<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-GB">
	<id>https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Board_Thread%3AWiki_discussion%2F%40comment-18014300-20170619050619%2F%40comment-18014300-20170620201023</id>
	<title>Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-18014300-20170620201023 - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Board_Thread%3AWiki_discussion%2F%40comment-18014300-20170619050619%2F%40comment-18014300-20170620201023"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?title=Board_Thread:Wiki_discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-18014300-20170620201023&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-06-19T18:28:51Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.42.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?title=Board_Thread:Wiki_discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-18014300-20170620201023&amp;diff=949978&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>imported&gt;Sol Pacificus: Created page with &quot;&lt;div class=&quot;quote&quot;&gt; SupremeAssassin wrote: I call into question the accuracy and correctness of not capitalizing dynasty and leaving it as is. I mean consider the fact that wh...&quot;</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://assassinscreedwiki.accesstheanimus.com/index.php?title=Board_Thread:Wiki_discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-18014300-20170620201023&amp;diff=949978&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2017-06-20T20:10:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Created page with &amp;quot;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;quote&amp;quot;&amp;gt; SupremeAssassin wrote: I call into question the accuracy and correctness of not capitalizing dynasty and leaving it as is. I mean consider the fact that wh...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Páàjì titun&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div class=&amp;quot;quote&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
SupremeAssassin wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
I call into question the accuracy and correctness of not capitalizing dynasty and leaving it as is. I mean consider the fact that when referring to a dynasty or a kingdom, such usage is always capitalized to denote importance, and furthermore, possession. Just to make something up on the fly real quick here, &amp;quot;Shang Li Dynasty&amp;quot; is more grammatically sound than &amp;quot;Shang Li dynasty&amp;quot;, why? Well obviously we are referring to this individual&amp;#039;s dynasty, it acts as a possessive noun, denoting that Shang Li Dynasty is the name of the period of that place in history. It&amp;#039;s like saying, &amp;quot;The Siege of Constantinople&amp;quot;, what&amp;#039;s wrong with the way that&amp;#039;s rendered? Other than the fact that Grammarly has indicated it&amp;#039;s an error, we are referring to Constantinople&amp;#039;s siege, it&amp;#039;s the name of an event in history. Now that I&amp;#039;ve capitalized siege, Grammarly has quieted down. I mean, Grammarly isn&amp;#039;t acting up when referring to something like Qajar dynasty, but I feel like this is still inaccurate. This is the name of an event in history, the d should be a capital. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So alright, let&amp;#039;s suppose that Ptolemaic is the name of that dynasty, and it&amp;#039;s thus rendered without a capital, that would be grammatically correct, but why not refer to it as, Ptolemaic Era rather than using dynasty? A quick search on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reveals that a dynasty is a quick succession of rulers following the same line of descent, so I assume this means that said leaders are biologically related. An era, on the other hand, refers to a period of time in which years are followed, I feel as though either specification is still correct, as the Ptolemaic Era would refer to that dynasty and era would, of course, imply that said dynasty went on for a number of years. So, I vote that we name the article, Ptolemaic Era, rather than the Ptolemaic dynasty. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
So I couldn&amp;#039;t tell by your response whether or not you already understood this, but essentially, the reason why &amp;quot;dynasty&amp;quot; isn&amp;#039;t capitalized is because it serves in the same capacity as &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;era&amp;quot;. With the Renaissance example, if we referred to the Renaissance as the &amp;quot;Renaissance era&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Renaissance period&amp;quot;, we actually do not conventionally capitalize &amp;quot;period&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;era&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chicago Manual of Style gives [http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch08/ch08_sec071.html this]. It specifies that [[Victorian era]], for example, should be lower-case with &amp;quot;era&amp;quot; while Shang dynasty is treated as an era, not as a political state or division.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the Shang is being treated as a political state or division, then it would be called the Kingdom of Shang or the Shang Kingdom, and &amp;quot;kingdom&amp;quot; would be capitalized as we do with &amp;quot;republic&amp;quot; in &amp;quot;Republic of India&amp;quot;. It would be part of the polity&amp;#039;s official name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think your response might show confusion that &amp;quot;era&amp;quot; should also be capitalized, but that isn&amp;#039;t the convention. I think it&amp;#039;s not necessarily illogical to capitalize &amp;quot;era&amp;quot; or not, and it&amp;#039;s only a matter of academic convention.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you make a case for &amp;quot;Ptolemaic era&amp;quot; over &amp;quot;Ptolemaic dynasty&amp;quot;, and it&amp;#039;s not a bad case, but I think we should just wait for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Origins&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;s database entry on the regime and base it off of whichever direction they choose since both are equally valid in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Side-note, what were you referring to by &amp;quot;Shang Li Dynasty&amp;quot;? There was a Shang dynasty in China, but &amp;quot;Li&amp;quot; is never part of its name. In fact, their family name was Zi. I also do not know of any historical individual named Shang Li.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>imported&gt;Sol Pacificus</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>