Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-18014300-20170619050619/@comment-5088097-20170620194718

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.