Template talk:History of Greater Iran sidebar

message: Hi, I'm not used to posting templates on my articles. I just put this template on a new article on the Dulafid dynasty, which governed northwestern Iran from c. 800 until 897. Since I put this template on that article, does that mean I should put them in the list in the template of dynasties that ruled After the Islamic Conquest? Or is that an optional move, left to the discretion of the editor as to whether a dynasty is important enough to warrant being included on the template list?
Ro4444 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocol for using this template 

message: Wikipedia:Date#Year numbering systems
"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."
This article used BC starting in 2006 and was changed arbitrarily.  Every other template used BC/AD.  There is no good reason that we shouldn't revert back to the original dating system.
This isn't a crusade, it is merely policy and there is no good reason we should deviate from it. - Schrandit (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop this meaningless BC/AD crusade. The dating system was like this for years and you changed it in your first edit in this page, just for the sake of changing the dating system. This is not acceptable at all and it's against the guideline that you cite. Alefbe (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is reverting back to the original system against WP:date? - Schrandit (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no response...-Schrandit (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The response is given above. Read it and read the guideline again. Alefbe (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Well? - Schrandit (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always ask the opinion of others who have been previously contributed to this template. Alefbe (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I ask for a third opinion will you abide by it? - Schrandit (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me jump in as the third opinion to settle this: we should leave it as CE/BCE.  I say this because this pair of terms is both neutral and preferred.  In contrast, AD/BC is archaic and/or religious, hence obsolete. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE 

message: This is clearly the work of Mr. Tajik here. Trying to push his POV here and looks like he got away with it because many Iranian editors voted for greater iran template for some reason.
First of all this template or should i say the Pashto/Tajik editor named Tajik is trying to say that Iran is just a modern state created after the Persian empire fell, just like his home land afghanistan. Meaning Persia was not iran but both afghanistan and iran. This template and the "persian people" article have both been hijacked by people like these. They are trying to say that there is no such thing as persian people or persia anymore. Not being a wikipedia editor i cannot do anything about this but if anyone with a sense is editing here change this template to history of iran and make a new template for history of greater iran if needed. History of afghanistan/pakistan etc have nothing to do with iran, iran is and was persia, its history belongs to itself, don't let some afghan nationalist with agenda push his POV here.
And tajik, regarding your comments about nadir shahs life guards. Almost every king in history have had mercenaries. Many times because they didn't trust their own people for many reasons, a mercenary cares only about the money and nothing else. Even so nadir used people from all over iran in his army including some afghans, not as mercenaries but because he had defeated them, they belonged to him. Destroying the home town of the ghilzais and building a town called Nadir Abad should be enough proof for you, please go ahead and read some books about the matter to find out the truth other than afghan books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.184 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to show proof about Pashtun women doing this and that in Dubai, you know this world is full of people lying. I can show you 100% convincing evidence about Iranian prositutes, not a single person can doubt it. This means I'm powerful and you're weak in presenting class. I don't hate Iranians but you Iranians hate Afghans. We ruled Iran from Afghanistan for over 1,000 years, starting with the Ghaznavids from Ghazni (Afghanistan) until Mir Mahmud Hotaki and Ahmad Shah Durrani in 18th century. Don't go into saying they were this ethnic or they spoke Persian, and etc. The bottom line is all the Kings were living in what is now Afghanistan and all their subjects were living in what is now Iran. Your ancestors were subjects and mines were Kings. Nader Shah was a Sunni Turk from Khorasan and so were the Ghilzai Hotaki dynasty, so what if one Turk ruled over the another Turk? Nader Shah didn't represent Pesian Shia culture and he was killed by the Shia Persians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.12.45 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template is ridiculous 

message: What definition of Iranian is being applied in this template? If it is Iranic language then the inclusion of pre-Iranic polities is obviously incorrect. I propose that those entries should be removed. If it is geographic, as in covering the generally understood territory of Greater Iran, then there are many items missing.
I can't see that any consistent definition has been used in the template. Irānshahr (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency