Talk:Transylvanian Hound

Transylvanian Hound?
Shouldn't the name be changed to reflect what the kennel clubs call it?WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation
Copoi ardelenesc (romanian) translated Ardeal Scenthound (english) Copoi transilvanean (romanian) translated Transylvanian scenthound (english)

Copoi unguresc (romanian) traslated Hungarian scenthound (english)

Portal dedicated to the unique Romanian hunting breed with Romanian origin is the translation of the romanian site name, Copoi ardelenesc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partizanul (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal dedicated to the unique Romanian hunting breed with Romanian origin (????)<=> The FCI original standard of the breed: "The Erdélyi Kopó is an ancient Hungarian breed [...]" ORIGIN: Hungary. DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL VALID STANDARD: 06.04.2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdelyi kopo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation
Erdély (hungarian), Erdőelve (hungarian), Transilvania (romanian), Ardeal (romanian) = Transylvania (english)   Erdelyi kopo (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Hound → Transylvanian Hound – Recognized by two major bodies (American Rare Breed Association and Federation Cynologique Internationale) as the Transylvanian Hound or Scenthound. – anna  13:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Also recognised as Transylvanian Hound by the United Kennel Club see breed standard. Although the American Rare breed Association recognises "Hungarian Hound" as per Anna's second link, the FCI and UKC are larger, more dominant, bodies for dog breed classification. I'd suggest move and redirect Hungarian hound  as well as Transylvanian bloodhound and Transylvanian scenthound.Keetanii (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits
Lupishor,

standard form is like in ten thousands of articles, LOCATION-A (present-day LOCATION B), no need to reinvent the wheel. It has nothing to with the Chow-Chow article, that is not that case, similarly your Yugoslavia example has nothing to do with this case.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Lupishor, a very naive interpretation of WP:NOR. "It is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited". In exactly the same way that the Maltese terrier did not come from Malta, I do not know that the sources exist - cite one. William Harris (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You can't compare the Maltese terrier to this one, since the source cited clearly mentions how the breed is found in Hungary and Romania. Transylvania is located in Romania and was in the past part of Hungary. It's the border region of the two countries. The only thing that can logically be concluded is that the breed is found in Transylvania, which is also why it has Transylvanian in its name. That's how simple it gets – you don't need a source for the sentence "the sky is blue".


 * Leave the edit as William Harris did it, it's clearly better like that. Read the cited source, it clearly says the breed originates in Hungary and is also found in Romania. Therefore, what my last edit did was pretty much directly copying the source, while you want to make it more complicated and add "Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary", which isn't even mentioned in the source. Like you said when you reverted onee of my edits – keep it simple. Lupishor (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you have no consensus. The cited sources does not contradict anything stated, since Hungary is the Kingdom of Hungary obviously as the subject is a dog originating from there, not from present-day Hungary. No, your edits are complicating.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * u|William Harris also said not to add anything the source doesn't specifically mention – you are the one who is complicating things. The source says the breed originates "in Hungary", not in "Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary".
 * You are very right when you say the breed originates in the Kingdom, not in modern-day Hungary. I would propose to edit it as "originating in Hungary, also found in Romania", where "Hungary" is actually a link to the Kingdom of Hungary article. That's the only logical alternative I see here, what do you think? Lupishor (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source does not have to say "Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary", because obviously Hungary includes Transylvania then, and just because the state form was a kingdom and in the English WP "Kingdom of Hungary" is the article's name, it does not mean it is not Hungary or cannot be referred like that. As well, to put ahead that it's from Transylvania, we just clarify to the reader the exact region. In spite of this with the link piping I would have no problem, but as I said we should not confuse the standard X (present Y) scheme, it is already described that "(found today in Hungary and Romania)", which clearly reflects the situation, while your proposal just conflating contemporary with present-day.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Please tag me in the future so I get notified right away.
 * Since you said you agree with the "Kingdom of Hungary|Hungary" link, I have a new proposal. The breed is nowadays also found in Hungary, but Transylvania lies in Romania, which means it would be wrong to say "the breed is from Transylvania", since it is also found outside of it and was therefore certainly also found outside of Transylvania back when the Kingdom of Hungary existed. I think it would be best to formulate it as "[...] originating in [the Kingdom of] Hungary, also found in Romania. It is named after the historical region of Transylvania."
 * In this way, the issue that the breed is also found outside of Transylvania is solved. Do you agree with my proposal? Lupishor (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the sentence "the breed is from Transylvania" is accuarately telling where it is from, because the dog undoubtedly developed/formed in Transylvania, it is another thing it spread all over the country. Your proposal has still the problem that conflating a bit the contemporary place of origin with the present-day occurence locations, so the dog is also found in Romania, but is it found today in Hungary?  Or not? It is not clear from this, or even Romania's status in time (while the current version does not have such problem, it's clear-cut).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Then what about the same proposal, but with the word "nowadays" before "also"? Lupishor (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it still has the same problem, because nowadays Kingdom of Hungary does not exist, even if you pipe with Hungary. Frankly, you should drop these conflations issues everywhere, any wise proposal/edits you may had I did not contest, but these conflations of yours are tyring.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I don't get your point. Since I want to say the breed "originates in" (not "is from") the KoH, it's obvious that the KoH doesn't exist anymore. Can you please tell me where I am conflating the present and past? Lupishor (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "[...] originating in [the Kingdom of] Hungary, nowadays also found in Romania" -> this was your updated proposal. Even if you say originates in, it would not necessarily make clear the case, since as I said before, tells nothing about present-day Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Even if you might be right here, I believe the word "also" makes it pretty obvious that the breed is also located in present-day Hungary. Do you agree with the new proposal "[...] originating in the Kingdom of Hungary, nowadays found in Hungary and Romania. It is named after the region of Transylvania, located in central Romania."? Lupishor (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no because "from Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary, (found today in Hungary and Romania)" is much more compact and is in the standard form, only I would agree only to insert originating before from, that should be satisfying.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure that's correct, because of a reason already stated above: it doesn't only originate in Transylvania, but also in other parts of the former KoH. It can obviously not be known in what exact locations the breed existed in the past. But the fact that nowadays it is widespread in Hungary as well, shows that this also was the case back when the KoH existed. Don't you think? Lupishor (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, it is originating from Transylvania - that's why her name is Transylvanian Hound, and this is even true if later it spread other parts inside Hungary - and what I think I stop tagging because it's already overdiscussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , no, it is originating from Transylvania - that's why her name is Transylvanian Hound, and this is even true if later it spread other parts inside Hungary - and what I think I stop tagging because it's already overdiscussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

