Oppose Irresponsible to create sub-species gallery implying there is only one image on Commons. There are many better images of this sub-species in the binomial category. Charles (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Charlesjsharp: May be your are right. There can be better image. But please note, that there is no mention of any subspecies, any location or geotagging. In this regard, we wish to ask you, are you sure that there are picture of similar subspecies that we have scientifically categorized and uploaded? Hence please do categorize and enlighten our knowledge in doing so that we are satisfied to know that there is really better(s) picture of the very similar subspecies that we have mentioned. As per our experts knowledge there lies 5 subcategories found in India so far
Graphium agamemnon agamemnon Linnaeus, 1758 - Oriental Tailed Jay
Graphium agamemnon menides Fruhstorfer, 1904 – Dakhan Tailed Jay
Graphium agamemnon andamana Lathy, 1907 – Andaman Tailed Jay
Graphium agamemnon decoratus Rothschild, 1895 – Car Nicobar Tailed Jay
Graphium agamemnon pulo Evans, 1932 – South Nicobar Tailed Jay
and ours is one of them. Now do us a favour by mentioning a better image that you have found belonging to ours same subspecies category. please fed us with your valuable knowledge and findings. --Atudu (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your experts will be aware that there are only two sub-species on the Indian mainland, the others are on islands. I am no Indian butterfly expert and cannot tell the difference between G. a. agamemnon and G. a. menides - it looks as if the subspecies overlap somewhere near where your specimen was; but I assume your experts are sure of the identification. In any event G. a. agamemnon occurs in China (where many images in the category gallery were taken) and this image must be G. a. agamemnon and is also better as VI in my opinion. But remember: the key point here is that you must do everything to avoid the risk of misleading voters. It is not for us to waste our time (as I have done this morning). If you are not willing to do the hard work, then I may unfortunately just reject your nominations, some of which would be ideal if you follow the correct process. Please try to help us and we will willingly approve valid nominations. Charles (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The image totally complies with VI guideline. It is extremely difficult to identify a subspecies just from a image only, there are other factors which is needed for this identification and so even if the binomial images are categorised into subspecies, there always remain high chances for false identification. Besides, I don't think the oppose logic is quite rational. Without hard work and dedication, it would not be possible for her team to identify subspecies from live butterflies in the wild. Also, IMHO, she and her team have no responsibility of the previously uploaded images by other users. I don't think, accusing others for not doing hard work is helpful at all, because if you are so sure of rejecting only because of your assumption that there might be the same subspecies present in the binomial category, it is your duty to identify them and categorise correctly, otherwise your objection don't stand. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do indeed. I have recategorized one image into the newly created G. a. agamemnon and it is in my opinion a better image than the one nominated. Charles (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed image is the best because it shows all the wings of the dorsal surface which is not the case of the other, this point is an essential criterion of VI.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I see your point, but have you looked at all photos of this subspecies? I'm still inclined to oppose for the time being, simply because I have no idea how many images of this subspecies are on Commons. Charles, have you seen all the images of this subspecies? Are the 4 currently in the category the only ones, as far as you know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
