Talk:Chariot

Web sources

Is there really any purpose for the "Web sources" section? Shouldn't they just be regular references?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I merged them into the main body of references, like a normal editor would expect them.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The oldest sintashta spoke wheels are 2000 bce

The 2020 study is focused on a single site, that is not the site of the oldest chariot burials of sintashta, it just happen to be the one that had recent archeology such as the Harvard paper a year before, the actual site of sintashta, which is also a specific site not just the cultural name, the paper is a 2007 paper Hanks et al, grave is called sintashta sm G28 dated to 2334 to 2014 bce, the entire range of dates are before 2000 bce 68.9.255.238 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Suggested streamlined structure

This article is over-the-top history and trivia. It should probably cover these concepts (in this order): lead, definition, origin, early development, military use, ceremonial and symbolic use, regional variations (near east, egypt, india, china, europe), decline, legacy, end-of-article sections. That's it!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This article contains a large quantity of content that falls outside the scope of a vehicle article... WP:COATRACK.

It should be about a vehicle type—chariots—describe what they are, how they were used, who used them, when... stuff like that. General ancient history, military history, migration patterns, language details, etc. are outside the scope of a vehicle article. If they really need mentioning, then WP:SUMMARY applies: mention it briefly and refer readers to other articles already written, without duplicating volumes of content here.

I'm working on refocusing this article back to an appropriate scope for the article title.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Random POV

"The very realistic chariots carved into the Sanchi stupas are dated to roughly the 1st century CE.[citation needed]" - This sentence should be removed, it's uncited and very randomly placed in that paragraph. 1st century CE is far too late, while rest of the paragraph is disccusing about bronze age. It has no relationship with what is discussed in that paragraph. ~2026-38184-93 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Removed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Citation-style

@Grorp: why this bizarre citation-style? It's not-done to change it withour consensus to do so. NB: mass-reverts are not very much appriceiated either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: This wasn't meant as a change in citation style. The article was already using over 80% long-form references for its citations. After removing the fringe paragraph (thanks for the 'thank' by the way), there were only a handful of leftover short-form cites, so I converted those simply to match the existing style and keep everything consistent per CITEVAR.

Template:R has been in use for 17 years on Wikipedia and is my preferred style instead of the much longer-to-type <ref name="refname"/>{{Rp|pgnum}} form. It is also the easiest to use when changing from {{sfn}} because the format is similar and it makes deciphering diffs simple (as long as I name the ref the same as the sfn call, which I do).

Nothing substantive was changed. I was just tidying up the last few stray short-form cites so the article uses one uniform format. If you prefer a different citation style overall, I'm happy to discuss it, but I wasn't trying to introduce anything new.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I prefer sfn; compared to named references, it takes one step less, and it's easy to which source the reference refers when editing. And it's very easy to 'transport' references and sources to another article, when copying text! And yes, that Sinauli-stuff is fringe as fringe can be. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

When using short-form style, it takes two steps for the reader to reach the full citation. Whereas with long-form style, the hover-over shows the entire citation, not just a pointer. You can copy refs just as easily from the alphabetical list in the list-defined refs area as from a bullet point "sources" section. Since the article was already using over 80% long-form citations, the remaining short-form ones should be converted for consistency and per CITEVAR.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"it takes two steps" - yes, that's correct. But sfn is more convenient when editing; when using a link within the article, using sfn is more practical. I think I disagree with your view on converting existing references; named references are not the same as full sources within a ref-tag. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)