Template talk:pos vti

Link to glossary?
Should we add vti to Glossary and have the output of this template link there? Rod (A. Smith) 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --ElisaVan (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

These aren't parts of speech, so there should not be PoS templates for them. -- Liliana • 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I buy that argument. The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc., to indicate their POS; that makes them analogous to one use of the gender templates, and  and so on, which some editors also use in those contexts, even though we treat ===Noun=== as a single POS regardless of gender. And I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of  and  in cases where there are two related verbs, one active/transitive and one middle/mediopassive/reflexive/intransitive. (I mean, personally I don't use any of the POS templates, nor gender templates in POS-template contexts; but unless you're suggesting jettisoning the whole lot, it's not obvious to me that these three are any more worthy of jettisoning than the others.) —Ruakh TALK 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't and  be more sensible for these cases? -- Liliana • 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes — but so would and  and so on, for the (relatively rare) cases that those are genuinely useful. (To be clear: I'm not voting 'keep'. I'm just not convinced that it makes sense to delete these while keeping the rest of the POS templates.) —Ruakh TALK 21:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's kind of a difference - the meanings of v and n are rather obvious, even if you've never seen them before. But you'll never know what vt or vi mean without looking them up somewhere. -- Liliana • 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. After all, many dictionaries/glossaries use them. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One man's "rather obvious" is another man's . . . not. Even the same man's "obvious" can vary from day to day. I remember once consulting a dictionary that marked various words as vb. My reaction: "I'm familiar with vt and vi, but what the heck is vb? 'Bitransitive'? Does it mean it can be used either way?" Turns out, it just meant "verb". (And v and n, of course, have other uses; v means "see", and n means "neuter". In this respect vt and vi are arguably more obvious!) —Ruakh TALK 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc.": no, not only. uses them in (e.g.) foo: (which displays ). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are in use and I see no reason to get rid of them. They are POSes, albeit not ones that we use as headers, and I fully subscribe to Ruakh's "I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of and  in cases where there are two related verbs". Keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept per lack of consensus. --ElisaVan (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)