Category talk:Tabularium (Nova Roma) - Revision history

Marca Hortensia Maior at 21:43, 30 November 2007

2007-11-30T21:43:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 30 November 2007
Line 122:		Line 122:
	Yes, we have lots of laws. As time passed, and we grew, we had to change some of the rules, for the things that worked when we were small and Latin-less no longer worked when we were much bigger and had at least a couple dozen people who can not only read Latin, they can write it, and some can speak it. Magisterial titles were changed, duties were changed, methods of vote-counting were changed, etc., etc. Yes, it's a lot of verbiage (I know; I proofread every law, not once, but TWICE, for two different magistri araneari), but that's what happens when you have a Roman government which, like the original, is indisposed to throwing things out--and in this law library, things should never be thrown out. Some were, however, and part of my job is to discover what the deleted laws were, where they belonged sequentially, and get them back into the Tabularium where they belong. Another part is getting our laws translated into the major languages so non-English speaking citizens can see what they have signed up for. If my cohors is blocked from uploading new laws or translations of laws or recovered laws pending reorganization or whatever, we are hurting all of the citizens. That is to no one's advantage, though some seem to think that it is. [[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]		Yes, we have lots of laws. As time passed, and we grew, we had to change some of the rules, for the things that worked when we were small and Latin-less no longer worked when we were much bigger and had at least a couple dozen people who can not only read Latin, they can write it, and some can speak it. Magisterial titles were changed, duties were changed, methods of vote-counting were changed, etc., etc. Yes, it's a lot of verbiage (I know; I proofread every law, not once, but TWICE, for two different magistri araneari), but that's what happens when you have a Roman government which, like the original, is indisposed to throwing things out--and in this law library, things should never be thrown out. Some were, however, and part of my job is to discover what the deleted laws were, where they belonged sequentially, and get them back into the Tabularium where they belong. Another part is getting our laws translated into the major languages so non-English speaking citizens can see what they have signed up for. If my cohors is blocked from uploading new laws or translations of laws or recovered laws pending reorganization or whatever, we are hurting all of the citizens. That is to no one's advantage, though some seem to think that it is. [[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]
	:'''They're not blocked'''. How many times do we have to say it? You're accusing people of plotting against you, when all that's happening is that you fail to understand how the software works. The wikimagisters are willing to help you, but when you start flinging accusations about, we're just going to close ranks. [[User:M Octavius Gracchus\|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]][[User talk:Marcus Octavius Germanicus\|<sup><font color="green" size="-2">(t)</font></sup>]] 15:24, 3 November 2007 (CET)		:'''They're not blocked'''. How many times do we have to say it? You're accusing people of plotting against you, when all that's happening is that you fail to understand how the software works. The wikimagisters are willing to help you, but when you start flinging accusations about, we're just going to close ranks. [[User:M Octavius Gracchus\|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]][[User talk:Marcus Octavius Germanicus\|<sup><font color="green" size="-2">(t)</font></sup>]] 15:24, 3 November 2007 (CET)
		+
		+	Please remove the red prohibition, it isn't true at all! The Praetores are not in control of the Tabularium.

