Oppose It is not helpful to the VI project to create a sub-species gallery that does not have all other images moved into it (by you). You give the impression that this is the only image we have to choose from. As far as I cxan see there are many better dorsal images of this butterfly in the parent category Charles (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have previously gave an explanation to you in this respect of subspecies categorization [image candidates/Close wing position of Euploea radamanthus Fabricius, 1793 - Magpie crow WLB.jpg]. Further more I am gladly explaining once more that all our subspecies categorization are done under the active guidance of the highest level butterfly experts and lepidopterist of the country. Moreover, we have a tremendous work pressure in dealing with our vast project [Loves Butterfly] Part-II on proper scientific basis, there it is most usually not getting possible for us presently to categorize others pictures on subspecies level. Furthermore, as I have looked through in the parent category of this the majority of the pictures there do not have both ventral and dorsal view of the similar species at the same time in the similar place and the species name even the location of the picture taken etc. are not mentioned, excepting which all no butterfly experts will classify them and not possible doing such at the same time. Thank you. --Atudu (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comments. I am not challenging your identifiications.
You have not however responded to my request that you do not create sub-species categrories unless you follow the Wikimedia guidelines for creating a new category:
"Creating a new category... Find images (or a gallery or other pages) which should be put in the new category."
If you do not wish to invest the time in moving images to a new sub-species category, then don't create one.
Also we should not promote an inferior image when there may be many better images available even though they may not have exact location defined.
Also, scope should include sex where it can be identified. Charles (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
