Talk:Rose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Northern Hemisphere

Aren't all the Rose species from the Northern Hemisphere? Wetman 18:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Main image

I think the main image on this page should be changed. The most popular rose is the red rose. When people think of roses they would usually imagine the red kind (there is a picture of one at the bottom of the article). I have never even heard of a Dog Rose. Someone please take a good image of a 'proper' rose. Red or pink preferably. Seems like someone is trying to show off that they know of the Dog Rose even though it looks nothing like the kind everyone knows. Maybe they were trying yo get creative with their choice of rose to represent the page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.bonus (talk • contribs) .

At the risk of sounding like a rose snob, I think the picture at the top of this page is just fine. It's a good pictures and quite representative of the genus. Although red is a popular color for garden and cut roses, there are relatively few rose species with red flowers. On the other hand, white and pink are quite common. There is no single rose that represents them all any more than you could have one picture of a representative insect. They simply vary too much. I think Rosa canina (the so-called dog rose) is fairly representative - at least as good as you are going to find. It is certainly a common and fairly cosmopolitan plant. Although the article is titled Rose, it really is about the genus Rosa, including cultivars rather than being about garden roses in particular. So, no, I don't agree. Sorry. Henryhartley 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Henryhartley. Rosa canina is a 'proper' rose.--Curtis Clark 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I chose the cultivar rose for the top image because that is the most familiar form of rose to the general audience - the Rosa arvensis (if that is what it is, hard to be sure from the picture) looks more like an apple blossom than anything else, plus it's an off-balance image, very disconcerting. Also, multiple images along the side need to either be table-ized or spread out more - right now the HT pic is throwing everything off. Stan 06:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the photos needing to be put into a table. I've been meaning to do that. Now I did. I also adjusted the size of the thumbnails so the vertical images are the same size as the horizontal images. That is, the horizontal image was 180x120 while the vertical images were 180x270. Now they are 210x140 and 140x210 respectively.

As for the top image, I don't have a problem with the current image since it IS a rose, after all. I suppose an argument could be made for a garden rose but I don't think it's necessary. As for it being off balance, it's perhaps hard to see in the thumbnail but there are leaves on the left that do balance it some. I think it's a decent picture. I don't feel strongly about this. Henryhartley 23:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to make the argument that the top image should be a common red rose. I'm suprised that the article dosen't even contain a red rose. Just about every rose related logo that I can think of uses a red rose, like the Rose Bowl (game) Tournament of Roses American Rose Society Canadian Rose Society Portland Rose Festival. Also, Rose.com, Rose.org, Rose.net, and Rose-garden.com all feature a red rose in their banners. Cacophony 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, do a google image search for rose, or rose flower and look at the results. The majority of the images are of a red rose. Same thing at flickr, photobucket, and smugmug. I'm not saying that a red rose is the most common rose in the world, just that when the vast majority of pepole think about a rose, they imageine a red rose. Google searches illustrate this. Cacophony 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We disagree on this point. This article is about roses first and garden varieties second. Therefore, the first image that you see should be a species rose, not a garden rose. There are plenty of other pictures on the page, and I have no objection to a red rose on the page. I simply feel that it isn't appropriate as the main, introductory image. I've made my case and I'll let others decide. Henryhartley 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

David Austin roses

I changed some of the text in there, since it was strongly implied that David Austin roses are no longer in development, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'd also like to add a section on hardy roses created by Agriculture Canada as well as some notable Canadian breeders, but it's going to be a bit of work :) 68.147.67.250 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following content (from near the end):

Rose is also the name of a video game character. See Rose (video game character).

I felt it was too broad. There are scores of characters of every kind called Rose, and as there's no article on her/him, I didn't think it was much of a loss. There is definitely room for a Rose (disambiguation) page, though, where one can put all the Mary Roses and Amy Roses and Gypsy Rose Lees and video game Roses and the rest. --Suitov 15:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the link to white rose? It has nothing to do with roses that are colored white.

• I moved it up to the paragraph dealing with political parties. There it is at least somewhat relevant. I'll also add it to the disambiguation page. Actually, I wouldn't mind if it were removed from here completely, since, as stated, it has nothing to do with the flower or plant beyond sharing a name. Henryhartley 13:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yellow for friendship

I've also heard it said that a yellow rose stands for friendship; has anyone else heard this interpretation while growing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.238.47 (talk • contribs) 20:39, November 28, 2004

a quick google search for rose color turns up tons of hits indicating Yellow is for friendship and not dying passion. --Adam Katz 23:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The meanings section needs some work to globalize it. While you'll find over 600,000 English Google entries having to do with yellow roses meaning friendship, and a ton of results for dying love, this is not universal. Yellow roses, without a doubt, mean, really bad things in Germany, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if this applied elsewhere as well. While I'm sure red is nearly universal, I remember seeing some funny commercial a couple years ago about sending red roses in the US vs. Europe. Apparently it's OK to bring them to dinner with a couple in the US, but in parts of Europe it means you're hitting on the wife. It's all a confusing mess. -newkai | talk | contribs 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The symbolism is quite clear; though it seems strangely vague. Odd feeling.--70.56.162.216 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Rosa

this page on commons seems to contain a huge mixture of roses (at the top is says rosa sp but that doesn't appear to be an abreviation for any of the species listed here). Would someone knowlageable about the subject mind possing over and properly categorising theese images. Plugwash 17:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, next time I have a spare year. :-) Stan 17:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page heading, "Rosa sp.", is an abreviation for "Rosa species", not any one species. None of the pictures there at this time are actually species but rather hybrids or cultivars (i.e. either deliberate or accidental crosses). For many of them you'd have to go back more than a few generations before you found any pure species in their family tree. I suppose a better name for the page might be "Rose cultivars" or "Garden Roses" and someone might create sub-pages under that page for all the various rose classifications and put all the roses pictured in the appropriate sub-page but (as Stan pointed out) that isn't something that will happen in an afternoon. If you go "up" a level to commons:Rosaceae you will see entries for many specific roses as well as this "catch-all" page for "non-species" (and of course other genera in the family rosaceae). Henryhartley 17:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

