Talk:Rabiah Scale

Revisit counts

Would this be a good place to collect the amount of times a plane has been revisited? It's something that isn't collated anywhere and seems interesting. This page has a convenient list of planes, and it links to the calculus of revisiting. Unfortunately I can't work the table particularly well, but it could fit a new column noting the times a block has (continuously?) been on a plane. Now, strict definitions would need some work, but I would like to put forward the idea.
For reference:
Four(+?) times: Dominaria
Three times: Zendikar, Innistrad, Ravnica
Two times: Mirrodin, Theros, Kamigawa (soon)
Visits in Origins: Kaladesh, Lorwyn, Alara (2nds), Vryn, Regatha, all but Mirrodin from above
Uncertain: Shandalar (nominally, core sets are placed here, but no story has taken place)
0 times: Some planes on the table haven't been visited yet
220.238.122.124 10:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Scale reliability

The recent addition by User:Falconfly is interesting but to some degree seems like personal speculation. It would benefit from sources, or at least a verifiable breakdown of the planes in terms of the aspects Falcon proposed, which would make the addition less of an opinion and more of a neutral observation. I agree it's interesting to consider the connection/reliability between the ratings and which planes are actually revisited, especially in light of Kamigawa, and I think Falcon's reasoning is probably correct about why sets have/haven't been revisited, but I'm not sure it matches the tone and approach of a wiki without being connected to published information or a well-organized table of data that clearly supports the discussion.

Personally I was just about to simply delete the note about Kamigawa "will be revisited in 2022", since even that note was sort of making an implication/accusation of sorts rather than being informational or analytical. I'm not sure content amounting to "but Kamigawa breaks the pattern!" is actually telling readers much without seeing where this pattern is going or hearing from more official sources where this pattern is going. I feel like a simple neutral observation, something like "Kamigawa is the first plane to be revisited whose most Rabiah scale rating was greater than 5", would make the point but allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Also, would be shocked if Rosewater didn't discuss this more explicitly at some point. If he hasn't already :) (I haven't kept up with his columns last couple years.)

As a point of comparison: Artifact lands were a 10 on the Storm Scale, but they just came back. An observation that this happened is very reasonable, but I think "maybe they're changing their approach to the scale" would not be appropriate without a clearer pattern or more direct sources. - jerodast (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Grain of salt warning?

Should there be a grain of salt warning somewhere on the page? Rosewater called Kaldheim a 7 in 2020, and a 4 twice in 2021. Kaldheim came out in 2021. While I appreciate that he was wise not to give away information that shouldn't be released yet, he also could have simply not made a comment about Kaldheim. By 2021 he would know it's coming out; why make a blog post which is clearly untrue, instead of staying silent?

Not trying to criticize Rosewater with this comment. It just feels like when describing how he ranks things that he definitely will obfuscate sets which are about to be published. Even benevolent obfuscation should perhaps be noted on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.58.59.234 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 April 2022‎.

This is basically the grain of salt warning:

"Though it is published by Mark Rosewater, it is only a reflection of his opinion and generalities about the plane. It does not account for any actual future plans, or the opinions of other R&D members."

Which pretty much comes from his own grain of salt warning when he wrote the official articles about the scales. I suppose we could emphasize even further "does not account for any actual future plans, EVEN ONES HE HIMSELF KNOWS ABOUT". I do think there's room for some simple observations about patterns in how the scale has been used (avoiding too "deep" analysis which would amount to a fan essay rather than encyclopedic style). But keep in mind, the very fact that there are multiple ratings for most entries is an obvious indicator that by its nature, NONE of this is set in stone, so there's a limit to how much a disclaimer is "needed". - jerodast (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)