Talk:Thousand-year Rose

Exact classification of this rose
This document seems to seriously discuss the botany, but unfortunately doesn't show all pages online. It shows part of a letter from H. Christ, which says that it is somewhere between Rosa canina forma dumalis and Rosa canina forma lutetiana, closer to forma lutetiana. Unfortunately, those names are not listed in the International Plant Names Index (ipni.org); perhaps they should be, or perhaps H. Christ didn't get around to publishing them. I've simplified the text a bit to just say that it belongs to the Rosa canina species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Rosa canina

 * The Thousand-year Rose is a Rosa canina. Now look under, here. Hafspajen (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All of them are called Rosa canina, and all of them are different. Not one is like the other. And all of them are called Rosa canina. To say that it is not necessary to describe this unic rose is simply  quite shocking and indeed uncalled-for.


 * What are we going to write the article if not about the rose? People want to know what kind of rose this is, considering that is the oldest documented rose!  And when all roses that are the same sort as the Thousand-year Rose, (Rosa canina) are different, see above, they look different, than it is of course necessary to describe it.  That is why it is not enought to say  (as "someone" said, just say it is a rosa canina, it is enought, remove the rest ). Well, it is not enough. Somebody said most of the 'Rose' section should probably be removed as off-topic filler . Definitely NOT. This article is about this specific rose, and we describe that rose, the general Rosa canina and this unique Rosa canina. We also describe the Rosa canina's general caracter, and this is an article on a rose, right. It is NOT of topic, it is not a filler. That description is very necessary. And it is not a Rosa canina, 'Kiese',  or Rosa canina *Abbotswood' or any other Rosa canina ssp.

It is a Rosa canina L. Not that it is in the article any more, but still it is specifically a Rosa canina L. No less, no more, but specifically a Rosa canina L.

The content that was removed was actually exactly specific to this particular rose plant, oh, yes, it was, anyone can see that, it is in the history. Also at the Did you know nominations we inded were asked to describe this rose in particular; that was one of the criteria for the article to pass for the DYK (the: Did you know that... for the main page.) We can't change that. Absolutely not not. They asked for a description of this particular rose, and we have it and we are not going to remove it. And we can't remove the parts that are there to reference the hook. Yes, this is a specific rose, and there are a multitude of ssp. and varieties of R. canina. And why would it be wrong to descride the rose and whem this rose has so many the different forms, exactly specifically this one? It is about the rose, also my DYK rew asked for it. There is absolutelly NOTHING wrong with it. It is a traditional description of a rose, I have seen much more detailed descriptions of subspecies, I should know how to describe a rose, I am working in the field. Was showing above that not one flower is like the other, not one, and ALL are called Rosa canina. If it should be something I really know about is plants; and among them exactly the roses. You just can't say that there is no point in describing this specific plant, when every second vild dog rose looks different. Hafspajen (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)