yeah on closer inspection the images seem to be mostly a bulk import and there are a lot of them. I've changed the text on the page based on what you have said but they still need sorting somehow. Plugwash 18:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at a few cultivar pages, Rosa 'Schoener's Nutkana' for example. It would be cool to make a mega-list of cultivars within WP, since it's a whole subarea of its own, and as you observe we have a nice body of useful illustrations at hand already. There might or might not be much point in dinking a lot with the commons images; some of the policies (categories vs articles, interwiki links) are still evolving, better to let folks figure it out with smaller image subcollections than to jump into banging on the big ones. Stan 21:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rosa species

Looking over the pages that exist for various species of Rosa, it seems that where a common name exists for a species, that page has the content and there is a redirect page from the scientific (Latin) binomial. The exception to this was the Redleaf Rose (R. glauca) so I've moved it to that new page and created a redirect. I'm not sure I agree with this, I would tend to support putting the content under the Latin binomial and then redirect from the common name (or names) to that page since there could be multiple common names for a particular rose. Thoughts? If I don't get any objections, I may switch the existing pages. Henryhartley 15:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the official policy is to favor common names where there is a choice. However, one of the complaints against "common" names is that many of them are actually regional and maybe not that common, and it can be very confusing if a British common name is the same as the American name - for a completely different species! So now I tend to take a "hard line" on common names, in that a wide variety of sources - online, gardening manuals, field guides, scientific papers, etc - all need to agree on the same common name before I'll prefer it. (I ignore orthography, "dogrose" vs "dog rose" vs "Dog Rose" is still the same common name IMO.) If there's any doubt all, stick with the Latin. Stan 16:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where did this discussion take place? I'd like to read over it and see if it makes any sense. Is there any chance that this policy might be changed? Henryhartley 18:38, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I found some some recent discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Common_names (including one from you). The current consensus seems to be that people prefer scientific names unless, for a particular group of animals or plants (fish and birds seem to be the groups mentioned most), common names are well enough established. I also notice that there are articles, for example, for apple and peach 'as well as for Malus and Prunus but no Malus domestica or Prunus persica (and for pear, Pyrus redirects). In the case of apple and peach, the first two articles are more about the fruit while those with the generic names are more about the plant. I can certainly see the sense in that. So the question is, for roses, does anyone feel really strongly one way or the other? I'd still like to go with scientific names for articles and redirect (possibly multiple) common names to them. This would actually add consistency since there are no common names for some species. Henryhartley 20:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

American vs. British spelling

There have been a few recent reverts of the spelling of color/colour. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English provides the guidelines for dealing with this issue. "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." The first major contribution is somewhere around Revision as of 08:43, February 25, 2002. The British spelling does not occur until Revision as of 01:48, July 24, 2004. I think that color should be the prefered spelling. Cacophony 01:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I would happily support British spelling in this article if it would get the Pommies to shut up everywhere else... Jesus H. Christ, will they never stop... Stan 06:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The genus is overwhelmingly Asian and European, with only a handful of species native to the US. Also almost all of the cultivated species are of Asian origin, and widespread rose cultivation was first developed in southwest Asia and Europe. That makes International English (not British English, though the two are similar) the logical choice. - MPF 09:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if you would spend the time to create a secton on the history of the rose rather than engaging a pointless revert war. A simple google search leads me to [1] "The rose is, according to fossil evidence, 35 million years old. In nature, the genus Rosa has some 150 species spread throughout the Northern Hemisphere, from Alaska to Mexico and including northern Africa. Garden cultivation of roses began some 5,000 years ago, probably in China. During the Roman period, roses were grown extensively in the Middle East." I don't think this is any different than Azalea, Daffodil, Tulip, or Sunflower. Please cite sources and the portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style that says International English is perfered for plant/animal articles. Thanks, Cacophony 16:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do on the former, though obviously that passage is copyright so can't be used as it is. Of the latter, easy: "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country". As mentioned, roses are much more specific to the Old World, and so should be in International English. Sunflowers, by contrast, are an American genus, so it is proper they should be in US English. In case you're wondering, I've written many articles about American plants and used US spelling in them (or at least tried to remember to, I won't claim never to have forgotten!). I wonder how many US contributors writing about Old World plants have used British or International English?? From what I've seen, the answer is not many. - MPF 17:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Exclusively Old/New World I can understand, but choosing dialect for a worldwide genus on the basis of the subjective "much more specific"? You've just sailed past my level of caring, I think I'll just go back to taking pictures. Stan 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise, MPF? We'll support Old World English for Old World species descriptions, if you will at least include American measurements for North American species. That way we can all feel noble and Wikipedia will be user friendly. Pollinator 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me suggest that sticking to the rule of following the original article's spelling convention is a lot easier than thousands of parallel debates about which alternative is more logical for each of many many many different topics across wikipedia. If I were emperor I'd make a different rule, but there are good reasons that I won't become emperor. Pete.Hurd 04:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Revisted: I reverted because changes were made to the spelling to put it into Commonwealth English when the article used American English spellings before. It obviously wasn't in Commonwealth English before because you had to make the changes (specifically, three instances of "color" to "colour") to transform it into Commonwealth English. Wikipedia's policy is to go with the original spelling scheme in the article. (Also, since there are roses in the New World, this "specific to the Old World" argument is not applicable to this situation).

