I loathe these stupid widgets that show a blank map as soon as you zoom out a little (past the 1000m scale in this case). How can you fail so hard at your only job?
I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.
The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?
It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page.
"It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page."
If it allows you to edit it in the first place or isn't reverted within five minutes.
They have strict rules, but I’ve had no issues editing articles after my first error. It’s certainly not like posting an answer on Stack Overflow, where you will be downvoted and flamed for a correct-but-suboptimal answer.
With respect, that is naive. To demonstrate, create a new account and go ahead and make that change. It will be reverted. Wikipedia is not the democratic free-for-all it once was.
If you do perform that experiment and I am wrong, please come back and let us know.
Wikipedia is and has always been a wiki; reverting bad or controversial edits has always been expected from day one.
Also Wikipedia has developed an editorial line of its own, so it's normal that edits that go against the line will be put in question; if that happens to you, you're expected to collaborate in the talk pages to express your intent for the changes, and possibly get recommendations on how to tweak it so that it sticks.
It also happens that most of contributions by first timers are indistinguishable from vandalism or spam; those are so obvious that an automated bot is able to recognize them and revert them without human supervision, with a very high success rate.
However if those first contributions are genuinely useful to the encyclopedia, such as adding high quality references for an unverified claim, correcting typos, or removing obvious vandalism that slipped through the cracks, it's much more likely that the edits will stay; go ahead and try that experiment and tell us how it went.
There are plenty of "bad and controversial edits" on Wikipedia, just some are more acceptable than others. Wikipedia is an oligarchy.
I’m here to let you know you are wrong.
I made an anonymous edit to the Wikipedia page of one of Hemingways short stories three years ago, and my edit is still there.
You were lucky that you could edit in the first place. Most anonymous editors are blocked before they make an edit due to shared IPs.
I’ve made several edits to wiki-pages without even having an account. A few got reverted, most stayed.
Some pages/topics are more open to changes than others, that much is true.
The term "animal" refers to non-human creatures.
Not when I use the word. Animals are the big creatures that move around. Guess I'm just a preschooler.
While this is interesting and impressive, I kinda relate more to OP's link of more "normal" trees. Going through the list gives me a feeling how many cool trees there are all over the place.
I've been to the Ancient Bristlecone Pine forest in Inyo County, CA where the Methuselah tree lives. Though I didn't get to see that specific tree because the sun was fast setting and I wasn't prepared to hike around in darkness, I had a pretty amazing experience being the presence of 4000- and 5000-year old trees.
> A tree located in an established gay cruising area, noted for its slender trunk which facilitates gay sex.
The mind boggles haha
I can't believe this got past the Wikipedia editors.
Why would it have been stopped? I don't see anything non-factual, and I regularly pass by that tree. It is well known and referenced [1].
How does this work, practically, since it’s so notorious? Is there a queue of dudes waiting to get access to this “private” tree?
"slender trunk which facilitates gay sex"
You don't see the euphemism?
I don't see it. It's a tree that people have sex on. Gay sex, though from the looks of it the tree would be equally well suited for lesbian or straight sex. Presumably one person lies on their stomach on the trunk while one or more people perform penetrative acts. Where is the euphemism? And what is weird about listing this on wikipedia?
"This tree, I tell you, has a slutty little back arch".
I read that and assumed this must be some joke article and/or art stunt. After reading the article and linked sources, I'm still not sure that ain't true.
No it's definitely a real tree and not a joke article...
No, but editors there are quite notorious for lacking a sense of humor. I'm not surprised it's listed, I'm surprised that particular euphemistic description remains.
It's a pretty notorious tree in London, don't see a reason why it wouldn't be included.
This moves me. It affirms that grown trees have tremendous personality.
However obscure this page might be, I was there just a few days ago. Clicked on it from this article about a tree that was cut down, and it was apparently a big thing in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore_Gap_tree
I can understand the outrage. Was there any motivation given for why they cut it down? Just vandalism?
I've been following the story for a while and it has never been adequately explained by mainstream media. Consider this... They drove for over an hour in the middle of the night in foul weather to a remote location to cut down a particular tree. That suggests some preplanning.
Honestly it's my first time looking at the story for a while! I just knew they got jail time for it.
"What are you in for?"