Marcus Octavius Gracchus: more on the blocking myth

2007-11-03T14:24:21Z

Aula Tullia Scholastica: /* Attention please, all interested parties */

2007-11-03T07:43:29Z

Attention please, all interested parties

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 3 November 2007
Line 109:		Line 109:
	:::A. Tullia, this process of discussion which you find excessively slow (and I can't say I entirely disagree) is one in which I am participating out of consideration for you and your assistants. I don't need to. I have a mandate from your colleague to do whatever I think best to the ''tabularium'' and I have a completely independent mandate from the ''magister aranearius'' to do whatever I think best throughout the whole of the website. So I can get working right now. Similarly, there is nothing I can do to stop your assistants getting to work right now, and if you want to instruct them to abandon the discussion and get on with whatever it was they were doing before, you can do that. Suits me either way.		:::A. Tullia, this process of discussion which you find excessively slow (and I can't say I entirely disagree) is one in which I am participating out of consideration for you and your assistants. I don't need to. I have a mandate from your colleague to do whatever I think best to the ''tabularium'' and I have a completely independent mandate from the ''magister aranearius'' to do whatever I think best throughout the whole of the website. So I can get working right now. Similarly, there is nothing I can do to stop your assistants getting to work right now, and if you want to instruct them to abandon the discussion and get on with whatever it was they were doing before, you can do that. Suits me either way.
	:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 13:30, 23 September 2007 (CEST)		:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 13:30, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	------
		+
		+	Re the corrections to the main Tabularium page, I was blocked from any editing on that page. I still cannot correct typos, etc., in the list of leges, so perhaps one of the wiki magistri could assist. The title Lex Apula de magistratu eiuranda has a typo at the end of the last word which creates an error of Latin grammar: it should be eiurando, not eiuranda. There is a bigger error in another law title, the Lex Vedia de ...edictium, which should be, as written just below, edictorum. Ain't no sech Latin beast as edictium, or eligium, neither. If these are different laws, they should be disambiguated with the word altera, as I did earlier; if they are not, the incorrect one should be deleted.
		+
		+	Yes, we have lots of laws. As time passed, and we grew, we had to change some of the rules, for the things that worked when we were small and Latin-less no longer worked when we were much bigger and had at least a couple dozen people who can not only read Latin, they can write it, and some can speak it. Magisterial titles were changed, duties were changed, methods of vote-counting were changed, etc., etc. Yes, it's a lot of verbiage (I know; I proofread every law, not once, but TWICE, for two different magistri araneari), but that's what happens when you have a Roman government which, like the original, is indisposed to throwing things out--and in this law library, things should never be thrown out. Some were, however, and part of my job is to discover what the deleted laws were, where they belonged sequentially, and get them back into the Tabularium where they belong. Another part is getting our laws translated into the major languages so non-English speaking citizens can see what they have signed up for. If my cohors is blocked from uploading new laws or translations of laws or recovered laws pending reorganization or whatever, we are hurting all of the citizens. That is to no one's advantage, though some seem to think that it is.
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	[[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: /* Attention please, all interested parties */ Reply to A. Tullia: I'm ready to work.

2007-09-23T11:30:27Z

Attention please, all interested parties: Reply to A. Tullia: I'm ready to work.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 23 September 2007
Line 106:		Line 106:

	::This thing is huge. Nova Roma has existed for nine years and has got more laws to show for it than anything else. The Tabularium is not going to be finished this year. It ''might'' be finished sometime this half-decade if done as carefully as it needs to be, and if we don't have to nurse the cauterised stumps of our tails in the meantime. The last person I saw correct a Tabularium page got very publicly spanked on the Wiki list. That's not the good way to attract editors. Under the circumstance, you will see why I myself am not touching this thing with a 53-foot pole. Perhaps I could serve as an experimental "non-expert user" for the section, once the narcotic painkillers wear off and my eyes are no longer glazed over. But "friendly fire" like some of the above could explain why the work is going slowly and you're not up to your ears in volunteers. -- [[User:Aldus Marius Peregrinus\|Marius Peregrinus]] 02:13, 23 September 2007 (CEST)		::This thing is huge. Nova Roma has existed for nine years and has got more laws to show for it than anything else. The Tabularium is not going to be finished this year. It ''might'' be finished sometime this half-decade if done as carefully as it needs to be, and if we don't have to nurse the cauterised stumps of our tails in the meantime. The last person I saw correct a Tabularium page got very publicly spanked on the Wiki list. That's not the good way to attract editors. Under the circumstance, you will see why I myself am not touching this thing with a 53-foot pole. Perhaps I could serve as an experimental "non-expert user" for the section, once the narcotic painkillers wear off and my eyes are no longer glazed over. But "friendly fire" like some of the above could explain why the work is going slowly and you're not up to your ears in volunteers. -- [[User:Aldus Marius Peregrinus\|Marius Peregrinus]] 02:13, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	:::A. Tullia, this process of discussion which you find excessively slow (and I can't say I entirely disagree) is one in which I am participating out of consideration for you and your assistants. I don't need to. I have a mandate from your colleague to do whatever I think best to the ''tabularium'' and I have a completely independent mandate from the ''magister aranearius'' to do whatever I think best throughout the whole of the website. So I can get working right now. Similarly, there is nothing I can do to stop your assistants getting to work right now, and if you want to instruct them to abandon the discussion and get on with whatever it was they were doing before, you can do that. Suits me either way.
		+	:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 13:30, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

Aldus Marius Peregrinus: reality check

2007-09-23T00:13:14Z

reality check

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 23 September 2007
Line 89:		Line 89:
	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)		- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

−	~~-----------------------------------------~~	+	:Even while you are supposedly busy discussing matters, it would be useful to remove the errors from the main tabularium page. "Index legium' should be "index legum," and fresh law students (I know they can be fresh) should be "first year law students." Leaving these in place makes us a laughingstock. So, too, do laws without texts, and uncorrected titles in mutilated Latin.

