This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation Former countries This redirect 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 Iran This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran

polling google books,

• "Persian Empire" 5,466 hits. Most of these relate to the Achaemenid period, but there are exceptions:
• (616 for explicit "Achaemenid Persian Empire")
• 28 for "Parthian Persian Empire" (includes hits for compounded Parthian-Persian Empire)
• 296+374 for "Sassanian" or "Sassanid Persian Empire"
• 36 for "Mongol Persian Empire
• 1 for "Timurid Persian Empire"
• 27+5 for "Turko-" or Turco-Persian Empire"
• 49 for "Safavid Persian Empire"

now of course this blind polling includes all sort of abysmal literature, but it can be taken to show that "post-Sassanid historic Iran more generally" is an existing, albeit marginal of the order of a few percent, application of the term "Persian Empire" in "literature" in the most general sense. Enough to link history of Iran on this disambiguation page, but hardly enough to argue that "Persian Empire" refers to historic Iran generally in any significant, let alone primary, sense. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct this a bit.

• "Persian Empire" 6,630 hits. There are explicit cases:
• 617+126 for explicit "Achaemenid Persian Empire" or "Achaemenian Persian Empire"
• 29+1 for "Parthian Persian Empire" (includes hits for compounded Parthian-Persian Empire) or "Arsacid Persian Empire"
• 298+380+80+115 for "Sassanian Persian Empire" or "Sassanid Persian Empire" or "Sasanid Persian Empire" or "Sasanian Persian Empire"
• 36 for "Mongol Persian Empire
• 1 for "Timurid Persian Empire"
• 27+5 for "Turko-" or Turco-Persian Empire"
• 51 for "Safavid Persian Empire"

You have missed even more: "Persian Sasanian empire" (90), "Persian Sassanian empire" (196), "Persian Sassanid empire" (314) and "Persian Sasanid empire" (65) and the same for other entries. These particular combination shows "Persian empire" is indeed itself a term quite independent from Achaemenids. So we can see from this gogle book results that

1. "Persian empire" as reference to Achaemenid empire has 617+126=743 blind google books hits,
2. "Persian empire" as reference to Sassanid empire has 298+380+80+115=873 blind google books hits,

So there is real case for "Persian empire is not Achaemenid empire". Xashaiar (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Persian Empire" and "Persian empire" should redirect to History of Iran, I've pointed that out in the RfC at Talk:Persian Empire. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC mentioned above concerns whether or not the content that some editors would like to put at Persian Empire is or is not a POV fork of History of Iran. In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion about that, no objective reason has been given why that content should occupy the page name Persian Empire, to the exclusion of every other existing Wikipedia article that could occupy it. Absent a clear primary topic among all these articles, the dab page should occupy the ambiguous base name. Already on this page is an analysis that establishes there is no clear primary topic. Hence I support this proposal to move the dab page to Persian Empire, which is independent of the content dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC and previous discussion at Talk:Persian Empire does point to a reason why Persian Empire should redirect to Achaemenid Empire--that's the primary use of "Persian Empire". The "analysis" above is also discussed somewhere in the archives of Talk:Persian Empire, but they show that the Achaemenid Empire is the primary referent of "Persian Empire". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't require a rename, since a dab page occurs in the history of Persian EmpirePersian Empire, someone just needs to retrieve the previous version of the page, or histmerge this page into that page (probably a better solution) a rollover of this page onto that page is a bad idea, since (A) an ongoing RfC is on that page (B) this page appears to be a content split. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-),

This change which you have made on many articles as of today, aka changing Persian Empire into Greater Iran,[1] is wrong. Greater Iran is an ethno-cultural region, and absolutely not the same as the Persian Empire (!). The concept is in some limited way related to it, but absolutely not the same. How did you even come up with it to change all of it just like that? :-) I hope you are able to revert all changes back through the same way you added it. That saves a lot of effort..

