Talk:Hybrid tea rose

The opening paragraph is incorrect. In actuality, hybrid tea roses are known for their lack of fragrance and for being much more prone to disease than other varieties.

The point of breeding or hybridizing two different varieties of plants is to create something with the strengths of both varieties into one. If the newly created plant has all the weaknesses of both parent plants, there really isn't a point in trying to breed something that would die so readily. Most of these hybrids have been bred to be stronger than 'normal' roses.

The little excerpt for "Neptune" looked inconsistent with the layout of the page so I created a separate page for it like the ones for the other hybrids.

Repeat flowering

What is repeat flowering? RyanTMulligan (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who copied who?

http://www.answers.com/topic/hybrid-tea-1 looks the same to me...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.59.37 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Hybrid tea rose. There is a clear consensus for inclusion of the word "rose" in the title, and a narrower consensus (albeit distributed among different participants) for a lowercase "t"; although formulations vary, the broadest support is therefore for the title, "Hybrid tea rose". bd2412 T 18:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Tea → Hybrid tea rose — Hybrid Tea incorrect case; apparently a jargon shorthand term without 'rose'.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Spicemix (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Under scrutiny, "Hybrid tea rose" means something subtly different to "Hybrid Tea rose"; the latter describes an accepted classification of garden rose which possesses ancestry involving both European and Chinese species (via Hybrid Perpetuals and Tea or China roses respectively), whereas the former could be construed as implying ancestry only involving other tea roses. I am not a fan of the way garden roses are classified and think "Hybrid Tea" is a poor term anyway, but still that is not my doing, and whilst such classifications exist I think it best not to confuse matters even more by introducing ambiguity, which the proposed renaming could do. Having said all that, I have just studied the article as it stands, and see that even within the article itself, lower and upper case are quite mixed, so personally I'm still thinking about this one and would welcome thoughts from other contributors. I am inclined to think that the problem for me arises with the introduction of the word "rose" into the title whilst keeping "tea" as lower case; either it should be "Hybrid tea" or "Hybrid Tea rose", because a "tea rose" is a recognised term in itself. I note that of the sources I have consulted, most - particularly the more recent ones - use "Hybrid Tea". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PaleCloudedWhite for this comment. I'm not a rose expert, but I think we need both to comply with WP:MOS and to help the reader. 'Hybrid tea' complies with WP:TITLEFORMAT, but is a jargon term. So I now propose: Hybrid tea (rose). Spicemix (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that's an improvement, as the ambiguity is reduced, although I find myself preferring the original title, and I'm not sure if my preference is based on reasoning alone or something else. Although I don't doubt that your motive for the proposed renaming is a perfectly laudable one of wanting to produce a better article title, I don't feel entirely comfortable with the rationale behind it. This is not a criticism of yourself, but rather a combination of a mild feeling of unease with Manual of Style dictates, plus my questioning of the applicability of the "jargon" label. I'll address the latter point first. Is "Hybrid Tea" (or "hybrid tea") really a jargon term? Is it not the case that a term is only truly jargon when there is another term describing the same thing which is not jargon? If there is no other term, then surely it is not jargon but rather just the subject's name? If "hybrid tea" is deemed jargon by virtue of the fact that readers unfamiliar with the topic don't know what it means, then how many other article titles will need to have clarifying parentheses in order to enable people to know what something is before they read its article? For example, Floribunda should become "Floribunda (rose)", and perhaps, continuing a rose theme, Remontancy should become "Remontancy (repeat flowering)". What about botanical terms like drupe - should that become "Drupe (fruit)"? I hope this doesn't come across like a sarcastic attack of your proposal; I'm really just having a discussion with myself, trying to understand why I (mildly) object to the proposal. Actually as it happens there is another term used for hybrid teas, that term being "Large-flowered bush rose", so by my own argument (haha) that could make "hybrid tea" a jargon term, but is "Large-flowered bush rose" really any clearer, particularly when you realise that it means something different to "Cluster-flowered bush rose" (an accepted term for a floribunda), and that both these "bush" terms mean something different to "Shrub rose"? I'm not sure what I prefer.