−	~~Even while you are supposedly busy discussing matters~~, ~~it would~~ be ~~useful~~ to ~~remove~~ the ~~errors from the main tabularium page~~. ~~"Index legium' should~~ be ~~"index legum~~," and ~~fresh law students~~ (~~I know they can be fresh~~) ~~should~~ be ~~"first year law students~~." ~~Leaving these in place makes us a laughingstock~~. So, ~~too~~, ~~do laws without texts~~, and ~~uncorrected titles~~ in ~~mutilated Latin~~.	+	:Secondly, this discussion process seems to be taking far too long with little progress, and is starting to look more like a deliberate impediment to me and my cohors than the result of genuine concerns on your part(s). There are law texts and translations to be uploaded, as well as other things to do, but it seems that not much has been decided on working rules and the like. Are you really working on this, or merely waiting for the end of the year, when some disengaged praetor will take over and let the wiki magistri do their thing without any oversight? Too many magistrates (and others) here are content to earn the prize, but not do the work; fewer still are the praetores who pay any attention to the Tabularium. That, however, seems to be the preference of some. Guys, let's get this show on the road. The laws at least should be simple enough to manage; the SCs may indeed require more categories (and here I seem to agree with Cordus, as on his point about making things available in the mean time), but please, the time is getting short, and in the end you will be better off if we can get this done while someone in authority cares about the results. -- '''A. Tullia Scholastica, 16:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)'''

−	~~Secondly~~, ~~this discussion process seems to be taking far too long with little progress, and is starting to look more like a deliberate impediment to me and my cohors than~~ the result of genuine concerns on your part(s). There are law texts and translations to be uploaded, as well as other things to do, but it seems that not much has been decided on working rules and the like. Are you really working on this, or merely waiting for the end of the year, when some disengaged praetor will take over and let the wiki magistri do their thing without any oversight? Too many magistrates (and others) here are content to earn the prize, but not do the work; fewer still are the praetores who pay any attention to the Tabularium. That, however, seems to be the preference of some. Guys, let's get this show on the road. The laws at least should be simple enough to manage; the SCs may indeed require more categories (and here I seem to agree with Cordus, as on his point about making things available in the mean time), but please, the time is getting short, and in the end you will be better off if we can get this done while someone in authority cares about the results.	+	::''[Marius, fresh outta the hospital:]''

−	--A. ~~Tullia Scholastica~~, 16:11, 22 September 2007 (~~EDT~~)	+	::OK, here is my (very green, very newbie, not even a citizen, wary of half the people here and trying not to tick off the other half) understanding of the policy on Tabularium edits. I submit it in the hope that anybody at all can gain an understanding of what this whole subject must look like to a non-Praetor, let alone an editor of any other sort:
		+
		+	::*Texts of laws may not be edited. (I should hope not.)
		+
		+	::*If you find a ''very'' minor error (spelling, let's say) in the text of a law, that does not change its meaning, it's OK to nail it...I ''think''. Latin corrections ''may'' fall under this provision. Other'n that, see rule #1.
		+
		+	::*That intimidating page-lock banner (works great on me) is there for a reason. I suspect it has something to do with rule #1 or rule #2.
		+
		+	::*Anything else on a Wiki page--'''any''' Wiki page--that is not the actual text of a law may be edited unto perdition. Yes, even by non-disengaged magistrates. Click the '''Edit''' tab at the top of the faulty page and have at it. Same way I've just now indented both our comments and bolded your .sig. "Fresh students" needs to be "first-year students"? --''Fix it''. Latin all balled up? Don't bite the techies--''fix it.'' There's no way to be sure that someone else is going to trip over the same mistake you saw unless you either tell somebody...or fix it yourself upon discovery, if you can and it only involves the one page. (Otherwise, ask any unbitten techies.)
		+
		+	::This thing is huge. Nova Roma has existed for nine years and has got more laws to show for it than anything else. The Tabularium is not going to be finished this year. It ''might'' be finished sometime this half-decade if done as carefully as it needs to be, and if we don't have to nurse the cauterised stumps of our tails in the meantime. The last person I saw correct a Tabularium page got very publicly spanked on the Wiki list. That's not the good way to attract editors. Under the circumstance, you will see why I myself am not touching this thing with a 53-foot pole. Perhaps I could serve as an experimental "non-expert user" for the section, once the narcotic painkillers wear off and my eyes are no longer glazed over. But "friendly fire" like some of the above could explain why the work is going slowly and you're not up to your ears in volunteers. -- [[User:Aldus Marius Peregrinus\|Marius Peregrinus]] 02:13, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

