Template talk:pt-adj-infl

RFDO discussion: November 2014–January 2015
Why do we have this? There are no other "inflected forms" than the ones simply stated in the head templates now are there? This template just gives the "more" and "most" at the beginning of the word. It'd be like if we gave a huge inflection template for English nouns when all they have is one singular and one plural form. Couldn't we include these in an Appendix entry, since this should be sort of self-explanatory in one article in my opinion? I mean there are a lot of different uses for this, it seems, but they should all be listed in one appendix article IMO. Rædi Stædi Yæti {- skriv til mig -} 04:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the superlatives are of use. I'm not so sure about the comparatives in the form 'mais x', I mean, we do list these for English but not for any other language I can name, and no Romance languages. Also I hate the format I think it's hard to read and should be in a full length table with masses of blank space on either side. I could live with a reformat but ultimately this is a Portuguese issue and I think the Portuguese editors should decide what to do with it. But I'd be unhappy with the format saying as it is if it's kept. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For Slovene we also list "more"-type comparatives.
 * In any case, I think I'm actually inclined to say keep but reformat. Not because the table is so useful in the current setup with forms also in the headword line. But because I think it may not be a bad idea to start moving away from stuffing inflections into headword lines, and using inflection tables more. It would aid in clarity as we can use two dimensions and more space. —CodeCat 14:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are synthetic superlatives, diminutives and augmentatives. A few adjectives (only 4, if I remember correctly) have superlatives and comparatives proper. They aren’t used very often, so this template doesn’t have to be used in all entries, but they need to be listed when they do occur.
 * BTW, a reformatting was discussed in WT:T:APT but no one got around to doing it. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal question is, why should we keep something like this? Mais is a word in itself? In my opinion, it's useless to keep repeating this over and over in entries. In my opinion, we should say "comparable" or "not comparable" and leave it at that, and/or make a link to an Appendix articles explaining the mais stuff, which is generally used in most Portuguese adjectives it seems. I already don't agree with the en-adj template saying "more _____" and "most ______", since that can also be explained somewhere and is just a waste of space. But using this entire inflection template is just overboard, and I do not think that is necessary for sure. So my question is, why is keeping this template with the mais and stuff like that better than linking to an appendix entry that already explains the system? Rædi Stædi Yæti  {- skriv til mig -} 19:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, some adjectives have more forms than the analytic “mais X” and “o mais X”. For example, the word has 20 inflected forms in addition to those already present in the headword line:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Even if the masculine singulars were listed, the HWL would have 9 items, which is too many IMO.
 * I agree that listing the analytic forms isn’t very useful. The template needs restructuring but it’s not completely useless. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RFDO kept for no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)