Talk:Succubus

message: Oliver Sachs' book Hallucinations contains material that is relevant to this and incubus. He emphasises that the term nightmare was originally night-mare, as in a mythical female creature who visited and sat on unsuspecting people at night. This again links in with the discussion about sleep paralysis and possible scientific explanations for this mythology,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.183.53 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Night-Mare

message: I fail to see what the picture has to do with the topic...looks like someone decided to be funny and put a picture of a friend up. I'm removing it until we find a better one. Dargueta (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Picture

message: Succubi often feature in fantasy role-playing games. In Dungeons & Dragons succubi are numerous tanar'ri demons, many under the command of the Abyssal Lord Graz'zt. Succubi are featured prominently in the Planescape games, and in D&D the female child of a succubus and a human is traditionally called an "Alu-demon" and the male child a "Cambion". Also, the offspring of an alu-demon or cambion's union with a human is known as a tiefling. 	 
- 
-They are also fquently seen in the Castlevania video game series as enemies. Succubi are also featured in several Blizzard Entertainment games, such as Diablo and World of Warcraft. Another popular succubus is Morrigan Aensland from the Darkstalkers series, also appearing in many of other Capcom fighting games. Another succubus, Lilith, later made an appearance in Darkstalkers 3 - Jedah's Damnation. Succubi also appeared in the Starship Titanic game, although not intended as a demonic figure.
Suggested for editing and reinsertion under a new heading.
--Tznkai 22:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Succubi in fantasy role-playing games

message: I'm extremely disappointed to see that my picture of the Succubus was removed.  I find that to be in incredibly bad taste.  I can see that there is a long established argument over game material which is what my picture was of...the World of Warcraft Succubus.  Regardless of what you think should go in this topic, the game's character is called a "succubus" and if someone made a separate article for every type of succubus out there, there would be hundreds of different articles.  But the viewer that is interested in the word succubus and looks it up to see what it means, having varying types of Succubi in one article is efficient and all the materials are noteworthy and important to wikipedia users like myself.  Don't take it upon yourself to determine what information is worthy of this encyclopedia.  In fact, take into consideration that this particular encyclopedia's main purpose is to encompass all aspects, all points of view, and all information.  So get off your nest egg and take a break. -- Boiseshutterbug
:IMHO you forgot to sign off with IMHO. Jclerman 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can you try to do the picture again 2603:6011:3100:4D5C:5DC:EE7:174D:10C1 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Succubus picture

message: For:
*Erolos
**I decided that since some of the obstinance seemed to have seeped out of this I'd try and structure decisions coherenetly so we can move on. If this doesn't provide consensus we can vote on another way of dealing with this, but at the moment this is looking like the most popular option. Add yourself as you want. 
*--Kaonashi 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to includes information from [[Succubus (video games)]] in this article

message: According to the vote above, it seems to me like there is a clear consensus to re-include the information as it was. I would be greatful if an admin could re-add the information and/or unlock the article. -Erolos 02:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This votation was started nine days ago. 25 edits were made on this page since that date, and so far, 5 users voted to have this information back in the article, while 2 voted against it. It does look like a consensus, and no other votes were added for quite a while, even after this page was pointed to RFC. The information will be returned to the article and it'll lose its protection, as well as the tags. If there are any opinions regarding this, now is the time.--Kaonashi 23:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm not sure the vote was the best way to handle this, but no-one else is making a case for keeping the article split, and we are unlikely to see any more input from the RFC. -- Solipsist 05:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright. The votation is over the the page was unprotected (not by me, by the way). The disputed tag is gone, and the article was reverted to a previous version. Further discussion about this can be carried here.--Kaonashi 16:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinclusion of information

message: This article was listed on on wp:rfc five days ago - is one still wanted, or can I de-list it? Dan100 (Talk) 20:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Looks like we have as much comment as we are going to -- Solipsist 05:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I think I'll try and look for some other information on succubi, see if I can't find any more information that isn't from modern media, maybe get in some external links, too. --Yar Kramer 02:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! I should work on this, too ... --Yar Kramer 16:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding other information 

