Template talk:pt-adj

Hate it
The amount of subtemplates destroys the convenience of the head template. I can't even use this for -ador adjectives. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of by comparison.  It's a much more stripped-down template, requiring more user work at times, but is more flexible as a result. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's how I had this one set up before Daniel. took it over. :D So yeah, that's how I like 'em. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Opiaterein, please see the Portuguese entry bonito and its inflection box. Portuguese adjectives are prone to have various inflected forms, which in my opinion shouldn't be addressed by a parameter each; this was the main reason to change how pt-adj works. :P In addition, see lutador for an example of Portuguese -ador adjective which correctly uses this template. --Daniel. 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The inflection box has nothing to do with the inflection line. You've clearly missed my point entirely. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you informed an inability to use for -ador adjectives and expressed a preference for the current, I think you pointed out the inconvenience in specifying inflected forms; before, you could possibly type parameters like |mpl=lutadores|f=lutadora|fpl=lutadoras, but now you have to find the right subtemplate; in addition, the right subtemplate (pt-adj/or) did not even exist at that moment. Then, I created the Template:pt-adj/or, and explained how Portuguese adjectives have many inflections, many of which are present at the inflection box, not the inflection line. I'm sorry if I misunderstood; anyway, the box and the line use virtually the same parameters and the same subtemplates, therefore they are strictly related. In my opinion, an instance like  and  makes a good pair. --Daniel. 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My main problem is that the template is so unnecessarily complex that only someone adept in coding would be able to add to or alter it. All the subtemplates and nonsense... it's just not necessary. It might be convenient for you, but if someone else wants to add a Portuguese adjective and it follows a pattern that you haven't made a little subtemplate for, they're not going to know how to add it. I could've easily modified the template from how I had it so that you would only have to add |a|es|as to -ador adjectives. The box and line don't do the same things, so they don't need the same parameters. It's just unnecessary and unwieldy. It makes me hesitant to want to contribute to Portuguese sections. (Not just this template, but many others) — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'll simply believe you on how specific parameters like |fpl=lutadoras may be more intuitive. Please see the new documentation and feel free to comment about its possible complexity. It is worth noting that the lack of subtemplates is not a big problem; it is possible to create subtemplates for all Portuguese adjectives sooner or later, including "foreign" ones such as kawaii (plural: kawaii or kawaiis) and sexy (plural: sexy or sexys). --Daniel. 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Same feelings, I don't see why it doesn't use defaults for masculine and feminine plurals like does. Just allow these to be overidden (or overrided) which already the case. I'll have a go at this sometime, as it's very different from, fr-adj, ca-adj, gl-adj (etc.) which means contributors in the closest related languages can't easily contribute in Portuguese. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New inflection or multiple feminine forms
Adjectives ending in should accept both  and  as feminine forms. Is there a form of stating that the adjective has two feminine forms or can someone at least add "motor" as a new type of inflection? - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

redone
I have redone this template. Please pay attention to the new parameter structure, thanks! It should be much easier to use than before. Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)