Talk:wolves in sheep's clothing

plural query

Should be wolves in sheeps' clothing (not wolves in sheep's clothing) I would have thought, if we are talking about multiple wolves impersonating multiple sheep inside multiple sets of woolly clothings. Page needs correction, seemingly. Or clarification. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wheatfromchaff: The plural of sheep is sheep not sheeps. J3133 (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you say wolves in sheep's clothing how do I know whether you're talking about one sheep or many?
And wolves in sheep's clothing looks wrong. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wheatfromchaff: You can’t know. There are quotations in wolf in sheep's clothing of the plural, if you think it is wrong. J3133 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wheatfromchaff: This is from Oxbridge Editing, a proofreading site: “When a plural ending in ‘s’ (e.g. “elephants”, but not “formulae” or “sheep”) possesses something, the ‘s’ following the apostrophe is omitted (elephants’, formulae’s, sheep’s). However, there is no strict rule on this in the case of singular proper nouns ending in ‘s’.” Another example is people’s, not peoples’. J3133 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That isn't actually on the point I was making. But I see there is a page in Wiktionary for "sheeps" (which allows 'sheeps' as a nonstandard plural of 'sheep') so I will take refuge in that page to validate my point. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wheatfromchaff: What was the point you were making? You said it looks wrong; so, I provided links that say it is not wrong. Mens is also “allowed” (we do not “allow” anything) as a nonstandard plural (hence mens’)—that is not really a point if you wanted the “correct” form (“page needs correction”). J3133 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)