This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries: Holy Roman Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance). Lutheranism Low‑importance Advocatus is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism / Reformed Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Heraldry and vexillology Advocatus is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology

vogt seems to be a complete overlap?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC) I have starting making a merge draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Advocatus --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster: I don't think the merge was a good idea. In Polish language, at least, wójt and adwokat are totally different concepts. I suggest undoing the merge, also as I don't see any rationale above outside the claim of "complete overlap", which is clearly wrong (in Polish language). Ping User:Volunteer Marek and User:Nihil novi. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Aleksander Brückner, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego (Etymological Dictionary of the Polish Language), reprint of 1st ed., Kraków, 1927, pp. 629–30, derives the Polish word "wójt" from (under "wokować") the Latin "advocatus" via the German "Vog(e)t". The word "wójt", writes Brückner, in Poland "fell from a high municipal office to [a] village [office]."

Regardless of medieval etymologies, the Polish term "wójt" should have its own article, under that title.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the terms and concepts connected to the original one are indeed diverse and will eventually justify articles at least in some cases. Also this article is certainly not perfect yet. Note however that treating concepts as completely separate could also be misleading if they evolved from related concepts. We should note connections, and also we should avoid our articles being specific to any one period in history, just as much as they should not be about anyone region. Therefore I think making sure this article covers the origins is an important step.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many modern concepts which have developed from some ancient ones. At the moment the term "democracy" comes to my mind, but you can readily find more. Therefore there should be a reasonable balance between common and specific. At this moment, it is good that everything is merged into a single page, without duplication (I hope no info was lost during the merge). Now that we have the full picture, we can see how the page may be split. In particular, I agree with Nihil novi that "Wójt" can have a separate atricle, because the concept has its own history. Also, the current article looks confusing. In particular, Was advocatus used synonymously with vogt? When the meanings started changing/diverge" (because "wójt" and "advocatus" certainly have nothing in common now, just like "hetman" and "Hauptmann"). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While writing this rant I have almost forgotten what I really wanted to say. Please take a look at pl:Wójt. You do not have to know Polish to immediately see that our redirect to "Advocatus" is simply ridiculous. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything ridiculous, except of course that this present article indeed needs tidying up. Yes the word vogt would be written in Latin as advocatus. Right from the beginning the term could be used different ways, in all the languages it was used in. Most generally it is someone who speaks on behalf or represents, and that is why it came to be used for delegated "management" positions - people who worked for the church or a lord, or later for new types of institutions - but naturally these also then became heritable property in some cases. I also have no big problem with the idea of separate articles but I fear we'll end up with several articles all saying overlapping things? At least the current Wojt article is not strikingly different from what happened in many places influenced by the Holy Roman empire. We don't want to give the impression this was a local invention if it wasn't? We don't have articles for democracy in every country I suppose. The term also existed in France and England of course BTW, but there it evolved more towards legal representation in courts. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ridiculous" was referring to Wojt being a redirect. The current Wojt article is what I managed to scramble of out of my amateurish knowledge, to be expanded with the current meaning, which I don't want am lazy to do. Yes the word vogt would be written in Latin as advocatus -- sure thing, and I am telling you, the word Wojt and advocatus were actually used synonimously at some time, so what?. At that time the meaning was the same, but this changed over time. We don't want to give the impression this was a local invention -- sure thing, and that's what "History" and "Etymology" sections are for. Some overlap is perfectly tolerable per Wikipedia:Summary style. Of course, time and again a student with a Wikipedia assignment jumps in and starts rewriting an article into an essay starting from Romulus and Remus, but that's what we'all are here for: to keep subjects focused. We don't have articles for democracy in every country -- don't be so sure :-) On a final remark, please avoid generic kinda reductio ad absurdum arguments. We all have common sense, right? If you have a specific objection to a specific editing action, you are welcome, otherwise let's trust each other that we want to do the best. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS (offtopic blurb) I looked into my edit history and lo! funny how brain works: I started writing an article Wojt and ended with creating "Šatrija" -- via a chain of connected edits Reminds me the "Wikipedia Game", but not so useless and stupid. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my response a bit badly as the last thing before going to bed. My point about mentioning extreme cases was to say "I have no objection unless it would be like X". On the other hand, the starting wojt article is pretty much describing a vogt from any part of the Holy Roman Empire, so perhaps it is only describing the early phase and not yet going into what makes Polish wojts different? To me the biggest problem seems simply to be that the articles need some love and attention, and like you I'm not planning to do this soon. Once someone works on these articles more, it might look quite different. With that being the situation I can't really see why you used the word ridiculous. I am also not sure what you mean by distinguishing what should be in a history section. I was thinking that these articles are all about historical topics, so are you making an artificial distinction here between one part of history being history and another part not? Or is wojt a term still used in Polish governmental terminology? In German, French, English and Dutch the equivalent terms now have different every day meanings, that don't necessarily need separate Wikipedia articles. (In Dutch for example, voogd is now the everyday word for a legal guardian, except in discussions about history.