Augustus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 16, 2005, January 16, 2006, January 16, 2007, January 16, 2008, January 16, 2009, January 16, 2010, January 16, 2012, January 16, 2013, August 19, 2014, January 16, 2015, January 16, 2016, January 16, 2019, August 1, 2023, September 23, 2023, August 1, 2024, and September 23, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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

 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)[reply]

Please add the following template:

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

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]