Talk:Augustus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protected edit request on 24 February 2022

This redirect could probably classify as "printworthy", due to the fact that his former name is widely used in many textbooks and sources. Thus, I think a printworthy category would be appropriate. Thanks! Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please provide the exact edit, such as "change X to Y", you would make if this page wasn't protected; then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify Which redirect are you talking about? This is the talk page for Augustus which you have probably been redirected to from the talk page of one of the many pages that redirect here. - Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 19:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Asalamu alaykum I want it to be known that Tiberias actually wasn't adopted. ITalexis (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"considered one of the greatest leaders in human history"

I don't find that claim in the cited Britannica source and I believe the rest of the lead fairly summarizes his legacy without appeal to such a vague standard as "greatness," in accordance with MOS:PEACOCK. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Britannica says "Augustus was one of the great administrative geniuses of history," which seems close. But I'm not wedded to the sentence. Furius (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

cognomen

As a child he was given the cognomen Thurinus, either in memory of the origins of his ancestors or because it was shortly after his birth that his father Octavius won a victory over fugitive slaves in Thurina . . . He is often called Thurinus as an insult in the letters of Mark Antony, to which he merely replied that he was surprised using his old name was thought to be an insult.’ Suetonius, Augustus 7. 1

From: Augustus:First Emperor of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy (pg 17) The king of ori (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the article. What's your point? Furius (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

An edit on the first line to add it there The king of ori (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if Suetonius' information is correct, which is questionable, he wasn't "born" Thurinius, so the name does not belong there. Furius (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Greatest or successful?

Was Augustus one of the greatest leaders in human history or one of the most successful leaders in human history? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

FA status

This article was made FA in 2007: standards and expectations have changed a lot since then, and I'm not sure it would pass an FAC today. It's not a bad article by any means, but there's a couple of problems that worry me:

• A lot of the article is cited directly and uncritically to ancient sources, particularly Suetonius. This isn't good by Wikipedia's standards (WP:PRIMARY) but also ignores that these sources are not straightforward recountings of fact, nor are they contemporary with Augustus.
• The quality of sources is sometimes not particularly high. The article leans heavily on Goldsworthy's pop-history books; he's an excellent scholar, but his academic focus is on the Roman army, and these are not really academic works. Elsewhere it very heavily uses a single biography by Eck. Some web sources (e.g. Live Science, ZME Science, Vox and the AP) seem quite far below the line of what we expect in an article like this.
• Other sources, particularly Scullard, Starr and Syme, are now getting really quite dated. Given how much has changed on our understanding of the Late Republic and Augustan culture since 1990 or so, this is a concern for comprehensiveness.
• The "Further Reading" section is massive and includes some very well-known works, but none of these are integrated into the article. Again, a worry for comprehensiveness.
• Some of the writing, grammar etc isn't great: His father died in 59 BC when he was four years old jumped out at me as sloppy phrasing, for example. See in particular the sections on "Stability and staying power". The formatting of sources is highly inconsistent.
• There are a few straightforward errors of fact: (Augustus chose Imperator ("victorious commander") to be his first name, for instance. A lot of sections are only very sporadically cited.
• For comprehensiveness, we need much more on Augustus's legacy and reception in post-classical politics.

There's a few other smaller issues, but these are the big ones for me. I'm thinking of starting an FAR: what would others' views be here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You really seem to have a handle on this article's prblems, UndercoverClassicist. Would you have the time to work on it, do some bold editing, and fix some of them before submitting it for FAR? I'm confident you would vastly improve it. I'd like to do it myself, but I'm engaged in other projects now. Carlstak (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've given it something of a CE, and made some factual adjustments where it was straightforward, but a lot of these problems are big problems. Huge chunks of the text are more essay-style than encyclopaedia-style, and I think it really needs a complete overhaul to be sure of meeting GA standards (especially on tone and sourcing), never mind FA. I don't really have the resources to do the whole job myself either; I'd suggest that the most likely way of rescuing the article is for a small group to come together and work on it, and suspect that FAR might be a good way of getting that group together. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts before that point? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not up to FA standards. I suspect that it has to be rewritten from scratch for that. One thing that could be done to make the task more doable is to split the part of his life during the Republic (before 27 BC) in Early life of Augustus (which ends in 44 BC), and deals with the rest (post 27 BC) here. It would neatly divide his life between Octavian (as a new name for Early life of Augustus) and Augustus, and make some space in the latter article.

