Talk:Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Rosa Canina[edit]

The hips of the Rosa Canina contain very high quantity of vitamin C. Upon making tea, marmalade, jams etc, the hips are cooked at high T. This destroys the vitamin C. The only ways to preserve it, is low T extraction, like soaking in alcohol or cool water for long time periods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.247.199.50 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

thornless??[edit]

is there such thing as a thornless rose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.56.113 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, all roses are thornless, they don't have "thorns" they have "prickles". I'm not sure if there are "prickleless" roses however. The article does contradict itself in the "Uses" section though, by saying that some roses are grown for "ornamental thorns", should this be changed to "ornamental prickles" for consistency? Swampy 203.48.101.131 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Although "technically speaking" roses don't have thorns because they are "technically" prickles, common usage is to call them thorns. Therefore speaking of a "thornless" rose is meaningful and reasonable. To the OP, there are some roses that are either thornless or nearly so. The Bourbon rose Zephirine Drouhin pretty nearly thornless, for instance. The David Austin rose Heritage only has a very few thorns. There are others. Henryhartley (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

questions[edit]

The article says that Tea roses are "thought to represent hybrids of R. chinensis with R. gigantea". Considered that "tea" scent is a criterium to differentiate betwen Chinas and Teas, I'd like to know if this smell was introduced from rosa gigantea or was it already present in Rosa Chinesis and got strenghtened through selective breeding (???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "tea" scent is by no means a feature of all Tea roses! It's found in some, especially older cultivars like Duchesse de Brabant; but by no means in all or even most of the roses classed as "Teas." Remember, we know very little about the lineage of most 19th Century roses; typically breeders (esp in France) treated their hybridiziations as trade secrets, and we simply don't know what the ancestry of a lot of OGRs is. Add into the confusion the not uncommon phenomenon of misidentification (as in the La Biche/Sombreuil and Jacques Cartier/Madame Boccella brouhahas), and the fact that in many cases "Tea" was just a marketing label anyway, and it's all a chaotic mess that likely will never be disentangled. Suffice it to say that of the original "Tea-scented Chinas," one was yellow, a color unknown in R. chinensis, and both had the pointed, spiral buds which are considered characteristic of "Tea" bloom form. Solicitr (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for the answer. So it seems that borders between groupings can be artificial.78.131.137.50 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
They can be artificial, they can be guesswork, and they sometimes conflict with each other. A rose like Duchesse de Rohan will be categorized as a hybrid perpetual, a Portland, a centifolia or damask perpetual, depending on who you ask... and you may well be told more than one of those by the same person. It looks like a centifolia (but violates the usual centifolia rule by reblooming), smells like a damask and repeats like it has autumn damask in its ancestry, and "Portland" and "hybrid perpetuals" are good catch-all labels for roses like that, but the former are all European, while the latter have at least slight Asian ancestry. Until someone does a thorough genetic analysis of this rose, we don't know for certain, one way or the other. You could even invent the class "Centifolia Perpetual" for it, and have as good a claim to accuracy as anyone else. 69.110.156.71 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

colors is spelled wrong in the first paragraph[edit]

(----)

"Old Persian" font[edit]

Do many readers of Wikipedia looking for information about roses have a font on their computers that displays Old Persian, or do they mostly see boxes or some such in the third paragraph? Modal Jig (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpet Roses[edit]

Does anyone think that this one, patented line of roses is being given undue weight? Since the Flower Carpet line came out, a number of other very disease-resistant shrub roses have come out, such as the Knock Out line. Those are said to have become the best selling roses in history, yet there's not a word about them.

I'm tempted to remove the "Carpet Rose" quasi-class, and to try to balance out the whole section to make it seem less like an ad for a particular company's product. Any objections? 69.110.156.71 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Reads like an ad or publicity release. Modal Jig (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.108.115.59, 13 August 2010[edit]

{tlf|editsemiprotected}} This section on roses, does not include the culinary uses of roses...rose water which perfumes middle eastern and Indian desserts, rose jam, sweet rose lassi, rose tea...etc.


24.108.115.59 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done Per the templated-request...
This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rose Exhibiting[edit]

Rose Exhibiting is a topic not really covered on the current Wikipedia articles.

I recommend 2 books as resources. One is "Showing Good Roses", by Robert Martin. The other is "Otherwise Normal People: Inside the Thorny World of Competitive Rose Gardening", by Aurelia Scott.

The American Rose Society is the governing body for this sport in the USA. Robert Martin has also founded the American Rose Exhibitors Society for a networking community.

I hope someone can create a Wikipedia article on this topic. I don't really have the literary skills to be able to create one.