I'll move on to the other possible cause of my objection: the Manual of Style insistence on lower case in an article title (after the first letter of the first word). Although this recommendation produces consistent-looking article titles across the board, it also reduces the full subtlety of use of the language. I am not an avid proponent of either lower or upper case (and I didn't join in the recent discussion on capitalisation at the MOS talk page largely for this reason), so I'm not banging any particular drum, but I do feel that in some circumstances upper case can be used to subtly change the meaning of a string of words. In this instance, as noted above, I feel that "Hybrid Tea rose" is preferable as a title to "Hybrid tea rose", but MOS doesn't allow it. Anyway this is all a bit redundant, as I'm not going to make a stand against the MOS - I just want you to see that part of my objection to the proposed renaming is actually an objection to a wider imperative which you were quite legitimately acting upon. As I can't really clear my own thoughts on this matter, I think I'll put in a request at the Plants talk page, to see if any other contributors want to chip in here, and maybe help clear things up a bit! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for article improvement.

PaleCloudedWhite, Your own sandbox is a much, much better place for having a discussion with yourself. Draft an essay and work through stuff like this on your own time if you like. Please don't cloud comparably simple rename debates or other XfD-type processes. Article talk page are for article improvement not chatter or self-exploration. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out he was having a discussion with me (I just didn't have time to respond fully), so his sandbox would have been wholly inappropriate. I'm glad you're here to arbitrate acceptable content on talk pages. In the future, we'll take such discussions to PaleCloudedWhite's talk page or mine, in hopes that you'll not be offended by it there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, since it "turns out" that rambling personal discussions that you don't want others to participate in, and are going to be hostile about, don't belong on article talk pages either, much less right in the middle of move/rename discussions. Has nothing to do with me being "offended" or not. See WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PaleCloudedWhite, There's nothing really wrong with what the Manual of Style says, when it's interpreted in the light of WP:RS/WP:V, WP:AT, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc.You are correct that "Hybrid Tea" is not a "jargon" term, it is (or isn't, per Peter coxhead) a reliably sourceable formal designation of a cultivar group. If it is one, the scientific name of the topic of this article is Rosa Hybrid Tea Group (yes, all capitalized, including "Group", which I think looks awful, but I didn't get to write the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants; it's part of formal taxonomy like genus and species, and not simply a whim preferred by some particular journal's in-house style guide). A longer one naming the parent types could also probably be constructed (not from the scanty information available here presently, though), along the lines of Rosa odorata × something else Hybrid Tea Group. So, yes "Hybrid Tea" is the subject's name, if there's a reliable source for it, not for lack of an alternative name, but because it would be part of scientific nomenclature, and for the most part WP prefers to use that over vernacular names for plants, like the more vague and long-winded alternatives you came up with, which would need to be reliably sourced, too. There are no ambiguities that would even suggest disambiguations like Drupe (fruit) or Remontancy (repeat flowering), the latter of which wouldn't be a proper disambiguation anyway even if disambiguation were needed. And Floribunda (rose) is the article name; Floribunda is three-way DAB page. This article needs disambiguation with " rose" or " (rose)" (the former is preferable, because it's natural English and shorter), or " Group" to be even more ICNCP-leaning, but that probably runs afoul of WP:COMMONNAME, since horticulturists and gardeners, who aren't academic botanists, might be unaware of the formal "Group" convention. There is no general "Manual of Style insistence on lower case in an article title" that contradicts all other concerns, such as doing what reliable sources do (modulo WP:SSF - the idea that "only specialist sources are reliable" is a terrible fallacy). We have an entire MOS:CAPS that provides various rules for capitalization. Anyway, the capitalization question is what remains open, and is subject to a reliable sourcing issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename: no evidence has been presented that Hybrid Tea requires disambiguation. (I generally concur with PaleCloudedWhite's views above, and the lack of need for disambiguation pretty much nails it in my view.) Support "Hybrid tea rose" based on Peter's analysis.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. It needs disambiguation because "hybrid tea" (capitalized or not; see elsewhere in this discussion) naturally means "a tea hybrid" in English; "the Hybrid Tea Group" is a highly artificial secondary meaning that very, very few people would ever guess (probably only rose specialists). This is a classic case for obvious disambiguation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made Hybrid tea a dab to support your case, I guess there's not much to argue with.