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.
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 does not, and the three claims that would need a citation each.
Taking post #4 at face value and following it one step further.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
A note on scope: what I am saying about New subcategory applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Two claims get bundled together under New subcategory and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Post #10 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for New subcategory post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Confirming post #11 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
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.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
On post #14 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
I changed my mind about New subcategory after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
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.
Two things can be true about New subcategory at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
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.
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.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed New subcategory, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
Everything in post #19 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Practical answer on New subcategory, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Narrowing post #23, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
I would call the community position on New subcategory likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Answering the question post #23 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
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.
Post #27 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.