Ok, but then I will add "(now Romania)" after "Kingdom of Hungary", because you have done the same on other pages, like here where you added "Koloszvár (now Cluj-Napoca)". Lupishor (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't add anything without consensus. Adding after Kingdom of Hungary "(now Romania)" is false, since neither Transylvania/Kingdom of Hungary does equal now with Romania, and the fact that Transylvania is today in Romania is already obvious from the brackets following, which reflect the present-day occurence. This has again nothing to with your example - though "Koloszvár" I never added, only "Kolozsvár" -, since the two equals, and there are no duplicated bracketing either.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

It is very clear that there is no citation for "Kingdom of Hungary", and no such place exists today. Wikipedia readers want to know where this dog originated from in modern terms, and do not need a lesson in Central European geopolitics during the Middle Ages. I have supplied two expert, WP:RELIABLE sources and this is how Wikipedia is built - not by individuals pushing their own point of view WP:POV. Unless interested parties can offer something otherwise, I believe this matter now rests. William Harris (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One question, are you fine with adding the Transylvania namesake reference? As stated above, you can't compare this situation to the one of the Maltese terrier, since for this breed, it is known for certain that it originates in Transylvania, even if sources don't directly state it (or maybe the ones you quoted do, I don't know). Lupishor (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * William Harris, as it was explained Kingdom of Hungary is Hungary, the state form is irrelevant, and the already existing source also placed it to Hungary, which is in fact true, the dog did not originate from Romania. I agree that individual POV's should be ignored, but here this is not the case the reader wants to know the thing in a accurate way, so I will only accept your edit if we clarify the dog originates from Transylvania, and found today in both countries.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Given that neither of you have provided a reliabe source to support "The Kingdom of Hungary" - no matter how irrelevant you may think that is - I have provided two reliable, expert WP:SECONDARY sources and so I do not believe that you are well-supported in the position of "...I will only accept your edit..." However, I am not here to influence the works of editors who maintain and protect this article. (Both of your edits were picked up on the Recent Changes patrol list at WP:DOGS, that is why I am here - we did not want outside observers to mistake your dialogue for a potential edit war. I am not observed alone in my edits here.) I have no issues with your recent hyper-linking; those that want to explore those hyperlinked topics are free to do so. Regards, William Harris (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * William Harris,
 * the reliable sources speak about Hungary (Magyarország), because the country have been called like that regardless it has been a Kingdom, Republic, Regency, the state form is irrelevant (and I explained this twice), we link the entity given the appropriate timeline, by the name it is accessible in WP (of course, we may use pipes). As well those sources speak about Hungary in the very old times, with her former areas, so this is not an issue, and I also added a secondary source which besides as well clarifies inside the Transylvanian roots. However, thank you for advices and participation, surely you improved the article, since I was as well contemplating that it may occur as well in the territory of present-day Slovakia (indeed any territory possible inside the old country). Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Your reference ("Erdélyi kopó". arcanum.hu. Arcanum Adatbázis Kft.) is an un-WP:RELIABLE source - it is a website with no author nor references cited for its content. You have placed your own spin on something that was never stated by the 2 authors that I cited - neither stated that Transylvania is today found in Hungary and Romania. Additionally, Romania has been removed from the infobox. William Harris (talk)</b> 07:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Arcanum is leading reliable database and RS regarding all cultural and historical content, and what I put is not my "own spin", but what is stated in that source. Yes, nobody stated that Transylvania is today found in Hungary and Romania, but the dog breed is found today there. Finally, of course, since the inbox parameter is about origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC))

The formulation "originating in Transylvania (found today in Hungary and Romania)" can easily be misunderstood; the reader might think that "found today in Hungary in Romania" refers to Transylvania instead of the dog breed, which is obviosuly not the case. Lupishor (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the problem could be easily solved with a change in the template Infobox dog breed. I find it quite ineffective that it has only one parameter for geographic locations and that it is only to say in which country the breed originated. This probably provoked many other disputes in the past on Wikipedia. We could have a parameter for the origin of the breed, in which we could say that it originates from (the Kingdom of) Hungary, and then have another parameter for its current location, in which we say it is Hungary and Romania. We could add in this parameter a note saying that Transylvania was part of Hungary when the breed appeared but that it is now part of Romania, although this is perhaps excessive. What do you think? Super   Ψ   Dro  20:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I find this a good idea, which gives the viewer an easier way to understand the breed's current and historical situation, without any kind of complication needed with hyperlinks or excessive information in the same spot. It would also be good for avoiding things like politically-biased edits, made out of personal preferences/points of view. William Harris may also want to express himself on this matter.
 * The parameter note you propose for Transylvania would probably be more fitting in the opening sentence. Lupishor (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * despite I think it's marginal dispute that has been overcomplicated by others. The dog has not just the current location you mentioned, but Slovakia, or we could list even 6 countries more which shared part of Hungary and possibly the dog is occuring there, does such worth in the infobox, instead of the article's core?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC))
 * despite I think it's marginal dispute that has been overcomplicated by others. The dog has not just the current location you mentioned, but Slovakia, or we could list even 6 countries more which shared part of Hungary and possibly the dog is occuring there, does such worth in the infobox, instead of the article's core?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC))

