Talk:key set identifier

Definition seems vague. Perhaps a telecommunications term rather than an Internet one. Equinox ◑ 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

key set identifier

Bad transwiki. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. -- Liliana • 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's important enough to have an initialism associated with it, so why not keep? --BB12 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What does the existence of an initialism have to do with anything? Do we want an entry on International Business Machines just because of IBM? -- Liliana • 06:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It shows that people who use key set identifiers consider them to be not merely a SOP, but a single thing, a single word. --BB12 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? So in my humble opinion is idiomatic because of the existence of IMHO? -- Liliana • 08:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's supporting evidence, though perhaps "in my humble opinion" is best thought of as a set phrase. --BB12 (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Initialisms have nothing do with importance and everything to do with convenience. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The initialism rationale is useful for raising the possibility of idiomaticity, but is hardly conclusive. Delete

BTW, we have an entry for keyset, but not for key set. Is keyset more common than key set? DCDuring TALK 13:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

People do not make initialisms for sets of words like "red apple" or "black emperor penguin" because they understand that a "red apple" is an apple that is red and a "black emperor penguin" is an emperor penguin that is black. They make initialisms when there is a sense that the underlying words somehow form a single unit. Therefore the existence of an initialism is an important piece of evidence that there is wordiness involved. --BB12 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on with "other stuff exists" type examples, I think that I am not a lawyer is a clearly non-idiomatic set of words, interchangeable in the real world for "I am not an attorney" or "I haven't gone to law school"; IANAL therefore exists merely as a convenience. bd2412 T 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that expression, but it sounds like it might be used for situations where someone is saying, "Look, I'm not a lawyer, so if you want to be safe, you should consult with someone who is, and also, you cannot sue me if you follow my advice because I'm telling you up front that I'm not a lawyer." If I'm right about the context, then it is idiomatic, with a non-idiomatic meaning of, "I'm not a lawyer" in other contexts as a statement of one's profession. --BB12 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think IANAL is idiomatic- the difference between a disclaimer and a simple statement about one's professional background is just a matter of context. Also, there are potentially a great many such expressions covering other professions, but most don't occur often enough for anyone to feel the need to abbreviate them- IANAD (I am not a doctor) exists, for instance, though we don't have an entry for it, and I've used "I'm no expert" quite a lot in the past, myself. For an abbreviation to make it into use, you just need to have a combination of words that's used in exactly the same way often enough for people to recognize the sequence of words, and for people to get tired of constantly repeating it (it also helps if it the abbreviation isn't too long or strangely-spelled to be remembered). That combination could be idiomatic, but could just as easily be SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As I think I've made my case reasonably well, I won't argue further, but whatever is decided on this should apply to liquid nitrogen, etc., further down on this page since as far as I'm concerned, the cases are similar :) --BB12 (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Other words that probably fall into this category. I think they should stay as per above, but if the consensus is against my opinion, there are some grammar terms that should probably go as well: transitive verb, intransitive verb, ditransitive verb. --BB12 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)