Category talk:Rosa cultivar groups

Cat "Rosa Hybrid Tea" was moved, after insufficient discussion IMO, to "Hybrid tea rose". The previous name was not very good, but the new name is not good either (to leave alone the format, shouldn't it be in plural at least, being a group above cultivar level?). To rename most if not all subcats within Category:Rosa cultivar groups in a clear and consistent manner and to avoid needless work from hasty renamings, a good discussion is needed prior to opening rename requests. --Pitke (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I only found out that you'd like to rename the categories after seeing the move this night and I'm (also) not really happy with the new name. You are correct that the groups are not really consistently named - as far as I know, there are more or less three schemes used at the moment:

1. Name roses (e.g. Category:Climbing roses, Category:English roses, Category:Miniature roses - similar to Category:Red roses)
2. Rosa Name Group (e.g. Category:Rosa Floribunda Group, Category:Rosa Moss Group)
3. Rosa Hybrid Name (e.g. Category:Rosa Hybrid Tea, Category:Rosa Hybrid Gallica, Category:Rosa Hybrid Rubiginosa)

I think the reason why those schemes developed and the main problem with them is that the cultivar groups are not really a botanical system, but a mix of botanical knowledge and horticultural characteristics (miniature, climber versus hybrid gallica or hybrid spinosissima‎). I'm not sure if it's possible to find a scheme to fit them all... (Hybrid spinosissima roses as subcategory of Rosa spinosissima sounds a bit confusing - for other plants it would be 'Rosa spinosissima cultivars' or 'Rosa spinosissima hybrids' - Category:Rosa Hybrid Spinosissima therefore seems like the better compromise to me...)

So - if you decide to change the category names, yes, plural would be better (Name roses), but I'm not sure if that's a good idea for all categories...

All the best, 14:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see your input here, Anna. I'd be lost without your expertise :)

1. Are "Rosa Hybrid Tea" and "Rosa Tea Group" the same thing btw? Or is the former hybrids of the latter group? Found out! It's the latter. --Pitke (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. As for your point #1 I think it's best to keep cultivar categories by botanical features as is (plural, with "roses").
3. As for "English roses", as I understand, it is a breed group not officially recognised by all major rose organisations yet widely used as such, and should at the very least be properly capitalised ("English Roses") and also follow whatever format we should later choose for hybrid group cats.
4. As for your point #2 and #3, my initial feeling is that taxonomic groups should be named more according to our taxonomic standard to reflect their status, and so "Rosa spinonissima hybrids" to be consistent with categories such as Category:Lathyrus odoratus cultivars etc. And with non-taxonomic group names, I might suggest something along the lines of "Rosa cultivar group Tea", "Rosa cultivar group Tea Hybrid", (or with "Rose cultivar" instead) etc., or "Moss Roses" or "Grandiflora Roses". I think I'd prefer to keep the word cultivar in there, to keep everything clearer for people not in the know. In any case, I think that instead of "Rosa" the term should be either "Rose" or "Rosa cultivar" or something like that to distinguish non-taxonomic groups from scientific groups.
5. Are there any other types of groups/categorisations of rose cultivars than the three we have discussed now?

--Pitke (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you should compare it to other genus with cultivar groups - just looking for a few examples... here they are: Category:Astilbe cultivars, Category:Dahlia cultivars, Category:Lilium cultivars, Category:Narcissus cultivars, Category:Rhododendron cultivars (bad example ;->), Category:Tulipa cultivars

Compared to those, there are still inconsistencies within the rose cultivar names, but the 'Genus Name Group'-scheme would seem to be the most common one (by the way, I dislike the Narcissus and Dahlia schemes - the numbers only help people already very familiar with the cultivar classification of that plant).

But I'm not too sure about the botany/horticultury border - to me it seems to be a bit a 'dangerous' border (the rose cultivars are not categorised as roses in the German wikipedia... just linked via a sentence explaining where to find them), so I don't really want to suggest a general scheme for the cultivar groups. But I'm not too happy with your five word suggestion - as I know most of the current group names by heart (I use them often enough ;->), I'm a bit afraid that complicated names would create more work for me without helping anybody. As far as I know, there are only very few people categorising pictures into the cultivar groups and I don't think that will change in the future. Additionally, I think that it is important that the names remain similar to those suggested on helpmefind.com, as that's our main source to check information about rose cultivars.

Something like Name roses (if I use roses, I would write it small - Damask roses, Hybrid Perpetual roses, Hybrid Tea roses, Floribunda roses, Tea roses - see en:Garden roses) would be fine with me - if you think that would be better. If you want to capitalise e.g. English roses, I'd change it to 'English Rose Collection' (which would be the correct group name, but another scheme).

