Talk:Hungarian orthography

Impossible

I agree strongly with every point in the peer review of this article. It is absolutely impossible to read in its present form. I came here to gain some elementary familiarity with the Hungarian alphabet, but I am forced to look outside Wikipedia by the complexity and bizarre format of this article. Someone wasted a huge amount of time and effort creating what might be a masterpiece in some other context but is a total failure as a Wikipedia article.--Jim10701 (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I discovered that there is a separate article on the Hungarian alphabet, which is like the orthography articles for most languages and therefore is what I was looking for when I found this article. Maybe there is a place for a highly complex article like this one, but it still seems like gross overkill for a general encyclopedia. It should be a textbook. If I knew how to do it, I would move this article intact to Wikibooks and rename the current Hungarian alphabet article as Hungarian orthography to bring it in line with other orthography articles, but I don't know how to do that.--Jim10701 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In this article, problematic points of individual rules are also given, because the usage of a language cannot be separated from society, and it is crucial from a descriptive point of view how orthography is applied in real life by native speakers. While common mistakes may derive from ignorance or carelessness, other mistakes may reflect overcomplicated rules, inconsistent points of the system, or a large amount of background knowledge or even research required. This in particular is extremely strange, makes the article very confusing, and as far as I can see is not done in any other article. This whole page is a mess. -70.181.219.85 (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this article goes into many irrelevant details and sidenotes and is probably hard to digest for someone with little background knowledge about Hungary and Hungarian. It should be a lot more straight-to-the-point and clear. Qorilla (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The "problematic points" should all be blended into the main text or removed, as they are often original research without citations. This is not some argumentative essay, it is an encyclopedia article. And it shouldn't try to cover all tiny titbits of the rules. It seems that the author went through the whole rule book and tried to explain every little rule. If someone wants that much detail, they can probably read the original book. I doubt any casual reader of this article would need the exact rules of hyphenation and capitalization in rare cases of suffixed geographical names etc. Qorilla (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)