Talk:Time Spiral

This article was nominated for deletion on 17/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Teferi

Wizards doesn't make planeswalkers into cards. Teferi...The Ronin 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have. For example the Vanguard Cards have some Planeswalkers among them, then there's the various cards that were secretly someone else. Urza, for example, posed as the Blind Seer. FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe on the Wizards site, they've used the "Time Is Wonky" aspect of Time Spiral to make Planeswalker cards to justify printing "Pre-planeswalker" versions of cards.

In the story, Teferi loses his planeswalker powers and just becomes a mage, so he's not a planeswalker anymore

Size confirmation please?

Can we get confirmation on the size of the set? 422 is larger than any previous set, and almost certainly larger than 10th Edition.Interested2 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concensus on the size. I've seen 301, and I have seen 422, and 306 is still a possibility. Best to do nothing for now, except give a question mark when asked the size of it.--Bedford 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the set is 301 cards, and each common gets printed twice (301 + 121 = 422). --devnull17

Well, Wizards has revised it to 301, so I'm editing it to reflect that.

Confirmation of the size is on the Ask Wizards of 2 August 2006 [1]. "Time Spiral has 121 commons, 80 uncommons, and 80 rares." --Dhedges 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to edit this a bit, because there's been confirmed sightings of special purple-iconed cards that may extend the size of the set. Scumbag 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTGSalvation.com has gotten comfirmation that the set is going to be 301 cards, with an additional 121 older rares reprinted with the purple set logo. They will be T2 legal, and will replace one common in each booster.

Missed that the first time I read the article. Hewinsj 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing/Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

A lot of the claims in this article are speculative. Return of Thallids? Is there a source? The article is also generally not encyclopedic and needs reorganization. Croctotheface 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb of Insight confirms Thallids.

YeoungBraxx 20:06, 6 September 2006

Plus, there's a warning on the article, like all unreleased Magic sets, that all the information here has been confirmed by people with a history of accurately reporting set information. It's not speculation.

Keyword vs. Mechanic

How does the infobox template differentiate between these two fields? I don't think "thallid" is a mechanic, per se.--SparqMan 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding notable characters

When adding a notable character card, have a look in Category:Magic: The Gathering characters and see if you can pull a wikilink for the character. Thanks -- saberwyn 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full spoiler release

I've removed the speculation bit from the article now that the full spoiler is available. I think everything that is on the article is correct. Also, does anyone know how to link to the spoiler? --kenobi.zero 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you can try to link to Wizards's sortable spoiler list for the card list, but then again, I haven't checked the list yet, that is, if they also have with them the list of the Time-shifted cards.

Also, speaking of spoilers, I'm thinking of starting to give short descriptions on some of the notable cards, since quite a number of them are relatively interesting for Magic standards. If you feel that is inappropriate, please remove the changes and let me know. Thanks

~~Wakipudeo~~

Both Wizards cardlists (notmal and timeshifted) can be found in the external links section. -- saberwyn 12:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names in the block

Did we want to mention that all the sets in the block are named after previous cards? I seem to remember hearing about how WotC usually avoiding that... David Youngberg 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate article for Block and Set

There should be a separate article for the block Time Spiral, and the set Time Spiral -- it doesn't matter if they are of the same name. I think it's just the name that has caused people to do this -- for future blocks, can someone please take note that the block should be separate from the first set of the block? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Notable cards"

I noticed some work being done on this article, so I came over to check it out. I'm not up to speed with the debate here (ignorance is bliss), but I think the section at the very least needs to be renamed to "example cards", if not omitted. Calling it "notable" cards is too POV and subjective, especially if the sources are from Wizards itself. — Deckill er 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then it's a list of trivia. The article already mentions example cards in the body (e.g. the whole bit about the Magi is redundant with "There are also several cards which directly allude to older, well-known cards, such as the Magus cycle, creatures that are functional reprints of the cards Cursed Scroll, Nevinyrral's Disk, Memory Jar, Mirror Universe, and Candelabra of Tawnos and a cycle of slivers that turn slivers into older creatures.") so let's just keep doing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my "if not omitted" bit at the beginning. For now, the redundant parts should be removed, and any others can become focal points as people search for reception and critcism sources. Then, the entire section is taken out as unnecessary (information is already integrated in previous sections or the "criticism" section). That's a way to mention the cards that do not need to be cited as examples in the body. — Deckill er 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response

I've changed this section because it's misleading. In Mark Rosewater's article "State of Design 2007" he explains that the set wasn't received as well as R&D had hoped. A better writer should probably tidy up what I've written though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.145 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part about the "amazing reception by older players" as no source has been provided for this, or for the claim that many older players rejoined the game. If this statement is to return we need to know numbers, or at least be pointed to an article that backs it up. The State of Design article you pointed to for the second part says: "So how did nostalgia do? Good but not great." - This doesn't seem to indicate an "amazing reception". 92.10.91.43 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Reversal of BOLD move of last week. I believe this to be the primary topic for "Time Spiral". Of the three entries at Time Spiral (disambiguation), one doesn't even have it's own article, so that only leaves this article and the graphic novel La Spirale du temps. La Spirale du temps isn't enough for disambiguation, as it has "Time Spiral" in its title only in translation, and has been unsourced for eight years. In terms of hits, La Spirale was viewed 50 times this month, while the MTG set was viewed 315 times (a 6:1 margin). The MTG set is the clear primary topic. p b p 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as Time Spiral: pbp pretty much sums it up. _{Also, La Spirale du temps is AfD'd right now, FWIW.} Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 22:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that means "leave as was before the BOLD move" :-D p b p 22:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, duh. *facepalm* Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reasoning presented by Purplebackpack89, and I'm the editor who performed the bold move that resulted in Time Spiral being moved to Time Spiral (Magic: The Gathering). In retrospect, seems as though these is a clear primary topic for this term, and that is for the Magic: The Gathering card block. As long as a hatnote is put on the article appropriately for reference to the disambiguation page, this seems sensible. Steel1943 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Time Spiral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070306030534/http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/1220 to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/1220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]