree") that should not be affected by the fact that Joshua tree is a redirect to Yucca brevifolia. --Orlady (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the vernacular names of plants and animals is so inconsistent that all variants are best treated as one. Hence, we treat "Joshua tree" and "Joshua Tree" as equivalents. By "primary usage", Orlady argues for priority of one name over others; in Wikipedia priority is not important. --Una Smith (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice of requested move

Joshua Tree (1993 film) → Joshua Tree (film) —(Discuss)

This is a move over a dab redirect, requested by Station1. --Una Smith (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that proposal was "No move." --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Joshua Tree

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tree (disambiguation) to Joshua Tree, which as reported above accumulates mostly links not related to the plant and needing disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support as requester. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To me this is logical, since Yucca brevifolia is not going to be moved and "Joshua tree" (as well as "Joshua Tree") require disambiguating anyway. First redirecting these names to Yucca brevifolia and then referring to "Joshua tree (disambiguation)" from there would simply not be as efficient. --Jwinius (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. Support move. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the same reasons as the earlier request, and for avoiding differences in targeting based on initial caps (based on closing admin's comments at Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hunter. This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Expanding my oppose vote after reading some more of the background. Best end state would seem (to me) to be
1. Joshua tree redirect to the plant article (or revert the November 30 move) as the primary topic for the Lower case version
2. Joshua Tree redirect to The Joshua Tree as the primary topic for the Initial Caps version
3. This disambiguation to remain at Joshua Tree (disambiguation)
4. The plant article get a {{two other uses}} hatnote linking to both The Joshua Tree and Joshua Tree (disambiguation)
-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per JHunterJ. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why is the current situation considered a problem? (I don't see it as a problem, but I'm probably missing something obvious...) --Orlady (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page is not located at either of the ambiguous page names (Joshua tree and Joshua Tree). Those two pages keep being redirected to one of the articles linked on the disambiguation page, rather than to the disambiguation page, and being redirects to articles they accumulate both legitimate links and wrong links. That mixture makes the wrong links much harder to find and fix. Above, I requested a move of the disambiguation page to Joshua tree, as the base name, but it was opposed and the request was denied. Now I request a move of the disambiguation page to Joshua Tree; Joshua Tree seems to accumulate the majority of the wrong links, as is to be expected given the entries on the disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't have a strong opinion on this. I think it would make sense to convert Joshua Tree into a redirect to Joshua tree (disambiguation), but I don't know what I think regarding moving Joshua tree (disambiguation) to Joshua Tree. --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, why do you think the redirect makes sense but moving the disambiguation page does not? --Una Smith (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of Joshua Tree illustrates the problem: the redirect is unstable. This is despite the fact that, as the above page stats show, the primary topic of Joshua Tree is not the plant. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the recent edit-warring you participated in there, the edit history is actually remarkably stable. From 16 May 2004 until 30 Nov 2008 it was a redirect to Joshua tree. On 30 Nov, the article at Joshua tree was moved to Yucca brevifolia and the redirect updated to avoid a double-redirect. To participate in an edit-war over a redirect and then claim that as evidence it is unstable is just a little disingenuous. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, after the article was moved to Yucca brevifolia I disambiguated the incoming links to both Joshua tree and Joshua Tree, and what I found convinced me that neither page should redirect to Yucca brevifolia. So I fixed both redirects. I thought they would be no-brainer, uncontroversial fixes. By requesting moves, I am choosing not to edit war. Enough others disagreed with me about Joshua tree; we'll see if they also disagree about Joshua Tree. --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of this request is mistaken. As of 20 Dec, most articles with links to "Joshua Tree" were intended for the plant. There were approximately 30 links in 24 articles intended for the plant, approximately 10 intended for the California town, 2 for the National Park, 2 for the U2 album, 1 for a redlink to the Messer film, and 1 indeterminate probably for the plant. (Not directly relevant, but for the record, there were approximately 23 additional links to "Joshua tree" all intended for the plant.) Currently there are approximately 9 user and talk pages with links to "Joshua Tree" intended for the plant, 3 for the town, 2 for the album, 1 for the National Park, and 1 indeterminate (I didn't count pages directly related to this discussion, such as Talk:Requested moves or Talk:Yucca brevifolia). Station1 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The premise is not mistaken. Given that Joshua Tree at that time and for years previously was a redirect to the article about the plant, there should have been zero incoming links intending other topics. Instead, over half the articles linking to Joshua Tree had wrong links. I have disambiguated thousands of incoming links to articles, and 50% is an unusually high proportion of wrong links. In cases like this, it is customary to put the disambiguation page at the ambiguous title. Hence move Joshua Tree (disambiguation) to Joshua Tree. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! --Jwinius (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.