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got cause and effect backward, twice. I made it a WP:DAB, and this page needs to be renamed, because there's an obvious ambiguity. The ambiguity exists in the language. If Wikipedia did not exist at all, and you and I did not exist at all, the ambiguity would remain. The ambiguity is not magically created by a discussion on an article talk page. Doing something about that ambiguity at one page does not magically change the nature of the debate happening at the other page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change of title; question capitalization. The definitive source for information on the proper names of cultivated roses is the International Cultivar Registration Authority for Roses, namely the American Rose Society. Unfortunately, as I've lamented in the past, the IRAR website is not open access. However, looking at what is freely available there and on the American Rose Society web page, it's clear that the term they always use is "hybrid tea", never "hybrid tea rose". (The same is true if you look at the RHS website.) However, there's a question about the use of capitals. If "hybrid tea" is a formal cultivar Group name, then the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants is clear that capitals should be used. So far as I can discover it's not; it's one of a less formal but widely used classification of rose cultivars (hybrid teas, floribundas, teas, miniature floribundas, etc.). Hence the use of lower-case in running text at Hybrid Tea is correct, but the capitalization of the title of the article is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, I was hoping you'd contribute to this, as you're always very measured, thorough and well-researched. This leans towards making Hybrid tea the preferred title, assuming of course Large-flowered bush rose isn't considered an option.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's completely natural that a site entirely about roses and not about teas would of course drop the in-context-redundant use of "rose" after the names of species, varieties, cultivars, cultivar groups, hybrids and grexes of roses! Similarly a site all about cat breeds and not dog, horse and pig breeds would drop "cat" mostly, and call breeds "Siamese" and "Manx" and "Russian blue". This has nothing to do with what constitutes sensible usage in a general encyclopedia; it's an incorrect application of reliable sourcing to try bend a stylistic norm that's highly applicable in one sharply limited context to try to suit the world's most general context in all of written history. :-) The International Cultivar Registration Authority for Roses may be the authoritative source for the whether or not "Hybrid Tea" is the correct name of this cultivar group (it being part of the American Rose Society, not "International" makes that claim suspect, actually). A reliable source for this is the crux of the matter. "I can't find a reliable source for it because I'm not a member of that one website" doesn't mean that Hybrid Tea Group is not the formal, published name of this cultivar group. Whether it is or not remains an open question as of this writing. If it is, then yes, it has to be capitalized. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Cultivar Registration Authorities These are appointed by the International Society for Horticultural Science and are listed on the appropriate page of its website. They are a formal part of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which describes their duties and responsibilities. The American Rose Society is the ICRA for roses. It is thus without question the authoritative source for the names of roses and their cultivar groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that still leaves the question open. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to hybrid tea rose ~~Hybrid Tea rose orHybrid Tea (rose) depending on whether reliable sources confirm it is or is not, respectively, a formal cultivar group~~: The capital "T" has to be retained, per WP:RS, unless it can be shown that "Hybrid Tea" is not the cultivar group name, but some some crap someone made up. In the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, the names of cultivar groups are capitalized, so it would be "Hybrid Tea" not "hybrid tea". (I don't like that convention at first blush, but as it is in fact a matter of scientific taxonomy, my normal WP:SSF objection would actually fail. In this case, it's a convention of a scientific body on an entirely scientific matter, just like italicization and capitalization of genus. It's not a scientific body invading general usage with a unreasonable demand, like capitalization of the common names of animal species, that contradicts everyone but the specialists.) The name is clearly needlessly confusing. WP:AT's general position to not disambiguate in any way unless necessary is obviously and routinely moderated by WP:COMMONSENSE, which is one of the necessities that can call for disambiguation. There's a reason that Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse (and let's not get into whether animal breed names should be capitalized and to what extent; there'll be an RfC on that soon) are at those titles, not Norwegian Forest or American Quarter (or Norwegian forest or American quarter). If someone can reliably source the (entirely imaginary – don't waste your time) fact that there is no such thing as tea (Camellia sp.) hybrids, then by all means don't move the article. ~~If someone can reliably source that Hybrid Tea is not the actual name of the group, then we probably have bigger problems with this article title than capitalization.~~ I've reliably sourced below that it is the correct name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Updated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Updated again. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved? This RHS source is clear that of the genera listed, which includes Rosa, only Clematis and Tulipa have formal cultivar groups. So we can take it as definite that "hybrid tea" is an "informal horticultural classification".
- The text of the article needs to be changed; I will do this now.
- Where it leaves the title is not so clear – hence my question mark above. I now think that "Hybrid tea rose" may be the best title.

