Talk:Roscoea × beesiana
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Hardiness rating
[edit]In 2012, the RHS produced a new set of hardiness ratings, which are described at the reference incorrectly added to the article: [1]. Foolishly, in my view, the RHS used the same codes but with different meanings. So you have to look at when the source was written to decide what "H4" means. In this case the AGM was given before the publication of the new codes, so "H4" does have the meaning originally given in the article; the old interpretation of "H4" is given here: [2]. I've added this as a reference and simplified the lead section.
It is going to be tricky in future to ensure that that the overlapping parts of the two scales (H1 to H4) are correctly interpreted! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can see where you're coming from, but where are you getting that interpretation from? A footnote in the new hardiness ratings document states New hardiness ratings supersede the previous RHS hardiness ratings (H1-H4) which are not the direct equivalents of the new ratings (my emphasis). So it would appear that the new rating and definitions now apply? Realistically, it wouldn't be practical to implement a system as you suggest above. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, the new ratings supersede the old ones from now on. But if the hardiness was given as "H4" before the new system was introduced, it must have meant the old interpretation – it can't have meant the new one, and the RHS is clear that they are not direct equivalents so that "H4 (old system)" is not the same as "H4 (new system)". Hence the only valid verbal explanation of the H4 rating given to R. × beesiana is the old one. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are exactly right in your analysis, and I've noticed that the user who forced this discussion has apparently got a grudge against British Isles, judging by his recent edits. Therefore he is not editing for the best of reasons. John Condenser (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Grudge" is a bit unfair. It is important to be sure that the term "British Isles" is used correctly, i.e. only for the geographical entity and only when this is what the source means. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are exactly right in your analysis, and I've noticed that the user who forced this discussion has apparently got a grudge against British Isles, judging by his recent edits. Therefore he is not editing for the best of reasons. John Condenser (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, the new ratings supersede the old ones from now on. But if the hardiness was given as "H4" before the new system was introduced, it must have meant the old interpretation – it can't have meant the new one, and the RHS is clear that they are not direct equivalents so that "H4 (old system)" is not the same as "H4 (new system)". Hence the only valid verbal explanation of the H4 rating given to R. × beesiana is the old one. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Peter, I take your point. The H4 rating was given in the past using that definition of H4. I suppose the question really is, what is the current hardiness rating? Given there's no such rating as H4(old). My point is that (and I'm happy to stand corrected) if it's got a current rating of H4 (or has it?), then it is using the new definition which has superceded the old rating. Otherwise we should note in the article that it was assessed under the old rating system and doesn't have a current rating. --HighKing (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it has a current AGM (which includes the rating) since these remain in force until revised or withdrawn. So like the vast majority of AGM plants, it has a current rating for hardiness on the non-current scale. The old scale rating isn't wrong, just different from (and less precise than) the rating on the new scale it will be given at some time in the future. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I get the logic. The AGM is current, and the hardiness rating is part of that and not a separate thing. Thanks for that. --HighKing (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it has a current AGM (which includes the rating) since these remain in force until revised or withdrawn. So like the vast majority of AGM plants, it has a current rating for hardiness on the non-current scale. The old scale rating isn't wrong, just different from (and less precise than) the rating on the new scale it will be given at some time in the future. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Peter, I take your point. The H4 rating was given in the past using that definition of H4. I suppose the question really is, what is the current hardiness rating? Given there's no such rating as H4(old). My point is that (and I'm happy to stand corrected) if it's got a current rating of H4 (or has it?), then it is using the new definition which has superceded the old rating. Otherwise we should note in the article that it was assessed under the old rating system and doesn't have a current rating. --HighKing (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)