John Sincock Seattle Rose Society

71.112.89.122 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi John! I'm in the Olympia RS so we're neighbors, relatively speaking! I am on this for you but it may take a while. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, nearly a year later, I have created a page on Rose Show. It's a beginning, there's a lot more to be done, but it's already way more than just a stub. Take a look and give me comments - I need more info, especially from outside the US. And where to put links to it? I put one on this page and the Garden Roses page under See Also.Dog Walking Girl (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Classification of roses[edit]

I propose that this section should be moved to a new article Classification of garden roses, with a summary left behind. Imc (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps a Garden roses page would be a better option, with a subheading for the classification, and also notes on their cultivation, modern breeders, et.c. Imc (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Much of the content is in Garden roses now. Imc (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Roxasneo, 8 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} add to quotes "a young rose has no thorns, but still what beauty it contains" -Chauncey Waller Roxasneo (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about whether these quotes should be in Wikiquotes instead? Nadiatalent (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
IMO it doesn't belong per WP:QUOTEFARM. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to pull out the whole section, as per Kayau. In See Also, we already have the standard "Wikiquote" template, which is sufficient. "Quote" sections almost never make sense in WP articles, but they especially don't make sense in a general topic article like this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see the pulled quotes aren't at wikiquotes (under roses). Perhaps they should be added.
Apart from that, while I can that it is undesirable to accrete quotations about roses here (per WP:TRIVIA), the quotes were mostly relevant to the topic of roses in culture. (I'd've dropped the Great Gatsby one.) On the other hand, they would seem to fit at least as well in Rose (symbolism). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to add them at Wikiquotes; since there were a lot of Rose quotes there already, and I'm not familiar with their inclusion standards, I didn't want to do it myself. I could see an argument to having them in Rose (symbolism), but, even there, I wouldn't want to collect them into a separate quote section. Instead, I'd put a representative quote into prose form, like "Roses can also represent X, as in Book Y where Author Z wrote "(quote)."" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Roses as invasive species?[edit]

Some species roses are invasive when introduced into new areas, such as multiflora rose in the eastern and midwestern US. What do people think of adding a section on Invasive Roses? I know people in my area frequently mistake a naturalized rose (R. rugosa) for a native plant. Where would this section go on this page? Dog Walking Girl (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Usage for this differs. I would prefer to have a major subheading of Ecology with a subheading for roses as introduced plants. Imc (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you see as being covered in Ecology? I am very familiar with the ecology of the native and naturalized roses of the Pacific Northwest, and California to a lesser extent. There is a difference between introduced, naturalized, invasive, and noxious. All garden roses are introduced - they are not native to where they're planted, except when people plant locally-native species. A few non native species roses are naturalized in the PNW - they reproduce on their own, ie R. rugosa and R. eglanteria. None are really invasive here, but in other parts of the country R. multiflora has become invasive - it invades and dominates uncultivated areas and alters ecosystems and squeezes out native species. I don't know that any rose would be noxious, a noxious weed is one designated by an official Noxious Weed Board type organization, which has the legal authority to compel landowners to control so-designated plants. Noxious weeds get that designation when it is agreed that they cause economic harm to agriculture, poison livestock, injure people, increase wildfire hazard, choke rivers, et cetera. Multiflora may be officially noxious in some states or counties, I don't know, but I can find out. How do these definitions sound? They are all of course location-dependent - R. rugosa is native in Japan, naturalized in Washington, and invasive in Maine, for instance.
Some people use 'invasive' to include locally native species that dominate disturbed habitats but I prefer to call those 'early seral', saving 'invasive' for non native species. Every ecosystem needs its pioneering species that will grow in disturbed areas, for instance here we get large clearcuts, hurricane-force windstorms, wildfires, landslides, and even volcanic explosions, that wipe out plant communities and leave bare soil. Something has to go first, you don't replace a 500yr old forest overnight.
I see an Ecology section covering the role that roses play in natural ecosystems, outside of cultivation. Where they grow, and what feeds on them, and in the case of naturalized roses what impacts they have. Anything else? Most of my information would be for North American species. I'd love info on Asian and European species esp. the ones used in hybridizing modern roses but I'm not the best source for that. Dog Walking Girl (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding and use of the word ecology is that it deals with not just 'natural' ecologies, but those affected and caused by introduced exotics (as well as other man-made interventions). Usage differs, and there is no clear practice; there are plenty of articles that have 'Invasive weeds' or similar titles for a main heading. If you can improve the article, that is the main thing. Imc (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tea rose[edit]

Tea rose redirects to Rose#Tea but nothing about the Teas can be found in the article. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The material about tea roses got split off into garden roses. I've updated the redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Climbing Plant?[edit]