Well, I hope I did manage to explain anything in that paragraph... (at the moment it seems as if I mainly confused myself ;->)

--Anna reg (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try once more:

• @2.: agreed (Hybrid tea rose is the name of the English article, but doesn't make sense here)
• @3.: you are correct, it's a collection of rose cultivars from a breeder, not really recognised as a classification, but used by rose gardens, rose vendors,... as stated above, I wouldn't change it to 'English Roses', but rather to 'English Rose Collection' - I think that there would be other cultivar series/collections following that scheme (just saw that there are already two galleries: Buck Rose Collection and Parkland Series Collection and I could imagine others following - e.g. Renaissance Collection (Poulsen, e.g. Rosa 'Amie Renaissance', Rosa 'Julia Renaissance'), Earth Kind Collection (e.g. Rosa 'Carefree Beauty', Rosa 'Mutabilis'), Romantica (Meilland, e.g. Rosa 'César', Rosa 'Sunlight Romantica')
• @4.: as stated in my long and winded paragraph above, I'm not sure if I can help you to decide on a new naming scheme. I'm against long names and I think that having the categories named similar to what's normally used is more important than having a long and winded name containing all information. a sign for a Floribunda rose in an Austrian rose garden normally shows either Flb., Strauchrose, Floribundarose or Floribunda on the sign - Floribunda roses would therefore probably be the easiest to find (better than Rosa Floribunda Group), but the current name could be the horticulturally correct one... ;->
• @5.: see 3. - the collection-scheme. I can't think of any other at the moment... oh, wait, the Category:Rosa Large-Flowered Climber‎ don't fit anywhere (I don't use that group) and Category:Canadian Hardy Roses‎ is more or less also a collection scheme.

I think that was a bit clearer... ;-> --Anna reg (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points. So we have three groups: botanical features (such as "climbing"), cultivar groups (such as "tea" and "tea hybrid"), and collections. And then we have Austin's English collection which is a collection but habitually used as a group. Large-Flowered Climber seems to be a meld for climbing Tea, Wichu, etc. IDK if it's really needed since it combines a botanical feature and a non-specific selection of cultivar groups... so not exact by far. I seem to remember that Patio and Mini-Flora are collections as well? On other notes, I'm perfectly fine with short names especially for botanical and cultivar group cats. So we're agreeing on the format "Hybrid Tea roses", "Tea roses", "Climbing roses"? Collections, I think, might be better off with names reflecting that status. If the collection name includes the word roses that should naturally be capitalised. Would something like "Mini-Flora collection" and "English Rose collection" work? "Collection" with a little c unless of course it's part of the name. (And on that note, should collections even be listed under cultivar groups, apart for English Roses? I'd be all for creating a new by collection cat, it could include the ADR cat which.... should prolly be renamed as well...) --Pitke (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes to the three groups and the name suggestions - Tea roses, Hybrid Tea roses, collection small, even though I think that for English roses it's at least one of the names used. I'm trying to find out a bit more about the different groups, as I have to admit that I don't know that much about them - or some things only vaguely (e.g. I think, Floribunda is also mostly a botanical feature - and in modern roses Hybrid Tea, too). The main problem with these groups is that everything's a bit vague...

A possibility to make it less vague is to take an authority and stick to their definition - e.g. the Royal National Rose Society, who are probably one of the most important organisations concerning roses. That would mean that English roses are definitely a rose collection...

About categorising collections as cultivar groups - it could be a good idea to create a separate category for them (as a subcategory of cultivar groups). The downside of that would be that it could be confusing - all the more as the border between collections and groups is a bit difficult to draw (see English roses).

And the problem with Large-Flowered Climber is that it's a subdefinition of climbing roses, which can also be part of another group - and climbing roses in itself is already a botanical feature. I use it as a description on the galleries, but I think the category climbing roses is probably enough.

By the way, I hope I wasn't too set against your ideas in my last posts - trying to clean the cultivar groups-category up a bit is a good plan - but also a bit difficult, as none of us are really rose experts... --Anna reg (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I looked the rose groups up in a few books in the library today and came to the conclusion that books for gardeners mix collections, classic rose groups and their own definitions up to create a new number of groups for more or less each book. Very confusing... ;->
What I did find out (even though the books I could get my hands on were all in German) is that

• Hybrid Tea is the best defined group of modern roses
• Floribunda and Polyantha roses are put into the group of 'Beetrosen' (Bed-roses) in German - Miniature and Patio roses are sometimes called 'small/compact Floribunda', as the difference is only their height; the Polyantha hybrids are more or less a mixture of Floribunda and Polyantha roses, and were first called Poulsen roses (they were developed by Poulsen and renamed when other cultivars started to create similar cultivars)
• Patio (compact Floribunda roses) is not used in America (or at least wasn't when the book was written - the revised edition I used is from 2002 but the book was originally written in 1985, I'm therefore not sure if that's still the case...)
• going by shrub form, you can devide all rose cultivars into more or less four groups:

1. Shrubs (shrub roses, Old roses, Wild roses (Rose species), English roses, Nostalgic/Romantic roses (the last two are rose collections)
2. Bed-roses = roses for flowerbeds (Floribunda, Hybrid Tea, Miniature)
3. Ground covering roses (a special case of #2)
4. Climbing & Rambling

• another feature group would be 'Fragrant roses'
• in the beginning, Floribunda had simple or half filled flowers - nowadays the differentiation between Hybrid Tea and Floribunda can be difficult; in the US Grandiflora was introduced as a group inbetween, but it's not used in other countries
• since the 1970s, the borders between bigger Miniature roses and smaller Floribunda roses was blurred - and the Patio roses were created
• all roses not fitting any other category are sorted as shrub roses (e.g. species hybrids of the first generation, very big Floribunda roses, very hardy roses such as the Buck Rose Collection, the Explorer or Parkland roses, and English roses)
• in the ~5 rose books I leafed through today, I didn't find anything about Mini-Flora and Large-Flowered Climber‎s - but German could be a reason for that...