I also think that despite their age, Ronald Syme's works are still the standard authority on the Augustan era, especially the Augustan Aristocracy and the Roman Papers (less the Roman Revolution, which was controversial from the start, but still ought to be mentioned given its long importance). T8612 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we shouldn't be trying to root out Syme; he still comes up on undergraduate reading lists and is an important part of the historiography in any case. I appreciate that this isn't really what you were saying, but for the sake of illustrating the comprehensiveness concerns, Syme certainly isn't the last word any more: Galinsky, Levick and Zanker (all in the Further Reading) are themselves rapidly passing into the "traditional view" category, and they're not really used at all here. You can't really discuss Augustus without discussing what the Principate was, and you still need Millar (and his many critics and successors) for that; he's not mentioned at all.

Raaflaub and Toher is used in small parts but the balance, I think, is wrong between up-to-date scholarship and classic works. That in turn seems to have knocked onto the tone and perspective of the article, which has a very Syme-y and slightly dated flavour more appropriate to a secondary source than to an encyclopaedia. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would very much like to see up-to-date scholarship reworked into this article. If you want to collaborate on it I might – depending on work – have some time. Ifly6 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

He was 76 years old. Please update it from 75 to 76. Crack Connoisseur (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done

Date	Year	Era	Age
23 September	63	BC	0
23 September	62	BC	1
23 September	61	BC	2
23 September	60	BC	3
23 September	59	BC	4
23 September	58	BC	5
23 September	57	BC	6
23 September	56	BC	7
23 September	55	BC	8
23 September	54	BC	9
23 September	53	BC	10
23 September	52	BC	11
23 September	51	BC	12
23 September	50	BC	13
23 September	49	BC	14
23 September	48	BC	15
23 September	47	BC	16
23 September	46	BC	17
23 September	45	BC	18
23 September	44	BC	19
23 September	43	BC	20
23 September	42	BC	21
23 September	41	BC	22
23 September	40	BC	23
23 September	39	BC	24
23 September	38	BC	25
23 September	37	BC	26
23 September	36	BC	27
23 September	35	BC	28
23 September	34	BC	29
23 September	33	BC	30
23 September	32	BC	31
23 September	31	BC	32
23 September	30	BC	33
23 September	29	BC	34
23 September	28	BC	35
23 September	27	BC	36
23 September	26	BC	37
23 September	25	BC	38
23 September	24	BC	39
23 September	23	BC	40
23 September	22	BC	41
23 September	21	BC	42
23 September	20	BC	43
23 September	19	BC	44
23 September	18	BC	45
23 September	17	BC	46
23 September	16	BC	47
23 September	15	BC	48
23 September	14	BC	49
23 September	13	BC	50
23 September	12	BC	51
23 September	11	BC	52
23 September	10	BC	53
23 September	9	BC	54
23 September	8	BC	55
23 September	7	BC	56
23 September	6	BC	57
23 September	5	BC	58
23 September	4	BC	59
23 September	3	BC	60
23 September	2	BC	61
23 September	1	BC	62
23 September	1	AD	63
23 September	2	AD	64
23 September	3	AD	65
23 September	4	AD	66
23 September	5	AD	67
23 September	6	AD	68
23 September	7	AD	69
23 September	8	AD	70
23 September	9	AD	71
23 September	10	AD	72
23 September	11	AD	73
23 September	12	AD	74
23 September	13	AD	75

Jc3s5h (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Greetings, there is a calculation error regarding the age of Augustus when he died or an error as to when he was born and/or died, because the page specifies he was born in 63 BC and that he died in 14 AD, and the page specifies he died at the age of 75, but 63+14=77, and so there is factual error on this page, because the stated age of death does not correspond to the states dates of birth and death, and thus must be researched and edited to reconcile this clear discrepancy. 2600:1700:EAE0:D780:BEDC:B968:A04A:A2CF (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See above. Your arithmetic would only work if there was a year zero. There was not; the year after 1 BC was 1 AD. See Anno Domini for further information on the dating system, and within it Anno Domini#No year zero: start and end of a century NebY (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

