Who to include or exclude

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)

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)