I came here to discuss sources and have just discovered this conversation. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
 * , I have left you a reply on the infobox talk page, I am not convinced there is a problem and I suspect the proposed solution would create greater problems. As to this infobox, I think we should either un-pipe Kingdom of Hungary (as that is consistent with most of the sources description of the breed's origins) or state (modern) Hungary & Romania (again consistent with the sources whilst reflecting modern state boundaries).
 * , I remain unconvinced by your arguments that this is a reliable source, there are no bibliographic details provided whatsoever, nor any attribution, it is just a blurb. Further, as to your arguments that Arcanum is a leading database / library service, databases and libraries include or house unreliable sources all of the time, their inclusion or stocking does not impart reliability. Unless we can confirm the authorship (and their subject-matter expertise) the source should be removed, and given it is used to cite such an insignificant aspect of the article I doubt it will be missed, you will have noticed I have added a number of reliable secondary sources to the article, these will be used to rewrite the history section.
 * how many times we have to explain the that unpiping is something misleadding? Already three times explained, when a source say "Hungary" is refers to the Kingdom of Hungary, as a colloquial name, shall it be anytime a republic, people's republic, or anything, it's irrelevant. Also if I say Austria, it means given the timeline the Archduchy of Austria, or the Austrian Empire, or the First Austrian Republic, or the Federal State of Austria, we pipe that fits to the appropriate timeline! it does not matter what is the acutal state form or what's the article name in here, it's and administrative matter, and it is not different by any country. I hope I don't have to explain more, conflating present-day entities back to the past erroneusly is the biggest mistake and used more rarely, that's why we have country articles which cover a the specific era and timeline of that country and we pipe them accordingly and reguraly, not any source says " Hungary ", but "Hungary", and yes, we can pipe with the approriate article accordingly, as it is done by tenthousands of articles. (btw. a dog cannot originate from the two modern states, because it's even a causally impossible anachronism, and the counry of origin has nothing to do with the dog's occurence present-day countries. Occurence in present-day countries are another issue, and it's not just these two countries, but Slovakia or any that would share any territory from the Hungary)
 * Sorry, it's not a blurb, it's a databse and collection the highest quality, nationwide renowned touching culture and history, avoiding any unreliable. Furthermore if my understanding is correct, you want to say that telling the dog originated in Transylvania would be an insignificant aspect? It's one of the most important aspects (and more of us even agreed), but we have also discussed this. It seems like you did not read or understood the discussion so far. The history section of the article is now accurate. I really appreciate your improvements to the article done so far, but if you want other sources, as well those should be confrom with the reality now the history section is fine and accuarate), instead of inaccurate and unprofessional notions.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Your argument relating to piping the link contradicts policy, I suggest you read MOS:EGG, when clicking on Hungary most readers would expect to be linked to the modern country’s article, not the Kingdom of Hungary article. Since it contradicts policy the current piping needs to be amended, so which way do you think we should proceed? I have no preference for either of the two options above and would be open to other options, but the status quo does not adhere to the manual of style.
 * Re the use of the Arcanum text, WP:Verifiabiliy is one of Wikipedia’s cornerstone policies; the text is clearly copied from somewhere but unless we can confirm where, it’s authorship cannot be verified so it’s inclusion also contradicts policy. So I reiterate unless we can confirm it’s authorship, it must be removed. Cavalryman (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
 * It has nothing do with MOS:EGG, I have dealt with thousands of historical articles, it's a common and evidential practice, this is an encylopedia, the reader expects accurate explantions, if you argue that way majoriy of pipings should be removed then the articles would not have serious value as it would only tend to what by your assumption a most average reader would assume in general, that is failed from the beginning. Our mission with is encyclopedia is definetly not that, we wish to give valuable and accurate information. It's not a violation of any policy, whenever a user clicks "Hungary" it will result in a country article about Hungary, which the user anyway expects, an appropriate one fitting the timeline, similary to Austria, Germany, Poland or any other, evidently without any suprise. You should abandon to make inaccurate trials, since the dog's origin has nothing to with present-day status quo, is it so had to understand? It has been overexplained, noone should promore inaccurate and misleading information.
 * Well, I added another another source, which don't have those concerns you mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * You are completely correct, the reader expects accurate explanations, piping to a article about a historical period in a country’s history is not an accurate explanation; alternate wording still needs to be added.
 * Excellent, thank you, I will remove the other unverifiable source then. Please correct me if I am wrong, I have to use machine translation, but the new article (which is very informative) does not specifically state the breed originated in the region of Transylvania, but instead resulted from crosses between hounds introduced by the conquering Hungarians with hounds already extant in the Carpathian basin. It later says their popularity waned in Hungary from the 19th century, but they popular in Transylvania until after the Second World War. Cavalryman (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC).
 * I suggest you to stop at once, reader expects accurate explanations, means I don't pipe something erroneus, the article is not just about a historical period, but it is a country article like the First Hungarian Republic or Hungarian People's Republic, all of them are piped as Hungary, as any other said, like it is applied to any countries in ten-thousands of WP articles daily, that is an evident and usual practise. I hope I don't have to explain this again, please think a bit outide of WP:DOGS and don't question anymore evidential practises. (e.g. Rákóczi's War of Independence or Spanish transition to democracy is a historical period of the country's history, but Kingdom of Italy or Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) are country articles, which may be piped anytime to "Italy" or "Croatia".
 * The source you removed is just according to you unverified, but I won't explain also this again. Nope, it says that "...a cross-breed has been created in Transylvania was probably with dogs who were guarding the peasant's summer quarters, thus it became an up-front hunter-dog, not even afraid of bigger wild animals." (what you tried to cite is before the dog has been formed, the other is what after happened). (KIENGIR (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * The source you removed is just according to you unverified, but I won't explain also this again. Nope, it says that "...a cross-breed has been created in Transylvania was probably with dogs who were guarding the peasant's summer quarters, thus it became an up-front hunter-dog, not even afraid of bigger wild animals." (what you tried to cite is before the dog has been formed, the other is what after happened). (KIENGIR (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

