The Talossan name for this ministry has never been standardised since it was only created relatively recently. So while both of them are literally correct, we really should pick one of them to be the standard name.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on October 16, 2026, 01:05:14 PMReally nice map, one thing that would be good, in my opinion, would be to inclute metric measurements as well, it's our offical system of measurment after all.

Other than that the map is really well done.

Isn't the map already metric...?

I've shared a link to the map in a community Discord server for micronations, and the responses are altogether positive:

Quotebeautiful

QuoteWoah, that's good

QuoteThis is a gem
Great stuff
They (me) are calling it the best map of a micronation [...]

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 11, 2026, 11:37:11 AMI'm okay with it the way it is, I think.  If we do transfer that territory, then we can handle that then.

Is it really a territory transfer if that's what the border was meant to be all this time? If anything we're just properly specifying it.

EDIT: 43RZ27 explicitly states that Las Inaltans Maxhestici consists of "Port Maxhestic west of North Lincoln Memorial Drive (the portions of US Census Tract 1874 within Talossan territory)", and the eastern border of US Census Tract 1874, as I've previously shown, follows N Lincoln Memorial Dr, then the onramp onto I-794, and then I-794 proper until it reaches the southern border. It would be silly to ignore this explicit reference just because current statute is underspecified, and there is no good argument to prefer my previous guess at the border over this specific reference either. Reinforcing the border as originally defined is not a territory transfer in my opinion.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 11, 2026, 09:54:03 AMTafi, I wanted to save you some trouble, so I tried my hand at the diacritics.  I think these are the ones that needed to change: Fiovă, Florenciă, Fluvia Montevudio, Cüfeir, Las Inaltans Maxhestici, Vilatx Freiric, and Dun Cestour?  We don't use that circled I at all or some of the accented Es, right?  I edited my bill to fix the old spellings in other places, too.

Heres the full list of changes:

Flúvia Montevúdio --> Fluviă Montevudio
Cüféir --> Cüfeir
Las Înaltàns Maxhéstici --> Las Inaltans Maxhestici
Florencia --> Florenciă
Sandadia --> Sandadiă
Taglheiria --> Taglheiriă
Zuerieiria --> Zuerieiriă
Ovestia --> Ovestiă
Vilátx Fréiric --> Vilatx Freiric
Dún Cestour --> Dun Cestour
Fiôvâ --> Fiovă

Everything else stays the same.

QuoteAlso, I did some investigation of that border.  There's an onramp that it seems to be following, which is weird.  I think that legally I am more correct, since the tracts were the basis for the law but not the actual law.  If I were to have the map follow the onramp, we'd need to change the law to reflect what are in effect new borders and a change in territory, I think.

Considering that the canton borders were originally defined in terms of census tracts, it would be in the spirit of the law to follow the onramp. If that requires a change to the letter of the law, so be it.

This is an excerpt from the 2020 census reference map:


Again they depict the relevant border as a smooth curve, as if the transition from N Lincoln Memorial Dr to I-794 was seemless. Is it seemless?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 10, 2026, 11:25:08 PMSo it's Cosa with no accent, right?

It's Cosă with the Romanian A. It's late for me, so I will post a list of all the modernised spellings sometime tomorrow, maybe.

In the meantime, I checked the 2010 census reference maps for Milwaukee and found out the canonical border between Fiova and M-M:

It's kinda strange. It's much smoother that it "should" be... I'm not sure if the road they used for demarcation even exists.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 10, 2026, 11:00:08 PMBut the diacritics are all part of the way the names have evolved, right?

The names didnt really "evolve", they were given at one point and are still pronounced the exact same to this day. The spelling has been changed at least 2 times in the last 20 years to be more sensical, and I think it would make the most sense to extend that newfound sensicalness to toponyms as well. The only type of names that I wouldn't want to force-modernise are personal names.

QuoteThey have different historical markings with diacritics because Talossa has changed over the decades.

To be honest, I don't really understand why some names are written with diacritics and some aren't. The name "Florencia" predates the 2007 spelling reform, yet was still changed to match it. Maricopa's cantons follow the 2007 spelling even though they too probably predate it. "Dún Cestour" was partially modernised ("Cestoûr" was changed to "Cestour"), but not fully (Dún was not changed to "Dun"), which I can only assume to be a mistake. "Fiôvâ" and "Las Înaltàns Maxhéstici" are distinctly post-Reunision names (in fact they're just Talossan phrases literally meaning "River" and "the Majestic Heights"), and yet theyre spelled according to the 1996 spelling rules -- I suppose because Republicans disliked the 2007 reform?
EDIT: Just checked, and it turns out "Maxhéstici" was never spelled with a diacritic even in 1996. So that too must've been a mistake.

