Talk:egyptology

RFV discussion
Uncapitalized version appears to be extremely rare or just plain incorrect. —Michael Z. 2009-06-11 13:14 z 


 * What "authority" is saying any of these are incorrect. Why should we believe them? Isn't there a more constructive approach, like a "rare" or "uncommon" tag? I thought that Wiktionary was descriptive. Why are we wasting time on prescriptivism? DCDuring TALK 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? We are a descriptive dictionary, so I've requested that if someone thinks that this is worthy of inclusion they bother to find a quotation or two that we can use to describe this term and its usage.  If this is a valid term, then citing it is not prescriptivism, and it is not a waste of time. —Michael Z. 2009-06-12 00:25 z 


 * Already done. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a poor choice or target and a poor choice of remedy. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The major need here was to reverse the erroneous move by a conversion script 4 years ago that moved Egyptology and Egyptologist to the lower case. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. Thanks for the cites and other work, DCDuring. —Ruakh TALK 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)