Jump to content

Talk:List of U.S. state and territory trees

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States?

[edit]

Guam and Puerto Rico are not states. You should probably revise the name of your list or remove those two territories from it. Remember we have 50 states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.127.35 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're US possessions, so are covered here —αlεx•mullεr 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redmaple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Redmaple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of U.S. state trees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit regarding the NC state Tree

[edit]

Hi there, I am the one who made the small deletion of the word "Longleaf" regarding the North Carolina State tree. First, I apologize that I neither mentioned why I made that edit here in the talk section nor used the explanation line in the edit section. I really should have said something about why I made that change and it was rude of me not to. I made that edit because officially, there is no single species of tree that is the official state tree of North Carolina and I wanted the page to reflect that. Despite being mentioned a lot in regards to the state, the longleaf pine in particular is not the official state tree, rather all pines are. You don't have to take my word for it. The reference listed for that entry (7) will tell you the same thing. Again I do apologize for not mentioning why the edit was made. I intend to make that edit one more time and hopefully this info along with an explanation in the edit itself will suffice. Thanks for your time. 12:02 12/26/16

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. state trees. 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:

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) 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. state and territory trees. 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:

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) 19:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official tree vs tree of historical value

[edit]

Puerto Rico recorded a specific tree, "La Ceiba de la Libertad", as a natural and cultural resource, but not the official tree of the territory.[1] Other sources, may have misinterpreted this, but I have found no statute declaring an official tree for Puerto Rico. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's not a state (or territory) tree because when we say List of "U.S. state and territory trees" there is a presumption --by readers, editors included-- that we mean official trees, and simply having a Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de Puerto Rico source (i.e., this here, p.74) pointing to a U.S. federal source (the CIA World Factbook at the given source here) does not apply the same rigor, the same criteria, that we have applied to all other trees in this list where the source is a piece of state-level legislation whose one purpose was to designate an official tree. What we need to keep the entry Silk-cotton tree in this list is an L.P.R.A, Leyes de Puerto Rico, Anotadas, legislation by the Government of Puerto Rico.
It's a good thing that the Puerto Rico government recorded here a tree known as "La Ceiba de la Libertad" in the town of San Germán as a natural and cultural resource. But using a government law related to "Historic Zones, Buildings and Monuments", as opposed to a law that declares official trees, birds, amphibians, reptiles, songs, poems, etc., as official is not consistent with the cites in the rest of this list article which all use a law passed by the legislature of the corresponding government's jurisdiction to declare a tree as the official tree. Declaring a tree a natural and cultural “resource” is not the same as declaring it a national, state, or territorial official “symbol”. In addition, using as a cite that declares a specific tree, at a specific private property ("in the land belonging to the Almodóvar family"), in a specific town, as a natural and cultural resource, doesn't rise to the same level of evidence as declaring a tree's species (globally, i.e., throughout the Commonwealth) as the Commonwealth's official tree. Mercy11 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the comments above, I looked a little deeper into this and it is clear the 2003 source used (this here, p.74) is not a trustworthy source for the following reason: On the same page as the page that this 2003 source alleges La ceiba (Ceiba pentandra) is Puerto Rico's tree, it also states that Puerto Rico's bird is the Reina Mora (Spyndalis zena). However, we know that as recent as 2017 (that's 14 years after the claim in the DRNA source, reliable sources, such as La Perla del Sur and CienciaPR reported that Puerto Rico had no Commonwealth bird (See ¿Tenemos o no un ave nacional? Héctor Sánchez Martínez. La Perla del Sur. Ponce, Puerto Rico. 20 January 2017. Accessed 1 February 2022. and Debate por el Ave Nacional (primera parte). CienciaPR. Accessed 1 February 2022. If the source is wrong about the bird, could we trust it about the tree? I think not. Mercy11 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing USVI statutes,[2] I have deleted the tree, since the yellow elder is the official flower, not tree. At present, I am trying to determine if any territories have an official tree. If none do, the title might be simplified by page move. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for American Samoa.[3] BiologicalMe (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Marianas Islands entry is real.[4] BiologicalMe (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guam[5] also checks out. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since some territories have official designations, I would suggest that all territories that do not have a designation be listed as "None". If someone wants an answer, "none" is more informative than no entry. The relevant symbol designation statutes with no entry for the category tells readers they can stop looking. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None is fine with me but we should probably keep these two in mind:
