Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-18014300-20170620201023

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 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, "Shang Li Dynasty" is more grammatically sound than "Shang Li dynasty", why? Well obviously we are referring to this individual'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's like saying, "The Siege of Constantinople", what's wrong with the way that's rendered? Other than the fact that Grammarly has indicated it's an error, we are referring to Constantinople's siege, it's the name of an event in history. Now that I've capitalized siege, Grammarly has quieted down. I mean, Grammarly isn'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. 

So alright, let's suppose that Ptolemaic is the name of that dynasty, and it'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. 

So I couldn't tell by your response whether or not you already understood this, but essentially, the reason why "dynasty" isn't capitalized is because it serves in the same capacity as "period" or "era". With the Renaissance example, if we referred to the Renaissance as the "Renaissance era" or "Renaissance period", we actually do not conventionally capitalize "period" or "era".

The Chicago Manual of Style gives this. It specifies that Victorian era, for example, should be lower-case with "era" while Shang dynasty is treated as an era, not as a political state or division.

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 "kingdom" would be capitalized as we do with "republic" in "Republic of India". It would be part of the polity's official name.

I think your response might show confusion that "era" should also be capitalized, but that isn't the convention. I think it's not necessarily illogical to capitalize "era" or not, and it's only a matter of academic convention.

Also, you make a case for "Ptolemaic era" over "Ptolemaic dynasty", and it's not a bad case, but I think we should just wait for Origins's database entry on the regime and base it off of whichever direction they choose since both are equally valid in my opinion.

Side-note, what were you referring to by "Shang Li Dynasty"? There was a Shang dynasty in China, but "Li" 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.