Aula Tullia Scholastica: /* Attention please, all interested parties */

2007-09-22T20:24:48Z

Attention please, all interested parties

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 22 September 2007
Line 88:		Line 88:

	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)		- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	-----------------------------------------
		+
		+	Even while you are supposedly busy discussing matters, it would be useful to remove the errors from the main tabularium page. "Index legium' should be "index legum," and fresh law students (I know they can be fresh) should be "first year law students." Leaving these in place makes us a laughingstock. So, too, do laws without texts, and uncorrected titles in mutilated Latin.
		+
		+	Secondly, this discussion process seems to be taking far too long with little progress, and is starting to look more like a deliberate impediment to me and my cohors than the result of genuine concerns on your part(s). There are law texts and translations to be uploaded, as well as other things to do, but it seems that not much has been decided on working rules and the like. Are you really working on this, or merely waiting for the end of the year, when some disengaged praetor will take over and let the wiki magistri do their thing without any oversight? Too many magistrates (and others) here are content to earn the prize, but not do the work; fewer still are the praetores who pay any attention to the Tabularium. That, however, seems to be the preference of some. Guys, let's get this show on the road. The laws at least should be simple enough to manage; the SCs may indeed require more categories (and here I seem to agree with Cordus, as on his point about making things available in the mean time), but please, the time is getting short, and in the end you will be better off if we can get this done while someone in authority cares about the results.
		+
		+	--A. Tullia Scholastica, 16:11, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Attention please, all interested parties

2007-09-05T15:11:45Z

Attention please, all interested parties

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 5 September 2007
Line 78:		Line 78:

	:The upgrade in functionality to enable sorting on the '''V''' of '''Vedia''' is code complete and is being checked. This function should be ready to install soon. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola\|Agricola]] 09:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)		:The upgrade in functionality to enable sorting on the '''V''' of '''Vedia''' is code complete and is being checked. This function should be ready to install soon. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola\|Agricola]] 09:49, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	== Attention please, all interested parties ==
		+
		+	I know we have all temporarily stopped working on the contents of the ''tabularium'' during discussions. However, it seems to me extremely important that citizens should continue to have access to information about legislative and pseudo-legislative processes going on '''at the moment'''. These are matters about which citizens should be informed so that they can consider, discuss, and act upon them.
		+
		+	For this reason, I have added the recently published ''relationes in senatu'' to the tabularium. I also propose to add any ''senatus consulta'' created by the current meeting of the senate, any ''edicta'' issued by magistrates from now on, any ''responsa'' issued by the priestly colleges, any ''rogationes'' put before the people, and so on. In this way our ongoing discussions will not prevent the people from being well-informed about the creation of new law which may affect their lives.
		+
		+	We may, of course, need to alter the organization, format, and presentation of these new items as a result of our discussions. For this reason, I am for now adding them with minimal formatting and minimal categorization. But I think the most important thing is to make the information available in some form.
		+
		+	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:11, 5 September 2007 (CEST)

Titus Iulius Sabinus: about CJNR

2007-09-03T18:59:42Z

about CJNR

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 3 September 2007
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:::After some pondering, I think no real harm is done by having legal commentary on the server as long as all editors are free to contribute such commentary and none is marked or formatted in any way which would imply that it is more official or authoritative than any other. Also it may be a good idea to require any substantive assertion to be attributed to a named person. It's hard to think how commentary would be best presented - I suspect it's something we'll have to experiment with. But removing it from the tabularium would be a good start, especially while the tabularium continues to be headed with a big banner saying that it is under the authority of the ''praetores''.		:::After some pondering, I think no real harm is done by having legal commentary on the server as long as all editors are free to contribute such commentary and none is marked or formatted in any way which would imply that it is more official or authoritative than any other. Also it may be a good idea to require any substantive assertion to be attributed to a named person. It's hard to think how commentary would be best presented - I suspect it's something we'll have to experiment with. But removing it from the tabularium would be a good start, especially while the tabularium continues to be headed with a big banner saying that it is under the authority of the ''praetores''.
	:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:51, 3 September 2007 (CEST)		:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:51, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	: I agree with Cordus. CJNR and handbook are (finally) only tools. Well, maybe necessary tools, but not in this moment.
		+	:- [[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus\|Sabinus]] 21:58, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