  1. Consistency. We have other similar lists such as this, this and this, and it doesn't appear to be Wikipedia practice to write in "None" in these lists for jurisdictions that have none designated, we simply write in those that do have state/territorial government designations.
  2. The above being the case, it appears that one option would be to add "None" for every jurisdiction in every list that has none designated. There are over 40 such lists and they are at the bottom of this article in the collapsed by type template. (As an FYI, this would not be a project I would be interested in as my only interest for now is to preserve the integrity of the claims in these lists but only as it pertains to PR.)
  3. As an alternative, jurisdictions that have None as a designation could instead be placed in a separate section, out of the main tables and after them, further down in the list artciles, and perhaps in a bullet list or prose format. I Have no objection to this so long as each entries in such "None" section is documented with an RS.
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will disagree. Some symbol types are nearly ubiquitous. The few entities that are exceptions should be explicitly marked as none. In that case the null is informative. Sometimes there is a story behind the "none" such as Maryland at List of U.S. state songs. Too many null entries clutter a list. When there type has only moderate penetrance, it is better to list only those that have it. I don't know exactly what the threshold is. I did extensive work on both List of U.S. state beverages and List of U.S. state foods. There are numerous differences between the approaches I took. It was based on a mix of factors including the number of states with multiple types of entry, the existing article structure, and simple esthetics. In one I listed the nones, in the other I didn't. Similarly, I added a picture to every food entry, but decided (unilaterally) that beverages didn't need multiple images of a glass of milk. I will suggest that one size does not fit all. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that the Puerto Rico law identifying a specific tree (rather than a species) certainly does not inform us as to the "tree" of Puerto Rico. But I take exception to the assertion that we need an act of the legislature or any other sort of official act. Certainly, such a designation helps to "settle the score" when there is not general agreement, but I reject the idea that a "jurisdictional" plant, animal, reptile, or dog breed requires an official imprimatur. To use other words, such a designation may be based on tradition. Furthermore, being Wikipedia editors, we are well aware of the criteria for stating something as fact, i.e. reliable sources. So if we look at guidebooks, governmental sources, newspaper articles and they all agree, then there is no dispute. It is arbitrary to demand some other criteria, particularly when there is no factual aspect of being the "state something-or-other" aside from being generally recognized as such. Fabrickator (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* There are enough fake news out there already in just about every topic; we don't need to add to them by adding info to the encyclopedia as factual merely because it is "generally recognized as such". A huge misinformed mob attacked the Capitol on 1/6/21 even when what they thought was factual wasn't even "generally recognized as such." So I disagree we could simply use the "generally recognized as such" as the right yardstick because it causes problems. We need something more authoritative than simply 'this is what everybody recognize is the Commonwealth's tree'. Oh, and btw, (disclaimer) "I am not a supporter of either of the two main US political parties." That said, I agree with Fabrickator that we could use "i.e., reliable sources". However, finding one single source (the book by the PR DRNA, for example) isn't the same as finding several reliable sources. That is, if we had several, say 3, RSs stating that the Ceiba/kapok/cotton tree is the official tree, then we could certainly use them as basis to add it to the table. However, the problem here is that the 2003 cite above (this here, p.74) is not an RS, because, as stated, it erroneously identifies a PR bird when it can be proven that PR has none. BiologicalMe has identified what may be a happy medium, and enter "None" if there are RSs that state the jurisdiction has no official symbol. Part of what makes a source an RS is that is has been peer-reviewed, and for a government book to have such notorious error leaves much to be desired. An act of the legislature, on the hand, is a document that goes thru numerous eyes before it is released. An act of the legislature is the gold standard. Mercy11 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from above:

[the indicated source] is not an RS, because ... it erroneously identifies a PR bird when it can be proven that PR has none.

