Ooh, I love it. Let me look into that and see.
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts Menu
![]() | ![]() |
| Old Front Page | New Front Page |
![]() |
| Mobile Version |
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 11, 2026, 07:36:02 PMI heard you, which is why I already stated the intended print size is large. See above for dimensions.Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 10, 2026, 10:15:40 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on October 10, 2026, 06:13:36 PMI'm not sure how large this is designed to be printed but much of the text is hard to read which would not make it an accessibility-friendly document. We should mindful of diverse experiences when producing materials.
Taps the sign.
Still seems a bit hard to read
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 11, 2026, 11:05:39 AMQuote 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.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 11, 2026, 11:05:39 AMI'm okay with it the way it is, I think. If we do transfer that territory, then we can handle that then.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.