Talk:Acilisene

Requested move 14 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 section.

---

Hachdeanq → Acilisene – Per WP:COMMON NAME - 10.700 search results for Acilisene, 564 for Hachdeanq (also see the results from the Ngram viewer). There are literally more or less zero sources that use 'Hachdeanq', contrary to the Greco-Roman spelling of Acilisene. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support — The current article is kind of a mess. The title "Hachdeanq" appears to be an extremely uncommon variant of the more common Hashteank, but the article's actual content is about a completely different area. Acilisene was the area around modern Erzincan, and its Armenian name was "Ekełeac" (which could alternatively be romanized as "Yekegheats"), while Hashteank was further south, around Bingöl, and its Greco-Roman name was "Asthianene". The current title of "Hachdeanq" should be turned into a redirect to Hashteank, and the article itself should be moved to Acilisene (some spelling of the Armenian name would also work). 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Considering the article is little more than a stub, it might be better to merge it with Erzincan. Searching for Acilisene in google scholar either mentions the Peace of Acilisene or the relation between Acilisene and Erzincan. So we should probably redirect Acilisene to Erzincan in any case. Vpab15 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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.