Talk:Power Nine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magic: The Gathering (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Magic: The Gathering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Should there be a template for MTG cards? - Fry


If there are templates for any other trading cards, then definitely. If not, I think M:TG should probably set the trend. Ryan Prior 23:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Although, if fans of every card game said that, nothing would get done.

Rewriting of Timetwister[edit]

The original version stated that Timetwister had no drawbacks; I felt this was innacurate, as it is somewhat likely that opponents can also benefit by drawing new hands. However, I'm not sure if my explanation on the page is concise enough; could someone check it over to make sure it is a decent explanation? Thanksabunch, I haven't edited many M:TG pages so far. --Benfergy 18:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


I noticed there is no picture of Mox Pearl in the Moxen section. Anybody got one? Dragon of the Pants 08:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The paragraph "It is important for all player to help rid the community of the many fakes floating around. To familiarize yourself with the finer points of determining if a Power 9 card is a fake please visit the following indepth guide CLICK HERE" seems to not be NPOV to me. Any call to action is certainly a point of view.

  • I've gone ahead and removed the offending statement, because you're exactly right in that it's blatant NPOV. -Rikoshi 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mox Pearl[edit]

Why is there no image? Skizzik 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Power Nine is also what IBM's 9.xxx.xxx.xxx IP network is commonly known as.

Cleaning up the article[edit]

Myself and another user are currently working on writing articles on Magic strategy and cleaning up Magic-related articles; if anyone has any specific ideas of what should be included/excluded it'd be nice to hear them so we can incorporate them. Titanium Dragon 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancestral Recall[edit]

The article compares Ancestral Recall to Concentrate. Wouldn't Ancestral Vision be a better comparison, especially since its virtually the same card, only Vision has suspend 4? I'll make the change for now, but someone can change it back if he/she feels Concentrate is better. 12.206.235.170 03:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Vision for a couple of reasons. One, it's a not a card that sets the standard (whereas Concentrate has been in a core set relatively recently). Two, since it can only be played with suspend, it's not a 'regular' card; mana cost is more of a universal standard. I think that makes Concentrate a better example. Besides, Vision is already mentioned in the contemporary power cards section. --Cybron 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Power9.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Power9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TimeWalk.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:TimeWalk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Images[edit]

I was wondering if using pictures that are copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on images. Is it? If so, how can that be? --Asdirk (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

This article recently received a notability prod, claiming that no third party publisher uses the term. Actually the mentioned cards are quite customarily referred to as Power 9. An excerpt of major websites using the term:

There is plenty of places to find the term power 9. Every trader selling power cards uses the term. To claim power nine is not notable because no outside party uses the term is imho like claiming offside is not notable, because it is not used outside football. OdinFK (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources come close to meeting our reliable source guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

About prodding and demolishing this article[edit]

Hi The Red Pen of Doom!

What are you trying to achieve with your edits? Wouldn't it be polite to go to the talk page before --or at the least-- after you demolish a page?

Also I still don't really get the point of your prod. The term Power9 is known by almost any Magic player. If you have any interest in the article and some basic knowledge about Magic it should be rather clear to you, that the information is valid. Wouldn't it be much better to help give the article some good credentials instead of just prodding it?

And finally, why do you ask me to reinstate the prod? I disagree with the prod and if you still think it is valid the procedure is to bring the article up for discussion at AfD. I will not put a prod on an article that belongs --in my opinion-- in the Wikipedia and it is rather not polite to ask me to...

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the notability template still be on this page? I think this article pretty well achieved notability status with all the references and the links added.--Narayan (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria[edit]

