This template is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy 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.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles
This template 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 articles
This template 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 articles
In first putting together this template, I pretty much wanted to show how kings, queens, and sub-kings (by which I mean LUGAL as opposed to LUGAL.GAL) were related to each other. We do have the names of some other closely related figures, however—such as, I believe, three sons of Zida. To simplify the basic presentation, I've put some information (e.g. Pudu-Hepa's father's name) in footnotes. Does this seem like a sensible approach for more secondary figures? Or should we try to include everybody related to the imperial family? Q·L·1968☿16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of footnotes is a good idea. It prevents the family tree of becoming too large and too confusing. Otherwise there may be the question which information is important. For example, the dynastical line leading from Piyassili/Sarri-Kusuh to Kuzi-Tesub also could be elongated by adding the descendants of Kuzi-Tesub ruling in Neo-Hittite Melid (Kuzi-Tesub's son PUGNUS-mili I, his sons Runtiya and Arnuwanti I, the latter's son PUGNUS-mili II (= Assyrian Allumari?) and his son Arnuwanti II). This would add four additional generations to the family tree, but I think this is unnecessary. The major point should be to focus on the more or less direct royal family of the Hittite new kingdom. That is at least my opinion.--Tarchunes (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