message: Succubi are erotic by nature.  The subtitle spoke of succubi in fiction, and I thought it was relevant.  Can we put this to a vote? Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not - I'm all for inclusion of erotic stories, but I see no particular evidence or way of determining that those particular erotic stories are "most notable" or anything, nor do I see any evidence that the site they came from is especially notable. Without those things, the debate on including erotic content seems to me beside the point. Phil Sandifer 21:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, I suppose.  But if we talk about erotic books that are published and sold for money, I'm not sure why we can't talk about erotica published on the Internet for free as well. Don't they have an impact on us as well? Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - but you still need to show verifiability for the claims, and that they're not trivia. I mean, if we included every piece of information about erotic stories, the article would be insanely long. So why those three stories? Phil Sandifer 22:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Erotic Mind Control Stories Archive is an established website in ASSTR and has been since about 1991.  The community is localized, unified and does not show the signs of dissolving that most long-term erotic communities do.  There's a collective consciousness established among readers about certain characters and terms that have become synonymous with erotic mind control (ie. Corelle d'Amber of the "Ancients" saga).  If this is not relevant now, then when? Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but how is that relevant about succubi in particular? I mean, if there was an entry about MCStories.com, it might be noteworthy to mention it there, but ... --Yar Kramer 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright... I concede the point.  Thanks for being rational with me. :) Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding addition of erotic stories 

message: It seems an anonymous IP removed a lot of the contexts of modern times from this article without explanation, earlier in the year, and it was not reversed. 
Also, Gtrmp, your relocation of much of the information to Succubi in fiction might well be appropriate, but you have not discussed it or even provided a reason, and to me it seems clumsy. Especially considering succubi are essentially derived from fiction, and since the article including these was not that long anyway, I continue to think it would be better served in this article, at the moment. 
If I don't get a response, I will revert it. -Kez 00:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your proposed revert. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information... again 

message: The section "References to succubi in modern times" doesn't contain any references to Succubi in modern pagan/Wiccan beliefs.  Instead it's just a pointless list of Succubi from fiction and video games that would be better off being moved to the Succubi in fiction article.  P Ingerson (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to succubi in modern times 

message: I think it would be interesting to have a section talking about where do succubi come from: are they a "species" in themselves or do they come from humans, and if so how does a human turn into a succubus? There are probably lots of "theories" but that's not a problem - it would be a matter of listing the different "theories". Myself, I don't know enough to write such a section, but if anyone does I think it would be very interesting. PoisonedQuill 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of succubi 

message: "Baobhan Sith" redirects here, when it should actually go to Banshee. I don't know how to fix it, or I would... --StarChaser Tyger 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. IPSOS (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Baobhan Sith" is a vampire. Sanitycult (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect redirection 

message: Under the area detailing the Middle Eastern belief of a succubus, it is indicated there is a citation needed. Do you REALLY need a citation for local folklore? I don't think you do. Comments? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, cite the fact that anyone actually believed this or told this story. People can't just go around making up myths and claiming they belong to a certain nation without referencing them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.71.70 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation REALLY needed? 

message: This came up here: Characters_in_the_Night_Watch_Universe#Ignat.  Is a male demon that seduces other males a Succubus or an Incubus?  Thanks! - Richfife 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct terminology for a gay Succubus / Incubus? 

message: Why is this article connected with Ann Coulter?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.233 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Coulter 

message: Why is Nevan listed as a related article? She's a saint (well, that's not my pesonal opinion, mind you; it's what the article says). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevan 

message: How did this succubus lady get demonized? It sounds like a pretty good thing.--208.127.100.147 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Demon?