and, I am not going to get into the discussion about that source's reliability, but I agree with the point that having the Kingdom of Hungary mentioned as simply "Hungary" in the infobox can be misleading due to the reason stated above by Cavalryman. There is, of course, also the possibility to remove the KoH from there and instead add modern-day Romania and Hungary. The Chow Chow article, for example, also says that the breed originates in (modern day) China, in both the infobox and the opening, and doesn't mention any historical country. So, removing the KoH altogether and focusing on the present-day location wouldn't be wrong. Lupishor (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No way, it has been explained six or seven (?) times why not, but if you wish, we can remove piping and have Kingdom of Hungary insated, and again you ignored what have been already discussed more times, the infobox parameter is about the country of origin, which is not and cannot be modern-day Romania and Hungary (it seems you did not read or just simply ignored the whole discussion and again reiterate already falied points, just after you expressed the support of avoiding biased considerations...). Again, the Chow-Chow case has not any similarity to this issue, as it have been explained as well, moreover China was not divided into 7 seven countries, incommensurable. Noone should make any manifestation here before reading and understanding appropriately the above mentioned, we don't have to discuss everything twice (the opening does not even menton any historical country, why don't you read before you decide to make a comment?).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC))


 * First of all, I never said a historical country is mentioned in the opening of this article, so why don't you properly read before making misleading statements? Also, that's off-topic, but your claim that China wasn't divided is also not true (see here), but it has no relevance here anyway since the Chow Chow originated in northern China and originated much earlier.


 * Secondly, stop being so stubborn. The Chow Chow article was just an example. Another one is the Dalmatian, which lists modern-day Croatia as its country of origin, despite that country having been founded in the 1990s. Obviously a breed can't originate in a modern-day country; the modern-day country is, however, named, so the reader understands the geographic location the breed originated from. The FCI even recognizes modern-day Croatia as the breed's country of origin, based on historical sources, which totally contradicts what you said in your previous message!


 * But then again, the Dalmatian is just another example. So far, every dog breed article I've seen mentions the modern-day country as the country of origin, regardless of the historical situation. This means that it's a standard system for Wikipedia dog breed articles, and the Transylvanian Hound is no exception, regardless of the historical situation. Your personal preferences aren't gonna change the standard system. Cavalryman may also want to express himself on this matter. Lupishor (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say what you say, I reacted only to that it has been useless to cite in anything regarding any historical country in the opening, since here such is not mentioned. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period division does not really touch Northern China, however, I agree it's irrelevant, since every issue has to judged also taking into account the particular whereabouts.
 * Sorry, I am not stubborn, just precise and consistent, arguing agains illogic and erroneus trials. Croatia is a colloquial term more or less the same area as the present-day country, it has less problems, just because the infobox parameter is used by some articles not with adequate precisity, it's not my fault. I checked the same pdf, the document lists Croatia, and does not say it's modern or not, anytime Croatian state has been called as Croatia, similarly to other countries as we discussed, so there is not any contradiction.
 * Again, just because an infobox parameter at some instances are not precisely filled, it does not mean teh method would have a general consensus, anyway the source describing the origin details would immediately contradict it, it's not a standard sytem, you may only argue they have been used like this, regardless of accuracy. The question, why you would support an erroneus constelleation and reference, when you know it's misleading and not accurate?(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC))


 * About your last point, it's not misleading and inaccurate as long as it's the standard system used on every other dog breed article. Seeing as the article opening quotes a source mentioning the breed originates in Transylvania, it means that Romania should theoretically be the only country mentioned in the infobox. But I would disagree with this, because first of all, it's considered a breed of Hungarian origin, and secondly, it would be unfair for Hungarians to only have Romania in the infobox. Romania should be included, regardless of the breed's "Hungarian origin", because the dog still originates in modern-day Romania. Additionally, Hungary should be included. Slovakia is also possible, since sources mention it, but I wouldn't include it because the origin place of the breed is Transylvania. If you still find this misleading, you can add a note template stating that Transylvania was part of the KoH back then, but that's unneccessary if you ask me.


 * About the Dalmatian; well, Dalmatia was ruled by many different countries and Croatia didn't always exist as a whole entity. But I can give you plenty of better examples, like the Bulldog, which has England mentioned as its country of origin, despite England having been split into so many small states in the past. Or the American English Coonhound, which is an even better example, as it was brought to America by European settlers, yet its country of origin is still the USA, and it's apparently not considered misleading by anyone, so neither would it be to add modern day Romania and Hungary on this article. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP is not perfect, outside this area as well are many times lazy an inaccurate simple "present-day" linkings, this we regularly correct in case. As I told, there is no standard system, not even the template would imply that, so either viewpoint on this may be reasoned to be true (and reliable sources in majority would mention Hungary). "because the dog still originates in modern-day Romania" -> this sentence is misleading as it is phrased, the dog originates from Hungary, you may only say it's orginates in the territory of present-day Romania. That's why is not possible to make amalgamus present-day countries with contemporary ones, since then aside Slovakia you may list others, again the dogs origin and occurrence may not be the identical if we narrow the dog's origin to a region, inside a country. The country of origin still remains Hungary, as Transylvania has been part of it. Regarding the other examples you mentioned (I am familiar with Croatia's history, I did not say else), they are not decisive here as I outlined, or see the comment below, every issue has to be judged by it's own. In the article is already added modern-day Hungary and Romania as an occurence, but unless the template is not extended as was coined with an occurence tag, it is not feasible by the above mentioned problems.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC))

Recent edits: break
Apologies for the late response and I hope no one objects to me adding a break tab above. As I have stated above, I have no preference between “Kingdom of Hungary” or “Hungary & Romania”, but I feel it should be one or the other, it appears from the discussion that two editors believe the latter is preferable, one objects and I am ambivalent (but object to the status quo) so consensus appears to be “Hungary & Romania”.