Heard that roses use thorns to climb?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoLegion (talkcontribs) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as I understand it, that is their primary function, rather than as a browsing deterrent (though they also fulfill that role as well). And strictly speaking they are prickles rather than thorns. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking like a how-to manual[edit]

I'd like to propose that some of the details about cultivation be removed to follow the principle that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I personally added at least some of the cultivation notes (in my earliest editing days when I was unaware of Wikipedia guidelines), I was going to say that I agree, but I notice some work has been done on the article subsequently. However now that the 'Pests and diseases' section (which included cultivation advice) has been moved to Garden roses, to a certain extent the question has been moved there.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of red rose[edit]

Why is there no picture of a red rose, being the most identifiable among all types of roses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.37.137 (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Red roses do indeed have a particular allure and romance attached to them, but they are not in fact a 'type' of rose. Roses are either identified according to their species (if they are wild roses) or classified according to their ancestry and growth habit (if they are garden hybrids). This article deals primarily with species, amongst which red flowers are actually quite rare (e.g. Rosa moyesii). The vast majority of wild roses have either pink or white flowers. For more information about garden hybrids (with which most people are more familiar), see the article garden roses, and if you want to see a picture of a 'classic' red rose, you'll have to go to the hybrid tea article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was similarly disappointed when trying to answer the question: What is the species name of the classic rose that is sold by florists? Wouldn't it be better to have that species in the first photo at the top instead of Rosa rubiginosa? If not, wouldn't it be appropriate to have such a photo somewhere on the page? The garden rose looks close, but do florists sell garden roses? What would be perfect would be a sequential image of a classic rose blooming, connecting the various familiar images into stages of a single species: bud, tight flower, tulip-shaped flower, full bloom, and beyond full bloom where the petals start to fall. After reading much of this page and List of Rosa species (which also deserves a photo of a classic rose), I still have not found the answer to my question. IOLJeff (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by the 'classic' rose sold by florists, but assume it to be a "hybrid tea" bred for the cut flower trade - i.e. a rose with a whirl of many petals unfurling from a high-centred bud? Such a rose is a hybrid and doesn't come from a single species, and hence is not dealt with by this article. 'Garden roses' and 'florists roses' are all hybrids, usually descending from a complex mix of species via many many generations, and the only real difference between them as groups is that 'florists roses' have been selected to have particular traits (high productivity of bloom, long straight stems, thornlessness, long-lasting flowers etc) deemed desirable for their market. I imagine you are not unique in your puzzlement, and I wonder if the titles of the different rose articles isn't helping; for some time I have been thinking it might be preferable if this page was retitled "Rosa" (the scientific name for rose species) and the Garden roses article was retitled "Rose".... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that proposal. Wikipedia:Article_titles makes it clear that in a case like this precision is more important than the usual policy of taking the most common and familiar expression for the article title. An administrator's help would be required to make the change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Culinary Uses of the Rose[edit]

There is a Wikipededia entry for Rosa x damascena could this be linked to its existing parenthetical citation? Also, could other specific edible varieties, be linked, if they have an existing page? Thanks for the help.

That one and Rosa × centifolia, which were already mentioned, are now linked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Roses have been eaten and used as a seasoning since ancient times. Should this not be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.22.162 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved to end of discussion by Imc (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

If there are any reliable references for this, then certainly it can be added. Can you suggest any? Imc (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Could links to grocery shops be used as references for this, for example for Rose Petal Jam - http://www.fortnumandmason.com/p-5373-rose-petal-jelly-from-fortnum-mason.aspx or perhaps a link to Thorntons for Rose Creams?Anonymous watcher (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've added material on this in a Food and Drink section, and subsumed the use of rose hips section into it. Needs some more references (as do other parts of the article also).
I have attempted to make this section more extensive and accurate, but my edits are being reverted with "inappropriate primary reference" used as the reason and replaced by text with no source at all. My text said "Rose water can be purchased from some supermarkets for use as a flavouring in cooking", and I linked to an example of this product in an online supermarket as a source. This has been replaced by "Rose water, made as a byproduct of rose oil production, is widely used in Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine." I feel that this sentence strongly implies that Rose water or rose flavouring is only widely used in Asian and Middle Eastern cuisine.
The article should reflect the fact that rose water is a fairly generic cooking ingredient easily found in shops in many countries around the world. What sort of reference is usually used for this kind of information? Additionally, I also used links to the website of shops as the references for Rose Creams in the same section, so presumably these also need to be changed?Anonymous watcher (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Having re-read the wiki pages on sources, I am now wondering if the situation for "acceptable examples of common knowledge" actually applies to my text. Is this why my primary source was inappropriate? In which case can my text be put back in, only without the source?Anonymous watcher (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
A problem with using a shop website as a source is that it effectively acts as an advert for that particular shop. As you are probably aware, Wikipedia favours reliable secondary sources such as academic journals, newspaper articles, books from respected publishers etc., so if one of these could be used as a source for your claim, that would be ideal. I appreciate your point about the alternative text not having any reference at all, so in fairness it can be argued that either that also needs a reliable source as well, or that your text can be included without a reference. Personally I think it might be better if both statements are removed until sources can be found indicating exactly how important the use of rose water is in different cuisines and countries, as this is obviously now a debated subject, and neither claim can hence be viewed as "common knowledge". Also bear in mind that there is an article on rose water, so any detailed text on the subject should be inserted there, with only a summary line or two in this article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I will do as you suggest and remove the statement on this subject until I (or somebody else) manage to find a secondary source, (although I expect this will be hard to do as I can't imagine many publications discuss the availability of groceries).Anonymous watcher (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo of English Roses[edit]

