Talk:Hotch-pot

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article and Hotchpot are obvious duplicates. Since the title of this one seems to come from an official encyclopedia, this name seems to be the obvious page to merge to, and Hotchpot should redirect here. clacke (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for US usage, but "hotchpot" is far more common (see, e.g., Black's Law dictionary, 8th ed.). Also, a Google search at first blush seems to suggest they are used roughly equally, 170K for "hotchpot" and 175K for "hotch-pot". Further investigation shows that the two-word version includes the one-word version, which suggests that there are really only 5,000 unique hits for the two-word version. As such, I would suggest the opposite: merging this one into hotchpot. -Rrius (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probable that the word followed the normal course. It probably started as "hotch pot"; by 1911, it was "hotch-pot"; and now it is "hotchpot". That is what happens with most compound words. -Rrius (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Hotchpot as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.