This is not actually a matter of proof. It's a matter of definition. Is List of national birds now in your sights?
There is already ample recognition of the fact (and a fact it is) that a state/national/territorial song or motto or plant or animal doesn't need to be "official". And BTW, a single error (or more properly, a single instance in which some source might not agree with your personal opinion) is not proof that the source is not a WP:RS. Please look up chutzpah! Fabrickator (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key to breaking circular reporting is going to the source, not adding to it. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the Ceiba was considered sacred by the Taínos, and that would be a reasonable explanation for the Ceiba to be recognized as a "national" tree. But even if the recognition of the Ceiba as a "national" symbol were initially a completely baseless claim (perhaps something made up by tour guides), it is still a valid claim as long as it is now commonly accepted as such.
Furthermore, it is arbitrary to claim that a single erroneous statement eliminates the characterization of a source as reliable. This is no more valid than a claim that any circular reporting which may have occurred invalidates the effect of the circular reporting, i.e. if the assertion of the Cieba as national tree by tour guides resulted in it being spread to various publications, as a result, people began to accept it as being the national tree, then it has actually become recognized as the national tree, because the criteria of being recognized as the national tree does not rely on an official act, but on it actually being generally recognized as the national tree. Beliefs have consequences! Fabrickator (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just original research. (unsigned entry by BiologicalMe)
Last time that I checked, we were on the Talk Page so OR is not actually a pertinent objection. As you cannot plausibly deny, there are ample sources to support the claims of the Ceiba being the Puerto Rico national tree, the only thing is that you dispute that those sources are RS, so you have fancied up this idea that you can impeach them, but your fancy idea does not make it so. Fabrickator (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to extrapolate a few uses as "recognized" (as opposed to "misreported") is original research. If you actually cared about this being a talk page, you would not be using personal attacks. Original research is the reason it does not belong in the list. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR:

This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages ...

So which one of us is confused? Fabrickator (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion on my part. Was your post deleted from the talk page as original research? No. If I had deleted your talk page post on the grounds of OR, then the quoted policy would apply. Original research is the second reason that the entry does not belong in the list, the first being that it is known to be wrong. BiologicalMe (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than propagate misinforemation, I have adjusted the entry to be accurate and informative. Those who thinks kapok is the national tree will see why it isn't. Aggregators and lazy writers will not continue the citogenesis cycle. BiologicalMe (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not proffering anything here for inclusion in the article, except to the extent that a valid source is provided, so it would be erroneous to claim that any of it is OR.

I first call your attention to national symbols (simple wikipedia), which informs us that national symbols may be official or unofficial (though I think the examples of official and unofficial that are provided are descrptive rather than prescriptive). What are we to make of the fact that this implied claim is unsourced? Wouldn't it seem highly arbitrary to assert that since they failed to provide a source, we must infer that the opposite of this statement is true?

