I am always very attentive to your remarks, but here, this systematic opposition is not constructive. First, unlike many, this egg is very typical and can not be confused with another species. To automatically give a SET with other images of the animal, as you propose, is to be a good idea. But in many cases the images of the animal are of very poor quality. If the SET is labeled and the images of the animal change, it will start to make a new SET. It is more useful to accept that Oology is an important part of Ornithology. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion on previous nom which could have been constructive. I stick to my viewpoint that eggs are not in general different enough to be identified on sight. There is no need to rush this things. It is better to set up an accepted protocol first than to the afterwards have to mend errors. VI should be as much as possible be supported by properly argued documentation/guidelines and not by subjective issues like is the case in e.g. FP selection. พ.s. 08:03, 10 September 2011