I remember that incident! As a side-effect I discovered that beautiful panorama picture[0], which was perfect for my two-monitors-plus-laptop-screen set-up aside from the low resolution, so I used my stippling notebook[1] to hide that a little bit[2]. I could probably tweak the stippling settings a bit to have prettier output, but it's been my wallpaper for over two years now.
some of which could have made it to this list of special trees :-(
I noticed the "bicycle tree" in Scotland which has encapsulated a bicycle amongst other things as it has grown. It reminded me of a very old graveyard I would play in as a kid. The oldest side was all old trees and one day I noticed one of the trees had a couple of gravestones up in its boughs. I always wondered if these were really lifted up there by the tree and if so whether that's unusual.
Why is Pippi Longstocking's "soda pop tree" not on the list? It's dying and the whole of Sweden are freaking out. We're putting tax payer money on solving its disease. We're developing a vaccine to try and save it for gods sake. Yes, this is a very LOL type of situation to the rest of the world, I know that. But it's not a laughing matter in Sweden: https://www.slu.se/nyheter/2025/11/pippis-sockerdrickstrad-r...
Does the tree have a Wikipedia article about it? If not you can add it. If it does, you can add it to the list.
Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute!
(although many users don't know that and a smaller than miniscule amount of users actually do.)
Delighted to see my local one in there, with a description reading like it was written by Douglas Adams.
“The Hungry Tree is an otherwise unremarkable specimen of the London plane, which has become known for having partially consumed a nearby park bench.”
I googled it and found that it has a more comprehensive Wikipedia article than some prominent historical figures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Tree
Several more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_physical_o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_individual_a...
My dumb butt thought it was gonna be a list of every tree in the world, all eight gazillion of them
I did a search, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees in the world; somehow that's much fewer than I expected.
It is actually three treellion.
Even nature likes a terrible pun.
This is a map of all trees in the Netherlands
https://boomregister.nl/overzichtskaart-van-de-bomen-in-nede...
I loathe these stupid widgets that show a blank map as soon as you zoom out a little (past the 1000m scale in this case). How can you fail so hard at your only job?
I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.
The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?
Consistent with this definition of ”animal” - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English:_any_nonhuman_...
It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page.
"It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page."
If it allows you to edit it in the first place or isn't reverted within five minutes.
They have strict rules, but I’ve had no issues editing articles after my first error. It’s certainly not like posting an answer on Stack Overflow, where you will be downvoted and flamed for a correct-but-suboptimal answer.
With respect, that is naive. To demonstrate, create a new account and go ahead and make that change. It will be reverted. Wikipedia is not the democratic free-for-all it once was.
If you do perform that experiment and I am wrong, please come back and let us know.
Wikipedia is and has always been a wiki; reverting bad or controversial edits has always been expected from day one.
Also Wikipedia has developed an editorial line of its own, so it's normal that edits that go against the line will be put in question; if that happens to you, you're expected to collaborate in the talk pages to express your intent for the changes, and possibly get recommendations on how to tweak it so that it sticks.
It also happens that most of contributions by first timers are indistinguishable from vandalism or spam; those are so obvious that an automated bot is able to recognize them and revert them without human supervision, with a very high success rate.
However if those first contributions are genuinely useful to the encyclopedia, such as adding high quality references for an unverified claim, correcting typos, or removing obvious vandalism that slipped through the cracks, it's much more likely that the edits will stay; go ahead and try that experiment and tell us how it went.
There are plenty of "bad and controversial edits" on Wikipedia, just some are more acceptable than others. Wikipedia is an oligarchy.
I’m here to let you know you are wrong.
I made an anonymous edit to the Wikipedia page of one of Hemingways short stories three years ago, and my edit is still there.
You were lucky that you could edit in the first place. Most anonymous editors are blocked before they make an edit due to shared IPs.
I’ve made several edits to wiki-pages without even having an account. A few got reverted, most stayed.
Some pages/topics are more open to changes than others, that much is true.
The term "animal" refers to non-human creatures.
Not when I use the word. Animals are the big creatures that move around. Guess I'm just a preschooler.
A different list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_hominids#Humans
My own favourite - the Last Ent of Affric:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Ent_of_Affric
TIL: The UK designates "trees of special national interest", and has a "Tree of the Year" competition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_Year_(United_Kingd...
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superlative_trees
While this is interesting and impressive, I kinda relate more to OP's link of more "normal" trees. Going through the list gives me a feeling how many cool trees there are all over the place.
I've been to the Ancient Bristlecone Pine forest in Inyo County, CA where the Methuselah tree lives. Though I didn't get to see that specific tree because the sun was fast setting and I wasn't prepared to hike around in darkness, I had a pretty amazing experience being the presence of 4000- and 5000-year old trees.
> A tree located in an established gay cruising area, noted for its slender trunk which facilitates gay sex.
The mind boggles haha
I can't believe this got past the Wikipedia editors.
