Template talk:es-adj

Table format

Copied from the Grease Pit

Why am I seeing the output of {es-adj} as a table, rather than the usual inflection line as described at Template:es-adj? See e.g. casero, or frío. Widsith 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• They look normal to me (bog-standard Internet Explorer and no Wiki customization) SemperBlotto 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish templates use the same dual headword/inflection style as the English templates. Since most users have not customized their prefered headword/inflection style, they will see a standard inflection line. Widsith has chosen to see table-style headword/inflections, though. Is sharing inflection style between English and non-English entries desirable? If not, we can split the headword/inflection style (a) into English vs. non-English inflection styles, (b) into one inflection style for each language, or (c) not at all (i.e. make all non-English headword/inflection lines display as a simple line). Should we raise this issue on BP to gather opinions? Rod (A. Smith) 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. I definitely don't want it across the board, since the table style used here is very different from the box display that comes up with English inflections. Widsith 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:es-adj is using the same CSS class (infl_table) as (e.g.) en-noun; it isn't doing that much different, except that the "box display" you refer to doesn't have the boxes in the table outlined. We have quite a few different table styles floating around. A technical solution might be to provide a standard infl-table style form (i.e. subtemplate) to be used by any POS templates that implement infl_table. But that depends on what people want.

Specifically, en-noun uses border=0, width=100%, then a subtle background color on the rows; es-adj uses border=1px, a solid color, centered text, etc. The structure is the same. If I were to change es-adj to use the same table form as en-noun it would look very familiar ;-)

My point is that the is probably as simple as: es-adj is using the infl_table class option, but then using a "non-standard" table style we probably (?) don't want. Would you (Widsith) want to see it in a table if it looked like en-noun? For example, look at kitabu where sw-noun uses the en-noun style. Robert Ullmann 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have missed this for so long. The answer is, yes, if it looked like the box display for en-noun it would be infinitely preferable. Just for consistency purposes if nothing else. The display as it is presently is so incongruous compared to the other inflection lines. Widsith 08:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other comments. Firstly, {{es-adj}} is quite different from en templates in that it outputs as a 2x2 table, rather than a box display which goes across just one line. Secondly, {{es-adj}} seems to be broken as it currently outputs feminine plural the same as masculine plural (again I don't know if this is just with the table format). Also, the arguments should be wikified. Widsith 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I take responsibility.

I'm sorry, I am responsible for this. When I was modifying the templates to allow for simpler outputs when several forms are the same (I was verrrry careful not to break pages when I did this, and tested it pretty extensively -- the old semantics should be the same but there are some new subtleties which I think make for simpler use -- let me know if anything is broken, though theoretically it should only be broken if something is using it in a way that is against the old semantics), I asked Rodasmith about this, and he said something about using a table output for a certain CSS setting, and I filled in what is admittedly quite ugly. I realize I'm late coming into this discussion but I just wanted to say, if someone wants to change it or remove the table version, I'd be all for that. –Andyluciano 17:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Same inflection order as es-noun-mf?

Is there a reason that {{es-noun-mf}} and {{es-adj}} list their gender/plurality inflections in different orders? If not, would we like them to both go [m, m pl, f, f pl] (m's first, like es-noun-mf) or [m, f, m pl, f pl] (sg's first, like here)? --Bequw 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the order difference was unplanned. I don't know definitively, but I think the more common order is m./f./m.p./f.p. I say that because I've frequently heard el/la/los/las, but never *el/los/la/las. Rod (A. Smith) 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed {{es-noun-mf}} to match this template. --Bequw 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Showing the 'superlative' form

For English {{en-adj}} shows the comparative and superlative adjective forms. For Spanish we haven't done that because it would generally just be "más <adj>" and "lo más <adj>". Some adjectives aren't comparable (óptimo, pésimo, máximo, mínimo, ínfimo, supremo), so should we show comparability? As for the superlative, instead of using "lo más" one can construct a so called 'superlative' adjective by adding -ísimo such as blanquísimo (“whitest”). Most are formed regularly but there are some irregularities (muy antiguo → antiquísimo). Ref w:Spanish adjectives#The superlative (note: this suffix can be added to any of the inflected forms). Any thoughts on if/how these thoughts could be added to the inflection line. --Bequw 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Spanish comparatives or superlatives belong in the headword/inflection line. Spanish adjectives already show four forms on that line and, as you note, Spanish comparatives and superlatives are very regular. If any entry should show such forms, I'd be inclined to put them in another section instead, probably with the heading ====Declension====. 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Omit. My understanding is that while "lo más <adj>" and "<adj>ísimo" are both called "superlatives", they're not synonymous at all, as the latter means something like "muy <adj>". I don't think any of these needs to go in the inflection line; the "<adj>ísimo" strikes me as derived rather than inflected (so should go under "Derived terms"), and the others are so regular that there's no point (and also arguably not inflected forms per se). —Ruakh_TALK 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the omit, but the -ismo form is indeed inflected, not a derivation. It is a hold-over from Latin, where the superlative had a dual function of meaning "most X" or "very X". These functions have been mostly separated in modern Spanish by the difference of form. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Invariable adjectives

Any way to include an invariable parameter here? --Wikt Twitterer (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking of the same thing, ever since I came across the Spanish term todo o nada (all-or-nothing). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New changes

Hi CodeCat. Can you explain a little about your new changes here? How does it affect us, the editors who want to use it? --SuperWonderbot (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing plurals

Can someone please add this following code (or something similar that works) to the template? It should categorise any adjectives which are missing plural forms. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:{{{plural|{{{pl|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}||[[Category:Missing Spanish plural adjectives]]}}

• OK, that didn't work. All the entries in Category:Missing Spanish plural adjectives have got a plural form. How can we fix that? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps one more improvement could be to find all those missing feminine plural forms. At least then we'll have all of them, for the sake of completeness. --Type56op9 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing forms

You know what, it'd be much more convenient to just categorise all of them as Category:Missing Spanish adjective forms. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)