Talk:Salvia yangii

message: Hello, . 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)
replies: text: Who said so? per:WP: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Thanks for making some improvements here. Does the article look like GA material to you? RO(talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oho, I don't do much GA... Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure, but does it look decent, IYO? RO(talk) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Check, here, and here, it got an award, the 'Blue Spire '. Hafspajen (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: (). RO(talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Here is  Robinson's book. A classic. Hafspajen (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad he didn't mention P. atriplicifolia in that book! RO(talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

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

message: , I noticed you made this edit: (), an improvement for sure, but where's the botany section of GA? RO(talk) 21:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Okay. Thanks, J Milburn. RO(talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the botany section? 

message: Hey, . I noticed that you restored some taxonomy items to the infobox: (). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: worldfloraonline.org is absolutely not . Plants of the World Online (PoWO) is more up-to-date and better curated, but equally is not . 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)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Identity of images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Hybrid status