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, wojt is currently an official term. It has a naturally migrated meaning. OK, I will write up a bit more, since it was unclear from my stub. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur the merge should not have done - as I see it was performed in April, don't know how I missed this, maybe the page was not on my watchlist? -, since i.e. Advocatus also synonimous with Schultheiß in Upper Hungary, which was called in German Richter, Hungarian bíró.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Staszek Lem: @KIENGIR: I think, still, that everything is fine except that all these articles are in an early draft phase. Please check my thinking. I think the nationally distinct meanings, where they exist, are from more recent times. (In many countries in and around the HRE, new terms developed because the number of different types of delegated governors increased. It seems like Poland kept a derived term and focused on the sense which in late medieval Dutch was specified as landvoogd) In some cases these will probably justify a separate article, and it seems from what you say that Poland is such a case. No problem. However, the earlier medieval meanings tend to overlap a lot, and need an article as well. I do disagree that the merge was a problem, but only because, at the time, the ONLY material WP has for now is about the one medieval concept, there clearly needed to be a merge of that material. Some amount of overlap would then be expected of course, [with the new article you are proposing/starting]. In other words, for now there is no article about modern meanings of Wojd? (You have created a stub, which for now disagrees with itself about towns, and does not mention anything about the later specifically Polish developments. No problem, but perhaps make notes there to explain to editors what the eventual aim is.) OTOH, perhaps you could both look at Voivodeship and Voivode. Are these really separate slavic terms? I would have thought they derived from Polish practice and terminology?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear by the way, the merge which I was involved with recently was a merge with Vogt. Staszek Lem redirected Wójt to there in 2004. The discussion above might imply something else. The merge I made concerned two articles which are linked to by many articles about people from areas which are now in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, and they were clearly both developed as articles about the same topic. There was no article called Wójt from 2004, until 2 days ago.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK; you have twisted my arms despite my reluctance :-) : behold the power of Wójt! Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, telling people you actually agree with them tends to be very persuasive. :) Did you look at Voivodeship and Voivode? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just now. I do not see much overlap to warrant merge. Of course the artices suck, but not deadly bad. I have no interest in these things. I wrote up Wojt per WP:ARS ideology. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work I think. I just did a quick look around and the similarity of the word Voivode seems to be a coincidence. Interesting. I also find it interesting that in a sense Polish has kept one of the old imperial meanings of 'advocate', whereas I think most languages around the empire developed new terms, although see the Swiss and Dutch cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fogd, Swedish sv:Fogde, Finnish fi:vouti, etc. refer to the Nordic variant. Unfortanetly, the Finnish one is referred to Vogt. I did not manage to correct that. Anybody? I think that also many of the other 26 referred to Vogt should be referred to Fogd. --Amoigni (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is answering you but we don't need to literally move things (i.e. delete them from one article and paste them into another) in cases like this where all the related articles are still very incomplete. We can have explanation in two articles, with the more expanded one (when someone gets around to one) in the more specialized regional articles. (If these continue to exist, as I think they will at least in areas where the regional variants continued to evolve in their own directions, and especially where they were outside the mainstream of the Holy Roman Empire institutions.) By the way, in the present article I don't really see the point of having separate discussions about Dutch and German versions, as they were both in the Holy Roman Empire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Reichsvogt not be merged into this article? The way I see it, both articles are primarily about the Holy Roman Empire version of advocacies. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why an article on the advocatus would primarily be about the HRE. So I would think it should go the other way, some of this article moved to Reichsvogt. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable remark. The name of this article is indeed not ideal. It has had a messy history, and is still pretty messy, along with several related articles. However, I am not sure if Reichsvogt is the best alternative, partly because that word is not common in English, and more importantly even in German it is only used for a subset of what this article is about. The boundaries and focus of this article have changed over time, but currently it includes church advocacies, and more generally it includes the overall concept which unites the church and secular types, and has its roots in periods before the Holy Roman Empire. What about something like Advocate (governor)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, anyone interested in the question of this article's boundaries and best title may also be able to help at Comitatus, which is currently about warbands. I have posted there on the talk page, trying to get discussion about whether the article name should be changed. As in this case, Latin terms with several modern meanings are involved, and there are several articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]