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could be debatable. Botanica 3rd ed. (Page & Olds, eds.; 1999, at "Rosa", pp. 771–800, with the sub-entry "Hybrid Tea" at p. 785) gives it capitalized as "Hybrid Tea" and seems to be a stickler for proper form (e.g. it gives cultivars in markup like 'Loving Memory' (syns. 'Burgund '81', 'Red Cedar'), hybrids as Portland × China (with × not x), and scientific names properly formatted as Rosa blanda and R. chinensis and Rosa foetida var. persiana. Botanica goes quite a bit into these groups. It does not use the phrase "cultivar group", but specifically refers to "groups" of cultivars and hybrids, and names Hybrid Teas as one of the most important, and consistently capitalizes it. The A to Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants 1st Am. Hort. Soc. ed. (Brickell & Zuk, eds.; 1997, at "Rosa", pp. 888–913) is equally precise in its nomenclature formatting, and speaks of "groups" Old Garden Roses and Modern Roses, listing "Hybrid Tea and Grandiflora" (p. 889) as a "subgroup" or pair of related subgroups. It too doesn't use the specific phrase "hybrid group". Unlike Botanica, it does not capitalize the name consistently (e.g., on p. 891 it refers to various cultivars as "vigorous hybrid tea rose"; note inclusion of "rose". Not sure what to make of this. If we're completely certain that it's not a "formal" cultivar group (how do we determine that), then I'd agree it's not capitalized, with Hybrid tea rose being the proper article title, and "hybrid tea rose" the proper form in prose. I naturally lean that way anyhow, being not exactly a huge fan of "Germanizing" nouns and noun phrases. Just want to make sure we get it right. PS: Sorry for the delay in response; I've had both of these massive tomes open to the "Rosa" sections for days, on a table, but got sidetracked. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is as clear as it can be that "hybrid tea" is not a formal cultivar group name, as Tom also notes below. However, this doesn't entirely resolve the capitalization issue. If it were a cultivar group name, then it would be capitalized. However, this argument isn't reversible; just because it isn't a cultivar group name doesn't mean that it should not be capitalized. If reliable sources consistently capitalized the informal group names, then I would argue that we should do so too. Actually I think that sources are inconsistent, so I would be inclined not to capitalize, but it's not something I feel very strongly about. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the specialist style fallacy again. "Reliable sources" for English usage are reliable English usage sources, not reliable botany sources, which are reliable for botanical facts, not grammar and style facts of English language usage. Reliable English usage sources, like The Chicago Manual of Style, Hart's Rules/The Oxford Guidoe to Style, Fowler's Modern English Usage, etc., etc., do not capitalize nouns other than proper names and nor do general-audience publications like newspaper and print encyhclopedias (this being English, not German). It's a moot point anyway; I've already cited a reliable botany source that does not capitalize "hybrid tea rose". If the consensus is that it's also not a formal cultivar group, then it's not capitalized for that reason either. Next. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Hybrid tea rose per Peter's reasons above. If it is a valid, formal cultivar group, then it will have been previously published as such... specifically. Usually these cultivar groups are published together in one big group, and so for Rosa it would be a big deal, and relatively easy to find. In light of Peter's RHS quote specifically excluding it, I seriously doubt you'll find it formally published; but if we ever did in the future then it could be changed. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Springer, 2004, in The Families & Genera of Vascular Plants says that "cultivar groups have not yet been formalized" for Rosa. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage states that the World Federation of Rose Societies made a change to rose classification in 1979 (from 'Hybrid Tea' to 'Large-flowered bush' and from 'Floribunda' to 'Cluster-flowered bush'), but that both old and new terms are still used. If the World Federation of Rose Societies is not authoritative in a formal nomenclatural sense, then neither can be the terms which they have the power to make decisions about. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the discussion above is plenty interesting from the point of view of the article content, but only peripherally important (in my opinion) to the title. I have no opinion on the capitalization, but as for whether the title should include the word "rose", I suppose as "Hybrid [tT]ea (rose)", the important thing to my mind is whether people are being confused, a la the hatnode. The hatnode currently reads "For hybrid forms of the plant used to make tea for drinking, see Camellia sinensis" which is amusing in the sense that tisanes are made from both rose hips and rose petals. Given that the term "hybrid tea" is overwhelmingly associated with roses rather than Camellia sinensis (based on a quick glance of google hits and my own impression), I'm not sure that the word "rose" really needs to be in the title. But it wouldn't be horrible to have it there either. Kingdon (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it doesn't really need "rose" to avoid confusion. For me though, it needs "rose" to avoid the baby-talk/slang impression that sounds odd as a title; at least to my ear. