Talk:Second Triumvirate

Untitled
REMOVED COPYRIGHTED CONTENT TAKEN FROM http://www.bartleby.com/65/an/Antony.html

The copied text appears to have been submitted by 210.49.112.55

Alas, what a waste of time for the contributors who were editing and improving the article. The Anome


 * The other contributors didn't do anything wrong. And how to restore their hard work back. If we polish one wikipedia article long enough, it can become copyrighted at the end. Where's the border? -- XJamRastafire 03:40 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

The Image
I fail to see the relevance of the image to the article. NeoRicen 06:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Augustus went to jail for smoking pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.235.253 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Augustus
There is an error in the article: "Octavian, having restyled himself 'Augustus'" - The Senate, as part of the 1st Settlement, re-named Octavian Augustus. He didn't name himself that. User:lewishudson88 5:36 Aug 15, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

Request for redirect assistance
Selecting the link to the Treaty of Brundisium redirects to the top of this article; for the readers sake, to should redirect to the Section Second_Triumvirate. I would request that someone make this fix, and/or perhaps explain here how it is done, so I can do it in future without having to request. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for redirect assistance
Several issues, should someone wish to act, or be so kind kind as to instruct.

Minor issues:
 * (1) In the multi image containing the two maps, the color codes are stacked when they would occupy less space if proceeding from left to right across the bottom of the image. Please explain how, or address.
 * (2) The images contain Italian and German legends within the images; it would be best for the article if this material -- which reproduces the color schemes in the additional image legend -- could be removed, via a download, graphical edit, and re-upload. Please explain how, or address.

Major issues:
 * (1) The dates appearing within the images appear to be with, and so to contradict and conflict with the simple dates, 42 and 40 BC, given in the added image legend for each map. Please address.
 * (2) No citation appears for the information contained in the map. The ease with which graphical information can be uploaded does not obviate the need for information to be verifiable. On what published sources is this rich map content based? Please address.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of ERA
It is claimed that the use of BCE/CE on the article has been in existence since inception. However the academic references cited use the BC/AD format. In order to ensure consistency and avoid ambiguity I believe the wiki article should be amended to reflect the academic reference format. I am seeking consensus to change to the former. 86.7.253.227 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war over WP:ERA
and are engaged in an edit war over WP:ERA which has been ongoing for approaching a month. There has been some discussion on Aus0107's talk page, and 86.7.253.227 has attempted to open a discussion above, to no response.

One: regardless of who's right or wrong, stop edit warring. Each of you seems to want to have the last word before you both stop reverting and start discussing. WP:ERA is clear that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable, so if the article rests on the one you don't favour while discussion goes on, it's not as if you're allowing a factual error to stand.

Two: Aus0107 says on his/her talk page: "The article originally used BCE/CE". Actually, that's not true. The first version of the page, on 4 August 2002, used BC/AD. That was a bit of a placeholder edit and apparently a copyvio, so let's look for the first substantial version. The article underwent substantial expansion in October and November 2003, still using BC/AD. But it's not referenced. The first references were added in August 2008, and it's still using BC/AD. It only switched to BCE/CE in an anonymous edit with no edit summary on 23 April this year. So I'm siding with 86.7.253.227. This is historically a BC/AD article. I'm going to switch it back. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and glad you managed to trace the date the article was changed to BCE/BE era style. Not only is the article historically a BC/AD article but when academic references are cited that use this era format there really is no justifiable reason to change the format.  It makes Wiki look schizophrenic and degrades it's value as a source of valid information.  Without academic references then who particularly cares what era styles are used - that's down to personal choice. 86.7.253.227 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. My claim that the article originally used BCE/CE was actually for the article World population, which honestly I have not proven; that said, I suppose I should have looked more into the history of the article before making the claim that it originally used BCE/CE. While the outcome was not in my favor, I'm glad that and I will have no need to continue reverting each other's edits on this article and that this problem is finally settled. Aus0107 (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)