Wikipaedia has the following:
Lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consulta ordered that the senatus consulta (the decrees of the senate) had to be kept in the temple of Ceres by the plebeian aediles, the assistants of the plebeian tribunes. This meant that the plebeian tribunes and aediles had knowledge of these decrees (previously they were kept secret).This put them in the public domain. Previously, the consuls had been in the habit of suppressing or altering them.
Is this correct? As far as I know, the term is always senatus( )consultum as a neuter substantive: I've never seen it used adjectivally, as would be required if we read de senatus consulta adjectivally (and elliptically: what omitted noun would the ablative consulta agree with?). I would therefore not expect de senatus consulta to be correct.
I've found some other phrasings of the same law:
Lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consultum custodia
This could work if consultum is the archaic plural genetive, although I don't recall ever seeing this genitive used with (substantive nouns derived from) past pasticiples.
Lex Valeria Horatia de senatus consultorum custodia
This would be standard Latin. But the source is of (to me) unknown quality. Perhaps the real phrase is irregular and this website couldn't resist changing the spelling on its own account into standard Latin.
Which is the proper spelling, and is there a way for the spelling at Wikipaedia to work?