FANDOM


  • We probably should create an article for the Greek regime that was the last pharaohic dynasty of Egypt. I just wanted to ask you guys if it should be named Ptolemaic Kingdom, as it is in Wikipedia, or Ptolemaic dynasty? I kind of feel like most of the time in the context of our writing, we're referring to it as a dynasty of Egypt not as a kingdom like it was a new country distinct from Egypt because it was Greek hence why I find "Ptolemaic Kingdom" confusing, but it might be better to be consistent with Wikipedia. Or should we just wait to see which name it's referred to by in the game the most?

    Side-note: I noticed that we don't have an article at Kingdom of France which causes confusion when in Unity articles, we mean to discuss France before the revolution as opposed to the regime that succeeded it, but it links to the modern French Fifth Republic. This kind of goes along with whether we should have articles on different regimes of a country's history. We already have the one on the Ming dynasty after all.

      Loading editor
    • I think you can call it "Ptolemaic dynasty" until the game shows otherwise or something else. (?)

        Loading editor
    • I feel like either one would be fine. "Ptolemaic Kingdom" sounds more normal to me since I've seen it on Wikipedia and, I think, in some of the online coverage regarding Origins, but "Ptolemaic Dynasty" is a little more clear in its terminology.

      I'll go look around and see if I'm right about Ptolemaic Kingdom being used in articles about Origins. If so, I figure we ought to go with that one.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, the most common thing I spotted was "Ptolemaic Egypt" and the "Ptolemaic era", which unfortunately doesn't help us much. 

      I did find out that the reason Wikipedia uses "Ptolemaic Kingdom" because they also have a "Ptolemaic dynasty" article which is specifically about the line of rulers. So I guess it kind of depends on what our angle in the article is?? I'm a bit unsure of what course to take now. Maybe we should just wait until the game comes out.

        Loading editor
    • I think it's fine to wait until the game comes out because there's a high chance there'll be a database entry on the regime.

        Loading editor
    • Well, before I appealed the decision to change the article named Mohawk to Kanienkehaka to refer to Connor's people, it was, of course, referred to as Mohawk. What does this have to do with your question? Well, calling it the Ptolemaic Dynasty (I prefer we use a capital D, just because it looks nicer, we are, after all, referring to a particular dynasty, and not just a dynasty.) would be fine for now until we know what it's called in the game. 

        Loading editor
    • SupremeAssassin wrote: Well, before I appealed the decision to change the article named Mohawk to Kanienkehaka to refer to Connor's people, it was, of course, referred to as Mohawk. What does this have to do with your question? Well, calling it the Ptolemaic Dynasty (I prefer we use a capital D, just because it looks nicer, we are, after all, referring to a particular dynasty, and not just a dynasty.) would be fine for now until we know what it's called in the game. 

      Bringing up the capitalization of "dynasty" is a good point since I was always and still am unsure which is grammatically correct. Chinese dynasties always have it lower-case while Egyptian dynasties tend to have it upper-case, but this is inconsistent. Personally I think it's more correct to capitalize it, but it actually looks less awkward to me not to do so.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:

      SupremeAssassin wrote: Well, before I appealed the decision to change the article named Mohawk to Kanienkehaka to refer to Connor's people, it was, of course, referred to as Mohawk. What does this have to do with your question? Well, calling it the Ptolemaic Dynasty (I prefer we use a capital D, just because it looks nicer, we are, after all, referring to a particular dynasty, and not just a dynasty.) would be fine for now until we know what it's called in the game. 

      Bringing up the capitalization of "dynasty" is a good point since I was always and still am unsure which is grammatically correct. Chinese dynasties always have it lower-case while Egyptian dynasties tend to have it upper-case, but this is inconsistent. Personally I think it's more correct to capitalize it, but it actually looks less awkward to me not to do so.

      Technically speaking, it is grammatically correct to capitalize because we are referring to a period of time in which a certain region or country had undergone political change. For instance, Italian Renaissance, Spanish Inquisition, these are particular events in history, and thus are capitalized, to signal importance. So I would strongly advise capitalizing dynasty to signify that we are referring to a period of history, rather than a number of events, for example, "China had many dynasties." As opposed to something such as, "The 1st Dynasty." Or in reference to this forum, the Ptolemaic Dynasty, because we are referring to a period of history for that one particular region, and of course are also specifying a specific dynasty. Take some time to think about it, it would also serve well to consider how consistent the Wiki is with this as well. 

        Loading editor
    • SupremeAssassin wrote: for example, "China had many dynasties." As opposed to something such as, "The 1st Dynasty." Or in reference to this forum, the Ptolemaic Dynasty, because we are referring to a period of history for that one particular region, and of course are also specifying a specific dynasty.

      In the Chinese context, I wasn't actually referring to when it's used as a general noun "China has many dynasties" but when it is used as part of a name, for a specific time period. Check out Wikipedia: Tang dynasty, Han dynasty, Qing dynasty. For some reason, the academic convention is always to not capitalize "dynasty" in regards to Chinese dynasties even as part of the name, no different than how "First Dynasty" is used.

        Loading editor
    • As a matter of fact, it seems pretty consistent that it's never capitalized across other cultures. For example, Capetian dynasty, Safavid dynasty, Qajar dynasty, and even Ptolemaic dynasty. In fact it seems that the only tike it's capitalized is with the dynasty names of Egypt that are based on numbers, perhaps because "Eighteenth" isn't actually the name of the dynasty as "Ptolemaic" or "Thutmosid" alone are, but just a number so the name, for lack of a better alternative is treated as entirely "Eighteenth Dynasty" but I should ask around.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, this answers my question. Although I'll have to look at the actual New York Times and Chicago manual of style that are cited later.

