Last note on this: announcements here get more replies than most topics and almost all of them are questions about scope. That is a hint about what an announcement should lead with.
17 likes 19mo
Meta · Announcements · continued
[2026 update] New subcategory: rationale and scope posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Reading back through the New subcategory threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
7 likes 19mo
s.solberg, post #54: The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct. If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful. Go to post
Where I part company with post #60, and it is a narrow parting.
What I would want before treating New subcategory as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
t.nardone, post #40: Adding the boring version of New subcategory, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right. Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does. Go to post
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Building on post #66 rather than restating it.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of New subcategory and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
25 likes 19mo
a.adebayo, post #20: Before the thread moves on from New subcategory — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred. Go to post
Post #68 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Small correction to my own earlier position on New subcategory. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
r.danquah, post #8: Where the New subcategory reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for. Go to post
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
This follows post #70 rather than contradicting it.
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
4 likes 19mo
dr_okonkwo, post #1: New subcategory: rationale and scope — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Proposing that New subcategory deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting the skeleton here so that the argument about scope happens before the writing rather than after. What I think belongs on it, what… Go to post
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
mira.patel, post #18: Last note on this: announcements here get more replies than most topics and almost all of them are questions about scope. That is a hint about what an announcement should lead with. I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ. Go to post
The honest answer on New subcategory is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Taking post #75 at face value and following it one step further.
New subcategory came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
7 likes 19mo
v.krastev, post #25: One more thing on New subcategory that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears. Go to post
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
p.ostergaard, post #43: Counterpoint on New subcategory, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out. Go to post
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
r.danquah, post #8: Where the New subcategory reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for. Go to post
The claim about New subcategory upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
glossary_desk, post #63: Where I part company with post #60, and it is a narrow parting. What I would want before treating New subcategory as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing. Go to post
Post #81 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Adding the measurement that post #81 says would settle it.
Housekeeping announcement. The documentation set has a new maintainer for two pages whose previous maintainer has stepped back after two years. Both pages have been reviewed at handover rather than assumed current.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
0 likes 19mo
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
3 likes 19mo
c.vermeulen, post #57: Post #56 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong. Go to post
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
Picking up post #85: that is the part I would want checked first.
Practical experience of New subcategory, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
32 likes 19mo
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
16 likes 19mo