![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Should there be a template for MTG cards? - Fry — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 Moxes section. Anybody got one? Dragon of the Pants 08:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.16.50 ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.24.114 ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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
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)
![]() | The related Category:Magic: The Gathering cards has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
The official plural of "mox" is "moxes", not "moxen". Evidence: 1) WotC has only ever released one product that has the plural of "mox" on it, called "The Jewel Series: The Moxes". 2) While many articles have WotC employees colloquially using the word "moxen", a) this is not an official source and b) each them also has articles using "moxes" 3) When you search WotC's article's page for "moxen", it gives you fewer results and also says "did you mean "moxes"?" 4) For the pluralization of english words than end in "ox": Foxes Poxes Boxes Voxes and Oxen
Mox is most similar to the first four, and least similar to the last.
The plural of "mox" is "moxes".— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBock ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2020 UTC (UTC)
I edited this section of the article, making it much shorter. Listing a bunch of cards without the context of what they do is not going to help the average reader understand the topic, I think. The nature of the article probably makes it already hard to understand for non-Magic-nerds, but adding things without context like Capture of Jingzhou which even most Magic players would never have heard of only makes it worse. The way I "re-started" the section it gives an idea of how the Power Nine has influenced design in the game in the long run.
Also I think the term "revised" was a bit imprecise. It evokes the idea that Wizards created corrected versions of the original cards, but that is not what is happening here. Wizards made completely new cards that evoke the original cards. If you compare this to a movie, it would be something like the difference between a Director's Cut and a remake. Thus I changed the section title to "Cards in homage to the Power Nine" which is a somewhat lengthy. Maybe "Homage(s) to the Power Nine" or just "Homages" would be better? OdinFK ( talk) 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article referring to some Power Nine art sales. The top stuff is only asking prices which is not noteworthy I believe. Then there is an allusion to Walk and Sapphire being sold to different collectors for over 1m combined. With a specific price for any piece I think it might be worth including in the article, but this way it's a bit too vague? OdinFK ( talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing sources that indicate that the "power nine" concept is actually notable; it looks like all the sources for the term come from the publisher. ~ T P W 14:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Arguably, it could have its own article and pass WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Should there be a template for MTG cards? - Fry — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 Moxes section. Anybody got one? Dragon of the Pants 08:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.16.50 ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.24.114 ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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
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)
![]() | The related Category:Magic: The Gathering cards has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
The official plural of "mox" is "moxes", not "moxen". Evidence: 1) WotC has only ever released one product that has the plural of "mox" on it, called "The Jewel Series: The Moxes". 2) While many articles have WotC employees colloquially using the word "moxen", a) this is not an official source and b) each them also has articles using "moxes" 3) When you search WotC's article's page for "moxen", it gives you fewer results and also says "did you mean "moxes"?" 4) For the pluralization of english words than end in "ox": Foxes Poxes Boxes Voxes and Oxen
Mox is most similar to the first four, and least similar to the last.
The plural of "mox" is "moxes".— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBock ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2020 UTC (UTC)
I edited this section of the article, making it much shorter. Listing a bunch of cards without the context of what they do is not going to help the average reader understand the topic, I think. The nature of the article probably makes it already hard to understand for non-Magic-nerds, but adding things without context like Capture of Jingzhou which even most Magic players would never have heard of only makes it worse. The way I "re-started" the section it gives an idea of how the Power Nine has influenced design in the game in the long run.
Also I think the term "revised" was a bit imprecise. It evokes the idea that Wizards created corrected versions of the original cards, but that is not what is happening here. Wizards made completely new cards that evoke the original cards. If you compare this to a movie, it would be something like the difference between a Director's Cut and a remake. Thus I changed the section title to "Cards in homage to the Power Nine" which is a somewhat lengthy. Maybe "Homage(s) to the Power Nine" or just "Homages" would be better? OdinFK ( talk) 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article referring to some Power Nine art sales. The top stuff is only asking prices which is not noteworthy I believe. Then there is an allusion to Walk and Sapphire being sold to different collectors for over 1m combined. With a specific price for any piece I think it might be worth including in the article, but this way it's a bit too vague? OdinFK ( talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing sources that indicate that the "power nine" concept is actually notable; it looks like all the sources for the term come from the publisher. ~ T P W 14:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Arguably, it could have its own article and pass WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)