Re other examples, I think local consensus can override absolute consistency across every dog breed article on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Sure, no problem. Well, some editor's views and solution proposals varied and became complex, I would add another user proposed the extension of the template, so we don't have consensus yet. The status quo would be good, but with appropriate piping as now, while Hungary & Romania is inaccurate as discussed, on such principle Slovakia and five other countries may be added, I don't see such solution unless the template is not extended as proposed. People have to understand to by some issues simply present and contemporary situations my not be conflated because it will result in insatisfiable contradictions.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Slovakia is NOT given as a country of origin anywhere. I am in favour of reflecting an origin in Hungary and Romania, as per the cited sources, or simply Hungary at the least. I oppose piping to "Kingdom of Hungary" - that is not what a reader wants to find when they click on "Hungary". <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources cited state the breed is from Hungary and Romania so that should be acceptable, the article itself can link to the Kingdom of Hungary article. None state the breed originated in Slovakia so I agree completely, that should not be included in the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
 * KIENGIR, let me sum up my points: The fact that Romania gets added to the infobox doesn't imply that the breed is "of Romanian origin", but that it originates in the territory of present-day Romania. Hope that's clear enough. The fact that the breed is of Hungarian origin becomes clear enough from the article's text. I really see nothing wrong with adding Romania. And like Mr Harris has said, Slovakia can't be added to the infobox, because it's not considered a country of origin, unless you find sources which state that. Neither can any of the other countries formerly part of the KoH be added, for the same reason: Wikipedia is based on sources. Given that "the breed originates in Transylvania" and is found today "in Hungary and Romania", it can only mean that it originates in the territory of present-day Romania and was already widespread in modern-day Hungary as well. It surely also existed in Slovakia and others, but doesn't originate from there. Lupishor (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - I am really sorry that William Harris still did not get the point, I never said the dog would originate from Slovakia, I spoke about occurrence. The rest we already discussed and demonsrated by the blind consideration of a why source mentiong a country would not be present-day, as well here in WP, given thousands of article any user who will click on Hungary will get the appropriate country article, again, the user surely does not want to be mislead, and it's not about want, this an ecyclopedia the user should get accuarate information. Be strong that the vast majority of articles have piped Kingdom of Hungary in the relevant infoboxes, but it is not different with e.g. Kindom of Romania or other countries.
 * - Lupishor, as I said above, your consideration about what would that mean, is ambigous, since as I said more times, the template has a country-origin pair, and the country of origin is Hungary. It's quite problematic three of you went on the erroneus pattern coined by William Harris, since I was only talking about a possible occurence tag in which Slovakia may be added, I never said I'd would add to the origin parameter, so your last sentence I avoid to react becase it has been based on a false premise.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC))
 * I suppose you got my last sentence wrong. I never said I want to add Slovakia to the infobox as a country of origin. You can re-read what I said at 16:03 on 5 February. Lupishor (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kiengir - really? I quote: "The status quo would be good, but with appropriate piping as now, while Hungary & Romania is inaccurate as discussed, on such principle Slovakia and five other countries may be added." I underline "The status quo would be good", that is not talking about some change to a template, that is talking about what we have now. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 20:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As we have all just seen by the recent edits to the article, the current arrangement has no longevity unless someone is going to reinforce it on an ongoing basis, and that reinforcement will one day come to an end. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR, it is highly inappropriate and frankly quite insulting that you consistently accuse others of lacking understanding whenever they disagree with you. We have all read your arguments and clearly the vast majority here are unconvinced by them. This parameter has now been discussed at extraordinary length and now at the conclusion of the discussion the majority of editors believe Hungary & Romania should be placed in the infobox. Cavalryman (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
 * - Lupishor, please read again that last sentence "..but doesn't originate from there" -> about this I was saying about false premise, so I don't have reread else.
 * - William Harris, quoting my sentence does not change about what you still told about piping or Slovakia, I was referring to that. The facts I was again reiterating that "Hungary & Romania" along with others would comply only with an extended occurence tag in the template, it does not contradict anything I told. Status qou would be almost what we have now, though w/o piping would not be accurate, but what we have it is. About the recent edits, you talk about a fresh suspicious account that is trolling now a few articles, that is not much relevant.
 * - Cavalryman, the outspoken non-understanding has nothing to with any "insult", neither with any "disagreement with me", if you explain and demonstrate something, and someone does not understand (highight) it after the fourth time, it's a clear-cut phenomenon. It's not about being convinced, or neither connected what other users would support. Like 2+2=4 in a decimal system among natural numbers, the link piping I demonstrated and explained cannot be challenged by any means, it's a valid reference. As you say that is another issue why users would support and already demonstrated inaccurate solution, that not just fails common sense, elementary logic but even contradicts the infobox parameter pair shall it have either the present-day or contemporary intepretation. I would consider and support any solution, that does not have such discrepancies and would be logically consistent without contradiction, and not any article these principles are different. If you'd put Hungary & Romania in the infobox, you contradict origin/country parameter, if you put just Romania, or Hungary without approriate piping, you have the same contradiction, and even if you try all further constellations in regard of all material we have, nothing may be flawless, unless you don't expaned the infobox template with a new occurence tag, or leave the current revision which is accurate. Simple enginnering view.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC))
 * No, we have read your arguments, understood your arguments, and have concluded your arguments are flawed. Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, you do not have consensus for the current arrangement and unless you can present some new convincing arguments (not reiterate your current unconvincing arguments), the parameter will be changed. Cavalryman (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC).
 * I agree with Cavalryman. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 08:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the change can be made then. I'm going to do it myself; the conversation doesn't seem to change anything, currently. Lupishor (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - Cavalryman, I was not necessarily speaking about you, it is clear which allegations I referred and from whom. On the contrary, my arguments are not flawed, the opposite have been demonstrated. Only your opinion may differ. On the other hand, I am well knowing our policies, but again, the convincing factor of the arguments are useful sometimes, but here we are discussing about exact things, which have been flawlessly demonstrated, again, it is another things you or some other editors are not convinced, but it's not my fault, I did even more times the perfect analysis and solution proposals to the question.
 * - Lupishor, please do not misunderstand or policies, parameter will be changed means per no consensus for the current revision, it will changed back to status quo ante, not the change you did.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, after extensive discussion three of the four active participants in this discussion have concluded Hungary and Romania should be included in the origins parameter of the infobox. Further, it is backed by two sources, David Alderton and Bruce Fogle who both state the breed originated in both countries. Cavalryman (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, please understand our policies and do no deteriorate the point. We summarized the sources, some other sources state otherwise, they mention Hungary, or Transylvania etc. You should as well appropriately get what consensus means and how dispute resolution rules are binding.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I suggest you read WP:3RR, you are edit warring. Cavalryman (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * WP:BOOMERANG.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Review
There can be no consensus here because it appears on the evidence that one party does not wish to reach consensus; they want it their way. So the choices are:
 * the article remains as is
 * edit warring until one party incurs administrator action, which is a sub-optimal outcome
 * Consensus <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * William Harris,
 * how you could tell how there could be no consensus, whom you refer exactly, especially when more solutions were proposed? Your second option is not an option, edit-warring should be stopped, and policies should be kept, which you did not do this time. Anything else may come after.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Choose. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would chose the appropriate piping, or the expansion of the template with an occurence parameter, to separate country of origin of present-day occurence, only this way the contradictions may be resolved.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
 * That is not an option on offer. Choose. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? How is that "not an option on offer"? By whom?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, multiple editors have stated their opposition to the piping, and as already said that contradicts WP:EGG. How about we collaborate to rewrite the history section to reflect that the Kingdom of Hungary encompassed parts of modern day Romania? Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman, I find it really concerning you reiterate and already dismissed claim (does not contradict it), as well I certainly know what other editors said (I just answered to the question of Harris, had no intention to repeat). What you just coined does not solve the problem, the issue is about something else (btw. now the core of the article seems quite fine), the infobox.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox should summarise the article, so stating the above in a rewritten history section would facilitate this. Cavalryman (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * No, the cited MOS has nothing to with this, the issue is about an entry's validity, not just syntactically but semantically, this issues are independent from the body and not resolvable by that.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure why KIENGIR is so much against an edit which corresponds to the system used by every single dog page on Wikipedia. As the sources state, the breed originates in both countries. The fact that some of them only mention Hungary doesn't mean that they contradict those that mention Romania as well. The fact that modern-day countries should be shown in the infobox is nothing more than common sense. Look back at my example with the Bulldog page: Considering into how many small countries England used to be split, it would be a total mess if you'd add the historical countries from the time the breed was formed. Additionally, it's certainly also difficult to find out exactly when it was formed, and therefore, what historical countries should be included in the box. That's why you show the modern-day countries, so the reader has an easier time understanding the breed's origin. It's common sense. As I (and others) have already stated, the history section can mention the historical countries without any problems, in case the reader is interested to find that out. Lupishor (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lupishor, I am not sure why you are repeating yourself, everything was explained, that other page's (mistakes) are not relevant here, as well that from which state the dog originates (even if some sources are not accurate), as well about common sense.
 * I will be against any edit that is conradictive, illogic or not accurate, or even it would be, but inserted in the wrong context, shall it be a dog article or about microbiology or dancing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
 * It seems like you are repeating yourself with this statement. It's pretty clear to me (and to the other two users who are against your edit suggestion) that the current version of the page is the best one, based on common sense arguments like how well the reader understands the content. And since even sources mention that the breed originates in present-day Romania, it obviously means that they also refer to present-day Hungary, not the Kingdom. Continuing this conversation has no point right now. Lupishor (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think the ordering of the countries should be flipped so Hungary comes first, every source states Hungary whilst some also state Romania.
 * KIENGIR, the MOS is not irrelevant, it is what we use to attempt to standardise the encyclopedia. Again, I would like to collaborate with you to rewrite the history section to reflect the sources, not just a selective interpretation of key sources that align to a certain point of view. Cavalryman (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

