Commons:Valued image candidates/Seedeater (Sporophila sp.) female.JPG

Seedeater (Sporophila sp.) female.JPG

undecided

Image
Nominated by	Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-02-06 15:41 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sporophila sp. (Seedeater) female
Used in	Global usage
Reason	It is impossible to distinguish visually at species level, so the scope is at a higher taxonomy level (genus). -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment only Sporophila falcirostris can have the VI label for the genus, because it is the type species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)  Question If it's impossible to tell the species of this genus apart, how could it possibly matter which species is being shown? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The position of the bird in the image can determine the genus, but not the species. This image has a poor scientific value. It cannot be VI labeled. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment I understand your comment, but high scientific value is not a VI criteria. I believe this image IS of value to identify the female of this genus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment Yeah. We have to be able to serve bird-watchers. I will look at the rest of the photos in scope later and vote for this if it looks best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) *  Comment Only the species type sporophila falcirostris can claim to represent the genre, an unidentified species can not be labeled. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) How could that possibly make sense, when it's impossible to identify the species visually? However, Charlesjsharp, your photo is not in the linked category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Done Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Support If all the photos of female seedeaters are in the linked category, this is obviously best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Oppose An image of an unidentified species cannot get a label because it is not identified. All images in this category are equivalent in scope; they can all be opposed to each other for Pending Most valued review candidates. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)  Question Why are you unilaterally making up your own rule? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment It's not a rule; there are flaws in our regulations which is normal. Here this flaw can be exploited to the detriment of the functioning of our model, with the immediate effect of degrading the quality of our work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment What part of "visually distinctive" is at issue here? If we can't see the difference, how could there possibly be an issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC) *  Comment It's the lack of a distinctive part that's actually the problem. There must be a match between the scope and the image. It's like: Here is a street in New York. Which? I can't know, but give me the label anyway... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment No, it's not like that because "street in New York" would be equivalent to a family at least, whereas this is a genus. Besides, the guidelines state that when species are not visually distinguishable, a genus can be specified: "Not all unique species photographs are sufficiently valuable to become VI. For instance there are more than 5,000 known species of Ladybird, the Coccinellidae family of beetles. Several species may look so similar that it is impossible to identify the species based on a photograph alone. This is where a scope directed to some higher taxa, e.g. genus, may be more valuable." Since you don't like that guideline, you should start a discussion to try to change it, but I can't see that your opposition to this nomination is well-founded, based on existing guidelines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Question Are you saying that this cannot be identified as Sporophila female? I believe it can. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The example of ladybugs is very fair. If we go back to gender, I agree. But there are rules of taxonomy. It is the type species that prevails and in our case there is indeed the image of this species in COMMONS; Sporophila falcirostris -Horto Florestal de Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg is the best candidate for the genus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment But that's a male. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment For genus it doesn't matter --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05 44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) You really should make an argument at Commons talk:Valued image scope and try to achieve a consensus behind your unilateral rule, which is different from the actual rule. Meanwhile, how come no-one else is taking a stand? Either we say that when the genus (and in this case, the female of the genus) is recognizable but the species are not, you can use the genus as your scope, or we say you're out of luck and identifying a genus is completely useless. I can't see why it would be, but you shouldn't be able to make up your own rules and enforce them without consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment I respect Archaeodontosaurus's point of view and his quirky interpretation of the VI guidelines, but to say that you could not have male and female genus scopes is impossible to understand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment This assertion only applies in the case where one leaves the species for a higher taxon. A VI label is possible but the sex in this case does not matter. Pedagogy is a long patience. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Question If it's possible to tell the difference between males and females of this genus, why wouldn't the distinction be valuable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The difference can be made between the two sexes but it depends on criteria that relate to the species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)