English Roses in a nursery in New Jersey.

For possible inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is focused on the botany and uses of roses. Different horticultural classes of rose are described at the garden roses article, however there is already an image there of a David Austin rose, and that image better shows the typical David Austin style flowers than does this one. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut Flowers[edit]

Glasshouses in this section redirects to a village in Yorkshire. Should the word be greenhouse? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've corrected the link. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That was very fast. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No citations[edit]

Nothing here is cited. Botany section is not cited. "Uses" section is not cited. I can't believe that a general article concerning the rose, of all things, would not be cited. Surely you can find articles to back up this one? It's not like the rose plant is a new, previously unheard of flower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You could always find some yourself. "Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
True. But this is a useful post; this article has far too few citations. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014[edit]

please change

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Food and drink[edit]

To

Food and drink[edit]

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act[1],there are only certain rosa specie, variety, and part are on the Generally Recognized as Safe lists.

  • Rose absolute:Rosa alba L., Rosa centifolia L., Rosa damascena Mill., Rosa gallica L., and vars. of these spp.
  • Rose (otto of roses, attar of roses): Do
  • Rose buds:Do
  • Rose flowers:Do
  • Rose fruit (hips):Do
  • Rose leaves:Rosa spp.

[2]

1.168.238.253 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - it's pretty clear. Face-smile.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

If there were a more clear definition about the species which are really reliable used as food or food additive in each country legally?[edit]

Novel Food catalogue Lists of authorised food additives It seems that only the use of fruits of the Rosa canina under reguations of EU, but not as food additives, neither do the other rosa species. 36.232.61.163 (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite clear what you mean or ask, but it seems to be a finer point about its food use. So it may be better put at the talk page of Rose hip. Imc (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The article under the Food and drink section should more precisely indicate that not all rose is legally used in food now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.64.8 (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition in the lead[edit]

A Rose (/ˈroʊz/) is a woody perennial of the genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae. There are over 100 species and thousands of cultivars. They form a group of plants that can be erect shrubs, climbing or trailing with stems that are often armed with sharp prickles.

Call me an idiot, but I can't really tell what that means. I would instead prefer to see something like this: A rose is a flower, often used as expression of love. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Your definition is very narrow and hence insufficient for an encyclopaedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Detailed definition should be put in the body of the article. I was suggesting a brief description in the lead that would make sense to everyone who is not an expert in biology. 2001:7E8:C624:B001:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

According to Oxford Dictionary the name ROSE does not derives from French but from LATIN ROSA (plural ROSAE, read "ROSE") The relevant link is http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rose Regards MelchisedechTalk 15:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

edit problems[edit]

I am a new user but can not figure out how to edit the rose page itself. Please help. BTW I think the box at the top is now outdated - I dont see any list of references that is not directly cited. Gripogl (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gripogl! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for pointing that out. I'll remove the template The reason you cannot edit the article is because it is semi-protected, which means you need to be at least autoconfirmed (i.e., have an account that is at least 4 days old and has at least 10 edits) or confirmed to edit the page. If you encounter articles you cannot edit in the future, you can also make an edit request if you wish. Happy editing! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016[edit]

Pjoshi45 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Řose

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC) --173.218.127.109 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)marquis was here skittles

WP:BRD WP:CYCLE[edit]

Whay do You suggest WP:BRD WP:CYCLE? Yahadzija (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you make an edit to an article and it is reverted, you should start a discussion about the change on the article's talkpage, and not keep reverting back. As I stated in my edit summaries, this article already has plenty of images and doesn't need another unless it improves on the images already present. The image you uploaded has peculiar colouring, almost like it was taken solely in UV light. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)