Talk:Power Nine

Untitled
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)


 * 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)

Rewriting of Timetwister
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)

Image
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)

NPOV
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)


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

Regarding the title
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)

Cleaning up the article
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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)
 * 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
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
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. &mdash; mode.ry 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. &mdash; mode.ry [[Image:User mode.ry sig.png|talk]] 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Force of Will
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
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?
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
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)

Image copyright problem with File:Black lotus.jpg
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 Media copyright questions. --03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reserved List
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"
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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_Nine&diff=545052904&oldid=543935689 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
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
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)
 * See Grading standards at PSA for an example. Mind  matrix  02:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxes vs. Moxen [sic] debate
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".
 * Making claims is not the same thing as providing proof. The onus is on you to provide support for the claims you make. I cannot find anything about "The Jewel Series" on the WotC website; see this DuckDuckGo search, for example (I've also tried Google) - please provide a link to this product. Regarding point 2, are you stating that the people employed by WotC, posting articles on its website, are not authoritative sources for MTG-related material? Regarding point 3, using the article archive search returns 2 results for moxen, and 0 results for moxes from the past year, and dozens for each going back to 2000, though there are more for 'moxen' than 'moxes' (I've counted over 40 for the former since 2010, and only 10 for the latter). Moreover, a site-specific Google search returns 433 results for moxen, and 501 results for moxes. Point 4 is irrelevant. As an aside, in the 1990s, the term 'moxen' was far more frequently used, but I have no interest in digging through the Internet Archive to find evidence for this. Mind  matrix  02:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help!


 * The product is an officially licensed product that was distributed only through Italy, the first non English country to get MtG, and the first language after English cards were ever printed in. Here is a picture of the product. pic


 * This product may or may not have ever been on the WotC site, but it is not currently. However you can still find it listed on many reputable reseller sites, which certainly would not be posting counterfeit WotC products, if that is your supposition.


 * I googled "Mark Rosewater" and "moxes", and this article was the first that came up: article


 * Regarding point 2, Yes, I'm stating that people employed by WOtC, posting articles on their site are not NECESSARILY authoritative sources. However if you assume they are, then "moxes" is still correct, as it is used more often by them. For example, I googled "Mark Rosewater" and "moxes", and this article was the first that came up: article


 * Regarding point 3, strange that i get different results than you. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awizards.com+moxen gives me 505, and https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awizards.com+moxes gives me 525. However if you look into the "moxen" search you can see that there's an independent european company that runs tournament called "Bazaar of Moxen", that reports tournament results to WotC, and if you modify your search thusly: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awizards.com+moxen+-bazaar that cuts it down to 463.


 * I disagree that point 4 is irrelevant, however I concede that point 1 is most relevant. I was also *quite* active in the 90s, and assure you that your anecdotal evidence of claiming it was more frequently used is not the same as my anecdotal evidence, which includes attending most Grand Prix and Pro Tours, Worlds Tournaments, as well as participating in old school AOL chat rooms as well as IRC.


 * I get that "moxen" is more fun to say, and that many people have an emotional attachment to it, however to summarize, the absolute strongest and most relevant point is the existence of the only officially licensed product made by WotC which includes the pluralization of the word "mox" as "moxes".


 * I have no attachment to either term. I never said anything about counterfeiting, only that the product you mentioned was not found on the WotC website. Regarding the 'first' Google hit for Mark Rosewater - that's not definitive, as I've found multiple articles penned by Rosewater in which he uses the term 'Moxen' - for example, Stories from Dominaria, Part 3 and Every Card Has a Story. (There are numerous hits for this; he seems to use the terms equally.) With respect to overall Google hits, keep in mind that Google's results depend on your location and search history, and they tend to be sorted by the searcher's personal bias. (Yes, I had already noted the "Bazaar of Moxen" tournament.) The point I was trying to make is that, within a small margin of error, the terms are equally common. And with respect to your (and my) experience of term use, it could just as well be regional preferences. Anyway, Wikipedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive. In practice, both the terms 'moxen' and 'moxes' are used. (BTW: I searched Stephen D'Angelo's Crystal Keep pages from the year 2000 - not one mention of either moxen or moxes.) Mind  matrix  22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have found one other officially printed version of the plural of "mox", it was printed in the comic books, here is a screen shot: pic
 * You don't need to find examples of this; I never claimed 'Moxes' wasn't used. With that said, is this an official comic book, or fan fic? Anyway, I don't particularly care about this subject to discuss it at length, as it's been about 20 years since I was last involved in the game. Mind  matrix  22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As both versions are frequently used by real people and there is no "official" version I think this is a rather clear case of WP:RETAIN. Sure, the original editors could have chosen to use "Moxes", but they didn't, they used "Moxen". Changing this around will not improve the article, it only wastes editors' time in fruitless discussions... OdinFK (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Revised versions
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)

Original Art
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)

notability
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. ~TPW 14:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a few independent sources already included, but I agree that the article relies far too heavily on primary sources and other unreliable sources. I have found a number of better ones. The Power Nine are collectively mentioned in:
 * They are individually mentioned in:
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are individually mentioned in:
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They are individually mentioned in:
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - article no longer available online
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found numerous other potential refs, and haven't even searched for half the cards listed yet. I have also not searched any offline sources, such as card-focused magazines from the 1990s and 2000s. See WikiProject Board and table games/Sources for what is considered a realiable source with respecting to games. Mind  matrix  16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Stand alone notability for Black Lotus
Arguably, it could have its own article and pass WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)