I thought we'd been through this before, but the location of a species is not visible. Look at the page on image scopes again, please. And I don't think a particular month is a relevant scope when you're talking about September, rather than October. Would you prefer for me to just oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is necessary in the scope the exact name of the species and if possible of the subspecies. It is necessary in the scope the exact name of the species and if possible of the subspecies. We must reduce the scope to what is shown (it is not the whole tree). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I specified (reduce) the scope. The name of the specie is indicated: Olea europaea. I'll try to find the name of the subspecies, but I'm not sure I can do it correctly. Perhaps it is better not to specify a subspecies than to indicate it incorrectly? -- Ввласенко (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You chose a complex subject, because the subspecies have a different visual aspect. In this case it is the hairiness and the shape of the leaves. The subspecies being often endemic; the Rodes term that you put in the scope could then be useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
