Talk:Garden roses

References

This article was created on 17 November 2010 with material copied over from the article Rose. The inline references came with the material, but there is still a lot of stuff that needs a reference. The sources cannot be seen clearly in the original article, and it would be useful if someone could locate them and add it to the article. Thanks. Imc (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Foley Hobbs -- could she be mentioned?

Would following be appropriate amongst the "Notable rose growers".

Mrs. Foley Hobbs. Rose named for her in 1910. Resident of Malvern. Photographed 1917.

Mrs. Foley Hobbs

No one has objected so I included her rose in the list of Tea Roses and her name in the list of Notable Rose Growers, with reference to her photograph in a published book. I think this is allowed by rules on notability, the mention of her rose in several web sites, and the reference. I will not object if anyone deletes these inserts because I am not an expert on roses. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved name from "Notable growers" to List of rose cultivars named after people with reference, but left name in list of Tea roses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Empress Josephine

Even though the Empress Josephine has a Wikipedia entry and a rose is named after her, was SHE a notable rose grower and, if so, should there be a citation to a reference work that states this? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. This content was copied over from the original article Rose and it is possible that good references have been misplaced between the two articles since they were not included inline. I don't have most of the print references quoted at hand; but we know that Joséphine_de_Beauharnais was a noted grower of roses. [1] [2] It is quite likely that she (actually her gardeners of course) also bred them. A quick search produced several online references (none that I would consider detailed enough to be a reliable source however) that claim that the 'tea rose' or the 'China tea' was bred there. I think this entry should remain. Imc (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And further, to the question of whether there should be a citation that she was a grower, yes there should be one. But without looking through all the citations provided, we cannot be certain that there is not one already. Till about 4 years ago or so it was considered ok to provide references at the foot of the article, so this situation can arise often with long established articles. More recently it has become policy to provide citations inline for everything that may be questioned. My own opinion is that inline citations should be used sparingly, especially if the matter can be easily verified by other means such as an online search. Imc (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope my comment did not come across as suggesting entry be removed. It was part of my trying to sort out what I can put into articles about people I knew and places where I lived and how much verifiability is needed. I just put a helpme on my user talk page about this question. My own bias (as a user of literature and with long standing professional interest in dissemination of information) is that society is helped by the provision of information in good faith by people knowledgeable of topic, with addition of verifiability when and if possible. I am beginning to get sense of "invisible colleges" of Wikipedia contributors who are very responsible, and a large number of contributors who are appallingly ignorant but presumptuous. In a few cases I was able to change a few words that gave a completely wrong sense of things that happened in WWII -- but an American high school student would probably not have spotted the nuances. However, many people where I live in the U.S. have told me in the past two weeks that the high school and college students they know are not allowed to quote from Wikipedia in papers.Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the text or references about Empress Josephine, and she really should be in there. Am I missing something? Otherwise I would like to add something about her collection at Malmaison and how she jumpstarted modern hybridization of roses. The entire History section needs expanding while I'm at it.Dog Walking Girl (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The content about Empress J is actually in the article Rose, not here. I can't remember why the discussion took place here. There needs to be a brief summary of the history of the garden rose in Rose, but you are right, it needs to be expanded in this article. I should have made sure that everything relevant to garden roses in the rose article was also included here. Feel free to correct this and add to it. Imc (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I see it now! thanks. Yes, I believe I will expand on that in here as this seems to be the most appropriate place for it, rather than the Rose page. Another question about the division of the two pages - should the Pests and Diseases section come to Garden Roses? most of those are problems in gardens and not so much in wild or naturalized roses. And the Notable Rose Growers section - is this for hybridizers, or for famous gardens? Most of the names in the list seem to be hybridizers, which would be a very useful and informative section, while perhaps a separate section on famous gardens, such as Malmaison. Josephine after all is probably best classified as a gardener, while her horticulturalist was the hybridizer. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, P&D should be here as well. The notable growers section is (it seems) for individuals (and probably organisations) who are associated with roses. Imc (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Although bear in mind that the main site for P&D is Pests and diseases of roses, so to prevent excessive duplication, any P&D section on "Garden Roses" should I think be more of a summary, with a link to "Pests and diseases of roses" (but perhaps outline treatments on this page?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ralph Moore be included as a notable rose breeder? He really is who made minitures a real class of roses, not to mention his understanding and advancement of rose genetics. Duvina (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Moore

Yes, Duvina, Ralph Moore really should be included as a notable rose breeder. There is no page for him (there's another Ralph Moore with a page but it isn't him) and I don't want to be the one to start a page on him. Any volunteers? Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Extending list of notable rose growers (including Ralph Moore) and should we add rose gardens?