I think you're right about the name order; I am going to invert it. Lupishor (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lupishor, if check the the lenght of your comment and repetitions in it, and compare to my previous answer, I just repeated short points, without going again to the deep details. What you say is not pretty clear and it has been overdiscussed why (of course, you may have any opinion, but the evidence of the discrepancies have been demonstrated, opinions vs. facts). What you stated in your last sentence is OR and SYNTH, since just because there is a source mentioning Romania (in a present-day projective context), it does not mean other sources which refer would use Hungary or Transylvania in that (and they don't). So the discussion is not pointless, indeed you've made again an errouneus assertion. If we have multiple sources, even contardictive, we have to choose the most accuarate ones, since if a source would tell that the dog originates from the Middle Earth, and it is an RS, I may add also that, but WP tends to an accurate direction, not to be confused with some tabloid sites. We all know, the dog orignates from the country of Hungary, Transylvania inside. Point. We may of course also mentioned present-day affiliations, but the latter does not override the earlier. That's that, any other manipulation of facts are unwelcome.
 * Cavalryman, please try to interpret accurately what I said, I did not say it is irrelevant, I said the the cited MOS has nothing to with this. I quite strange I have to explain something twice, again the possible rewriting of the history section has nothing to do with the infobox issue, because they are unrelated. As well, any standardization attempt should tend to accuracy, but more of you currently did, is not that. Moreover. there were not any selective interpretation of the sources, but what I demonstrated, but flawless reality, as just pinpointed in the previous pharagraph.
 * Finally, if you claim you like to collaborate, then more of you should keep wikietiquette, as well our policies, the infobox should be restored to status quo ante until consensus reached.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, I am glad you have conceded the MOS as relevant, we agree. Since you often speak of logic, we agree the MOS is relevant, and general sentiment here is Hungary and Romania should be included as countries of origin in the infobox, then logically we should amend the the article’s wording.
 * To put it another way:
 * 1. MOS is relevant.
 * 2. MOS states an infobox should summarise an article.
 * 3. General agreement is both Hungary and Romania should be listed as countries of origin in the infobox.
 * ∴ The article should be amended to incorporate the agreed fact the breed originated in what is now Hungary and Romania.
 * Or to use a mathematical equation (something you have also done):
 * You speak of wikietiquette yet you state anyone who disagrees with your point of view does not understand the facts or is being illogical. I have outlined both the facts and the logic above for you to review. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman,
 * what you - and as you - address as general sentiment is a bit dubious.
 * 1. -yes
 * 2. -yes
 * 3. No, there is not such "general agreement"
 * ∴ - this is strictly optional, not in connection with debate/issue
 * -> Hence, your mathematical equation fails.
 * Sorry, I never said "anyone who'd disagree with your point of view does not understand the facts or is being illogical", but I told on those intances as it happened, and even demonstrated it. Please avoid the future addressing me statements I never said (with really sloppy illogical assertions).
 * Appendix: wikietiqette may have widespread applications, but it is a must to follow policies, which more of you ignored. So, to make it clear, do you have the intention to follow?(KIENGIR (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Yes there is general agreement with a lone dissenting voice, yours, which makes for sufficient consensus for us to move on from this. I assume you have read WP:CON, “Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)”. It would preferable for us to work together to improve the article, but if not I hope you do not work against consensus. Cavalryman (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
 * No, I did not had to read it, becasuse I know the content, probably also I should mention nor is it the result of a vote, which more of you tried to insist. There are multiple way to reach consensus, it's funny you are mentioning in spite of this like "would preferable for us to work together & I hope you do not work against consensus", although first you should not have act against policies, etc.. From 5 editors if 3 support something, that is not a general agreement with a lone dissenting voice. So again, answer my question clearly.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC))
 * No, I did not had to read it, becasuse I know the content, probably also I should mention nor is it the result of a vote, which more of you tried to insist. There are multiple way to reach consensus, it's funny you are mentioning in spite of this like "would preferable for us to work together & I hope you do not work against consensus", although first you should not have act against policies, etc.. From 5 editors if 3 support something, that is not a general agreement with a lone dissenting voice. So again, answer my question clearly.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC))

