Talk:post count
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DAVilla in topic post count
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.
"The number of messages written by an individual on an internet forum or message board." Okay, it could be the number of posts that make up a fence, but it isn't. What makes this more dictionary-worthy than post history or whatever else forum people talk about? P.S. It was created by a Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I was of a mind to RfD it myself. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this pass per WT:COALMINE? We have postcount, with a slightly different definition, dunno if they're the same. -- Prince Kassad 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe RfV postcount? It's not in widespread use in all contexts. Does it need an "Internet" context? Is it in widespread use there? I couldn't say it is - or isn't. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as it is, not possible to use WT:COALMINE unless the definitions are the same. "to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI". It can't be a significantly more common spelling whilst not meaning the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think they do mean the same thing, but use different wording. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the wording is the same now. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- If only there were evidence of attestation for this sense of postcount. I couldn't find evidence of this usage at Usenet and accordingly RfVed the sense. This looks like another instance of an advocacy tail wagging the semantic dog. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the wording is the same now. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think they do mean the same thing, but use different wording. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as it is, not possible to use WT:COALMINE unless the definitions are the same. "to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI". It can't be a significantly more common spelling whilst not meaning the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe RfV postcount? It's not in widespread use in all contexts. Does it need an "Internet" context? Is it in widespread use there? I couldn't say it is - or isn't. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Striking per coalmine test as postcount appears to be cited. DAVilla 03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)