Regarding gramme, that is always the incorrect spelling in American English and is also falling out of favor in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. And regarding your suggestion, I will follow it and ferret out the one remaining instance of the Commonwealth spelling of "colour" in the article. Ufwuct 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosa 'Schoener's Nutkana'

Someone who knows about rose varieties might want to look at Rosa 'Schoener's Nutkana'. --Fang Aili 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging history

Please check out Talk:Rose oil. Melchoir 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Prickles are not spines

Re: "The spine article is actually incorrect; prickles are not spines"[2]. I won't agrue the point as I agree with you but wonder if the better course, then, would be to fix that article, rather than simply not link to it. Henryhartley 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Production of roses

It would be helpful if somebody could provide information about the commercial production and distribution of roses. For example where are they generally grown and by who? 63.228.162.41 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.228.162.41 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

How many petals?

From reading this, I thought there were either 4 or 5 petals on a rose, but from looking elsewhere:[3] - it seems as though there can be between 4 and 40 petals.

The rose as a genus (Rosa) has one species that commonly has four petals (Rosa sericea). All other species have five petals. Many hybrid roses have more than five but the article on roses starts our dealing with rose species, not garden hybrids. If you read further, in the section on cultivation, you will see mention of the higher petal counts of these rose varieties. By the way, the upper limit is nowhere near as low as 40. I have a rose — 'Sombreuil', which is usually listed as a Tea Rose but is technically a Hybrid Tea — that regularly has 150 petals in each flower, although many of them are quite small. Henryhartley 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

4.159.225.190 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the Myth section... This falls more into the realm of propanganda than myth. (And not just in my opinion).

Among Muslims, it is still believed that the first rose was created from a tear of the prophet Mohammed, and it is further believed that on a certain day in the year the rose has a heart of gold.

Since the time of the prophet Mohammed, wierd, non-sensical, stories like this have been attributed to Mohammed and the Muslims. It is highly unlike that he or any of his Muslim and non-Muslim contemporaries believed this, as attar from roses (hence the rose, itself) was purchased by him as agent to a firm owned by a woman by the name of Khateeja (whom he later married). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.246.45 (talk • contribs) 17:14, December 1, 2006

Voila, this passage is back. I will be removing it again. But who ever is putting it back, let's discuss why this was put back. There must be a good reason you've put it back, no? Thanks for any input/justification. 4.159.225.190 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to make a page on 'meanings of roses'. It was suggested that it be merged to 'rose'. I was wondering if this was necessary. I am planning to enlarge the article so that I can make it an independent article. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljobin2000 (talk • contribs) 06:18, January 16, 2007

A question on the etymology of the word rose - is it directly from Persian as I think the word has Greek roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.5.16 (talk • contribs) 07:57, March 21, 2007

Add a separate section on propagation?

E.g., does cutting work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.130.67.110 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Notable rose growers?

I'm no expert on rose-growing biographies, but I noticed that a lot of the entries in the "Notable rose growers" section were redlinks. To remove cruft, I hid all the redlink entries using an html tag ( <!--...--> ). I have no idea whatsoever who is notable in the rose world, so if you know that I removed an important rose-grower (list still viewable in edit mode), please move him or her back into the main list with a note on why they are important. If you can confirm that one rose grower or other is definitely non-notable, please delete him or her from the invisible list. Alternatively, once replacing important rose-growers, just delete the rest - if they're really important they'll be re-added. Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone identify this rose?

What kind of rose, and does it have a place in the artical? thanks -Fcb981 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Identifying roses can be difficult due to the thousands of hybrids available. It is a very clear picture, but there are quite a few already.--Vlmastra 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am 80% certain that it is Double Delight. If it repeat flowers (remontant), is highly fragrant, a shrub rose and bears flowers individually on stems or in clusters of 5 then I would be on the money with that. It could also be Harlequin. HelloMojo (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rose information

Great resource found here: Roses - Ilovegardening cheers!

LOL! Locked?!

Strange I wouldn't expect the page on roses to be locked, just curious but what is up with that? Was this page getting vandalized? LOL It's only roses... John 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) persistent vandalism, high frequency, likely target of more vandalism Breawycker (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Digitised botanic wall charts

Maybe yuo are interested in this link: Wall charts of roses (1870 – 1960)

Tehniyat

deleted this website spam CredoFromStart ^talk 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How long do different roses live?

I wanted to look up how long roses live, but I could not find that information in the article, maybe somebody who knows should include that. Knowing how long a plant should live is pretty critical when decided whether or not to grow one.

Also a nice trivia fact would be to know the longest lived rose species, and the longest lived individual rose if one is known.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.114.116 (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures, title

1. There are way too many pictures of rose cultivar/hybrid after rose cultivar/hybrid. There need to be more Rosa species pictures, with a few hybrid pictures. Also, the image arrangement in the first few sections is hectic.
2. Since this article is clearly on the genus Rosa, it needs to be moved to Rosa according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). I plan on doing this in a few days unless well-reasoned objections are presented.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this notion. The article should be titles Rosa with Rose redirecting here. After all there is a significant number of ambiguities to the word Rose. HelloMojo (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is probably the one plant page that absolutely should be at the common name, and which is one of the exceptions we had in mind when working up the naming convention. Yes, there are lots of ambiguities, but they all flow from the botanical meaning, and are thus properly at Rosa and Rose (disambiguation). And as the convention page notes, please take any change proposals to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Stan (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Superfluous pictures

There is a picture at the top of the article with a rose in a pot. The caption is "Meillandine rose in a terra cotta flowerpot" Meillandine is a commercial name and the picture is mediocre in its value to the article.

