Talk:Augustus

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)
 * 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 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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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  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, ~ LindsayHello 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
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 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 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)