Oppose Not unique. Irresponsible to create sub-species gallery implying there is only one image on Commons. There are better images of this sub-species in the binomial category. Charles (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I missed some photos in this category, I don't have enough information to make a judgment, so I've crossed out my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. If there are other images in the binomial category, it is expected to add those to this subspecies category, until then, my stand is to support this proposal. Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can you say 'of course'? Is it because the image is nominated by someone from Kolkata? This is not the correct action of a responsible and very experienced Wiki administrator. Please respect the VI project. Charles (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one image there, so yes, it is best in scope in the said sub-species category. As I said earlier, if there are other images of the same subspecies in the binomial category, until they are recategorized in the correct sub-species category, this image remains best in scope. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Either it's unique in scope or it isn't. Charles says there are better images of this subspecies, but you don't even care to look for them because only one of them is in the gallery for the subspecies, so you therefore act like there is only one that's by default the VI? I'm going to Oppose, because I have no idea how many images of this subspecies there are. But I have a request: Charles, since you obviously have looked through enough photos of this subspecies to have seen better ones, please nominate the one you believe is best in scope separately. I am too confused to try to find all the photos of this butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: , I already said here, that, it is extremely difficult to identify butterfly sub-species from an image only, and so I am in no position to identify them from the binomial category. I remember, @Atudu: has stated this before in one of her VI nomination, that her team experts couldn't help in this regard because of high chance of false identification. The proposer has explained her point several times. It is beyond my understanding, why the same point has to be explained again and again. This is really unfortunate and demotivating for her project. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not understanding this or not reading it the other times the point was made. But basically, that means we're at a loss, doesn't it? I really don't know what to do. I guess if there's really no way to know any other photo is of this subspecies, that does by default make this verified image of the subspecies valuable, so I'll cross out my opposing vote if there's no pushback to this within a day or so, but this sure has been a confusing process. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cross out the opposing vote now. I have no expertise whatsoever on butterflies, so I have no basis for questioning what you're telling me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
