Talk:Power Nine

message: Should there be a template for MTG cards? - Fry — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, if fans of every card game said that, nothing would get done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.63.245 (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Regarding the title

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleaning up the article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ancestral Recall 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Power9.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TimeWalk.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legality of Images 

message: 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:
* Starcitygames names its own tournament series after the cards
* ABUGames selling power 9 cards
* Troll and Toad selling power 9 cards
* Fake power at Gamingetc
* What is power9? asked and answered in a forum
* German Germagic explains power9 short and to the point (in German)
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)
replies: text: None of your sources come close to meeting our reliable source guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About prodding and demolishing this article 

message: 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  03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library of Alexandria 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Force of Will 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  That's the What But What's the Why? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Variants of power cards" is not encyclopedic 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Black lotus.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reserved List 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably still not perfect, but at least each sentence should make sense. OdinFK (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Black Lotus" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  inconsistency: description and pix caption Black Lotus 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Grading standards at PSA for an example. Mindmatrix 02:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gem Mint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revised versions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Art 

message: Arguably, it could have its own article and pass WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand alone notability for Black Lotus