Additionally there is another picture with the caption "A Red Rose" which in full resolution inspection isn't a bad picture but i think it is superfluous. Anyone disagree with the removal of these two images? HelloMojo (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the rose's correct name in commerce is "Meillandina"; and as an example of a miniature rose, it's not a bad habit picture. But it should be labelled as such. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bangert

I can find no evidence at all that any such person wrote about flowers, so I've removed Robert Bangert from the symbolism section. Mangoe (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

How many petals does a rose have? I need to know for a science project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.219.184 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place to ask such a question - try the Reference desk - although homework questions are not really allowed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How to grow the stem of Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.197.21 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's better than roses on a piano? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.179.186 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reinserted 5 rose quotes

In his infinite wisdom, an editor took out all the quotes on roses. I agree than most of them did not belong, but reinserted 5 that show (in my opinion) the important place that roses have in our culture. This brings up lots of questions: "my culture" doesn't equal "your culture," what is "important," etc. Lots of judgement calls here, but I do think it's obvious that the Romeo and Juliet quote belongs here, and at least 2 or 3 others. I'll request comment (here) and ask that borderline quotes from little known works or authors be kept out. Smallbones (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New translucent bloom variety

I have a friend in Canada who is part of the Vancouver Rose Society. She received a monthly newsletter called "The Rose Bed" , where they announced that Scientists in France have blended an arrowroot genome with roses, and were able to come up with a rose variety that has transparent/translucent blooms. The article also mentioned there was a contest as to what to name this rose, and some suggestions had been "Clarite" and "Cellophane"... And also that the rose plants would be available for sale around April 1 2008. While there are rose varieties with transparent thorns ( I believe they are called "Imagination" and "Crystalline" varieties), these are the first cultivated Transparent rose blooms in history. I went trying to find a photo or news release of this. If it is a true scientific feat, you can expect it to be listed here as noteworthy. Keep your eyes open for any news on this, and post here if you find anything. Cheers. Jesangel (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An Update on this , is that it is the French Firm "Guillot" who has been mentioned in the article. Jesangel (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

History of cultivation?

There's sections on history & cultivation, but it's not clear what the origin is. When did domestication begin? Which wild rose(s) do they come from? I think that deserves at least a subsection. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, in most cases we don't know- and often the little we thought we knew turns out, in the light of DNA testing, to have been wrong.Solicitr (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rose hips

In the opening paragraphs there is a jump to Rose Hips that does not adequately explain what rose hips are. Hopefully someone with a better knowledge than me can fill this part in. Trucker11 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like this was written by some rose company selling roses

I've never heard any of this before:

   * Pale Colors:convey warmth and friendship.
   * A Dozen Roses: stand for "there are dozens of ways I care about you."[citation needed]
   * Two Dozen Roses: stands for the 24 hours in a day and tells that "you think about them every hour".[citation needed]
   * Three Dozen Roses: signify a romantic attachment unlike any other.[citation needed]
   * Four Dozen Roses: mean unchanging and unconditional love.[citation needed]

RyanTMulligan (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just whack it all then. Pages like this are magnets were good-faith but useless or misleading edits, in addition to vandalism, just need to be strict about sourcing etc. Stan (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Red Rose Tea

It seems suspect that the 2nd link on the page redirects to a commercial tea company's wiki article.RyanTMulligan (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a well populated Category:Tea brands so presumably it has been accepted that they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Given the existence of an article for the brand Red Rose it's not unreasonable to point to it from Red Rose (which redirects here). OTOH, a mention of Red Rose Tea from a more generic rose article does seem excessive. An alternative is to convert Red Rose from a redirect to a disambiguation page; apart from Red Rose Tea, and red roses, there's also the use of Red Rose as a symbol of Lancashire and its cricket club. Another alternative would be a separate page on the cultural role of red roses, which is not fully covered here. (But then, there's also the use of Tudor and white roses.) Lavateraguy (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial

Actually, I was looking for websites just like these! Where can I buy some nice roses? The sites are beautiful. Unfortunately, there are rules against including commerical sites. It seems a shame even to cite the rule in this case, but see WP:SPAM. I was going to put the websites here so I could come back to them, but I really shouldn't.

BTW, the whole article could use a bit of de-commercialization, and maybe the types of roses sections could be forked off to another article so that 2/3 of the article isn't about varieties. Smallbones (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

What happend to the information on the symolism of roses regaurding what the symbolism of 1, 2, 3, 4 dozen roses? [4]--Maceo (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See Sounds like this was written by some rose company selling roses above. Henryhartley (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image on German Wiki

The German wiki has a GNU image Datei:Rosendornen.jpg It would go nicely with the part on "thorns". No idea how to get it here. Could s.o. help?76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done with Move-to-commons assistant ([5]), one of Magnus' toys. Very handy to use. JoJan (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Climbing rose

How long does it take a climbing rose to flower. I've had one in perfect sun and it grows healthy stalks. No flowers after 2 years. Is it common that they do not flower the first year? I have lots of roses and they are all in bloom, except the climber? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.114.253 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A rose is a rose is a rose but not all roses are the same... Roses are so different one from the other. A climber is not just a climber. What is its name? And please don't say that you do not know! (asking because so many plant roses not knowing name, creator etc.) Some roses like a lot of sun, some less. Then there is the soil, the care, the exposition, the altitude - lack of this, too much of that... Frania W. (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

roses for vineyard

I live in New Zealand on the North Island and have a small hobby vineyard. This month I need to plant some roses at the end of the rows to determine when the disease blackspot is around. Could you please advise me which would be the best variety of rose for this purpose.