        Loading editor
    • 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. 

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:
      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.

      I don't know, I guess it's more a preference at this point than anything academic. I just think it's aesthetically pleasing to the eye, to say Renaissance Era, rather than Renaissance era. I would also still argue that capitalizing era would imply it's referring to that period of history. Of course, as with the examples of a political state or otherwise, when referring to a country under a rule, we would render it as the Holy Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire). When referring to a country under a dynastic ruling body, I would still argue that rendering it as Ptolemaic Dynasty, or even better, the Ptolemaic Era would still be grammatically correct. 

      So, from what I understand of your reasons, we are not treating it as a political State, wherein, we would capitalize it, as saying, Nazi Germany, or The Kingdom of France because these are/were political regimes. When referring to an era or a dynasty, we are not referring to a political State but rather that period in the country's history. 

      That makes sense, and colloquially, it can be redirected as the Ptolemaic era, so if someone had searched on the Wiki using that rendering, they would be redirected to the article. Like how typing Connor on the Wiki redirects to Rathonhakedon. 

      Oh, I just made that up to illustrate my argument, I vaguely recalled that there was a Shang dynasty in China, but I just typed Li because I was thinking of a fictional character from Marvel Comics. 

        Loading editor
    • SupremeAssassin wrote: I don't know, I guess it's more a preference at this point than anything academic. I just think it's aesthetically pleasing to the eye, to say Renaissance Era, rather than Renaissance era. I would also still argue that capitalizing era would imply it's referring to that period of history. Of course, as with the examples of a political state or otherwise, when referring to a country under a rule, we would render it as the Holy Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire). When referring to a country under a dynastic ruling body, I would still argue that rendering it as Ptolemaic Dynasty, or even better, the Ptolemaic Era would still be grammatically correct. 

      So, from what I understand of your reasons, we are not treating it as a political State, wherein, we would capitalize it, as saying, Nazi Germany, or The Kingdom of France because these are/were political regimes. When referring to an era or a dynasty, we are not referring to a political State but rather that period in the country's history. 

      That makes sense, and colloquially, it can be redirected as the Ptolemaic era, so if someone had searched on the Wiki using that rendering, they would be redirected to the article. Like how typing Connor on the Wiki redirects to Rathonhakedon. 

      Oh, I just made that up to illustrate my argument, I vaguely recalled that there was a Shang dynasty in China, but I just typed Li because I was thinking of a fictional character from Marvel Comics. 

      Yeah, there's a certain point in grammar where it's just about convention and consensus as to what is the standard. And yes, you understand that correctly, according to sources like the Chicago Manual of Style, "dynasty" is to be treated like a reference to an era or period; it's not part of the name of the political state itself as in their time, they would not introduce themselves in foreign affairs as "We are the Dynasty of Shang". So far, I actually think it does appear Ubisoft prefers "Ptolemaic era", but I guess it's best to wait and see the actual game.

        Loading editor
    • Sol Pacificus wrote:

      SupremeAssassin wrote: I don't know, I guess it's more a preference at this point than anything academic. I just think it's aesthetically pleasing to the eye, to say Renaissance Era, rather than Renaissance era. I would also still argue that capitalizing era would imply it's referring to that period of history. Of course, as with the examples of a political state or otherwise, when referring to a country under a rule, we would render it as the Holy Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire). When referring to a country under a dynastic ruling body, I would still argue that rendering it as Ptolemaic Dynasty, or even better, the Ptolemaic Era would still be grammatically correct. 

      So, from what I understand of your reasons, we are not treating it as a political State, wherein, we would capitalize it, as saying, Nazi Germany, or The Kingdom of France because these are/were political regimes. When referring to an era or a dynasty, we are not referring to a political State but rather that period in the country's history. 

      That makes sense, and colloquially, it can be redirected as the Ptolemaic era, so if someone had searched on the Wiki using that rendering, they would be redirected to the article. Like how typing Connor on the Wiki redirects to Rathonhakedon. 

      Oh, I just made that up to illustrate my argument, I vaguely recalled that there was a Shang dynasty in China, but I just typed Li because I was thinking of a fictional character from Marvel Comics. 

      Yeah, there's a certain point in grammar where it's just about convention and consensus as to what is the standard. And yes, you understand that correctly, according to sources like the Chicago Manual of Style, "dynasty" is to be treated like a reference to an era or period; it's not part of the name of the political state itself as in their time, they would not introduce themselves in foreign affairs as "We are the Dynasty of Shang". So far, I actually think it does appear Ubisoft prefers "Ptolemaic era", but I guess it's best to wait and see the actual game.

      That is indeed true, but I find more often than not even if something is not grammatically incorrect, it can still be awkward, but since we are creating a title for an article, rendering era with a capital E should be standard. No, of course not, it's like Renaissance-era Florence referring to themselves as, "We are the Dynasty of De Medici", as opposed to the political State which was, The Republic of Florence. Yeah, my pay day is next week, so I've decided I'm gonna pre-order the game now just to get it out of the way. If Ubisoft prefers Ptolemaic era, then it's best rendering it as that and using Ptolemaic dynasty to redirect to that, or vice versa. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.