4 ms·

Several more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_physical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_physical_o... https://en.wik

Several more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_physical_objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Individual_physical_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_individual_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_individual_a...

cbdevidal 10mo ago
My dumb butt thought it was gonna be a list of every tree in the world, all eight gazillion of them
- moi2388 10mo ago
  This is a map of all trees in the Netherlands https://boomregister.nl/overzichtskaart-van-de-bomen-in-nederland/ https://boomregister.nl/overzichtskaart-van-de-bomen-in-nede...
  - sph 10mo ago
    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?
    - moi2388 10mo ago
      Well, there are a lot of trees. If you want you can interpret grey as green as that’s what you would see zoomed out?
  - cbdevidal 10mo ago
    That’s cool. My ancestor planted some of them. He was a mayor.
- sph 10mo ago
  I did a search, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees in the world; somehow that's much fewer than I expected.
  - dspillett 10mo ago
    It is actually three treellion. Even nature likes a terrible pun.
    - zk0 10mo ago
      tree trillion
      - IAmBroom 10mo ago
        Tree fiddy and change.
  - hnuser123456 10mo ago
    Well there was probably a lot more a few hundred years ago.
    - all2 10mo ago
      It's actually the opposite, I think. Because of how industrialized the lumber/paper industries have gotten, stewardship of forests has improved over time. This includes replanting in harvested areas.
croisillon 10mo ago
The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?
- OtherShrezzing 10mo ago
  It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page.
  - rendall 10mo ago
    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.
    - ejolto 10mo ago
      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.
      - nephihaha 10mo ago
        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.
      - rendall 10mo ago
        I was responding to this: >> The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans? > It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page. Yes, minor changes will not draw negative attention but the days when randos could make major edits like that are long gone. But try it. Maybe I'm wrong.
    - TuringTest 10mo ago
      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.
autoexec 10mo ago
I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.

cbdevidal 10mo ago

My dumb butt thought it was gonna be a list of every tree in the world, all eight gazillion of them

moi2388 10mo ago
This is a map of all trees in the Netherlands https://boomregister.nl/overzichtskaart-van-de-bomen-in-nederland/ https://boomregister.nl/overzichtskaart-van-de-bomen-in-nede...
- sph 10mo ago
  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?
  - moi2388 10mo ago
    Well, there are a lot of trees. If you want you can interpret grey as green as that’s what you would see zoomed out?
- cbdevidal 10mo ago
  That’s cool. My ancestor planted some of them. He was a mayor.
sph 10mo ago
I did a search, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees in the world; somehow that's much fewer than I expected.
- dspillett 10mo ago
  It is actually three treellion. Even nature likes a terrible pun.
  - zk0 10mo ago
    tree trillion
    - IAmBroom 10mo ago
      Tree fiddy and change.
- hnuser123456 10mo ago
  Well there was probably a lot more a few hundred years ago.
  - all2 10mo ago
    It's actually the opposite, I think. Because of how industrialized the lumber/paper industries have gotten, stewardship of forests has improved over time. This includes replanting in harvested areas.

croisillon 10mo ago

The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans?

OtherShrezzing 10mo ago
It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page.
- rendall 10mo ago
  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.
  - ejolto 10mo ago
    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.
    - nephihaha 10mo ago
      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.
    - rendall 10mo ago
      I was responding to this: >> The list of animals has dolphins and birds but not humans? > It’s Wikipedia. Make the change you want to see in the page. Yes, minor changes will not draw negative attention but the days when randos could make major edits like that are long gone. But try it. Maybe I'm wrong.
  - TuringTest 10mo ago
    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.

autoexec 10mo ago

I'm surprised that the Katamari games include a longer list of physical objects than wikipedia.