My point is, it's not so much historical preservation but rather the usual case of non-Ladintsch legislators never bothering to update spellings and correct mistakes. For another example of this, see "Cosâ" and the until recently grammatically incorrect name for the Zuavs

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 10, 2026, 10:47:09 PMI don't know about changing the spelling... I feel uncomfortable revising the historical names of places just because language has changed over the years.  Isn't it cooler if they are a product of their times?

The names themselves haven't changed, just the way they are written down, specifically how many and which specific diacritics are used. I would just like them to be standardised in some way, because right now they aren't -- for example, your own noble title writes "Vilatx Freiric" in the modern way rather than the statutory way. Is no one else bothered by this?

The map is looking really cool, thought I have two (perhaps minor) problems with it:

1) The map currently depicts a corner of the Milwaukee Inner Harbour south of the river as part of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, and also assigns the watertower as being entirely within M-M territory. Those should probably be changed.

2) I know you got these spellings from statute law but oh my god seeing all these different spelling conventions hurts my soul. Would it be feasible to get all the cantonal and provincial names up to the current standard? (The database already does that, for example)

Hm... some of these borders still don't look right, especially Fiovă-MM one. I guess at some point the border transitions from N Lincoln Memorial Drive to the I-794. Maybe when N Harbor Drive and I-794 run in parallel.

On the topic of border vaguenesses: Cantonal borders are based on old Milwaukee census tracts.

As you can see on this map from 1980, the border between Vilatx Freiric (143) and Cüfeir (144) is indeed supposed to be Van Buren St.

Based on the names, it makes the most sense for census tract 74 to be Abbavilla, since it includes the UW Milwaukee, and 73 to be named Fluvia Montevudio.

As you can also see, the division between Las Inaltaes Maxhestici and Port Maxhestic is not based on census tracts, but, if I recall correctly, a consequence of Reunision. I assume Lincoln Memorial Drive as the border is also intended as written.

Finally as for the border between Vuode and Maritiimi-Maxhestic, the language is really not precise, and neither are pre-existing maps. For my own purposes, I've usually drawn the border as roughly this:

with the "unmarked road at the southern edge of the carpark" referring to the one that curves behind MooSa's, but the border splitting away from that road and meeting the coastline at a tangent.

I'd like to announce the appointment of @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be as my Deputy in the Ministry of Propaganda. I am thankful for his willingness to help me and look forward to working with him.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
-- Marcel Tafial, Ministreu dal Propagandă

The AI consciousness debate feels to me like this with extra steps:
You cannot view this attachment.

I'm not sure we'll ever get anywhere productive with this. Nor do I think that subjective conscious experience will ever be objectively measurable. It's a whole bunch of non-starters and circular logic.

This seems good, nothing to add.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 02, 2026, 10:44:38 AM[...]

1/2) As I understand it, the Lexhatx doesn't allow the Cosă to set its own rules like it does the Senäts (Lexh.H.3.1), so these rules would not be strictly binding. I hesitate to add these rules to the Lexhatx directly because internal processes really shouldn't be a matter of national legislation in the first place. Concerning Senäts participation, judging from how Living Cosăs are described in the Lexhatx, it is my understanding that they are run by and for the Cosă primarily, and that Senators are merely invited to participate, rather than ordinary members. In light of this, the rights reserved in these rules of procedure are privileges extended to the Upper House, more than anything -- though of course I would certainly hope that the Mençei doesn't mind being in charge when they are present, or that Senators wouldn't mind having a say in procedural motions, etc.

3/4) To the surprise of perhaps no one, these rules I worked out together with AD last term are heavily based on how associations in Germany usually govern themselves, and under this framework, all the points I mentioned are in fact points of order. The idea is that an agenda is set beforehand, and everything that interrupts or distracts from the agenda is a point of order, and the chair adjourns the session once the agenda has run its course. My choice of inspiration doesn't imply that German associations have a better internal structure than the House of Commons, it was moreso a framework that was already familiar to me and easy to adapt to our circumstances here, and I wouldn't mind changing them in the direction of the Commons if there's enthusiasm for it.

5) That would be nice, but you can't really force MCs to be more proactive than they have to be. That's something I've been struggling with during my two terms as Túischac'h at all times.

Another reminder to the esteemed members of this Chamber that we need to get this done with quickly, since the State Opening is a requirement set out by law. I stopped being the Túischac'h with the dissolution of the 62nd Cosă, and there is no "acting Túischac'h", so there is truly no one in that office right now.

These rules were in use during the last two Informal Sessions so I would hope they are uncontroversial. If there are any objections to them not just from S:reu Moin but from other Members of the Cosă, I'd be happy to hear them.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on October 01, 2026, 04:37:44 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 01, 2026, 04:10:50 PMBon ji muhim projeto! Mi ruwoju hinto.

Ĉesu tiun volapukaĵon

Am xidu na esto mi :P

Bon ji muhim projeto! Mi ruwoju hinto.