Thank you Jeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.3.244 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

thornless??

is there such thing as a thornless rose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.56.113 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, all roses are thornless, they don't have "thorns" they have "prickles". I'm not sure if there are "prickleless" roses however. The article does contradict itself in the "Uses" section though, by saying that some roses are grown for "ornamental thorns", should this be changed to "ornamental prickles" for consistency? Swampy 203.48.101.131 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Although "technically speaking" roses don't have thorns because they are "technically" prickles, common usage is to call them thorns. Therefore speaking of a "thornless" rose is meaningful and reasonable. To the OP, there are some roses that are either thornless or nearly so. The Bourbon rose Zephirine Drouhin pretty nearly thornless, for instance. The David Austin rose Heritage only has a very few thorns. There are others. Henryhartley (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Old Persian" font

Do many readers of Wikipedia looking for information about roses have a font on their computers that displays Old Persian, or do they mostly see boxes or some such in the third paragraph? Modal Jig (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpet Roses

Does anyone think that this one, patented line of roses is being given undue weight? Since the Flower Carpet line came out, a number of other very disease-resistant shrub roses have come out, such as the Knock Out line. Those are said to have become the best selling roses in history, yet there's not a word about them.

I'm tempted to remove the "Carpet Rose" quasi-class, and to try to balance out the whole section to make it seem less like an ad for a particular company's product. Any objections? 69.110.156.71 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Reads like an ad or publicity release. Modal Jig (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.108.115.59, 13 August 2010

{tlf|editsemiprotected}} This section on roses, does not include the culinary uses of roses...rose water which perfumes middle eastern and Indian desserts, rose jam, sweet rose lassi, rose tea...etc.

24.108.115.59 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Per the templated-request...
This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification of roses

I propose that this section should be moved to a new article Classification of garden roses, with a summary left behind. Imc (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps a Garden roses page would be a better option, with a subheading for the classification, and also notes on their cultivation, modern breeders, et.c. Imc (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of the content is in Garden roses now. Imc (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Roxasneo, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} add to quotes "a young rose has no thorns, but still what beauty it contains" -Chauncey Waller Roxasneo (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about whether these quotes should be in Wikiquotes instead? Nadiatalent (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO it doesn't belong per WP:QUOTEFARM. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to pull out the whole section, as per Kayau. In See Also, we already have the standard "Wikiquote" template, which is sufficient. "Quote" sections almost never make sense in WP articles, but they especially don't make sense in a general topic article like this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the pulled quotes aren't at wikiquotes (under roses). Perhaps they should be added.

Apart from that, while I can that it is undesirable to accrete quotations about roses here (per WP:TRIVIA), the quotes were mostly relevant to the topic of roses in culture. (I'd've dropped the Great Gatsby one.) On the other hand, they would seem to fit at least as well in Rose (symbolism). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to add them at Wikiquotes; since there were a lot of Rose quotes there already, and I'm not familiar with their inclusion standards, I didn't want to do it myself. I could see an argument to having them in Rose (symbolism), but, even there, I wouldn't want to collect them into a separate quote section. Instead, I'd put a representative quote into prose form, like "Roses can also represent X, as in Book Y where Author Z wrote "(quote)."" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Roses as invasive species?

Some species roses are invasive when introduced into new areas, such as multiflora rose in the eastern and midwestern US. What do people think of adding a section on Invasive Roses? I know people in my area frequently mistake a naturalized rose (R. rugosa) for a native plant. Where would this section go on this page? Dog Walking Girl (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage for this differs. I would prefer to have a major subheading of Ecology with a subheading for roses as introduced plants. Imc (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you see as being covered in Ecology? I am very familiar with the ecology of the native and naturalized roses of the Pacific Northwest, and California to a lesser extent. There is a difference between introduced, naturalized, invasive, and noxious. All garden roses are introduced - they are not native to where they're planted, except when people plant locally-native species. A few non native species roses are naturalized in the PNW - they reproduce on their own, ie R. rugosa and R. eglanteria. None are really invasive here, but in other parts of the country R. multiflora has become invasive - it invades and dominates uncultivated areas and alters ecosystems and squeezes out native species. I don't know that any rose would be noxious, a noxious weed is one designated by an official Noxious Weed Board type organization, which has the legal authority to compel landowners to control so-designated plants. Noxious weeds get that designation when it is agreed that they cause economic harm to agriculture, poison livestock, injure people, increase wildfire hazard, choke rivers, et cetera. Multiflora may be officially noxious in some states or counties, I don't know, but I can find out. How do these definitions sound? They are all of course location-dependent - R. rugosa is native in Japan, naturalized in Washington, and invasive in Maine, for instance.

Some people use 'invasive' to include locally native species that dominate disturbed habitats but I prefer to call those 'early seral', saving 'invasive' for non native species. Every ecosystem needs its pioneering species that will grow in disturbed areas, for instance here we get large clearcuts, hurricane-force windstorms, wildfires, landslides, and even volcanic explosions, that wipe out plant communities and leave bare soil. Something has to go first, you don't replace a 500yr old forest overnight.

I see an Ecology section covering the role that roses play in natural ecosystems, outside of cultivation. Where they grow, and what feeds on them, and in the case of naturalized roses what impacts they have. Anything else? Most of my information would be for North American species. I'd love info on Asian and European species esp. the ones used in hybridizing modern roses but I'm not the best source for that. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding and use of the word ecology is that it deals with not just 'natural' ecologies, but those affected and caused by introduced exotics (as well as other man-made interventions). Usage differs, and there is no clear practice; there are plenty of articles that have 'Invasive weeds' or similar titles for a main heading. If you can improve the article, that is the main thing. Imc (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tea rose

Tea rose redirects to Rose#Tea but nothing about the Teas can be found in the article. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The material about tea roses got split off into garden roses. I've updated the redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Climbing Plant?

