Template talk:History of Iran

message: Is pre-Aryan history is appropriate for the History of Iran template? Should it include, for example, the Median Empire and the Achaemenid Empire? Or should it start with the first Iranian (Aryan) rule?  Is the first Aryan rule the Sassanid dynasty or is it earlier?  Were the Arsacid dynasty Aryans?  What is the evidence that they were or were not?  When was the Aryan invasion down from the steppes?  --Bejnar 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting point

message: There is a wikipedia article on it Jiroft
"Whether this is a lost kingdom of Aratta as Dr. Madzjizadeh believes or not, Jiroft is definitely the Lost Paradise for archaeologists and anyone who has a passion for ancient history.".  But there is a question mark on the Aratta part.  []
 
[]
Dr. Majidzadeh is well known (google search) in the archaeological community and his connection with Aratta is somewhat tenuously accepted by some other scholars.  That is why the Aratta is in question mark.  Unfortunately the authorities did not take good care of this excavation. .  Either way, it is a major civilization in the center of the Iranian plateau and part of Iranian/World history.  It might be an extension of Elamite.  But I think it should be in template.  Here is a good article on the issue  . --alidoostzadeh 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiroft is a town in the Kerman province. Konar Sandal is an important Bronze Age site. Other important Bronze Age sites include Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya and others. This template cannot be the place to list Bronze Age archaeological sites. The 3000 BC date is highly suspect. If you must have a "pre-Elam" entry here, make it Prehistoric Iran or Bronze Age Iran, along the lines of Prehistoric Armenia, Prehistoric Georgia, Prehistoric Britain, Bronze Age Europe etc. dab (𒁳) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. From what I have heared so far though, Jiroft is dated around 2800 B.C.  I guess we will have to wait a decade or so before scholars can reliably assess the background and history of the site/civilization.  Perhaps though as you said, a Pre-Elam or ancient excavation sites might not be bad to add.  Another interesting one is Marlik although some have associated it with Indo-Aryans.  I would add Kassites, Mitanni (according to Britannica extended up to western Zagros), Lulubi and etc. though to the template--alidoostzadeh 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Kassites, it seems the Wikipage is completely OR.  Here is a reliable link  if someone has time to edit it.  Also here is one on Gutti , Lulubi , Kaspians  , Mannea . --alidoostzadeh 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jiroft

message: The Wikipedia Manual of Style says here that we should go with whatever dating system was used fist and not change it unless there is a substantial reason to do so and consensus for such a change.  That is why I reverted it back to the original dating system. - Schrandit (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of that guideline is to avoid changing these stuff and edit-warring over that (or editing just for the purpose of changing the dating system). The same dating system has been used  for almost 3 years in this page. Now, you are changing that, based on an edit in 3 years ago (and you haven't edited this page before). I think this is a classic example of citing the words of a guideline and doing the exact opposite of its main intention. If you insist on your version, seek the opinion of a third person, or ask another user (who has previously edited this page) to change the dating system.  Alefbe (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dating system has flipped back an forth over those years, I figure I'm just following guidelines by returning to the original system.  I could be wrong.  If you think it is necessary I'm fine trying to find a third opinion. - Schrandit (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Please find a third opinion. Alefbe (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating system

message: Although they were local rulers , I think they should be included in the list . Also other Iranian local rulers ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sarbadars]] 

message: Here is what Britannica says about Mitanni .
"Indo-Iranian empire centred in northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 bc. At its height the empire extended from Kirkūk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros Mountains in the east through Assyria to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Its heartland was the Khābūr River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located."  I found some other sources in google books  which mentions Zagros mountain.  I agree however about removing Afrighids as they were outside of the border of modern country of Iran.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitanni

message: To acknowledge the short reign of Salomai Ddin, in the Ddin dynasty between 651-661.
Jessupwareham (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Individuals don't belong on this template, but rather would go in one of the articles linked in this template. — Bility (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 2 November 2011 

message: The template is far too large to be transcluded in articles that do not have as their scope the entire history of Iran. 
Either the template size should be reduced dramatically, or else the template should be removed from all articles other than History of Iran and Timeline of Iranian history. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it collapsible, that should resolve the problem.--Work permit (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: still too wide  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.122.100 (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Either fix the mistakes in the collapsible version, or make the new version collapsible. --Bejnar (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This "New view" format should not be presented until the above issues have been addressed and a consensus have been reached, as it is still waiting for further inputs.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Template size

message: To eliminate a redirect, please change the following (located just above the MODERN heading):
:Qajar Empire 1796–1925
to
:Qajar dynasty 1796–1925
Thanks.  72.244.204.179 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: per WP:RDR. Redirects don't have to be fixed. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: * In many cases it is preferable to change redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g.,  at the end of George Washington). In this case, when the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.
--Bejnar (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qajar dynasty 

message: Hello. Here's a version of the template that uses the Sidebar, Infobox and Collapsible list templates. There are some div sections within it which I imagine could be made redundant, but I haven't found or figured out how yet. As the template is quite tall, it could use "Sidebar with collapsible lists" instead. 213.246.114.240 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like a good start.  I'm not sure why we need to use anything other than , since that template is used for most other countries in the world.  Is there something special about Iran that makes it require a non-standard template?  making it have collapsible sections is also a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar with infoboxes version 

