Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

Bravo![edit]

This is a great new little article, Tarchunes. I like the inclusion of the table of kings and the infobox. I've done some tweaking of various kinds, the most substantial of which involves using the {{sfnp}} template to help manage references in a compact and relatively effortless way. I did want to mention that the Gurgum/Kurkuma distinction may be more apparent than real, since (as you no doubt realize) hieroglyphic Luwian doesn't distinguish between g and k, and therefore k-glyphs would be used even if the name had /g/. (Luwian itself may or may not have possessed such a phoneme, but neighbouring languages would have.) Maybe it could be helpful in future to include sections on the kingdom's geography and on archaeological finds from the region? Anyway, well done and keep up the great work! Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy between the dates of the reign of kings and their family ties[edit]

There is something incomprehensible. The dates of the reign of King Larama II are recorded later 9th century BC, and dates of his son Halparuntiya III are recorded 805 - ca. 800 BC. But it is the end of the 9th century BC. There seems to be some inaccuracy here. MagnusFit (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indiscrepancy to be found, for in centuries BC the appliance of terms such ar "earlier" or "later" is the opposite of AD. As such, the 810s BC would be part of the later 9th century BC due to being closer to the present meanwhile the 810s BC would be part of the earlier 9th century BC for being more distant from our present. Tarchunes (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]