Talk:Mancubus (Doom 3)

This page is hardly a stub. Others...need work. Phazon Sentinel 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Plural Issue (Mancubi vs Mancubuses)
It should be noted, I feel, that for incubus and succubus, both Latin plural forms ending with -i and Anglicized variants with -es are acceptable pluralizations in the dictionary. What we need to do is use one and stick with it site-wide. I do prefer the Latin form myself, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that over the last 30 years there has been a strong trend of dropping specialized Latin plural forms from the vernacular (antennae has become antennas, which was completely unacceptable when I went to grade school, just as an example).

I would suggest somebody bring it up on Central Processing and that we add the conclusion, however it may swing, to the site's style guidelines. --Quasar 15:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, "Mancubi" makes me twitch: it isn't a Latin word and we aren't speaking Latin. It seems like a hypercorrection to me. See this article on Wikipedia; it's similar to how people erroneously use "virii" as a plural for "virus".
 * However, I read that somebody asked John Romero what the correct pluralization is, and he chose "Mancubi". So when I heard that I chose not to bother arguing against it, even though I still think it's wrong. Fraggle 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm with Fraggle. "Mancubus" is a made-up word and any irregular plural it'd get would be a made-up plural. Based on that, "mancubi" has as much validity as "flubalapo" for the plural; whereas "mancubuses" is a regular English plural which is always valid. If you liken mancubus to its obvious influences succubus and incubus, you'll find out that succubuses and incubuses are valid plurals. (Also "virii" is a double-whammy of wrong; there isn't any "-us &rarr; -ii" plural in Latin.) --Gez 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fraggle, the thread you are thinking of is linked here.


 * I am sure the intended parallel was to "succubi" (AD&D Monster Manual, 1st edition, p. 18); however, this may be one of those cases where we should follow the community's practice if we can't find a primary source to point to. In dwforums search results, "mancubi" is ahead 1285 to 321 at this writing.    Ryan W 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious if you can find out how many times the respective terms are used on this site. If we're being consistent in the use of one already, then I don't see a lot of motivation to change from it. But we could still make it a formal part of the style guidelines for the future, regardless. --Quasar 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious if you can find out  &mdash; Articles only, "public" namespaces, or everywhere?  :>    Ryan W 00:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles. --Quasar 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 585 to 2 in favor of "mancubi". That doesn't count transclusions from other namespaces (but those are supposed to be singular anyway).    Ryan W 19:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * addendum: neglected to search for  mancubuses  as well. With that addition, it was 10 not 2.    Ryan W 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed instances of mancubuses that I could find in the main space to mancubi and added the preferred pluralization under the spelling section in policies and guidelines. It's clear as far as admins go that we don't have a consensus but it seems the community at large has spoken for us from these statistics. It's easier to get rid of 6 or so "mancubuses" than +500 "mancubi" :P --Quasar 16:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)