Heard that roses use thorns to climb?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoLegion (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as I understand it, that is their primary function, rather than as a browsing deterrent (though they also fulfill that role as well). And strictly speaking they are prickles rather than thorns. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosa Canina

The hips of the Rosa Canina contain very high quantity of vitamin C. Upon making tea, marmalade, jams etc, the hips are cooked at high T. This destroys the vitamin C. The only ways to preserve it, is low T extraction, like soaking in alcohol or cool water for long time periods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.247.199.50 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking like a how-to manual

I'd like to propose that some of the details about cultivation be removed to follow the principle that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I personally added at least some of the cultivation notes (in my earliest editing days when I was unaware of Wikipedia guidelines), I was going to say that I agree, but I notice some work has been done on the article subsequently. However now that the 'Pests and diseases' section (which included cultivation advice) has been moved to Garden roses, to a certain extent the question has been moved there.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rose Exhibiting

Rose Exhibiting is a topic not really covered on the current Wikipedia articles.

I recommend 2 books as resources. One is "Showing Good Roses", by Robert Martin. The other is "Otherwise Normal People: Inside the Thorny World of Competitive Rose Gardening", by Aurelia Scott.

The American Rose Society is the governing body for this sport in the USA. Robert Martin has also founded the American Rose Exhibitors Society for a networking community.

I hope someone can create a Wikipedia article on this topic. I don't really have the literary skills to be able to create one.

John Sincock Seattle Rose Society

71.112.89.122 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John! I'm in the Olympia RS so we're neighbors, relatively speaking! I am on this for you but it may take a while. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, nearly a year later, I have created a page on Rose Show. It's a beginning, there's a lot more to be done, but it's already way more than just a stub. Take a look and give me comments - I need more info, especially from outside the US. And where to put links to it? I put one on this page and the Garden Roses page under See Also.Dog Walking Girl (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo of English Roses

English Roses in a nursery in New Jersey.

For possible inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is focused on the botany and uses of roses. Different horticultural classes of rose are described at the garden roses article, however there is already an image there of a David Austin rose, and that image better shows the typical David Austin style flowers than does this one. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of red rose

Why is there no picture of a red rose, being the most identifiable among all types of roses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.37.137 (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Red roses do indeed have a particular allure and romance attached to them, but they are not in fact a 'type' of rose. Roses are either identified according to their species (if they are wild roses) or classified according to their ancestry and growth habit (if they are garden hybrids). This article deals primarily with species, amongst which red flowers are actually quite rare (e.g. Rosa moyesii). The vast majority of wild roses have either pink or white flowers. For more information about garden hybrids (with which most people are more familiar), see the article garden roses, and if you want to see a picture of a 'classic' red rose, you'll have to go to the hybrid tea article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was similarly disappointed when trying to answer the question: What is the species name of the classic rose that is sold by florists? Wouldn't it be better to have that species in the first photo at the top instead of Rosa rubiginosa? If not, wouldn't it be appropriate to have such a photo somewhere on the page? The garden rose looks close, but do florists sell garden roses? What would be perfect would be a sequential image of a classic rose blooming, connecting the various familiar images into stages of a single species: bud, tight flower, tulip-shaped flower, full bloom, and beyond full bloom where the petals start to fall. After reading much of this page and List of Rosa species (which also deserves a photo of a classic rose), I still have not found the answer to my question. IOLJeff (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by the 'classic' rose sold by florists, but assume it to be a "hybrid tea" bred for the cut flower trade - i.e. a rose with a whirl of many petals unfurling from a high-centred bud? Such a rose is a hybrid and doesn't come from a single species, and hence is not dealt with by this article. 'Garden roses' and 'florists roses' are all hybrids, usually descending from a complex mix of species via many many generations, and the only real difference between them as groups is that 'florists roses' have been selected to have particular traits (high productivity of bloom, long straight stems, thornlessness, long-lasting flowers etc) deemed desirable for their market. I imagine you are not unique in your puzzlement, and I wonder if the titles of the different rose articles isn't helping; for some time I have been thinking it might be preferable if this page was retitled "Rosa" (the scientific name for rose species) and the Garden roses article was retitled "Rose".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that proposal. Wikipedia:Article_titles makes it clear that in a case like this precision is more important than the usual policy of taking the most common and familiar expression for the article title. An administrator's help would be required to make the change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No citations

Nothing here is cited. Botany section is not cited. "Uses" section is not cited. I can't believe that a general article concerning the rose, of all things, would not be cited. Surely you can find articles to back up this one? It's not like the rose plant is a new, previously unheard of flower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You could always find some yourself. "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

True. But this is a useful post; this article has far too few citations. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Culinary Uses of the Rose

There is a Wikipededia entry for Rosa x damascena could this be linked to its existing parenthetical citation? Also, could other specific edible varieties, be linked, if they have an existing page? Thanks for the help.

That one and Rosa × centifolia, which were already mentioned, are now linked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Roses have been eaten and used as a seasoning since ancient times. Should this not be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.22.162 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved to end of discussion by Imc (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

If there are any reliable references for this, then certainly it can be added. Can you suggest any? Imc (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Could links to grocery shops be used as references for this, for example for Rose Petal Jam - http://www.fortnumandmason.com/p-5373-rose-petal-jelly-from-fortnum-mason.aspx or perhaps a link to Thorntons for Rose Creams?Anonymous watcher (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added material on this in a Food and Drink section, and subsumed the use of rose hips section into it. Needs some more references (as do other parts of the article also).

I have attempted to make this section more extensive and accurate, but my edits are being reverted with "inappropriate primary reference" used as the reason and replaced by text with no source at all. My text said "Rose water can be purchased from some supermarkets for use as a flavouring in cooking", and I linked to an example of this product in an online supermarket as a source. This has been replaced by "Rose water, made as a byproduct of rose oil production, is widely used in Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine." I feel that this sentence strongly implies that Rose water or rose flavouring is only widely used in Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine.