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the question of whether it's a slang term is relevant here (I'm not sure what Tom means when he refers to 'baby-talk'), as 'hybrid tea' is probably the most widely-used term for the item in question. The only other term used is 'large-flowered bush rose', which (see my above posting) is the officially designated class title, although it has not entered into universal usage, perhaps for commercial reasons. (It is also used more in the UK than in the US). However I think it is possibly used sufficiently to be considered as an alternative title, and hence avoid the questions arising over 'hybrid tea'. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that there is a term used for this plant far, far more often than "hybrid tea", and that is "hybrid tea rose". It seems incomplete, at least to my ear, to leave the "rose" off. For instance, if I was to take one of these flowers, or a plant in a pot, and hold it up to a rose specialists, and ask him "what is this"; he might possibly say a "hybrid tea"... in a specialist's slang or abbreviated style. But if I hold up the same plant to a plain average person who knows what it is, then they likely answer a "hybrid tea rose". The specialists, in their abbreviated common use, don't care that this plant is not a 'tea that is hybrid' --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - move to Hybrid tea rose. Apart from all the specialist mumbo-jumbo above, I'd like to relay this antedotal evidence. As a Campus Ambassador at Montana State University, I was in front of three different freshman writing classes the other day explaining how Wikipedia works. It just so happened that when I got to the Watchlist part, that Hybrid Tea was high on the list. Knowing it was there because of the rename, I asked each class what they thought the article on Hybrid Tea was all about. With one exception, everyone thought it was about a mixture of different teas. No one thought or even contemplated it being about roses. One enterprising young lady did say she thought is was about tea heated with battery power instead of carbon based fuel. Move to Hybrid tea rose so the masses won't be confused. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move' to Hybrid Tea rose or (second best) Hybrid Tea (rose). Current title is ambiguous, esoteric and misleading. Legalistic interpretations of WP:CAPS must stop... the overriding consideration is that the article is identifiable to the reader. Andrewa (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hybrid Tea rose or hybrid tea rose. Google Scholar shows both are common, but for some reason the capitalized version looks more natural to me, maybe because the American Rose Society uses abbreviations like OGR or HT in their booklet next to the hybrid name to indicate the class of rose. Tea roses were a breakthrough because of the size of their blooms, but unfortunately they aren't very winter hardy. The Hybrid Teas solved that problem as they can be grown further north, and are often grafted onto a more winter-hardy root stock for larger blooms as the natural roots were often not very vigorous. Neotarf (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What Happened to the Extensive List?

The point of regular Wikipedia is to have concise knowledge of a particular subject. I, and probably many others, frequent Wikipedia for this reason, including this page to look up the variants of hybrid teas. Culling the page of this information and saying that it "got out of hand" sounds like what should be done for the "Simple English" section on the language tab of Wikipedia, not the regular English. Please leave the extensive information. If you want it simplified, go do it on "Simple English." Dreamwalker936 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands—possibly tens of thousands—of hybrid tea cultivars and it isn't the purpose of this article to list them all. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some merit in a separate article List of hybrid tea rose cultivars, but I entirely agree that a long list of hybrids here is not useful. I say "could be some merit" because usually such list articles are only useful if ultimately all or most of the listed items will have articles in Wikipedia. It's not clear to me that this would be true of hybrid tea cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is some times fake so if you can prove it would be a lot of help to some of us kids who look to this site four help so pleas proof read this stuf that is put on here tanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.207.228 (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinators

Where is information about Pollinators for this plant? The article doesn't have a lot of information.68.3.211.176 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid tea roses are mostly sterile, so don't attract or need pollinators. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hybrid tea rose. 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/20120426013959/http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantnaming/classgenera.asp to http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantnaming/classgenera.asp

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) 04:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]