Talk:List of monarchs of the Sasanian Empire

Reason of the unrelated info?

Why is this edit here? What is the use of those two paragraphs? This page is just a list (wp:list). This page does not and should not deal with Zoroastrianism and their future after Sasanid. Also the list should not say what was a "shahanshah" as a monarchy/king (absolute or not). What others think? Shouldn't we revert to this edition? Xashaiar (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at some featured lists such as List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire and List of Sultans of Zanzibar. warrior4321 00:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the entire discussion. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS!. Xashaiar (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize, that's in the arguments to avoid in deletion? It is you that is misunderstanding the discussion if you think this is a discussion about deleting or keeping the article. Most featured articles have the same information as this one does, even newly promoted lists such as List of emperors of the Han Dynasty. That would mean consensus supports such. warrior4321 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction (the link was above what I wanted to link): You are misunderstanding the entire discussion. See elsewhere existence is not good reason for that edit and WP:IRRELEVANT and similar discussions there!. The info you provide is irrelevant here. I am not disputing it, I am disputing its relevancy here.Xashaiar (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC):

(edit conflict) It's still irrelevant. The information on this article is not on those other featured lists, it just contains the same criteria, the same information such as the years of reign, type of government etc. warrior4321 00:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When trying to use WP:IRRELEVANT to back your claims, are you seriously saying that Zoroastrianism and the Sassanid Shahenshahs are as irrelevant as a tiger and a light bulb? warrior4321 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is not directly related to Zoroastrianism and you are adding materials that do not belong here. This list is simple: kings of Sasanid Iran and nothing else. Please hear.Xashaiar (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it. When has consensus rejected it? On the contrary, this is consensus, as I proved with the other featured lists. WarriorForThreeToOne 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look you are going to another battle?? Do you remember "I" was the one to teach you that Persian is not Iranian and you refused to understand the matters? Now you are here and try to tell me that Zoroastrianism has much to do with this list? Are you going to repeat this and give toamto, tiger, light blub examples (your comment above)? Please stop this and try to add encyclopaedic and relevant materials to wikipedia. I am not disputing the materials, I am disputing its relevance. The consensus was established simply by "looking at article history" when it was peacefully there... Xashaiar (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You did not teach me anything. Nothing, zip, nada. It was Fullstop that showed me the difference. When I asked you the relevance of the Behistun Inscription towards Persian vs Iranian, you said you didn't know what to say. The only thing you have taught me is that you love to battle and push your views of Iranian nationalism. Everything added is encyclopedic and relevant. If featured lists (which are supposed to be perfect) have it, then it must be right. You have given me so many links in the above comments, and not even one is the correct one in this scenario. WarriorForThreeToOne 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what to say is another way of saying "you do not get it and it is impossible to make you get it". Exactly like this article that "I do not know what to say" because you do not get it. The material on Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism is irrelevant here in this list.Xashaiar (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If it impossible then how did Fullstop explain it to me? Don't talk nonsense. There is only one sentence on Zoroastrianism, it is very relevant. The state religion of the empire was Zoroastrianism, one sentence on the religion is fine. WarriorForThreeToOne 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was impossible, he did explain but you have not got it yet. That's why you call it "non-sense".Xashaiar (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you even aware of "what" I called nonsense? I called your statement that was it was impossible to understand nonsense. Now look who's going off-topic. :) WarriorForThreeToOne 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look you were somewhat uncivil, broke 3rr, and removed my tag. I am not going to report you. If destroying this articles make you learn about history, then go on. Do whatever you want with this article. Xashaiar (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Came by this article sort of by accident, and just read the frst few lines. It begins:

The Shahenshahs of the Sassanid Empire ruled over a vast majority of land, even continuing its role as a superpower in Asia.

You can't start an encyclopedia article like that! "Vast majority of land" - what does that mean? Is it an incorrect translation from some other langauge? "Even continuing its role" - whose role? Continued after what? Why "even"?--Nø (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)