Support - Great photo! Hafs, this is the last type of photo that I would think you would nominate. I never knew you had an interest in cattle. CorinneSD (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's more like a portrait, looking down from an edge. I think personally that it is rather an attractive posture.Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)it was clearly a man, a rather large man with appealing posture, wearing something wrapped around his face and a hat pulled low over his ears[reply]
Oppose Once again, a nice enough picture, but this section is for pictures that also have full EV, and as the full subject is not visable I cannot Support sorry... gazhiley18:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hafs, did you mean "appalling" (awful) or "appealing" (attractive)? I think it's rare to find a photo of a large animal this close up without it being in a small pen in a cattle yard, and one that is so attractive with the vegetation and the unusual perspective of looking up at the animal. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I mean the photo is unusual and nice. It has EV because it is taken in a natural environment, in an place away from any civilization. It is rather its strength that is climbing on cliffs, looking down on us, instead of the usual cow in the green field- style. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, the monkey shelfie was half of an animal too... And actually it has more EV one could think, when investigating the matter, several articles more. And aesthetic value generates EV... of course. Hafspajen (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is by now added to 8 articles. That's quite an EV. I think there is nothing wrong with this pic, really. Comment And these are FPs too, and were accepted: ; , + ; great pics. Hafspajen (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those were promoted because they show a specific behaviour. They were not promoted to identify and represent the animal. Both species also have FPs that show the full animal. Samsara14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't agree about the EV. I do think it has EV, and really plenty of EV, rather. When I found this picture my first reaction was wow, a wild cattle! Wild cattle or feral cattle are not especially common. In Europe there are very few places where still exist some feral cattle, I think only in some wild areas in Spain or France might have some and the Chillingham cattle, about 90 animals in Chillingham, that inhabit a park. The Aurochs were living once here wild, but they are extinct now. There have been attempts to re-create them. India has quite a few, Australia... I believe if you want to take a picture like this, these are the requirements to get to the place, no hotels, retaurants, easy access and stuff, that's EV already. Because cattle need tremendous areas to grazing and are prodigious eaters; need large quantities of grasses and are in need of right kind of habitat. Most cattle that exist in the world is domestic and it is billion dollar industry worldwide, while under the hands of humans, they have been bread and messed with, until they don't really look like anything or their ancestors ( take Belgian Blue for example). On his second voyage to the New World in 1493Columbus brought sheep, goats, cattle and horses. There were none until then in these areas. This above has long fur and is adapted to the mountain climate, during the years in the wild. Also an interesting trait. It climbs in the mountain on rocks and stuff, the way domestic cattle don't do any more, some domestic cattle are not even capable of it any more. And bulls are slightly difficult to handle sometimes, exactly like bears, can be uncomfortable to deal with. Dominant males keep a vigilant eye on the surroundings and bulls can be rather difficult if they are in that mood, I have been chased twice by (domestic cattle) bulls and there is not much you can do against an angry bull if you are not a professional toreador, except run fast to fence and jump, because of their sheer size. (luckily there was one both times).--Hafspajen (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author Thank you very much for this nominating regardless of the final result. I would comment that this photograph was performed after 8 days away from any kind of civilization. On the eighth day, the day of the descent, I was extremely tired to think due to lack of oxygen. At that time, I lay on a rock to rest, at that time, I was fast asleep. I do not remember what the situation was, however, woke up by a sound of falling rocks. And there was this huge animal staring at me, I really have no way to explain it, but when I was looking at him, the animal felt one with me. His body was so great that covered an entire area around a ledge. The animal looked at me in disbelief and curiosity and was quickly disappearing into the mist. I returned a few years later, however, I found no animal in that area. I recently talked to a few climbers who told me that these animals had to descend into radical foraging due to climate change has been that area. Many have been killed for human consumption and many others for breeding. --The_Photographer (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to both parties, and I especially liked hearing about the situation and circumstance that brought about the taking of the photograph. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the account of how this picture was taken, I'm not sure we can assert that it shows a purebred Charolais. Samsara09:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samsara. I agree with you, I'm not sure we can assert that it is a Charolais and this premise may be applicable for any wild bull. Blood tests and the presence of an expert to ensure that this really is a purebred needed. BTW "In Sierra Nevada de Mérida, Venezuela, following the rural flight of farmers, many Charolais cattle were abandoned; they have survived in the wild feeding on Espeletia schultzii, a high altitude shrub"[1]. Thanks for your comment --The_Photographer (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a Wikipedia mirror. The live version has a "citation needed" tag, so in the absence of other sources we should not treat the above statement as true. Thanks. Samsara14:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - It is the breed - but the feral one, and thus has EV too. It has plenty of EV either way, because it illustrates the different articles. Please. Feral livestock may have some genetic variation with potential commercial, scientific historical, or aesthetic value. Important variants may include primitive traits absent in modern breeds and novel or rare adaptations; the presence of these variants may be suggested directly by morphological markers, quantitative traits, fitness characters, or rare or unique alleles, and indirectly by the extent and duration of isolation, founder number, ancestry, or environmental conditions. Both direct and indirect evidence indicated potentially valuable traits in a population of feral population. Hafspajen (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Espeletia