Hello, just to let you know I've had a first bash at extending this list to make it more comprehensive and global. I've got Ralph Moore in there - he deserves it - along with some other new names. I intend to revisit this, armed with my source material, over the next few days to check for errors and improve the coherence of the list. Empress Josephine stays in, but with the addition of the name of the person who actually did the rose growing and hybridisation. I've put Graham Thomas in on the grounds that his influence informed the likes of David Austin and he did get some roses into commercial production (mostly these were 'found' seedlings from what I've read).

I also think there could be a new section on rose gardens (Tyler, Texas looks a bit lost). There is a rather limp and incomplete page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_garden, which doesn't list anything in the UK, US, Australia, Japan, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC) ----Libby norman----

I would rather go the other way and remove rose gardens, not getting into the commercialized/advertising side of it and bearing in mind that the Page above already exists. I definitely back the idea of making the lists more global, although keeping towards the English speaker's orientation is reasonable to a point in the English language wiki if people so desire.

IceDragon64 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't have rose gardens on the page – since this discussion of 2011 Rose garden has been extended and improved as a separate article. Note that the majority of those listed on that page aren't advertising/commercial as such but are notable showcases of roses (many are state/nation owned) and are places to go to see displays of different varieties. I'd agree with you on losing the one remaining garden – Tyler, Texas – which looks very out of place (it could be moved to Rose garden) and we should just focus on the list of notable rose growers below it that contains a very useful list of key introducers/introductions of roses. Libby norman (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Article order

I propose rearranging the order of this article so that the section on 'Cultivation' comes after 'Classification', and not the other way round as is the case at the moment. This is because I think it's more usual to define and describe something before explaining how it works in practice, plus if the article is rearranged then the section on 'Pests and diseases' will come immediately after (and therefore be more closely linked to) 'Cultivation', which makes more sense (at least to me), seeing as some of the 'Pests and diseases' section does actually cover cultivation issues. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

While a reordering is desirable, this will mean that cultivation is rather more difficult to find, after the very long section on classification. It rather raises the question of which topic is more important to users, cultivation or classification. I have to admit though that classification is more of an encyclopaedic topic. Imc (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the cultivation notes rather veer into "how-to manual" territory, so 'demotion' to further down the page is perhaps desirable from that point of view as well. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad Jalbert

Does anyone have an opinion about the notability of Brad Jalbert? I'm minded to take his advertising links off his entry even if he should stay on the list. Would welcome opinions on this. Thanks. Libby norman 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

I've removed the other external link and added a fact tag. There should be an external reference to attest that he is a notable grower - not his own website. If the list of growers grows too long, it might be necessary to have a more stringent criteria for the most notable. A suitable test could be if a rose bred by the grower is mentioned in the article (or related article, e.g the hybrid teas article). Imc (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a very good idea. Perhaps authoratitive external sources - such as rose encyclopaedias, mentions by the various national rose societies or World Federation - might also count.Libby norman 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

Further to earlier discussion, have amended Brad Jalbert's entry as it claimed he was one of the 'rare' hybridisers to accept rose commissions. This does not appear to be true - and is certainly not proven. The comment also sounded a bit close to advertising.(Libby norman 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

the Rose Growers section

How are we defining Notable Rose Growers here? it looks like it's being limited to hybridizers. How about influential writers? I'm thinking specifically of people like Dean Hole, the founder of the Royal National Rose Society, and Roy Hennesey, a nurseryman specializing in roses, and author of books and articles on rose growing. He was quite the contrarian when it came to conventional rose advice and advocated techniques that were considered blasphemous at the time but are now being recognized as scientifically accurate and beneficial to the roses. I don't know that either one did any hybridizing but both were certainly influential in rose growing. Empress Josephine is in the list, rightly so, without having been a hybridizer herself because she popularized rose growing and made it fashionable, as well as revolutionizing hybridizing by importing every known species and variety and hiring hybridizers to use her collection. Graham Stuart Thomas is certainly notable and influential without having been a hybridizer himself, due to his writings and research and finding lost varieties. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support adding all those people (space permitting). Nadiatalent (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

