This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De ludo scachorum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
A fact from De ludo scachorum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
An image of the manuscript that is the subject of this article appears at the Aboca Museum home page. If you look closely at the spine, the original capitalization is "De ludo schaccorum". That is what one should expect.
The manuscript is written in Latin. In Latin, titles are written in what is sometimes called sentence case in English: Only the initial letters of the first word, of proper nouns, and of proper adjectives are capitalized. In rendering titles of works, Wikipedia follows the capitalization of the original. See, for example, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (another work in Latin). Although some secondary sources have altered the original title to follow English language title case, Wikipedia does not alter original titles. Finell(Talk)08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any a priori reason not to assume that the editors and publishers have transcribed the title correctly, especially given that the modern Italian spelling of scacchi was not fixed at the time [1] (and the 'h' in the Latin presumably follows the vernacular). Imo, the space and precedence currently given to the reconstructed scacchorum is undue. 86.173.41.168 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
