On the subject in the title: New subcategory: rationale and scope Working notes rather than a conclusion.
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 does not, and the three claims that would need a citation each.
Summarising the new subcategory thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Post #2 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
I read post #4 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
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.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Coming back to post #11, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
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.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about new subcategory in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
This follows post #16 rather than contradicting it.
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.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
On post #16 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What would change my mind on new subcategory is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on new subcategory. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Scheduled maintenance: if the site is going offline for maintenance, advance notice will be posted here with the duration and scope.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
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.
On post #22 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Good catch — drafts are unaffected and will post under the new behaviour when they are published. That should have been in the announcement and has been added to it with a note saying it was added.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Post #27 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I have been on both sides of the new subcategory argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.