message: This page is about a succubus. The images that were deleted show a visual transformation over time. If the relief originally was a goddess and then later in Christianity became associated with demons like Lilith or Lilitu (who happens to be a succubus) then it becomes very interesting to see the visual transformation. Please reinstate the images that were deleted including the link for the video game that represents a modern version of a succubus. USchick (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. This is an encyclopedia. The images do not show any visual transformation over time. The Burney Relief is not Lilith and not a succubus (and has nothing to do with Christianity associating anything, it was a misidentification, not some religious association) and clearly does not belong. Video game images also clearly do not belong. I do not understand how anyone could seriously claim otherwise. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The video game character is not a succubus? A succubus is a legendary creature. By definition, the legend changes over time and so does the visual representation. :)  USchick (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted images

message: It seems to be an issue with this article that people are adding names to the known Succubi list as a joke or whatever other reasons they have. Should there be a discussion over permanently protecting this page in a similar manner as the page on Devil which was semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it as a result of consistent and categoric vandalism which appears to be what is happening here? TeraSuccubi (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And in addition that that note, the addition of Khannea Suntzu to the article is not correct. That is not a widely recognized Succubus in literature or otherwise and should not be present in the article. The other names listed are historically known as Succubi, she is not other than in Second Life, therefore her name should be removed accordingly.TeraSuccubi (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Discussion 

message: The article says "...in dreams", then goes on describing actual interaction.  Which is it?  Is it a dream, or is there a physicality.  I can't believe losers go ON and ON about video games, but no one has mentioned this glaring problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring problem 

message: The book does not address why a human female impregnated with the semen of a human male would not produce a regular human offspring, although after transferring the male semen to the Incubi it is believed the semen is altered to match the genetic material of the Succubus and the incubi before being transferred to a human female host. But in some Viking lore the child is born deformed because the conception was unnatural
I don't think that they had an idea about genetic material in 1483. --136.187.37.161 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hexenhammer 

message: Hi. I deleted a number of 'alsos' for various reasons. Please see the history for specifics. I will not remove the flag, but instead defer to someone else to determine if my paring down is sufficient. Whyhelloclarice (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  probably they could all be removed. Many aren't demons and are more properly vampires or fairies, and really need an independent source classifying them as a parallel of a succubus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Alsos 

message: Video 207.174.233.51 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: I reverted this good faith edit because for me it seems that almost all media portray succubi as "semen demons" who perform their activities at the expense of the host, sort of like a parasite. I am aware there are media that try to show more two-sided relations between succubi and their targets, but I think the negative light should be kept because in the religious context they were almost never seen in a good light. RPI2026F1 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should succubi be portrayed in a positive or negative light? 

message: Or is “Succuus” some kind of old name/spelling for “Sucubus”?
A footnote 10. misreads/illreads/reads: 
“History of the Succuus”…
”Archived from the original” [404] 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:34F0:A4BA:DA1C:DAC6 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Succuus” misspelling for “Succubus or another spelling/name? 

message: I have the impression the article is kind of lumping potentially historically/culturally unrelated myths around demonic females (or not necessarily females) of a sexual proclivity in a way that may amount to original research, with phrases such as "Lilith became a succubus." While the likening may be acceptable as a figure of speech, I'm wonder whether that may not be somewhat like going out on a limb and saying things like "in the Hebrew Bible, some angels became incubus, mating with human women, who then gave birth the nephilim offspring." In other words, there may be a whole host of angelic/demonic entities with sexual activities, of unrelated cultural origins, lumped as "themcubus," which may really be a more specific thing. So it ends up being somewhat like referring to any felid as "tigers," for a more clear explanation of the Venn-diagram type of problem that I think may be happening. But I don't know. "Succubus" just sounds to me more specific than "vampire," and even the "vampire" article seems to be more careful in not lumping different blood-feeding folkloric entities as the same thing, at the same time that "vampire" seems even more excusable to be used as a broader category, but maybe that's not all that objective. 45.234.133.230 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? Is the article conflating similar but unrelated folkloric/mythological entities, in some kind of "unified theory"