Talk:codecessor

RFV discussion
Nicely formatted entry and all, but the word seems to be a clear neologism. Nothing meeting WT:CFI that I can see. Equinox ◑ 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neologism? Perhaps. Nothing meeting WT:CFI? Not quite so; nothing is a strong word! Thanks for the formatting comment! :) I've intuitively used it in 3 or so peer-reviewed publications since 2008 where nobody complained of its non-existence. Google shows that there is another independent use. I hadn't known until last week of the word's status as I naturally assumed it exists; and was told I was understood what I meant. I've then done a search... Wiktionary's WT:CFI general rule "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." motivated my inclusion of it here given that the publications exist using this word. I've also submitted an entry to m-w.com. Granted, it fails some of the attestation criteria; and also perhaps is a COI on my part; sorry about that. But I've explained my motivation to boldly put it in. If it's put down as a neologism at an RfD, let it be; I won't fight for it. I'll wait until it catches on (if ever)---I am a very patient man. :) Let the community consensus here decide. Peace.--Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By your own admission, the word is still a neologism, but let us know when you find other people using it. It's not really an antonym of predecessor; that would be the non-existent word "postdecessor".   D b f  i  r  s   23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will surely let you know if more usage comes to be... :) However, I think "predecessor" is a correct ("near-"?)antonym since it is an antonym of "successor", which, in turn, is a synonym of "codecessor" as a "co-successor" :) I am not sure what "postdecessor" would be though unless it's a successor of a successor (or of a codecessor), which is redundant. I, however, digress... so I will leave the neo-semantic discussions at that. --Mokhov (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If your neologism has an exact synonym in standard English, why not use the normal English word?   D b f  i  r  s   06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were really exact, I would have just used it as I am quite familiar with it. That's why I provided the definition of the intended meaning as: "A (technically) co-descendant notion or concept, but not necessarily a close sibling to concepts alike emerged around the same timeframe from the same or similar predecessor concept(s)." This is not an exact synonym of "successor". --Mokhov (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Protologism. No usage found independent of Mokhov. Spinning Spark  09:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems the RfV has transformed into the deletion debate, so perhaps it should be moved to the RfD section. Speaking of which, does Wiktionary have a practice to userfy entries like Wikipedia does? (BTW, there seems to exist one independent usage of me I could find at www.bsd.org.cn, but not widespread for sure). --Mokhov (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This should remain in RFV; the vote "delete" above can be ignored. The question of whether this is attested is decided by our WT:ATTEST policy in conjunction with evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Failed. Moved to User:Mokhov/codecessor per request above. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)