message: Qara xan! As we can see in History of Iran#Prehistory, periods of before Median Empire are "PREHISTORY". Why you do kind of these actions?--Mervzi (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prehistory is the span of time before recorded history or the invention of writing systems (See Prehistory). Proto-Elamite, Elam and Mannaeans had writing systems. Also see article Elam. There is written that Elam was an ancient civilization is not prehistoric civilization. If you want to know about Prehistoric Iran then see Prehistory of Iran.--Qara khan 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Mervzi, I am inferring that you are not a native speaker of English, and it seems probably that this disagreement is more a matter of language barrier than it is of deep-seated disagreement.  Qara Xan is correct on the meaning of prehistory, though the word "ancient" does often have a more general meaning, inclusive of periods on either side of the history/prehistory divide in most cases.  What is the specific concern about word choice that is eliciting such a strong response? siafu (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a native speaker of English because I'm Persian, but I can understand the meaning of the "Prehistory"! In [Iran] history the meaning of Prehistory is different with the usage of Prehistory in other Topics.--Mervzi (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really isn't-- the term in English has an unambiguous and accepted meaning, which is not different when discussing different civilizations (though the history/prehistory divide occurs at different absolute times in different contexts, it's meaning is unchanged).  Can you explain what the benefit of using the more ambiguous term "ancient" is in this scenario? siafu (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ancient" insn't more ambiguous term. In Iran we study Iran history in school and university and I have complete information about history of Iran. Iran history has different sections and the periods of before "Aryan migration" and "Median Empire" are "prehistory" and the term "Ancient Persia/Iran" means periods of after Median Empire.--Mervzi (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is the English wikipedia, what is taught in Iran is not really relevant.  As I explained earlier, in English the word "ancient" is in fact ambiguous as to actual extent, whereas the term "prehistory" is specifically referenced to the time before the extant historical record. siafu (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV 

message: The current version of the template is very disordered and ugly. New version is ordered and with this version, the readers who are interested in history of Iran can learn/understand its history easily. Actually i had added this version 3 years ago but last year it was deleted without discussing. Yes it feels much space than current version but we know that WP has no space problem. Quality is more important than space. Furthermore in new version, there are local dynasties such as the dynasties in Tabaristan (Dabuyid dynasty, Bavand dynasty, Paduspanid dynasty, Qarinvand dynasty etc.) in an orderly at the bottom of the template. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:09, 05 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for all your support. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 18:51, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Look at the bottom of the template (local dynasties) then you will see the rest of the dynasties/kingdoms in an orderly. After restoring new version the Scythian might be added to the template. It is not problem. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 19:55, 05 June 2015 (UTC)

text: This new version is more in line with other templates about the history of countries. Unity in style, something this version provides, makes using Wikipedia easier. Therefore I support this version. The Banner talk 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Would it not be a better idea to make a list of all what is missing and politely request the maker of the present version to add it? Due to the collapsible options used, it will not make the template explode... The Banner talk 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The collapsed version is definitely better.  uses less space on the screen, and the format is one of the standard formats used by most other sidebar templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The Banner: God dammit, I'm so sorry mate! I don't how, but when I clicked on the link you wrote I somehow saw the old version, not the new one (this one used right now), silly me! I guess I confused you a bit, anyway, looks we agree with each other then :-). I apologize once again for my sillyness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: You have written uncivil messages many times to me and other users and have been blocked because of it. Sorry, it is strange for me your speaking about Civility. --Ulugh Arslan Bilge Khan 22:18, 05 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this getting a little bit childish? I won't respond to these kind of things. Let's get back to the subject. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: HistoryofIran, RussianDewey says in fact the same as I did before: make a list of what is missing and we/the author can fix that. Unless we know what you want, nothing can happen. The Banner talk 23:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I believe there was a small miscommunication between the Banner and HistoryofIran. It appears you were both on the same line from the start. The newer version per the revision the Banner showed us, is much more complete, and much more in line with other history templates. I also strongly believe therefore that it should be showing that precise revision. Qara Khan hopped in and started to engage an edit war in order to push the idea that the template should show a 3-year old revision, for whatever reason he holds. I don't get it, why not just opening a section on the talk page? Or on HistoryofIrans page? Why edit warring? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

text: And that is why I reverted your change. The Banner talk 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Soprry, but I notice that you gave no reason at all for the first revert and only criticism but no explanation the second time round. The Banner talk 20:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of the template 

message: Not a lot has been accomplished since the article was fully protected. Edit warring after protection expires will not be acceptable. Start a WP:RFC, go to WP:DRN, or clearly state which version of the template you prefer and your rationale below this post (the above discussion is a bit of a mess). --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Restart

message: I have fully protected the template for 48 hours. Please see if you can make headway in resolving this dispute during this time, possibly using WP:DRN. Further edit warring may result in blocks. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I can’t see why this should be included it has two items in it: Pishdadian dynasty and Kayanian dynasty neither of which has any historical basis. Myth and history are two different things and mixing them like that is highly misleading. I propose removing it from this tempplate. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve removed it. DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythical history?