Template talk:hu-adj

Exaggerated
Is the exaggerated form really needed? I think it is much less frequently used than being worth seeing in every adjective entry. It also gives no additional information, because it is always formed by placing leges before the superlative. Thoughts? Qorilla 17:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I wondered about it myself. I don't know what non-Hungarian editors think about this but go ahead and turn it off. --Panda10 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. The only thing to consider is how entries like legeslegadósabb and legeslegalkalmibb (I guess these virtually non-existent words) are gonna be reached. Can these be deleted somehow? Or should we keep them? Qorilla 22:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should keep them. They are valid words. Users can search for them. --Panda10 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really know the policies about suffixing languages. Is it so that every suffixed form is intended to have its entry? So for example should csipkebokrokként have its own entry? Qorilla 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, each form should have its own entry. The policy is to have an entry for every word of every language. If someone is not familiar with the word csipkebokrokként and how to look it up, they can search for it as is and it will be returned and explained what type of inflection it is and what's the base word. --Panda10 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's reasonable. But the reason is didactical/usability issue (people not being able to split the suffixes if they don't know them). I say this because the English equivalents do not have entries, as they contain spaces (consising of multiple words) so the learner can split the phrase easily. Okay maybe this way oversuffixing (túlragoz :) of the situation. Qorilla 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)