Attempt at clarification
, KIENGIR has asked that I trying and clarify as a neutral party whether a consensus exists in this discussion. I believe we can find a consensus, but the above conservatiion makes it difficult to see (as can happen); everyone here is acting in good faith.

I have no position on this, the last dog I felt strongly about was named Lassie.

If you are willing to let me help clarify if there is a consensus, please add a one paragraph concise summary of your position. Once a clear position is stated for everyone, we can go from there if there needs to be more discussion. If your postion is the same as another, please just refer to them and state any additional points you have.

If you reject this proposal, please just state you reject it. This is not an RfC, I will not have an opinion, I am just attempting to make any consensus clear. Disclaimer: I have been in minor discussions with KIENGIR before, I have had no interactions with anyone else in this thread. If I missed someone that should be here, please add them.  // Timothy :: talk  20:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lupishor
Hello, TimothyBlue. In my opinion, the page should stay as it currently is, the reasons being the following:

1) The current infobox gives the reader the best understanding of the area where the breed originates from. If the reader is interested in finding out which historical country is that of the breed's origin, he/she can read the article's text on that (although, it might need to be improved).

2) The infobox currently shows the modern-day countries where the breed originates from; that's what every other dog article I've seen on Wikipedia does. It seems to be a standard scheme, so I don't see why this article should be an exception.

3) The way the infobox is currently presented is based on sources; all sources quoted mention the modern-day countries, i.e. "Hungary" and "Romania". No one mentions the historical country ("Kingdom of Hungary"). Edit: Besides, the region of Transylvania didn't only belong to the Kingdom of Hungary during history; there were also the Principality of Transylvania and the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, which, despite (mostly) being under (partial) Hungarian control, were still separate entities. A breed obviously evolves through time – we can't know exactly when the breed formed as we know it today. It would simply be inaccurate to only have "Kingdom of Hungary" in the infobox. If we were to make this the only dog page on Wikipedia that mentions the historical countries instead of the modern ones in the infobox, we'd need to add lots of details, which are unnecessary and excessive. Therefore, adding the modern-day countries simply works better.

And just as a side note: I don't usually edit dog articles. I just happened to stumble across this one and realized it needed some rework, so I've decided to rewrite it in a way which makes it equally fair for both Hungary and Romania. Thus, I've added the missing Romanian name and the category "Dogs in Romania", both of which should have been added long ago, but no one has done it for some reason. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Super Dromaeosaurus
I think I will give my word tomorrow. Please ping me if I haven't answered by tomorrow at night. Super  Ψ   Dro  23:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose adding one of these in the origin parameter:
 * Transylvania (part of Hungary when the breed appeared, now part of Romania).
 * Hungary and Romania (text in the note can vary)
 * These are a bit long but at this point I doubt that there is a satisfactory solution for all sides that does not take up much space. I find the oppositions to piping to "Kingdom of Hungary" when needed unreasonable, this is clearly the wiser option (although it isn't necessary in the current version). If these proposals are rejected and I do not think of others or get convinced by those of another editor, I guess that I'd support keeping the current version, although it is not as good for me, but it is the best option in regards of simplicity. I also think that some history added to the article would be useful for it. By the way, my proposal of expanding the infobox was rejected, so it is not an option anymore. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cavalryman
Hello TimothyBlue, it seems this one infobox parameter is occupying more discussion, time and effort than the rest of the article.

The crux of this issue stems from a debate about where the breed originated, as the Kingdom of Hungary's borders were historically significantly different to the current state of Hungary's borders; the majority of sources cited acknowledge this in one way or another, be it by stating the breed originated in the modern states of Hungary and Romania, or by stating it originated on the lands that have historically been under Hungarian rule. The place to discuss these details is the article itself, not the infobox (the purpose of which is to summarise details about the breed, briefly). After extensive discussion sufficient consensus emerged for this parameter to list both Hungary and Romania (by the end KIENGIR's being the lone opposing voice) so the amendment was duly made; when I get the time I will rewrite the article's history section to reflect the above.