I next call your attention to a source which I think should be considered quite pertinent: [[State Trees and State Flowers from the U.S. National Arboretum. This is the earliest version available from the Wayback machine, dated October 2, 2002. They were compiling this list for the purpose of selecting trees for inclusion in the National Grove of State Trees. Although they ony needed this information for state trees plus the District of Columbia, they chose to include information for other non-state areas as well. Under the circumstances, I think it is fair to say that they did not take a flippant approach in compiling this list. Furthermore, any claim that this is a case of circular reporting is both implausible and purely speculative, though the inclusion of unofficial symbols in their list of state and national symbols is not novel, as plenty of other sources do the same. Fabrickator (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that some arbitrary number of instances of citogenesis allows Wikipedia to supersede the Puerto Rican government and declare a national tree is not an evaluation of sources, but a wild extrapolation (OR beyond SYNTH). Your tale of travel guide writers interviewing guides to fill the info page rather than quickly cut and paste from a convenient source is the implausible one. The number of state symbols that I have tracked through the citogenesis cycle is not insubstantial, although aggregator websites are often the principal offender. The National Arboretum is not a legislative body. That document is looks reasonably researched (they didn't find the date for DC), but note the lack of dates after the flower and tree. It's because Puerto Rico did not choose their state flower until 2019.[6] The important thing is they chose. All fifty states and several other territories have selected their own official trees. The notable exception was DC which was governed by Congress in 1960, but that was the appropriate authority at the time. It is not Wikipedia's job or purview to pick a national tree for Puerto Rico.
At least the NA source is more plausible than the one citing the World Factbook which does not list it. If the World Factbook removed the entry (I haven't dug through old editions), that would support non-inclusion. I think my hybrid approach using a footnote is the best approach for the one true outlier: put the 53 official trees in the table, and the one unofficial one in the footnote. Aggregators and copy-paste do not pick it up. Someone actually reading is informed. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that the most common source of citogenesis on symbols is failed proposal, I dug more. I don't know if the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture's proposal even became a bill, but at least I found support for the idea originating in Puerto Rico with explicit statement, rather than an inference, that cieba is an unofficial symbol. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BiologicalMe: I find sometimes when I get into one of these multi-layer discussions, I lose track of what the real issue is. If I understand correctly, you're rejecting the idea of recognition of unofficial symbols. Something can only be considered as a state or national symbol if it has an official imprimatur: a governor signing a bill into law (or a legislature overriding his veto) or a monarch issuing a declaration (this is not intended as a complete list but as examples). The very idea that such unofficial symbols might receive any sort of recognition is a result of citogenesis. Do I have this pretty much right, or am I off-base? Fabrickator (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no official symbol, citogenesis (or outright error) needs to be ruled out when a source calls something the state (or territory) ____, but makes no statement about official or unofficial or provides any context. In other words, do not translate "national tree" as "unofficial national tree" when it could be translated as "ctrl-c ctrl-v". In the case of "ceiba", we have a reliable source explicitly identifying it as an unofficial symbol and providing history. The same source has an explicit statement that it was proposed as a symbol, but not adopted. Having a source like that makes for a useful note in the list, but not a list entry.
I don't have a sense of the rest of the world, but US official symbols have features good for Wikipedia lists. They are finite and readily identifiable and verifiable. Hard criteria are established: each and every U.S. state and territory has its own rules and processes. Unofficial symbols are problematic. They cannot be readily identified to make a complete list. They can come from anywhere, including casual statements, pranks, and errors. There are no criteria. I do not reject the existence of unofficial symbols or their mention, but they should not be placed on a list in any manner that they could be confused with the official symbols that have been through whole political wringer. I reject the idea that a legislative process could reject a proposal, but Wikipedia would treat the proposal as if it had been accepted. Symbols can be contentious, so I reject the notion of Wikipedia making such declarations on behalf of elected governments. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this discussion in #Official vs. unofficial symbols. Fabrickator (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official vs. unofficial symbols

[edit]

Continuing this discussion from #Official tree vs tree of historical value

It's interesting that you want to apply some apparent distinction about lists for the U.S. vs. non-U.S., while the initial issue related to a U.S. territory, which is certainly the "in-between" situation. Well, it now seems that you're backing off from the idea that any claim which could not cite a law as being evidence of citogenesis. But you're still ignoring WP:V, i.e. that article content is based reliable sources (and if reliable sources disagree, then we present them proportionately). Of course, this all relies on a degree of common sense, e.g. if there's a valid basis for believing that one of the sources is just a mistake.)

