Talk:Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Anti-resolutions", The Columbian, January 2, 2005.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Images

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)

---

I've also heard it said that a yellow rose stands for friendship; has anyone else heard this interpretation while growing up?

[edit] yellow for friendship

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Yellow for Friendship Part II (Globalize)

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)

[edit] Merging history

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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).

4.159.225.190 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 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.

lj2000-16 Jan 2006

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?


A question on the etymology of the word rose - is it directly from Persian as I think the word has Greek roots.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/s/Talk%7ERose_8361.html"