	==Subcategories==		==Subcategories==

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: /* CJNR */ Reply about how and where to do legal commentary

2007-09-03T15:51:15Z

CJNR: Reply about how and where to do legal commentary

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 3 September 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:

	::It is an interesting point. In the extreme there is of course the "search" function. It is in fact quite efficient and very much under-used. In any event you articulate well why this discussion is needed. You also point to the very thing that was on my mind when I suggested those magisterial domain templates last year. There is very little here that is canon. If we mark that explicitly, would you be more comfortable with everything else being "non-canon" by implication? Or does the fact that it occupies the NR server taint it all? I could easily be convinced of that as it is consistent with post-modern understanding of power in the classroom, for example. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola\|Agricola]] 05:18, 1 September 2007 (CEST)		::It is an interesting point. In the extreme there is of course the "search" function. It is in fact quite efficient and very much under-used. In any event you articulate well why this discussion is needed. You also point to the very thing that was on my mind when I suggested those magisterial domain templates last year. There is very little here that is canon. If we mark that explicitly, would you be more comfortable with everything else being "non-canon" by implication? Or does the fact that it occupies the NR server taint it all? I could easily be convinced of that as it is consistent with post-modern understanding of power in the classroom, for example. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola\|Agricola]] 05:18, 1 September 2007 (CEST)
		+
		+	:::After some pondering, I think no real harm is done by having legal commentary on the server as long as all editors are free to contribute such commentary and none is marked or formatted in any way which would imply that it is more official or authoritative than any other. Also it may be a good idea to require any substantive assertion to be attributed to a named person. It's hard to think how commentary would be best presented - I suspect it's something we'll have to experiment with. But removing it from the tabularium would be a good start, especially while the tabularium continues to be headed with a big banner saying that it is under the authority of the ''praetores''.
		+	:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:51, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

	==Subcategories==		==Subcategories==

Publius Memmius Albucius at 08:15, 3 September 2007

2007-09-03T08:15:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:15, 3 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	==General working methods==
		+
		+	For everyone information, a specific ''''Tabularium project' group''' (Yahoo! list) has been created on 31 August 2007 to allow Praetor G. Equitius Cato's '''scribes''' (A. Apollonius Cordus and M. Lucretius Agricola) to join Pr. A. Tullia Scholastica's ones (T. Iulius Sabinus and P. Memmius Albucius), still working on the issue. The interest of this '''praetorian group''' is to join wiki skilled citizens and law ones.
		+	Every issue presented below is naturally to be examined by this group and solved, taking in consideration the specific questions asked by the Tabularium and its relation to NR web site current technical parameters. This Tabularium project group's work is to be validated regularly by both praetors, who will communicate and/or report as they will see fit to the other concerned magistrates and assemblies of Nova Roma.
		+	Have yet subscribed into this group : A. Apollonius Cordus (31 Aug.), T. Iulius Sabinus (1 Sept.), P. Memmius Albucius (31 Aug.).<br> [[User:P. Memmius Albucius\|Albucius]] 10:15, 03 Sept. 2007 (Rome time).
		+
		+
	==Visual Presentation==		==Visual Presentation==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 3 November 2007
Line 110:		Line 110:
	:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 13:30, 23 September 2007 (CEST)		:::- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 13:30, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

−	~~------~~	+	== more on the blocking myth ==

−	Re the corrections to the main Tabularium page, I was blocked from any editing on that page. ~~I still cannot correct typos~~, ~~etc., in the list of leges, so perhaps one of the wiki magistri could assist~~. The ~~title Lex Apula de magistratu eiuranda has a typo at the end of the last word which creates an error of Latin grammar: it should be eiurando, not eiuranda. There is a bigger error~~ in ~~another law title~~, ~~the Lex Vedia de ...edictium, which should be, as written just below, edictorum. Ain~~'~~t no sech Latin beast as edictium, or eligium, neither~~. ~~If these are different laws, they should be disambiguated with the word altera, as~~ I ~~did earlier; if they are not, the incorrect one should be deleted~~.	+	Re the corrections to the main Tabularium page, I was blocked from any editing on that page.
		+	:briefly, months ago. The protection was removed in August, and you've been free to edit it since. I see that you successfully edited it today. [[User:M Octavius Gracchus\|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]][[User talk:Marcus Octavius Germanicus\|<sup><font color="green" size="-2">(t)</font></sup>]]