Comment Changed the nomination title to Feral bull. It is one of the a feral cattle and it has plenty of EV as far of the feral cattle living in those areas. And this is my very last nomination of any photo. And I really don't understand sometimes the reactions on FP. We had loads of disruptions, but everybody was just silent and polite. When I knew very well it was the sock comming back to vote, the very one I politely asked to stay away from me - - I was the one who got reproached for not showing AGF. And now I and the bad guy, all of the sudden. I never disrupted this project, never socked on this project and still I am the bad one? Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hafspajen, I see you changed the name to "Feral bull". Couldn't you make it "Feral Charolais bull"? I think this bull looks very different from cattle we see in the U.S. The color and long hair are distinctive. If it looks anything like a Charolais bull, it probably is one, and adding "feral" might satisfy those who feel there should be genetic testing before it's called a Charolais. Just a thought. - CorinneSD (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that what you propose gets the ship out of the ice, as "feral" does not imply admixture. If it's not Charolais, it might be a hybrid, but we can't confirm that either, so what Hafspajen did is probably best in this case. FWIW, I created an article about the plant, but I don't have time to make much progress with it. Extra hands make light work. ;) Samsara01:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, he has a point in terms of the stability criterion. As it stands, the image's use in the charolais article has a citation needed tag hanging over its head. I'm mulling what should be done with it. A source would be really great at this point. Using it as an example of a feral animal is probably fine. Ultimately, we have to trust the photographer's account or we'd probably have to remove quite a few images from Wikipedia. So I suggest that after all the sweat and tears, we IAR, declare the nom valid and hope for the best. Samsara01:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this is a quality image (an FP on Commons); the additional requirement we have for EV is, I think, also met. It may well be a hybrid - feral animals don't bother about the niceties of ensuring pedigrees remain pure - but it appears to have been in the Charolais cattle article since December 2012 without being challenged. SagaciousPhil - Chat10:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that The Photographer placed the image, then a week later added the text which was challenged on the same day. The following more canonical image was replaced in the process: which I think from the perspective of illustrating the breed is actually more valuable. In over two years now, there has been no response to the citation needed tag. I think it's getting close to the time where we have to concede that a citation is not forthcoming and the sentence will have to be moved to the talk page for interested parties to work on. Samsara14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination seems to be more about who is right instead of selecting high quality photos objectively. It's amazing the time taken to especultar and bring up circumstantial elements, seemingly innocuous comments. It's my bad perception or there are people here who need a therapist ?. This is supposed to be fun !! I when I took that picture because I thought it might be useful to someone and I'm not particularly interested in this photograph is selected. However, some people take a huge effort in search for dramas of what supposedly was sought, this nomination is starting to become a Mexican novel. --The_Photographer (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Am I right in my understanding that, because the bull is feral, no one can claim without seeing the results of genetic testing that it is really a Charolais bull? Have we required the same strict standard for all images of wild animals in Wikipedia articles? Also, couldn't we contact a zoologist or cattle breeder, preferably one in the area where the photo was taken, to see if the type of bull can be confirmed? It may even be the case that there are no other kinds of cattle except Charolais in that area. I know that contacting someone may take a little time, but perhaps the nomination could be placed on hold for a few days. The photo is a nice one, the bull is distinctive, there is some support here for the image, and I wouldn't dismiss it lightly. I think it's worth a little investigation. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
; 
, + 
; great pics. Hafspajen (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: In this picture you can also see the main and only food to sustain this animal Espeletia schultzii --The_Photographer (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
_en_Sisavita.JPG)
- but it appears to have been in the Charolais cattle article since December 2012 without being challenged. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
which I think from the perspective of illustrating the breed is actually more valuable. In over two years now, there has been no response to the citation needed tag. I think it's getting close to the time where we have to concede that a citation is not forthcoming and the sentence will have to be moved to the talk page for interested parties to work on. Samsara 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
