[2026 update] New subcategory: rationale and scope posts 151–164

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.

Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.

Checked the New subcategory claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

Answering the question post #151 raises rather than the one it answers.

A note on how New subcategory gets discussed rather than on New subcategory itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

My position on New subcategory is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.

Everything in post #155 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The arithmetic on New subcategory is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.

This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.

Coming back to post #155, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Where the New subcategory discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.

Post #159 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

One caution on New subcategory: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

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.

Post #160 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

One case, stated as one case.

Coming back to post #162, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

New subcategory is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.