Talk:Salvia yangii

Gallery

Hello, Hafspajen. Thanks for your recent edits. I thought someone told me it avoid galleries. Is that untrue, or maybe there's an exception for articles about plants? RO^(talk) 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Who said so? perWP:PIC#Galleries: Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. It is rather difficult to illustrate a plant article without galleries. Hafspajen (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I heard it more than once. Nevertheless, thanks for offering proper justification here. I am in total agreement. RO^(talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Must have been an old-fashioned editor, people who edited like back 2007-2008. Those times galleries were sorta discussed. Nowadays they are not discouraged, but there are some general ideas about body pf text versus pictures. 1/3, or something like that, no more. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for making some improvements here. Does the article look like GA material to you? RO^(talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oho, I don't do much GA... Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, but does it look decent, IYO? RO^(talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks decent, yes. One thing, *relatively unknown landscaping shrub until the 1990s, that's an American reference. In England it would not be a proper description, because it was both relatively known and used. Maybe you should specify where. Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Check, here, and here, it got an award, the 'Blue Spire '. Hafspajen (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That award was given in 1995 though, which is consistent with the claim. If you think it's not accurate, I'll copyedit it out. RO^(talk) 18:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant the Telegraph. I just know from experience that it was not THAT unknown. William Robinson (gardener) is already mentioning it in The English Flower Garden in like 1880-1890, and he was indeed an authority. The award is just if you needed refs. Also, I think it was growing in popularity because it was chosen Perennial Plant of the Year in 1995, don't recall you mentioned it. I think Rosemary Verey used it, and recomended it already 1980 or even before. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned the Perennial Plant of the Year Award, or rather it was in here before I started editing the page. I'll take your word for it and make a change now: ([1]). RO^(talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's important. Gosh, make that your next GA. Rosemary Verey IS A VERY important landscape architect, that article is crap. Hafspajen (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is Robinson's book. A classic. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Too bad he didn't mention P. atriplicifolia in that book! RO^(talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? ‘… the plant is worth a place in the choicest garden for its graceful habit and long season of beauty.’ – William Robinson The English Flower Garden . Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I included that quote from Bourne, but Perovskia doesn't come up in searches of the text. Maybe he spelled it differently? I don't get any hits for that quote either. RO^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Try this for a quote.Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, he spelled it Perowskia. Thanks for the links, BTW. I utilized the Telegraph source and added some nice stuff from it. RO^(talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Where's the botany section?