Does that help at all?... I'll try to make a bit more sense of that as soon as I have some time - perhaps on Sunday... Anna reg (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

classifications according to Peter Beales

Pitke: As I'm trying to expand the rose stubs on the English wikipedia, I have lots of rose books from the local library at home at the moment - and I just found a comparison of the rose groups used by the American Rose Society (ARS), the World Federation of Rose Societies (WFRS), and the British Association Representing Breeeders (BARB) in Klassische Rosen - Blütenträume für jeden Garten, Peter Beales, DuMont, 2002 (first edition in English Classic Roses, The Harvill Press, London 1985):

#	Name	ARS	WFRS	BARB	Synonym	Comments
1	Alba	1	20	28		Old
2	Ayrshire	2	32			Old
3	Bourbon	3	21	24		Old
4	Boursault	4	22			Old
5	Centifolia	5	29	21		Old
6	China	6	23	2		Old
7	Climbing Bourbon	7	33			Old
8	Climbing China	8
9	Climbing Floribunda	9		11
10	Climbing Grandiflora	10
11	Climbing Hybrid Perpetual	11
12	Climbing Hybrid Tea	12		10
13	Climbing Moss	13
14	Climbing Miniature	14	19	12		Modern
15	Climbing Polyantha	15		14
16	Climbing Tea	16	35			Old
17	Damascena	17	24	20		Old
18	Rubiginosa	18	30	29	=Eglanteria/Sweet Biar	Old
19	Floribunda	19		6
20	Gallica	20	25	19		Old
21	Grandiflora	21
22	Hybrid Alba	22
23	Hybrid Bracteata	23
24	Hybrid Blanda	24
25	Hybrid Bourbon	25
26	Hybrid Canina	26
27	Hybrid China	27
28	Hybrid Foetida	28
29	Hybrid Hugonis	29
30	Hybrid Laevigata	30
31	Hybrid Macounii	31
33	Hybrid Moyesii	33
34	Hybrid Musk	34		15	de= Moschata
35	Hybrid Multiflora	35
36	Hybrid Nitita	36
37	Hybrid Nutkana	37
38	Hybrid Perpetual	38	26	25	de= Remontant	Old
39	Hybrid Rugosa	39
32	Hybrid Macrantha	32
40	Hybrid Sempervirens	40
41	Hybrid Setigera	41
42	Hybrid Spinosissima	42			=H. Pimpinellifolia
43	Hybrid Suffulta	43
44	Hybrid Tea	44		5
45	Kordesii	45
46	Large-flowered Climber	46	17			Modern
47	Moss	47	27	22		Old
48	Miniature	48	8	8		Modern
49	Miscellaneous Historic Roses	49
50	Noisette	50	36	3		Old
51	Portland	51	28	23		Old
52	Polyantha	52	7	13		Modern
53	Rambler	53	16			Modern
54	Shrub	54
55	Wild	55	39		=Species	Wild
56	Tea	56	31	4		Old
57	Climbing Boursault		34			Old
59	Sempervirens		37			Old
60	Wild, Climbing		38		=Species	Wild
61	Modern Shrub, Remontant, Large-flowered		1			Modern
62	Modern Shrub, Remontant, Cluster-flowered		2			Modern
63	Landscape, Remontant		3		=Cround Cover	Modern
64	Large-flowered		4			Modern
65	Cluster-flowered		5			Modern
66	Miniature Cluster-flowered		6			Modern
67	Modern Shrub, Large-flowered		9			Modern
68	Modern Shrub, Cluster-flowered		10			Modern
69	Landscape		11		=Cround Cover	Modern
70	Rambler, Remontant		12			Modern
71	Large-flowered Climber, Remontant		13			Modern
72	Cluster-flowered Climber, Remontant		14			Modern
73	Climbing Miniature, Remontant		15			Modern
74	Cluster-flowered Climber		18			Modern
75	Wild & Groups			1	=Species + Species Hybrids
76	Florishrub			7
77	Patio			9
78	Wichuraiana-Rambler			16
79	Wichuraiana Carpet			17
80	Wichuraiana Shrub			18
81	English			26
82	Spinosissima			27	=Pimpinellifolia/ Scottish
83	Rugosa			30

Good heavens! --Pitke (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But it explains why we have difficulties finding a simple solution ;-> --Anna reg (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)