Talk:Mox

Should the Mox Lotus be mentioned as an additional moxen? The card was made, even if it's a joke that's not legal in any format. --70.190.71.44 06:24, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Pluralization

14:09, 25 April 2017‎ Hunterofsalvation (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,782 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Moxen is the term used by Wizards of the Coast. Please use the discussion page for your arguments.) (undo)

This is demonstrably false. Wizards has made exactly one product with the word "Mox" pluralized on it. They were necklace versions of the original Unlimited Moxes. Here is a picture of the box they came in:

Note that they pluralize the word "Mox" as "Moxes". Note that on their site, some people mistakenly use "Moxen", while many other Wizards employees and writers use "Moxes". Relying on one or two employees who have written "Moxen" is not a citation, whereas actual products that use "Moxes" on the packaging is.

Finally, there is only one word that ends with "ox" that gets pluralized with an "en" suffix, and that is the word "ox". All other "ox" ending words are pluralized with an "es".

• Fox -> Foxes
• Box -> Boxes
• Pox -> Poxes
• Lox -> Loxes
• Vox -> Voces
• Cox -> Coxes

• Ox -> Oxen

The word "Mox" is pluralized "Moxes", not "Moxen". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.72.149 (talk • contribs).

On the other hand: Moxen is used since the beginning of the game. and still on the site http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/alternate-moxen-2010-05-10 http://magic.wizards.com/en/search/site/moxen?f. It is a made up name which doesn't confirm to regular English --Hunter (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Also Mark Rosewater http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/60879447656/why-is-the-plural-of-mox-moxen-rather-than --Hunter (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

While we usually take Maro's responses for Word of God, I think his equivocation in that answer make it a less than compelling reference. --Corveroth (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, the picture you attempted to reference doesn't appear to be present. Can you upload it to an external host, or here via Tools -> Upload file, and reply with a link? I adjusted some formatting in and around your message to help make it clear where your post starts and ends, which I hope you won't mind. With that out of the way, on to the topic of interest!

Like any wiki, we rely on external references as our proxy for truth. Here, typical English orthography (the pluralization you're citing) is in conflict with a number of articles that can be found through the search Hunter provided. As the word in question is an element of fiction owned by Wizards, their usage rules overrule broader convention. One of those articles (just one, for the sake of brevity) is referenced within the article. This debate proves that that reference wasn't effectively supporting the point in question, so I've added an inline citation to that article to address the issue. If nothing else comes of this discussion, you deserve thanks for improving that much of the article, and if you think that citation, or my phrasing, or anything else there can be improved, I invite you to do so.

However, modifying Hunter's search to find articles using your preferred "moxes" instead turns up no good results. There are two pages of hits, but those all appear to be near-matches for "Mox" alone in card names. If you can demonstrate that Wizards does, or has previously, used "moxes" as well, that fact is worth including. Without evidence, no further changes seem necessary. (Additionally, I'd be happy to refer to you by name. Have you considered registering here?) --Corveroth (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)