First floribunda

I've changed the cultivar described as the first floribunda, from 'Gruss an Aachen' to 'Rodhatte', as this came earlier and also because 'Gruss an Aachen' is actually a hybrid tea by parentage, although it's often classed with the floribundas. The claim of 'Rodhatte' is also backed up by a reference. However the name 'Rodhatte' actually needs umlauts on both the 'o' and 'a', but I don't have such a character on my keypad, and I'm not sure if umlauts can be achieved using the Wiki software? Any help? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I did something to make this appear at some early stage of wiki editing: when I'm editing I see a box below the edit summary area that offers a menu of "insert", "Wiki markup", "symbols", "Latin", "Greek", "Cyrillic", "Arabic", "IPA (English)", "IPA", "math and logic". The "Latin" one (surprisingly) has umlauts and other accented characters. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Latin refers to the script, not to the language. That insertion table appeared early on Wiktionary as well, where its use is even more frequent. Note: You can also type umlauts and other diacritical characters from a Windows PC or from a Mac if you know the right keystrokes. However, the key sequences are not worth learning unless you use them frequently like I do. For a Mac, it's Option+u followed by the letter to receive the umlaut. For a PC, it's Shift+Alt+; if I remember correctly, but I do this less frequently from a PC these days and so can't always remember. In Windows, you should be able to open the Special Characters window and see the keystrokes. I don't know about the latest Windows OS, but it used to be possible to set up your own shortcuts for frequently used odd characters, so I set up shortcuts for several oddities that don't normally have them, like the Hungarian double accents, the Polish kreska, and the Lithuanian "dot-below". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A further development: as I wasn't familiar with the cultivar 'Rödhätte', I decided to do a bit of a google search (just to see what it looked like as much as anything), and found that all the pages I looked at listed it as having been introduced in 1912, not 1907. Should the date be changed? I got the date of 1907 from Phillips and Rix, whom I regard as pretty authoritative, though it seems they're pretty much in the minority on this matter. I would say that the web pages showing 1912 aren't as authoritative, it's just that they all concur with each other, unlike Phillips and Rix. (Incidentally, even if the date is changed to 1912, I don't consider that as grounds for disputing the claim of 'Rödhätte' as the first floribunda - some of the sources stating 1912 still acknowledge it as the first, and as I stated above, 'Gruss an Aachen' is by parentage a hybrid tea, and is I think classed with the floribundas on the grounds of similarities of form, as much as anything.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems necessary to check the Official Registry And Checklist - Rosa. I've never seen it, but the people selling it claim it is great. Perhaps a specialist library would have a copy. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Colours

I would like to see either here or in the Rose article a paragraph about the colour of their flowers. One of the reasons the rose is so popular, as we were taught in our City & Guilds course, is because of the wide range of colour. I am not clear on what the full range is and I don't know which pigments are available. I can't tell which pix are real and which are not- do they really come in blue and purple?

IceDragon64 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi IceDragon64Roses definitely come in a lilac/purple hue (for instance, Rosa Veilchenblau, Blue Moon), but I don't think you could describe them as the classic blue or purple. Blue rose explains how genetic modification has been carried out to create stronger blues, also dyeing of white roses. Every so often, you see a story claiming the truest blue rose has been bred...none look truly blue to me. The full colour range is from white through pink to deep red and also yellow through to dark orange. Some striped roses have been bred (eg. Ferdinand Pichard), but there are curiosities such as Rosa Mundi, which is a natural sport of R. Gallica 'Officianalis' with rather extraordinary pink and red striped markings – a lovely old rose. I'd suggest looking at one of the major rose breeders' sites to see the full range of colours – for instance Peter Beales or David Austen, or check out the RHS website. Bear in mind that colour classifications – like scent classifications – are somewhat subjective. Libby norman (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have Wikidragoned a piece in on Features of Roses, including Flower colour. This is based on my own training as a professional gardener, but I need to stop now, so I would be grateful if someone can kindly step in and add sensible things to this.  :)

IceDragon64 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that a section on colours would be better at the Rose article. There is a very interesting and complex paper on the subject that really needs someone with some knowledge of chemistry (perhaps not a great deal of knowledge) to summarize the information. Apparently, colours and perfumes are both produced from the carotenoid pathways. The article is paywalled, unfortunately. Eugster, C.H.; Märki-Fischer, E. (1991), "The Chemistry of Rose Pigments", Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 30 (6): 654–672, doi:10.1002/anie.199106541{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Old Garden Rose

Did I get lost somewhere? It seems that the Old Garden Rose is defined as the old European roses from before the introduction of the China and Tea roses, but it then says that the introduction of these created new groups of Old Garden Rose. Surely it should read "new groups of rose"?

IceDragon64 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Garden roses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705205338/http://www.rosarosam.com/story/story_HP00.html to http://www.rosarosam.com/story/story_HP00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Garden roses. 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/20120115052245/http://www.kew.org:80/plants/roses/history.html to http://www.kew.org/plants/roses/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820085616/http://www.rdrop.com:80/~paul/dickerson_Ch.html to http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/dickerson_Ch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202172438/http://www.rdrop.com:80/~paul/chinas/index.html to http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/chinas/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123152612/http://www.rdrop.com:80/~paul/dickerson_HP.html to http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/dickerson_HP.html

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) 23:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garden roses. 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/20131004213630/http://2005.cusb.ca/cusb/cahiersfco/v11textes/11MorcosGirouard.pdf to http://2005.cusb.ca/cusb/cahiersfco/v11textes/11MorcosGirouard.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) 20:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is a rose a meme?

In this wikidata item rose is instance of = meme. Do you agree? A rose is a meme? I see no mention of it in the article(not even a Category:Memes which was present in the Kilroy was here article) and there are no references backing it up inside the wikidata item that a rose or that Garden roses are considered memes. Dbfyinginfo (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The roses leaves are trying out

leaves look droopy dries out the rosebushes 173.217.73.239 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)