Talk:deidecus

RFD discussion: March–April 2017
IS there any evidence of this? . — JohnC5 01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked through all the Google hits for the lemma that aren't us, and they all are scannos for either "Dei decus" or "dedecus". I haven't done the same for the inflected forms except partially for deidecum- so far they all look likw "Deide cum" (whatever that is). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This should've been at RFV, but it has no attestation, so I'll close it as RF(D|V) failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * “Ista enim omnia deidecore intellectibus secundum omnem commentum eum supersubstancialiter esse significant, et omnimodis essencium causam.” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * “Tantum enim omnium supersubstancialis compago uniuscuiusque racionabilium et intelligibilium sacri boni ordinis ac constituti actionis previdit, quia et ipsa ierarchiarum singularum quarumque ordines deidecores disposuit, et omnem ierarchiam videmus in primis, et mediis, et ultimis virtutibus esse divisam; sed et ipsorum unumque, proprie dicere, ornatum ipsis divinis armoniis iudicavit.” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Searching yields 78 hits, so maybe one or more of them could furnish us with one or more further citations. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha, interesting. Do as you see fit. — JohnC5 00:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hopefully that is passable. Corrections and improvements welcome. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Unless there are new texts added since then, not a single one of those hits has a usable citation- trust me, I checked every hit that was there at the time. As I said, I didn't go through the inflected forms, so I wouldn't have seen the ones you found. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to send the entry to RFV, I won't object. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)