Talk:Travancore–Cochin

Requested move 12 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Some editors commenting find that using an n-dash is preferable for a combined entity created out of two separate entites, according to MOS rules. Others note that the move Austria–Hungary to Austria-Hungary had clear consensus when it was made 10 years ago and that this was added to MOS (although there was not a discussion specifically about adding it to MOS). Both these arguments are plausible ones, so overall I'm not finding a consensus either way. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Travancore–Cochin → Travancore-Cochin – this is a procedural nomination, without recommendation, in search of a consensus on whether to use a hyphen or an endash. This article was moved in mid-2020 to its current title @Ab207, with the rationale Replacing hyphen with ndash per MOS:DASH. That move was apparently undiscussed, but it a perfectly valid rationale for a speedy move, so no criticism. However, that udiscussed move has left this head article out-of-synch with its eponymous Category:Travancore-Cochin and with related articles such as 1952 Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly election. If this discussion establishes a consensus one way or the other, then the categories and other articles can be speedily moved to match the outcome here. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC) No harm done, just a few steps towards clarification, where it seems we both learnt something about the nuances of policy here. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support using hyphen. Thank you for the ping . Upon further reading of MOS:DASH (MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES in particular), it is apparent that using hyphen is justified in this case as Travancore-Cochin operated as a single entity during 1949–1956; a case similar to Austria-Hungary. Therefore, the move may be reverted. My apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that sounds good to me. Thanks for reviewing your move, and for being so nice about it.
 * Support. This does seem analogous to Austria-Hungary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is was a merger of two coeval jurisdictions, so it takes an en dash. We've had this same discussion 100-ish times before about other similar jurisdictional names. The "Austria-Hungary" example someone inserted into MoS is wrong, a confusion based on "Austro-Hungary" taking a hyphen because Austro- is a combining form (as in Afro-Cuban, etc.). PS: We do not rename articles to match categories, but the other way around, and the nominator is well aware of that, so this RM should not have been opened, at least not in these terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless the Austria-Hungary example is there in the MoS. If this is wrong, then it needs to be addressed on the MoS talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's commented out now, and a deletion discussion is open at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. It was added without consensus discussion in the first place and the rest of the guideline and years of RM precedent. So, it certainly cannot be relied upon here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From looking over the requested move discussion from 2010 where the dash was changed to a hyphen in Austria-Hungary, there does seem like there was consensus that in general a compound placename should use a hyphen and not a dash. Consensus can obviously change over time, but it should be discussed first before this is officially removed from the guideline. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * writes We do not rename articles to match categories, but the other way around, and the nominator is well aware of that, so this RM should not have been opened, at least not in these terms.
 * That's a straw man. I am of course well aware of that principle, but this is NOT a proposal to rename articles to a match category.  This is a proposal to establish a consensus on what the article title should be, and is explicitly labeled as  without recommendation. The nomination explicitly says If this discussion establishes a consensus one way or the other, then the categories and other articles can be speedily moved to match the outcome here.  In other words, the whole purpose of the nom is to allow the category to follow the article, with a WP:C2D speedy if needed. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah. The way to "allow the category to follow the article" is to open a WP:CFR under WP:C2D to match the article title. If there were ever reason to move the article title, then another C2D would move the category to go along with it.  And you know all that, too.  So the fiction that this RM was somehow compelled by category-related concerns is especially odd.  Category tails do not wag the article titling dog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SMcCandlish and Talk:Brown–Forman. Apparently the Austria-Hungary example has been sitting there for a while (per ), but I think it should be discussed and removed. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "It was originally called United State of Travancore and Cochin" suggests that the en dash connecting the parallel names makes sense. If it ever progressed the point of being generally treated as a single name, like Hewlett-Packard did, then we'd change to a hyphen.  Doesn't seem to be the case here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HP isn't even such a case; it was not a merger of a Hewlett company and Packard company, it's simply an entity with two namesakes, like Wilkes-Barre (albeit in the case of HP they actually had a personal connection to the entity). This is a really common company naming pattern, it's just usually punctuated with commas and/or with & or and (Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, Kirkland & Ellis, or not at all (Goldman Sachs), or these days with slashes or by deleting spaces or doing other weird nonsense (CBIZ/Mayer Hoffman McCann, which got AfDed; CliftonLarsonAllen), often as the result corporate branding and logo-design ideas. Stylistically, there's not much of any kind of distinction between "this is a company we just started, named after us" and "this is a company produced by a merger of three companies that were themselves mergers of previous companies"; they just pick whatever spelling they want and register the trademark.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories
See Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21, where I propose standardising the category names to one form or the other. As with the article title, I don't care which form is chosen.

It would be helpful if the CFD discussion could be free of the bogus allegations of procedural impropriety by McCandlish. It is bizarre that McCandlish chose to falsely accuse me of trying to get the category to drive the article title, when my nomination explicitly stated that I had no preference on the article title, and just sought consensus. It is equally bizarre that McCandlish falsely asserted that I should have used WP:C2D; the C2D criterion was not applicable here, because there was no consensus on the article title. McCandlish's bogus allegations were a time-wasting falsehood which disrupted the RM, so I hope that the CFD can avoid such nonsense. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)