This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Kerala / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Former countries C‑class 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 articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

I was wondering it if was correct to title the article as kingdom of cochin. I believe it should be titled as kingdom of Kochi instead. I'd like to hear your opinions. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 13:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just my thoughts: I think that it is all about context and acknowledgement. If you are writing about history or a person of a period then, unless it is blatantly inappropriate to do so, you should use place-names in the context of the period of that history or the period in which the person lived. But this should never be done without acknowlediging the current place-name up-front and that you will be referencing either the current name or the place-name in the context of it's period. Cranenbg (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the use of venad swaroopam is not correct. Native(villages were the family had their root) villages of Travancore royal houses were never known by name venad swaroopam..they had names like Kizhperoor,Chirava,desinganadu, Thrippapoor(at various period of time) the last being more popular.But never venad swaroopam..Venad ( vel nad ..kingdonm of Ay VeL)was the name the kingdom. Kindly check. and also this article has to be either: 1. Merged with the article Cochin Royal Family or 2. A substantial portion which is common to Cochin Royal family has to be edited and summarised. activevoid (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I spent parts of the last few days working on this article, adding a References and Bibliography section, along with a ton of cleanup and the addition of citations. It still needs some polish, but I felt that the page has progressed to the point where it no longer needed the tag. Medieval Indian history, however, is not my specialty, so there may still be factual errors in the article that need correction. Historymike (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Cochinel.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contrary to one claim which someone has written in this article, Kochi kings are descendants of Cheras. This is a general knowledge, and has been recorded centuries back. See Goshree.

There is a well known story that the last Perumal who ruled Kerala divided his kingdom between his nephews and his sons. This story is generally accepted as likely, although the reason for such a division is not clear. Although more research is warranted in this area, please edit this article in a manner which is acceptable for the people of Kerala. It is impolite and politically incorrect to question the origin of Kerala dynasties, in a manner which is not recognised by the Cochin State Manual, Travancore State Manual and the Kerala government's official stands.

Cosmic Engine (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Kerala Varma Maharajah - Aikya Kerala Thampuran.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the alleged flag and "coat of arms" from the infobox, following a discussion here [1] that showed they were entirely unsourced. Please don't reintroduce these without solid reliable sourcing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kingdom of Cochin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567498/Vasco_Da_Gama.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114111834/http://www.crfhs.org/familytree/familyhistory1.php?caption_id=3&flg=0 to http://www.crfhs.org/familytree/familyhistory1.php?caption_id=3&flg=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114111206/http://www.crfhs.org/familytree/familyhistory1.php?caption_id=4&flg=0 to http://www.crfhs.org/familytree/familyhistory1.php?caption_id=4&flg=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Cochin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928012055/http://www.crfhs.org/ to http://www.crfhs.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is absolutely zero evidence suggesting that the Kingdom of Cochin existed before 14th century. Also there is no evidence connecting them with Cheras despite their own claim. Books such as Keralolpathy, etc are full of absurd myths and therefore cannot be taken as reliable sources. -Meldort (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find any reference to the Dutch spelling of either "Protectoraat van Cotchin" or "Protectoraat van Cochin". Could someone else look into this and verify that the spelling given in the infopane is correct? Edderiofer (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should religion be added as well?Manabimasu (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is uncited and reads POV while being unclear. Section needs to either be substantiated with sources and clarified or deleted. Hussierhussier1 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]