I do think it should change - and there are a few solutions such as Nick's. Or, once you load up your
Roman Republican, shifting the Octavians to that section. I think the compromise I suggested earlier also can
work - having "Octavian-Augustus" under
Roman Imperial isn't going to seriously mislead anyone - novices will come to understand that the "
Augustus"
part was
his Roman Imperial title, and will see that there was a change of title in 27 BC, hence it's reasonable to put
Roman Imperial as a catch-all (including a transition period into
Roman Imperial). But explicitly calling the sections on coins of 43-27 BC "
Augustus", despite the individual coin tickets saying "
Octavian" is going to confuse the hell out of novices and turn my brain upside down too. It looks just like a whopper, when in fact it was a deliberate
choice by you. You'll be receiving comments on it for the next 10 years. So I'd look for a solution that makes those sub-sections that cover 43-27BC explicitly "
Octavian", and considers especially how a novice-collector might be (mis)informed by those pages. Three possible solutions have been suggested, and there may be others.