−	~~Yes~~, ~~we have lots of laws~~. ~~As time passed~~, ~~and we grew~~, ~~we had to change some~~ of the ~~rules, for the things~~ that ~~worked when we were small and Latin-less~~ no ~~longer worked when we were much bigger and had at least a couple dozen people who~~ can ~~not only read Latin, they can write it, and some can speak~~ it. ~~Magisterial titles were changed~~, ~~duties were changed, methods of vote-counting were changed, etc., etc~~. ~~Yes,~~ it~~'s a lot of verbiage (I know; I proofread~~ every ~~law, not once, but TWICE, for two different magistri araneari), but that~~'s ~~what happens when you have a Roman government which, like the original, is indisposed to throwing things out--and~~ in ~~this law library, things should never be thrown out~~. ~~Some were, however, and part of my job is to discover what the deleted laws were, where they belonged sequentially, and get them back into~~ the Tabularium ~~where they belong. Another part is getting our laws translated into~~ the major languages so non-English speaking citizens can see what they have signed up for. If my cohors is blocked from uploading new laws or translations of laws or recovered laws pending reorganization or whatever, ~~we are hurting all of the citizens. That is to no one's advantage, though some seem to think~~ that ~~it is~~.	+	I still cannot correct typos, etc., in the list of leges, so perhaps one of the wiki magistri could assist. [[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]
		+	:The list you see on that page is compiled automatically from the titles of the articles included; no one can edit it directly. To retitle an article, go to that article's page and use the "move" link at the top. This will fix it on that article page itself and in every Category it's included in. (Also look for the "Category:Tabularium" link in the article itself, as sometimes that link supplies an alternate title as a parameter). [[User:M Octavius Gracchus\|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]][[User talk:Marcus Octavius Germanicus\|<sup><font color="green" size="-2">(t)</font></sup>]]

		+	The title Lex Apula de magistratu eiuranda has a typo at the end of the last word which creates an error of Latin grammar: it should be eiurando, not eiuranda. There is a bigger error in another law title, the Lex Vedia de ...edictium, which should be, as written just below, edictorum. Ain't no sech Latin beast as edictium, or eligium, neither. If these are different laws, they should be disambiguated with the word altera, as I did earlier; if they are not, the incorrect one should be deleted. [[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]

−		+	Yes, we have lots of laws. As time passed, and we grew, we had to change some of the rules, for the things that worked when we were small and Latin-less no longer worked when we were much bigger and had at least a couple dozen people who can not only read Latin, they can write it, and some can speak it. Magisterial titles were changed, duties were changed, methods of vote-counting were changed, etc., etc. Yes, it's a lot of verbiage (I know; I proofread every law, not once, but TWICE, for two different magistri araneari), but that's what happens when you have a Roman government which, like the original, is indisposed to throwing things out--and in this law library, things should never be thrown out. Some were, however, and part of my job is to discover what the deleted laws were, where they belonged sequentially, and get them back into the Tabularium where they belong. Another part is getting our laws translated into the major languages so non-English speaking citizens can see what they have signed up for. If my cohors is blocked from uploading new laws or translations of laws or recovered laws pending reorganization or whatever, we are hurting all of the citizens. That is to no one's advantage, though some seem to think that it is. [[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]
−		+	:'''They're not blocked'''. How many times do we have to say it? You're accusing people of plotting against you, when all that's happening is that you fail to understand how the software works. The wikimagisters are willing to help you, but when you start flinging accusations about, we're just going to close ranks. [[User:M Octavius Gracchus\|Marcus Octavius Gracchus]][[User talk:Marcus Octavius Germanicus\|<sup><font color="green" size="-2">(t)</font></sup>]] 15:24, 3 November 2007 (CET)
−	[[User:Aula Tullia Scholastica\|Aula Tullia Scholastica]]	+