J Milburn, I noticed you made this edit: ([2]), an improvement for sure, but where's the botany section of GA? RO^(talk) 21:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Plants what you're looking for? Admittedly, plants aren't as well represented at GA level as animals or fungi, but that's surely where the article would belong if promoted. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, J Milburn. RO^(talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Unless there is some established WP exception for plants, I think you should use double rather than single quotes (see MoS) for the plant names such as 'Longin', 'Little Spire' etc' That apart, which please consider, I can see no respect in which this article fails to meet the GA criteria. The coverage seems full and balanced, there are ample references from a range of impressive sources, and the pictures are lovely and properly documented.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This strikes me as a fine piece of work, and I am happy to promote it. Tim riley talk 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley! The single mark is a convention in botany, and literally every source I consulted used single, not double marks. Nonetheless, I'll do some follow-up research as this might be a convention in botany that we need not follow here, much in the same way that astronomy papers capitalize the Sun, but we generally do not. RO^(talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked about this at the relevant Wikiproject: ([3]), so if I'm wrong to follow the convention I'm sure someone there will set me straight. Thanks again for the review! RO^(talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Now you mention it, I believe I've run across this before. Well, if the scholarly convention outside Wiki-land is single quotes, I leave it to the MoS zealots to demand doubles if they feel they must. I'm inclined to say to Hell with 'em. Tim riley talk 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are doing reviewing plant entry, when you seem to be totally ignorant of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants . Most beginner gardeners know that the names of cultivars are given in single, not double quotes. I don't mean to be rude, but the idea of double is really crazy. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Hey, Plantdrew. I noticed that you restored some taxonomy items to the infobox: ([4]). I had removed those because they were unsourced, so are these okay to leave in without sourcing in the article body, or should I dig up an RS and add it to the article? RO^(talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikipedia has ~300,000 taxoboxes and almost all of them appear in articles that don't cite sources for each rank/clade in the taxobox. Should they cite sources? Perhaps that's something to consider. At present, though, I think it's best to keep things consistent; a species taxobox should show the same ranks and clades that appear in it's parent genus taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add, that if you look at the DNA work 'supporting' putting it into Salvia, given the three clades of Salvia that reveals, an equally valid approach would be to split Salvia into three, and move plants like Salvia lyrata in with Perovskia. Again, this has to be group opinion, not 'reality' (whatever that is!) 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey Plant Fans, Perovskia is one genus that was recently reclassified within Salvia ([5]). I don't have time to make changes within the article, since it mentions throughout that it's not really a sage despite the common name, but now it is. I may get back to it at some point, but if someone else gets to it before me, both Perovskia and Rosemarinus need to reflect this change in classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.161.255.31 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Right now, if you consult wordlfloraonline.org, the definitive source of all things taxonomic, you will find both Salvia yangii and Perovskia atriplicifolia are shown as 'accepted names'. this is very unusual - I have never seen it before - so we should recognize that both names are just fine. The Flora of China doesn't show Salvia yangii at all, further reason not to jump in with both feet on this Salvia thing. As for it now 'being a sage', the plant itself hasn't changed at all. Taxonomy is an artificial construct, and we decide what the boundary of a genus are - maybe we can reasonably extend them to include Perovskia, or maybe not. It's a matter of debate, not a 'discovery'. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

worldfloraonline.org is absolutely not the definitive source of all things taxonomic. Plants of the World Online (PoWO) is more up-to-date and better curated, but equally is not the definitive source. Our task is to report in the text of articles what all reliable up-to-date sources say, but for article titles and taxoboxes, we have to choose one alternative. Except for ferns, we generally use PoWO for this. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perovskia atriplicifolia. 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/20151210215946/http://www.hriresearch.org/Docs/Publications/JEH/JEH_2001/JEH_2001_19_1/JEH%2019-1-24-28.pdf to http://www.hriresearch.org/Docs/Publications/JEH/JEH_2001/JEH_2001_19_1/JEH%2019-1-24-28.pdf

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) 06:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Identity of images

As far as I can tell, almost all the photographs are of Salvia 'Blue Spire', which is generally considered to be a hybrid between this species (S. yangii) and S. abrotanoides, not actually S. yangii. The leaves of the cultivar/hybrid are deeply lacinate, unlike those of the species (although it is variable).

So I think the botanical drawing should be moved to the taxobox, since this is the only image that I can be sure of. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hybrid status

Salvia yangii is very rarely cultivated. Most plants we find in gardens are a hybrid recognised in 2021: Salvia × floriferior. (In Europe, this hybrid has also sometimes been referred to by the unplaced taxon Perovskia × hybrida or its synonym P. × superba.) See Dendrologia, ed. 13: 730 (2021). Since this article is principally concerned with the species "cultivars" (i.e. the hybrid), I think it should be renamed and a new article started for S. yangii. TigerBeats (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@TigerBeats: I agree that, as I noted above, the species is very rarely cultivated. It's not clear that there is much to say about the true species, so although there could be articles at both Salvia yangii and Salvia × floriferior, it might be better to have a single article covering both. In terms of sourcing, a problem is that most horticultural sources, and there are very many, don't distinguish between the species and the hybrid, e.g. using "Russian sage" as the English name indifferently. If you work your way through the references in the article, it's impossible to decide, based on the source as we have to, whether the species or the hybrid is the topic. Look at all the Plant Finder, Missouri Botanical Garden sources, like this one, which I'm pretty confident actually refers to the hybrid, but we would need a reliable source that says this of this particular cultivar. We are only allowed to report what reliable sources say. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@TigerBeats: one possibility is to have the article at "Russian Sage" and say that this name has been used for both the species and the hybrid, although the latter is more common in cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)