The article should reflect the fact that rose water is a fairly generic cooking ingredient easily found in shops in many countries around the world. What sort of reference is usually used for this kind of information? Additionally, I also used links to the website of shops as the references for Rose Creams in the same section, so presumably these also need to be changed?Anonymous watcher (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Having re-read the wiki pages on sources, I am now wondering if the situation for "acceptable examples of common knowledge" actually applies to my text. Is this why my primary source was inappropriate? In which case can my text be put back in, only without the source?Anonymous watcher (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A problem with using a shop website as a source is that it effectively acts as an advert for that particular shop. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia favours reliable secondary sources such as academic journals, newspaper articles, books from respected publishers etc., so if one of these could be used as a source for your claim, that would be ideal. I appreciate your point about the alternative text not having any reference at all, so in fairness it can be argued that either that also needs a reliable source as well, or that your text can be included without a reference. Personally I think it might be better if both statements are removed until sources can be found indicating exactly how important the use of rose water is in different cuisines and countries, as this is obviously now a debated subject, and neither claim can hence be viewed as "common knowledge". Also bear in mind that there is an article on rose water, so any detailed text on the subject should be inserted there, with only a summary line or two in this article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will do as you suggest and remove the statement on this subject until I (or somebody else) manage to find a secondary source, (although I expect this will be hard to do as I can't imagine many publications discuss the availability of groceries).Anonymous watcher (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If there were a more clear definition about the species which are really reliable used as food or food additive in each country legally?

Novel Food catalogue Lists of authorised food additives It seems that only the use of fruits of the Rosa canina under reguations of EU, but not as food additives, neither do the other rosa species. 36.232.61.163 (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite clear what you mean or ask, but it seems to be a finer point about its food use. So it may be better put at the talk page of Rose hip. Imc (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The article under the Food and drink section should more precisely indicate that not all rose is legally used in food now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.64.8 (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition in the lead

A Rose (/ˈroʊz/) is a woody perennial of the genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae. There are over 100 species and thousands of cultivars. They form a group of plants that can be erect shrubs, climbing or trailing with stems that are often armed with sharp prickles.

Call me an idiot, but I can't really tell what that means. I would instead prefer to see something like this: A rose is a flower, often used as expression of love. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your definition is very narrow and hence insufficient for an encyclopaedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed definition should be put in the body of the article. I was suggesting a brief description in the lead that would make sense to everyone who is not an expert in biology. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

please change

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Food and drink

To

Food and drink

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,there are only certain rosa specie, variety, and part are on the Generally Recognized as Safe lists.

• Rose absolute:Rosa alba L., Rosa centifolia L., Rosa damascena Mill., Rosa gallica L., and vars. of these spp.
• Rose (otto of roses, attar of roses): Do
• Rose buds:Do
• Rose flowers:Do
• Rose fruit (hips):Do
• Rose leaves:Rosa spp.

1.168.238.253 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - it's pretty clear. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

edit problems

I am a new user but can not figure out how to edit the rose page itself. Please help. BTW I think the box at the top is now outdated - I dont see any list of references that is not directly cited. Gripogl (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gripogl! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for pointing that out. I'll remove the template The reason you cannot edit the article is because it is semi-protected, which means you need to be at least autoconfirmed (i.e., have an account that is at least 4 days old and has at least 10 edits) or confirmed to edit the page. If you encounter articles you cannot edit in the future, you can also make an edit request if you wish. Happy editing! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Pjoshi45 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Řose

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC) --173.218.127.109 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)marquis was here skittles

WP:BRD WP:CYCLE

Whay do You suggest WP:BRD WP:CYCLE? Yahadzija (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you make an edit to an article and it is reverted, you should start a discussion about the change on the article's talkpage, and not keep reverting back. As I stated in my edit summaries, this article already has plenty of images and doesn't need another unless it improves on the images already present. The image you uploaded has peculiar colouring, almost like it was taken solely in UV light. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Rose is generally loved by every people.It's a symbol of love. Mastikhorgirish (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 13:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Rose is generally loved by every people.It's a symbol of love. Mastikhorgirish (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

pictures

I think we should include this pictureWikigirl97 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630085646/http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/market/Uganda/reports/Roses.PDF to http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/market/Uganda/reports/Roses.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Roses and other Rosacea are not native to North America

"Most species are native to Asia, with smaller numbers native to Europe, North America, and northwestern Africa."

Normally, "Native to North America" means that the species grew in pre-Columbian North America (before Europeans settled in North America). Since Rosacea are adapted to pollination by bees (which developed "hairs" to hold pollen) and there were no bees in pre-Columbian Americas, I do not know of a pre-Columbian pollinator for Rosacea in the Americas. Roses and bees were both introduced from Europe.

I do not know of any species of Rosacea that do not require bees for pollination (they co-evolved). Unless I am wrong and species of Rosacea exist that do not require bees for pollination, Rosacea are not native to North America.

Most native North American flowering plants were pollinated by birds (such as hummingbirds). They can be distinguished by the longer stamen to accommodate the larger sized pollinator (the stamen have to extend beyond the beak to the bird's feathers). Hibiscus is an example of a genus that is naturally bird pollinated.

The article describes two species as native to North America, but the pollinators are not mentioned. Although some species of rosacea grow wild in the Americas, that is not the same as a species being native to the Americas. Drbits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is just original research (based on unsupported assumptions) and not suitable for Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a considerable number of rosaceous species native to North America; in some cases whole genera are not only native but endemic to North America. There are of the order of 10 species of Rosa native to North America. (You could work through FNA to get a count.)

