@Daniel Carrero, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Jberkel, Svjatysberega, Cpt.Guapo, Munmula, Koavf, Sarilho1 I am in the process of rewriting this module and changing the format of {{pt-adj}} (to start with) to be smarter and more automatic and work like {{es-adj}}. The idea is that most adjectives need no parameters at all, and those that do have flexible parameters with sensible defaults. See User:Benwing2/test-pt-adj for examples. One thing I notice is that currently {{pt-adj}} has a |comp= parameter (comparable) that defaults to yes. This has clearly failed in that e.g. saudita and massai and vinícola and even misérrimo are listed as comparable because whoever created them didn't bother to add |comp=no. I am planning on changing this so that |comp= has no default, and you have to explicitly specify yes, no or both (= comparable and uncomparable) to get something in the headword indicating comparable status; otherwise nothing is displayed. Existing adjectives that explicitly specify a value for |comp= will keep it, but otherwise there won't be a default. (Also, superlative adjectives like misérrimo won't even support this parameter.) The alternative is to have no |comp= param at all, the same as {{es-adj}}.
Also, I am suspicious of {{pt-adj-infl}} and I believe it should probably be deleted and removed from all pages it currently exists on. No other Romance language outside of Romanian (which has adjectival case and definiteness) feels the need to have a declension table for adjectives; the headword should be sufficient. Furthermore, I suspect a lot of the info in these tables is wrong; e.g. folhado (“leafy”) claims to have an augmentative folhadão and diminutive folhadinho. These terms certainly exist but appear to be nouns; I can't attest e.g. feminine augmentative folhadona.
Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)