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

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]

Persian Empire (disambiguation) → Persian empire — Persian empire redirects to this disambiguation page, which makes no sense. There is no need for a separate page with the word disambiguation needed then. warrior4321 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and close there is an open RfC at Talk:Persian Empire, it should be resolved first. Depending on the result, Persian empirePersian empire could be redirected to Persian EmpirePersian Empire (Persian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) should that article be reverted into an article. This should not be renamed in the meanwhile. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having the same page redirect here? Why does the page have the seperate disambiguation in the title? Why can the disambiguation page not be on the Persian empire page. warrior4321 10:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Empire does not redirect here. Page names are fine as they are, please leave it alone now. --dab (𒁳) 18:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persian empire (note lowercase "e") redirects here. It probably should redirect to Achaemenid Empire, as Persian Empire (note uppercase "E") does. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completly Agree with Akhilleus. 'Persian Empire' and 'Persian empire' should lead to the same subject. I personaly don't agree with 'Achaemenid Empire' but that's clearly a diffrent matter. Flamarande (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — The move request has a typo; the target is Persian Empire and Persian empire should also redirect there. The long running dispute over content of various articles about historical entities that could be called "Persian Empire" is more than enough evidence that the dab page should reside at Persian Empire. --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dab page appears to have been split from Persian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), all you need to do is revert to the page history version that contains it. In any case, that would be highly inappropriate since an open RfC is occuring on Talk:Persian Empire concerning its status, and it has a massive edit history and was an article included on a CD version of Wikipedia, so the edit history should be preserved not deleted with a move on top of Persian EmpirePersian Empire (Persian empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by contrast has a trivial edit history) . See edit oldid=309267930 . 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 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]