Comment. Image only used in a long list of trees - surely not every tree in this list is worth a scope and this one hasn't even got a numbner? Am I missing something here? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every monument, natural or historical, is worth a scope as long as it is in an official list of monuments. This is the case here. In Trier there are hundreds of listed historical monuments, nobody has ever complained about nominations of any of those. Why should the situation be different for a natural monument? That surely would not make sense. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree except that if this tree is not worth a number, why is it worth a VI? The implication of the Trier list is that the tree is protected. Nothing more. We have thousands and thousnds of individual trees proected by law in the UK, but they are not worth a VI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Nothing probably prevents you from photographing these thousands or millions of protected trees and presenting them here. I can imagine that there would be very beautiful ones. By the way, we have a list of natural monuments that can use pictures.-- Spurzem (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
