Talk:post count

post count
"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)

Striking per coalmine test as postcount appears to be cited. DAVilla 03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)