I must say KIENGIR has consistently failed to acknowledge the views of others throughout this discussion, simply dismissing them, and has attempted to act unilaterally (even initiating a small edit war), and I note you are not the first third party KIENGIR has reached out to. Further, I am not convinced this process is necessary as there is a clear consensus for what is now the stable version. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

Statement by KIENGIR

 * My suggestion was to replace the imprecise/erroneus (Hungary = present-day Hungary) status quo version, with Kingdom of Hungary or Hungary, since the infobox has a country/origin parameter, and the dog breed originated from this country.
 * The whole discussion is a typical case study of logical fallacies or lack of konwlegde/competence at some issues from a few directions, no need to repeat, however, I react to some remarks by the other editors which I consider notable and summarize:
 * - Lupishor -> I am sorry he repeated some of those fallacious arguments that have already been refuted. The sources does not mention "present-day Hungary", and they don't have to mention "Kingdom of Hungary", because Hungary is a colloquial term for the state regardless it was a kingdom, people's republic or regency over history, and especially sources even point out the historical time and even the region of Transylvania, which the country included. Moreover, it is totally irrelevant that later the region belonged to other Hungarian states, origin points to a certain time, not evolution process over time, the breed has been formed then, so the following argumentation is completely erroneus.
 * -William Harris -> empty now (did not react yet), I may update, however since everyone else manifested, and assuming his position in either way, the outcome/conclusion will not change (however I counted him to what he supported last time)
 * -Super Dromaeosaurus -> he reinforced he did not support the three other editor's proposals, but practically sought other solution(s) in harmony with me
 * -Cavalryman -> he stated once he have no preference over even mine or other's proposals, but in the end commited to one side. I am really sorry he also repeats an erroneus scenarios which has been as well refuted (however, put the final initiation of the current situation as he avoided to answer facing the evidence ). So, NO, no sufficient consensus emerged, and it was not the case of long dissenting voice, so the amendment was NOT duly made. The statement that I would "consistently failed to acknowledge the views of others" is amazing and reinforcing his lack of understanding of our processes, I don't have to acknowledge erroneus/fallacious views, especially this has been not the case of clear consensus and not this coercive way may be built, like user would miss platform or similar. As well, no edit war has been initiated by me, but Cavalryman did that with his edit at 08:35, 9 February 2021, I was just resetting the status quo (not my preferred version).

- The result of the above discussion is clear, no consensus have been achieved, since from 5 editors 3 editors supported one version, while 2 editors did not support that version. So the outcome is 60%-40% pro and contra, which is NOT consensus by any means).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Conclusion:
 * Reply, KIENGIR, I am not sure if you have actually read what Super Dromaeosaurus wrote, but they have expressed no support for either of your solutions. That you have once again dismissed everyone else’s statements as a typical case study of logical fallacies or lack of konwlegde/competence at some issues from a few directions, when combined with the fact that you requested this process then did not have the courtesy to participate for several days (whilst being active elsewhere) is just further evidence of the lack of good faith being shown by you here.
 * Timothy, I thank you for making the effort but this statement has reinforced the futility of this exercise as it appears KIENGIR has no intention of honouring anything but his own desires. Cavalryman (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Cavalryman,
 * of course I read what Super Dromaeosaurus wrote, otherwise I would not have reacted to it, you should better interpet your own allegations which are consistently erroneus (I did not say he would express support, what I said is read above, did you read or at least interpet it appropriately? Do you understand in harmony means that both we sought the modification the template e.g.?). Regarding to your last sentence, what are you talking about? It's a complete boomerang, since I let you my last reply at 16:39, 12 February 2021, which you completely ignored and abandoned the discussion. Now what you tell is completely spurious, since Timothy opened this section at 23 February, I replied in 26 February, which cannot mean by any means I did not have the courtesy to participate for several days by any means, since participation means that I comment on my own statement section, which I did (where else I should have been participated? William Harris did not even made a comment until now, do you really realize what kind of illogic and impossible assertions you make, recurrently?) Moreover, discussions does not have a time limit (replying around 2 days is a totally average conduct), and after you ignored my question nearly two weeks (even now), how do you think your statement here would be commensurated by any means with WP:AGF that you refer of (hilarious (!))? Just because I cared about also other articles also, and when noticed events here I replied immediately (yes, nothing to with lack of courtesy)? Complete WP:BOOMERANG, and your approach is highly alarming at this point (and the statement you cited from me referred to the above discussion, not this one), I strongly suggest you to think twice before you make any comment about me in the future. As well, it appears you erroneusly try to assert that WP:CONSENSUS would be an intention to honor my own desires, however, it has not connection to me, but the rules of our community, which you failed to grasp so far, although you have been explained numerous times.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR's comment on my statement is pretty much based on speculation, which doesn't help here – I thought we were supposed to make statements, not contradict each other, which is a repetition of what we already did before TimothyBlue joined the discussion. By the way, the arguments presented by Cavalryman and I are neither fallacious, nor have they been refuted just because you think so. Since you always speak about a consensus having to be reached, let me remind you that one hasn't been reached for our so-called "fallacious arguments" – you don't speak in everyone's name. Lupishor (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment hasn't replied yet (they may not), lets give them a bit longer and then I'll try my hand at mediating this. Its only been a couple of days.  // Timothy :: talk  03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lupishor,
 * there are no speculations, but raw facts, you started repetitions, in which you repeated already refuted points, which is really disappointing. If you really say Cavalryman did not made fallacious assertions, then I am concerned you're having serious problems with your objectivity, just see his latest answer which unfortunately was even gross accumulated with such kind of statements (you know, timestamps are far beyond my possible thoughts, as well WP:CONSENSUS). I don't know if I understand your last sentence correctly (if not, ignore the answers in brackets and please try to rewrite it - (if consensus would not be reached for your so-called arguments, than why you acted like so? I did not speak on everyone's name, our rules are clear, btw. projecting to this part a very simple math).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

Resolution
This matter is now closed, after having been resolved at WP:ANI. <b style="color:black">William Harris</b><b style="color:purple"> (talk)</b> 09:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)