Why would it have been stopped? I don't see anything non-factual, and I regularly pass by that tree. It is well known and referenced [1].
[1] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/07/hampstead-heaths-...
How does this work, practically, since it’s so notorious? Is there a queue of dudes waiting to get access to this “private” tree?
"slender trunk which facilitates gay sex"
You don't see the euphemism?
I don't see it. It's a tree that people have sex on. Gay sex, though from the looks of it the tree would be equally well suited for lesbian or straight sex. Presumably one person lies on their stomach on the trunk while one or more people perform penetrative acts. Where is the euphemism? And what is weird about listing this on wikipedia?
Incredible
I read that and assumed this must be some joke article and/or art stunt. After reading the article and linked sources, I'm still not sure that ain't true.
No it's definitely a real tree and not a joke article...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/cruising-spots-uk-london-201...
Wikipedia is not censored.
No, but editors there are quite notorious for lacking a sense of humor. I'm not surprised it's listed, I'm surprised that particular euphemistic description remains.
It's a pretty notorious tree in London, don't see a reason why it wouldn't be included.
This moves me. It affirms that grown trees have tremendous personality.
However obscure this page might be, I was there just a few days ago. Clicked on it from this article about a tree that was cut down, and it was apparently a big thing in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore_Gap_tree
This was huge news in the UK when it happened. Massive public uproar for an illegal felling. The perpetrators were both jailed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6295zv9101o
I can understand the outrage. Was there any motivation given for why they cut it down? Just vandalism?
I've been following the story for a while and it has never been adequately explained by mainstream media. Consider this... They drove for over an hour in the middle of the night in foul weather to a remote location to cut down a particular tree. That suggests some preplanning.
Yeah I think so. Attention seeking, maybe something to do with a planning application to live somewhere being rejected too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn811px4m7mo
Honestly it's my first time looking at the story for a while! I just knew they got jail time for it.
"What are you in for?"
I remember that incident! As a side-effect I discovered that beautiful panorama picture[0], which was perfect for my two-monitors-plus-laptop-screen set-up aside from the low resolution, so I used my stippling notebook[1] to hide that a little bit[2]. I could probably tweak the stippling settings a bit to have prettier output, but it's been my wallpaper for over two years now.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Sycamore...
[1] https://observablehq.com/@jobleonard/a-fast-colored-stipple-...
[2] https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/... https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/... https://blindedcyclops.neocities.org/sycamore_gap_tree_pano/...
One of Wikipedia’s greatest contributions is collecting records like this that wouldn’t appear in a traditional encyclopedia.
Yeah you can bet the Fuck Tree wouldn't make it into any encyclopedia.
Have you considered that you just aren’t reading the cool encyclopedias?
But does the article include a handy list of How to Recognise Different Types of Trees from Quite a Long Way Away?
I clicked expecting some catalog of data structures but it was a pleasant surprise.
Slightly off topic but does anyone know where to get a huge dataset of tree images? I'm talking millions.
And in contrast to that, have a look at home many trees we are losing every year:
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
some of which could have made it to this list of special trees :-(
I noticed the "bicycle tree" in Scotland which has encapsulated a bicycle amongst other things as it has grown. It reminded me of a very old graveyard I would play in as a kid. The oldest side was all old trees and one day I noticed one of the trees had a couple of gravestones up in its boughs. I always wondered if these were really lifted up there by the tree and if so whether that's unusual.
I would check here for examples: https://old.reddit.com/r/TreesSuckingOnThings/
Includes Martin Fowler's strangler fig. Yes it is a design pattern and a tree.
Of course: https://m.xkcd.com/2977/
Adyar banyan tree in Chennai is missing.
https://www.ts-adyar.org/banyan-tree
Is this list comprehensive?
It can never be. There are many notable trees, but some of them will never have a Wikipedia article.
No, but you can add anything missing if you have a source!
In the heart of Silicon Valley, El Palo Alto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Palo_Alto
Nice! Includes Mythological and religious trees!
Why is Pippi Longstocking's "soda pop tree" not on the list? It's dying and the whole of Sweden are freaking out. We're putting tax payer money on solving its disease. We're developing a vaccine to try and save it for gods sake. Yes, this is a very LOL type of situation to the rest of the world, I know that. But it's not a laughing matter in Sweden: https://www.slu.se/nyheter/2025/11/pippis-sockerdrickstrad-r...
Does the tree have a Wikipedia article about it? If not you can add it. If it does, you can add it to the list.
Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and contribute! (although many users don't know that and a smaller than miniscule amount of users actually do.)