This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Support. This article looks like an unnecessary fork, it should simply be a section of the article about Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. KœrteFa{ταλκ} 09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This title of nobility is used in Bohemia, Poland and Hungary. All noble titles have own articles, see Knight, Ritter, Ridder (title), etc.--Yopie (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is false. It was not a title in Kingdom of Hungary and this page is entirely about Hungarian nobles. It was a Slovak translation for the Latin word "nobilis". If I followed your reasoning I would have to create another page for Hungarian nobles because they were called "nemes" in Hungarian.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The discussion above suggests the term was used in a same way in multiple kingdoms, therefore merging into article dealing with nobility in single kingdom is not justifiable. The concern about article content aimed at single kingdom of Hungary is valid, however, it should rather be resolved by article expansion by further content specific to other kingdoms and of course, pointing both general properties of zeman status and specificities in individual kingdoms. --Ruziklan (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that some comments were removed from the discussion, making my point overstating that "The discussion above suggests", where in fact it is now suggested only in one previous comment. I stand by my point anyway - the article is worth of expanding in the sense already stated: zemans were existing in multiple kingdoms, so it is possible to find points valid generally and then specificities in individual kingdoms.
By the way, as far as I know, it is not advisable to delete any content from discussions as this one. Deletions make anyone reacting after the potentially deleted comments and before their deletion vulnerable to apparent misstatements after the deletion. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
