Talk:Persia

message: Recently a well intentioned user started working through the list at Wikipedia:Offline_reports/This_is_one_of_the_most_linked_to_disambiguation_pages, picking the Persia item and started going through the ~1500 linking articles changing the disambig to Persia. Many of these are no doubt a bad idea. However, I see from the discussion above that many people here would recommend disambig links into the appropriate time period/section of Persian Empire. 
That's a pretty big job. I would suggest that the folks who watch this page are better placed with the knowledge and motivation to do this correctly. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before some one else also dabs Persia -> Iran. 
Alternatively, now would be a good time to discuss a different strategy. -- Solipsist 07:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fishal would be the appropriate person to addres this, I think. He has put a lot of effort into this.--Zereshk 18:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In some cases, Persia is used in articles refering to a mostly geographic concept, and linking it to Iran or the Persian Empire would not make sence, as those articles are talking mostly about a political entity (see Mohalib, Islamic conquest of South Asia).  This arises because the usage is from a time between the existance of these two political bodies.  We have and article called Americas to describe that purely geographic existancy, how should we deal with the geographic persia? Smmurphy 07:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ... and disambig links

message: The etymology in the Persia article currently stops at "<Old Persian Parsa". Does anybody have a reference that traces the etymology further back (and thus, the etymology of Parthia further back as well)? Alexander 007 05:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parsa

message: Over the past several months, what appears to be one user with a dynamic IP address has attempted several times to redirect this title to Persia (disambiguation). This has been reverted each time, by several different users.  If this happens again, I will semi-protect the page to prevent further IP edits until a consensus on the redirect is reached.
Technically, the proposed edit is incorrect, because if "Persia" is indeed (as the edit implies) an ambiguous name without a primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be moved to this title, rather than being the target of a redirect.  Therefore, if any user supports the change of the existing redirect, the correct method to propose this would be to propose on Talk:Persia (disambiguation) to move the disambiguation page to this title.
Apart from that, repeatedly attempting the same edit after it has been reverted by multiple other editors is a disruptive practice.  Although Wikipedia encourages you to be bold, it also encourages you to engage in collaborative dialogue when your boldness results in disputes.  The preferred approach is bold, revert, discuss, not "bold, revert, repeat".  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page should be semi-protected (indefinitely), as I have already asked for it. I believe the current redirect (Persia redirecting to Iran) is correct. Regards, In fact 09:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Following the latest episode of such an undiscussed change, I have now semi-protected the page. bd2412 T 04:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Page is now fully protected. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to redirect 

message: Remove  tag now the this redirect is no longer under PC2 protection.
Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've added :Category:Redirects from historic names and :Category:Protected redirects as well. "Historic" looked like the most apt term here, but if there's a better redirect template let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 February 2014 

message: 99.109.85.105 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, as it's an empty request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 4 December 2016 

message: Can you please convert it to  because  is deprecated 2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: please specify the exact text you want this changed to, the parameters on those templates appear to differ. — xaosflux Talk 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 April 2017 

message: Please substitute  so that it gets replaced by , as the former template is deprecated. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 23 May 2017 

message: Please add  within the  - the earliest revision in the history is Special:Permalink/404271 from Feb 2002.
Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pppery: I might well be wrong here (please tell me if I am), but shouldn’t this redirect be tagged with  as well as ? The reason I ask is because the former refers to the redirect , while the latter to it being from  - and this redirect seems to meet both of those criterions. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about that, but  explicitly says , so I would say it doesn't apply. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - thanks for the response :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 18 December 2023