65.51.107.106 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

Please add the following template:

98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Really? Do you really think it's useful? I've just commented at the template talk page saying i believe the emperors should be removed from it; i certainly don't think that it adds enough value to be added to every emperor's page, which i think is being done at the moment. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I rather agree. Templates are being overdone these days. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Archival of live links

@Ifly6: You reverted an edit by User:GraziePrego that added archives to references, stating please don't archive sources for live links. it clutters the editor and makes long articles like these difficult to read. I think the clutter description is subjective and I would strongly disagree, and regardless the utility gained by adding those links far outweighs any convenience gained by having less content in the editor. It also doesn't make the article difficult to read as it has no effect on the prose whatsoever. Even though the links are currently live, that often changes and often without being noticed even on FAs, creating a disservice for readers who wish to verify content or perhaps read more about the content and are unable to do so. There is a reason that templates like Template:Cite web have a parameter specifically for this, because adding archive links to sources is and should be encouraged per WP:ARCHIVEEARLY. I think the archives should be reinstated unless there is a compelling reason to omit them. While article size can become an issue, this article is nowhere near that point and the 6,435 bytes added by those links is not an issue in that regard. - Aoidh (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on the matter which was very long. Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Mass additions of archive links for live sites and trended largely against mass additions of archive links for live sites as being disruptive. WP:ARCHIVEEARLY is a how-to guide, not a recommendation. Ifly6 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That discussion was not particularly long and consensus was against your proposal, which certainly did not trend against this type of edit nor was there any suggestion that such edits are disruptive. That talk page link does not contain any consensus that supports your edit. Do you have a reason, other than an aesthetic preference against clutter, for reverting the edit? As for WP:ARCHIVEEARLY is a how-to guide, not a recommendation I would say the wording there (please consider pre-emptively adding...) is pretty solidly in recommendation territory, and though it is not a P&G page documents reflected usage of citations on Wikipedia that is itself cited in the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline at WP:DEADREF. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment of the consensus. There are multiple errors in the "manual" change here regardless, with archive dates postdating the access dates, archives added largely uselessly to paywalled sites (including Brill, De Gruyter, and Jstor), and archives that are themselves mostly blank pages (a known issue with Jstor "archives"). All of these are known issues discussed in the various discussions linked there and in the discussion below. There is very little benefit to these kind of meatbot edits, which cannot be reversed at all easily, when every single link added to Wikipedia is already archived by Internet Archive automatically and a bot already edits in – also automatically – an archive link when that link becomes dead. Ifly6 (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus supporting what you're saying in that discussion, well-reflected by the fact that the current wording of the guideline does not reflect your opinion on that talk page. Similarly archive dates postdating the access dates is not an error, it would be erroneous for them to suggest they match when no archive snapshot actually matches. That you see no benefit is a personal opinion and far from a consensus view on preemptive archival links on Wikipedia, something common enough that there is an entire parameter on every citation template specifically to facilitate their usage. If there are issues with individual citations those can be addressed, but that is not the concern you raised nor is it a surmountable problem, certainly not for the reasons given here. Do you have a policy or guideline-based reason for reverting the edit, or is it now merely an issue with the JSTOR and similar archival links that you're specifically seeing issues with, issues that can be fixed by simply omitting them when the edit is restored? - Aoidh (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the concern seems to be indiscriminate bot-like editing letting errors in through archives that have various issues, I have gone through and checked one-by-one each added archive and manually added only the archives that I have verified work properly, though as I mentioned in the edit summary the Vox link doesn't display images for me which may not be useful, no objection if that one specifically is removed, but these were all manually checked and added one at a time, which should address the (valid) concern about errors with some of the automatically added citations. At 2,337 bytes the size of the edit is also not problematic and these citations do not effect the readability of the article, which I hope addresses all of the concerns raised. - Aoidh (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Years of Service

The current article lists Augustus's years of service as 43-25 BC. However, as the head of the military, wouldn't it be more appropriate to list his years of service to extend to 14 CE (his death)? The Senate recognized his authority over the military from the very beginning. BradleyPelton (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)