That said, in attempting to disparage unofficial symbols, you are really violating WP:OWN. There are plenty of examples of such lists of symbols (both inside and outside WP) where unofficial symbols are simply declared as such. Aside from making such an annotation, there is no basis for further disparaging unofficial symbols. We should also consider that there are several cases where there are other ambiguities of one sort or another, such as a definition that is broader than a species or having multiple types of symbols defined (e.g. "state flower" and "state wildflower"). I recall coming across a case where a legislature had declared a state symbol but it was apparently valid for just that legislative session. Insisting that everything conform to our personal simplified model of things ignores reality. Our mandate is not to establish order, but to report verifiable facts. Fabrickator (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The approach I took approach is proportional. Official symbols go on the list. Unambiguous unofficial symbols are mentioned. There is a middle ground: acknowledged unofficial symbols. If an unofficial symbol appears in a state blue book or is acknowledged by the official archives that would be a strong reason to include it. Show me a source of that caliber that acknowledges cieba as the unofficial symbol, and I would say add it with the "(unofficial)" after it. So far we have is a modest quality source that tells us: (1) that it is popular emblem; (2) that it was proposed by ICP; and (3) it was not adopted. All those features are informative and there is no need to cherry pick the first two and ignore the third. The fact that Puerto Rico has not declared an official tree is an informative verifiable fact.
There are also unwanted state symbols. Maryland just repealed its state song on the tenth try. How do you repeal an unofficial symbol? BiologicalMe (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ICP isn't quite as high up as I wanted, but fairly high up the chain. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what your logic is regarding repeal of unofficial symbols. There may be a case for advantages and disadvantages of establishing official symbols, but our role on WP is merely to state the facts, subject to our ability to provide an appropriate source, and even to allow that different sources may disagree, though this not the only area of ambiguity. There can even be advantages to unofficial symbols ... consider the selection of red-crowned crane as Chinese national bird, which was rejected by the National People's Congress because of the Latin name meaning "Japanese crane". Insistence on an official designation can cause the popular will to be ignored. Fabrickator (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fabrickator: BiologicalMe doesn't need to consider the red-crowned crane, or any other case; that's other stuff. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add material, and that's you. BiologicalMe nailed it here: when an entry of "unofficial" would had made it inconsistent with the rest of the table, s/he has been very generous in allowing it, consistent with WP:IAR, as it makes it informative anyway. Regardless, consensus here is clear, at least 2 to 1, with your view being the less popular one. Still, I have seen nothing but a desire by BiologicalMe to accommodate even your additional comments and, yet, along the way and despite his/her goodwill, I sensed some personal attacks from you to him/her even though you are also the more experienced editor, by about half a decade if my math didn't fail me. From the start, my position has been, and continuous to be, that nonofficial trees shouldn't be on the list at all as it leaves the door open to all sorts of personal reflections and consequently "fake news"; so consider BiologicalMe as a fair WP:3O. Frankly, you should had already disengaged. But if, after this weeklong discussion, you still feel it's still not time for you to disengage, I would suggest you follow established protocol here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mercy11: This latest comment was an observation about her point, which would properly support the idea that a given jurisdiction should not rely on a symbol having unofficial status, because it's not apparent that it's possible to renounce such a symbol. That is not on point with whether WP should recognize symbols that have gained widespread acceptance but which are not official. In so doing, I'm not arguing the issue at hand, I'm simply calling out that this point does not support her position. You are surely free to disagree with my perspective on that particular point, but when somebody makes a non-sequitur to support their position, it's certainly pertinent to call that out. If you or she want to elaborate on why it really is on point, that's fine too, but it's not reasonable to object to my making a bona fide point regarding the invalidity of her point. Fabrickator (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to explore whether or not "WP should recognize symbols that have gained widespread acceptance but which are not official", you should do so at this forum. Mercy11 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._state_and_territory_trees&oldid=1203699029"