There are also many species of bees (Anthophila) native to North America. Perhaps the point of confusion lies in honey bees (Apis) being an introduced taxon in North America. Hover flies would also be another group of potential insect pollinators. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Images

This article gives great information on many roses. Sadly, I was not able to upload an image on Wikipedia. I wish that this article will allow more people the ability to submit more files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianague99 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Images here should be restricted to a few useful ones that illustrate the article. You should probably look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rosa first. Imc (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Eurosa

I saw Eurosa being mentioned often in the scientific literature around the early 2000s. It states that in this article that the subgenus Eurosa is incorrect. I wonder where the term comes from and when and where it was decided that it is incorrect. Mindravel (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As I understand, the rules are that the subsection/section/subgenus containing the type species has the same name as the genus. Sticking eu (true) in front of the genus name for such taxa is an old practice now deprecated - I'm surprised that it was common as late as the early 2000s. On the other hand, Wikipedia Français has an article for sous-genre Eurosa.

After some googling I find that articles 21 and 22 apply: article 21.3 forbids the use of Eu<genus>, and article 22 says that the subgenus containing the type of the genus has the same name as the genus. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Where do you get the rules from("subsection/section/subgenus containing the type species has the same name as the genus")? Sorry, my French is not existing and I would not like to rely on some auto-translate to extract information from there. What articles (21 and 22 + 21.3) are you referring to? Could you link them please? Mindravel (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

From the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Article 21, Article 22)

Wikipedia Français seems to be wrong. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cut Flowers

Glasshouses in this section redirects to a village in Yorkshire. Should the word be greenhouse? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've corrected the link. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That was very fast. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed the term to greenhouse. Merriam Webster defines a glasshouse as where glass is made; a bit of research shows that the English speaking world says greenhouses (except for those pesky British). Besides, the linked article is titled, "Greenhouse." TjoeC (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (Please don't throw stones!

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

in Symbolism instead of "The English symbolised the Houses of York and Lancaster in a conflict known as the Wars of the Roses." it is ambiguously "They symbolised the Houses of York and Lancaster in a conflict known as the Wars of the Roses." MCplayah (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I agree that "they" is ambiguous, but it seems to refer to roses, not the English. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

questions

The photo of rose jam says it is "partially popular in Iran." Is this supposed to say "particularly"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skutir (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The article says that Tea roses are "thought to represent hybrids of R. chinensis with R. gigantea". Considered that "tea" scent is a criterium to differentiate betwen Chinas and Teas, I'd like to know if this smell was introduced from rosa gigantea or was it already present in Rosa Chinesis and got strenghtened through selective breeding (???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "tea" scent is by no means a feature of all Tea roses! It's found in some, especially older cultivars like Duchesse de Brabant; but by no means in all or even most of the roses classed as "Teas." Remember, we know very little about the lineage of most 19th Century roses; typically breeders (esp in France) treated their hybridiziations as trade secrets, and we simply don't know what the ancestry of a lot of OGRs is. Add into the confusion the not uncommon phenomenon of misidentification (as in the La Biche/Sombreuil and Jacques Cartier/Madame Boccella brouhahas), and the fact that in many cases "Tea" was just a marketing label anyway, and it's all a chaotic mess that likely will never be disentangled. Suffice it to say that of the original "Tea-scented Chinas," one was yellow, a color unknown in R. chinensis, and both had the pointed, spiral buds which are considered characteristic of "Tea" bloom form. Solicitr (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for the answer. So it seems that borders between groupings can be artificial.78.131.137.50 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They can be artificial, they can be guesswork, and they sometimes conflict with each other. A rose like Duchesse de Rohan will be categorized as a hybrid perpetual, a Portland, a centifolia or damask perpetual, depending on who you ask... and you may well be told more than one of those by the same person. It looks like a centifolia (but violates the usual centifolia rule by reblooming), smells like a damask and repeats like it has autumn damask in its ancestry, and "Portland" and "hybrid perpetuals" are good catch-all labels for roses like that, but the former are all European, while the latter have at least slight Asian ancestry. Until someone does a thorough genetic analysis of this rose, we don't know for certain, one way or the other. You could even invent the class "Centifolia Perpetual" for it, and have as good a claim to accuracy as anyone else. 69.110.156.71 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

Chang the sentence in the Food and drink

from "there are only certain Rosa species, varieties, and parts are on the Generally Recognized as Safe lists."

to "there are only Essential oils, oleoresins (solvent-free), and natural extractives (including distillates) of certain Rosa species, varieties, parts, forms, and processing methods are on the Generally Recognized as Safe lists."

According to the cite, only the Essential oils, oleoresins, natural extractives of certain rosa species and parts are listed as GRAS, not the plant parts directly. It it not listed as safe to eat the petal or fruit directly. 2001:B011:BC00:6B3:F0D9:2176:8F99:D070 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"RoSe" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RoSe. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

According to Oxford Dictionary the name ROSE does not derives from French but from LATIN ROSA (plural ROSAE, read "ROSE") The relevant link is http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rose Regards Melchisedech^Talk 15:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

French, italian, spanish...we all use Rose form the Latin. That part should be removed!--Ilmionome (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

exit <Exit>exit

{exit} 174.255.133.187 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Math

Rog 103.121.173.11 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The yellow Persian rose reaching Vienna sometime in the 16th century

This paragraph is misleading. The statement "Considered a symbol of love and friendship, roses were a gift from Persia to the entire world" implies that roses weren't in Europe before that. The article even points out further down that its popularity in Christian texts centuries before that. Ancient Romans cultivated it and it was ubiquitous in medieval heraldry. https://www.medievalists.net/2013/11/roses-in-the-middle-ages/ 2600:1700:850:2C90:39A5:4097:4BCD:FF67 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)