This land is the reason a term called "Power Ten" came up, which by the way also redirects to that article. Yet it doesn't have a single mention on it, i really think we should therefore add a section for this land. — mode.ry talk 03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned before, but led to some controversy. If you have a reliable source discussing at tenth piece of power feel free to add it. On the other hand I don't think the term power 10 is used any more. It comes from a time when it was first felt, that Timetwister doesn't really deserves to be a piece of power as the Library was perceived to be so much stronger. Well, today the Library is played just rarely in Vintage and Yawgmoth's Will has for some time been proposed to be the tenth piece of power, but as far as I know the concept has gradually faded out. As an afterthought: If Power 10 links to this article it would be nice to have a few words on the concept, otherwise it is not understandable to the reader why the redirect exist. OdinFK (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your last phrase, this is exactly why i supposed to at least mention it. Even if it is an outdated term, it could be briefly mentioned nonetheless for clarifycation - which is, actually, what Wikipedia also tries to do. All such a section needs to contain is about the information you just briefly summed up - yet not necessarily including the Yawgmoth's Will part, although i once heard of that as well. — mode.ry talk 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Force of Will[edit]

while powerful and iconic, force of will isn't in the power 9. and the article linked to as the source for it being part of the power 9 doesn't list it. and if you count the number of cards listed as the power 9 at the top of the page...there are ten. Quitequieter (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem/glaring ommission[edit]

The article forgets to explain what Black Lotus actually does in its section. Someone please add a line so lay people like me, who'd heard about its legend from friends who played the game back then, can know what the heck they were talking about. --166.137.140.44 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. OdinFK (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The same would be good for Timetwister, too. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the Timetwister section. What do you think of it now? OdinFK (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That's very good, thanks! --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the What But What's the Why?[edit]

Can anyone write a paragraph detailing why these nine cards are the elite and not others? Why does Magic have a P9 at all when other games don't? When did the term first start being used, was it always nine, and was it always 'these' nine? A full explanation of the Power Nine can't exist without mentioning others, like Sol Ring, Wrath of God and Library of Alexandria. What, exactly, kept them out of the club? Dunjohn (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There does now appear to be some explanation as to your first question in the article. The second question is simpler, but can't really be put in the article: other games do have a P9. It's not always nine, but most other games will have their share of game-breakers. Pokémon Blue had Mewtwo and Mew. The Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game has Pot of Greed, Graceful Charity, Delinquint Duo, Envoys, Yata, and a whole lot of others (they really suck at balance). Honestly, pretty much every game except StarCraft has at least one overpowered unit/card/strategy/whatever. As for your third question, it's a little relatedto your first; one must understand exactly why the Power Nine are so powerful to understand why the others don't make the cut (information now available in the article). 143.92.1.32 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Variants of power cards" is not encyclopedic[edit]

Aside from obvious comparisons to cards with the words "Lotus" and "Mox", much of this section is based on personal conclusions and comparisons between cards simply because they function differently. Being somewhat similar in game-utility to a Power 9 card does guarantee a direct relationship to the card, or a good reason to be referred to as such. Much of this section is based on personal research and questionable comparisons and really only serves to buff the significance of the power 9 (like much of the language in this article seemed to before i made it more neutral), and lengthen the article with chaff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblins77 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Black lotus.jpg[edit]

The image File:Black lotus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

nominating, Category:Magic The Gathering cards at CFD[edit]

Reserved List[edit]

the "Alternate Art" section is completely wrong. their market value doesn't keep them from being reprinted, the reserved list does. the vintage championship winners list can be removed too, since it becomes nearly entirely irrelevant.

Availablenames (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Black Lotus"[edit]

The paragraph beginning "The Power Nine cards available in Cube Drafts..." is hard to understand - I stumbled across it while scanning the encyclopedia for "the the" errors. The paragraph contains grammar errors after this edit. Could someone familiar with the subject-matter take a look? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably still not perfect, but at least each sentence should make sense. OdinFK (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

inconsistency: description and pix caption Black Lotus[edit]

never played so i cannot tell which is right but for sure there is at least one lie in the Black Lotus section caption of picture says it is an alpha... but the article description of an alpha and beta is that there is a black border, which is absent in picture --Qazwiz (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see where that misunderstanding is coming from. The image might indeed be an image of an Alpha Black Lotus. However, the image is cropped, so that the border cannot be seen at all. Taking this into account, it is rather pointless to say it's the Alpha version of the card as the defining characterstics of an Alpha Lotus are not shown. I changed the caption accordingly. OdinFK (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Gem Mint[edit]

The article currently states:

"A Gem Mint Alpha version of the Black Lotus was auctioned for more than $27,000 in November 2013"

But I do not know what a Gem Mint is. Can this be somewhere explained, perhaps in intralink, rather than on an external resource, which may become unavailable at some later point? 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)