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I absolutely disagree with your assessment - all of the incarnations of "Persian Empire" are covered at Greater Iran, which makes it a suitable target for the links until someone else wants to make more precise corrections. bd2412 T 04:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that article X is in some way covered in article Y doesn't prove anything. Nazi Germany is also covered at History of Germany. Should we also change all redirecting links to that? Apples and oranges, dear BD2412. We specifically have the article "Persian Empire" as there were numerous Persian Empires through history. The article was specifically made for people to have an easy overview of the various Persian Empires, and from there to have the possibility to get to the specific Persian Empire in question, be it the Achaemenid Empire, Safavid Empire, etc. Simple logic. When for example at Mausoleum of Halicarnassus you change Persian Empire (though the article specifically states in the infobox that it was made during the Achaemenid era of the Persian Empire), thats simply not a good change. Changing that to a ethno-cultural meant article, which is what the article "Greater Iran" stands for, is completely unhelpful. I contribute alot to articles of that region, and basically with this me and alot of other are saddled up with much extra work. Furthermore you did not even discuss such changes, though they involve quite alot of drastic changes as I convincingly explained regarding reader utiliy and content. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The undiscussed changes that created the problem in the first place were those changing Persian Empire to a disambiguation page; prior to this change, the links were pointing to a more abbreviated equivalent of the content on Greater Iran. bd2412 T 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place, I'm just going to unlink them all and add a note for them to be linked to correct articles if at all. Not everything needs to be linked, of course. bd2412 T 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment, but if you're making changes with AWB running in bot-mode, then you should be able to point to a discussion that approved those edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My bot is generally approved for mass-fixes of disambiguation links. bd2412 T 05:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, but that should only be to save the trouble of running off to WP:BRFA for a second approval process after finding a specific consensus for the specific set of edits elsewhere. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least unlinking the Greater Iran link. A further issue is, is that you've done that initial change (idk, looking at my watchlist) for maybe hundreds of articles, making it therefore impossible for me to go through all that and to give the exactly correct link. I agree that links are not a definite must have, but I'm convinced having Persian Empire as a link was still better than having no link at all. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation links are always an error, and where the concepts are closely related, they are a nightmare to clean up. No link at all is better than an unnecessary link to a disambiguation page which will confuse both the editor and the reader. bd2412 T 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong actually. Says who? You are wrong to say that, and wrong to say "none of these links were pointing to a "correct" article in the first place". You are removing many valid links to "Greater Iran", not bothering to add links to the correct Empire even when this is obvious from the date or context, and wasting a vast amount of other editors' time in a badly-neglected area. It's not the first time I've seen bad edits by the hundred from you. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are others, please point to them. The links I addressed in this case were pointed to Persian Empire, which has been a disambiguation page in the past, was changed to a WP:DABCONCEPT page listing the different iterations of a "Persian Empire", and was recently changed back to a disambiguation page. I don't see how I can be removing "valid links" to Greater Iran when those were originally links to "Persian Empire" that I just changed to point to "Greater Iran" and for which (following the above objection) I am undoing the change that I had just made minutes before. bd2412 T 14:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikilinks shouldn't go to disambiguation pages. Since "Persian Empire" usually refers to the First Persian Empire (550–330 BC), I suggest that the dab link be replaced with that, rather than with Greater Iran. (I'm suggesting that the wording be First Persian Empire rather than Achaemenid Empire, based on the principle of least astonishment/confusion.) Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, bad idea. Having fixed a good number of these, properly, MANUALLY, I can tell you that though Achaemenid Empire is probably the commonest correct link, the proportion is not that high. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we go ahead and fix the problem at the core and simply revert Dbachmanns "WP:GF" edit back? I guess we can somewhere understand his "point" for changing it, but clearly he was not aware of the consequences. Anyone who has edited a lot of that regions' articles knows it's simply bogus at best to link a historical entity such as the Persian Empire to a very loosely based ethno-cultural concept. It's nonsense. The mess started with changing it to a dab in the first place. Not only are numerous people now saddled up with extra work, it's a totally invaluable wrong change in the first and foremost place. I suggest we add a note to the article as well that the change won't be made in be future again. The Persian Empire is a definite historical termination used for various empires in-Iran based empires from 550 BC up to including the course of the 20th century. You can't dab that. What do others think? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but I think that the place to discuss this would be Talk:Persian Empire. bd2412 T 12:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy-paste this then to there, and revert the changes back later today. @BD2412:, do you think your bot can revert all changes back to the original (aka, so that it links to "Persian Empire" again?) after its un-dabbed? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a list of all Persian dynasties in that covered the Greater Iran area, including Iran proper, or that were based directly in what is now modern Iran proper? I think the former would work better, since you have dynasties such as Khwarazm that consisted of the entire Greater Iran area, and is often called "Persia" in reliable sources. I think that this list should be a list of dynastic empires called "Persia," not a list of dynastic empire called "Persia" that were politically centered in Iran proper. If I'm looking for "Persian Empire," I want to find a Persian Empire, and, in this case, if there were many, I want to find empires that were called Persian, and not limit it to empires that were based in Iran proper only.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a distinction to be made, it should be presented and explained in the article. bd2412 T 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Which article, this one, or the dynasty in question?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Information relevant to multiple articles can appear in every article to which it is relevant. bd2412 T 00:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that answers my original question. I recently added the Khwarazmian dynasty, which was removed because it was not based in Iran. I restored it, because it is in numerous sources called "Persia." So my question is, is this list a list of empires called Persian, or empires called Persian and also based in Iran. Right now the article leans toward the latter, but is ambiguous because it mentions the Mongols interrupting the Persian dynasties, even though at that point the Kharazmians controlled Persia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that it is appropriate to include a line in the body of the text saying something like: "The Khwarazmian dynasty is also referred to as Persia in [source]", with a reference. bd2412 T 18:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]