Why are 5 + 5 games labelled "classical" time control on lichess?

@Schwatka

Good points, as usual. LiChess should change it from 'Classical' to 'Modern Classical', that way, nobody can claim confusion or become upset.

I think the FIDE definitions would be fine.

Another problem is a lot of times I want to play a blitz game of say 8 + 15 or something, but I don't want to mess up my classical rating which is higher than my blitz rating so I feel pressured to stick within 5+4, the longest time control considered blitz on lichess.

@Unthinkabl3 That's just not the point. It's not about a name, it's about the range of of a time control like classical (if you call it classical or modern classical does not matter), that should be changed. That's the least. Plus I highly advocate an additional rapid rating. Some state there would not be enough players for the longer time controls, but I doubt that + it does not matter. If players would stick mostly to bullet, blitz and rapid after a change, that would just be fine. Some would also play classical, maybe only from time to time, but what would be the problem? There are faster and slower players, some who want to think longer, some who like to decide fast. I just can't imagine any harm by a classical rating that starts with 60 min. Fun thing is those who like to play longer games care for changes, those who only play bullet, blitz, maybe classical games of ten minutes (tournaments) are against them. It would just be generous or rather fair to provide some in my opinion improvements to those, who actually play long(er) games.

You can play games as long as you want like seek 30+30 or 60+0, if you find an opponent. It is just not happening. Processed from the source above:

FIDE:
< 15 FIDE blitz: 97% of games, 95% of play time
15 - 60 FIDE rapid: 3% of games, 5% of play time
> 60 FIDE classical: 0% of games, 0% of play time

lichess:
< 3 lichess bullet: 36% of games, 9% of play time
3 - 8 lichess blitz: 42% of games, 38% of play time
> 8 lichess classical: 22% of games, 53% of play time

It is pointless to create a new rating category for something that is not played. I do agree that the use of the same terms "blitz" and "classical" for different meanings may be confusing.

I don't understand what the benefits are to using the term "classical" in such a drastically different way than FIDE. If you say classical it should at least feel something longer than a FIDE rapid game, by some stretch of the imagination. I would be fine if classical games were shorter than 60, but not if they are well below the standard for Rapid. Even some Blitz games are longer than 8 minutes... it's very strange.

I don't know about what time controls we should have separated out or anything like that, but 8min+ does seem a bit too broad (and def. stop calling it classical). If anything is added it should be the next thing up, which would be Rapid.

Lichess's "Classical" -> needs a new name, and an upper limit. 8min to ???
new mode (maybe) -> longer games, call it Rapid, begins where the above upper limit ends.

@tpr Don't you think the factor "tournament" is an important reason why there are so few games with longer time controls? It looks impressive, but I wonder what would happen if Lichess would introduce 20 min tournament games. It's like many players just don't like playing in the lobby, they get more thrilled when they can earn points and be placed in a tournament. It feels more casual if you play lobby games. The moment lichess provides some form of tournament or league for longer time controls, they will get more attention – for sure.
But I think @Schwatka is right, starting classical with 60 min. is debatable, that's the point anyway: People don't say: Do it this way. They say: Think about what's reasonable, consider certain points, make steps in the right direction. But don't just ignore or speak against. If they stop arguing, it's not because they don't want it any longer, it's because they felt it's hopeless. Maybe I am only speaking for me; but that's fine. I see small things getting better. That's fine. I don't know who said it, but a philosopher or political scientist, he said: Policy is not about administration, it's about revolution. It's a controversial statement and it was aimed to be controversial, but I think it applies in this particular case. Want to be the best? Show some braveness, risk something.

@teerdurchzogen of course you are right: time controls with tournaments are more popular as tournaments are fun and exciting and as you do not have to wait for a lobby challenge accepted or accept a challenge in a time control you do not like.

However, that is the chicken/egg problem. It is understandable that lichess do not want to stage tournaments in a time control that is not popular.
The other reason is practical. Say lichess wants to stage a tournament of 30+30. At 9 rounds that means 9 hours.

I want more increment tournaments, because I think it leads to purer chess with less annoying losses on time. However increment games make up only 19% of games and 28% of played time, so I understand lichess only stages one 3+2 tournament and no other increment time controls.

Besides everybody is free to stage a tournament of e.g. 30+30 himself here on lichess. If it turns out to be popular, then I guess lichess will take up organising that kind of tournament too, then more games will be played with that time control and then a call for a separate rating may become justified.

@tpr Unfortunately I could not even create a 10+0 tournament, try it yourself, no way you can create a tournament of 30+30 – at least if you want it to be public. Private tournaments with password are allowed (ridicilous).
I understand your view, but as you have said: its the chicken/egg problem – but we could find out. It's like with an unconditional basic income – you can debate and debate, fact is: society does not want it yet. That's the reason why we don't have it. If we would want it, we would find solutions to all arising problems.
BUT: I for myself would not compete in an 9 hour tournament. So instead I would rather like to have official classical and rapid leagues.
Maybe that's not even my point. I just think it's nice to play at long time controls. Long time controls are not necessarily unpopular because they are boring, but because tournaments increase the value of faster time controls. If we want to make longer time controls more popular, we would just need to look for a way to make them more attractive and less casual. New rating categories could be a good beginning.

@teerdurchzogen I have looked more deeply into your tournament hypothesis.
The two most popular time controls in terms of total play time are 10+0 and 3+0 and these have indeed tournaments and also a quick search button for the lobby.
However, the 3rd most popular time control 7+0 has neither tournaments nor a quick search button.
The 4th most popular time control 15+15 has no tournaments, but a quick search button. a tournament would take 3 h.
The 5th most popular time control 5+3 has no tournaments but it has a quick search button.
The 6th most popular 3+2 has both tournaments and quick search.
The 7th most popular 15+0 has neither tournaments nor quick search.
The 8th most popular 1+0 has both tournaments and quick search.
The 9th most popular 2+1 has no tournaments, but a quick search button.
The 10th most popular 5+0 has both tournaments and quick search.

So, no, I do not think tournaments or quick search buttons are decisive in time control preference.

Data processed from source above:
min sec games tot FIDE lichess play time tournament quick search
10 0 1567951 10 blitz classical 15679510 yes yes
3 0 2158945 3 blitz blitz 6476835 yes yes
7 0 588878 7 blitz blitz 4122146 no no
15 15 105757 30 rapid classical 3172710 no yes
5 3 339861 8 blitz blitz 2718888 no yes
3 2 467778 5 blitz blitz 2338890 yes yes
15 0 148208 15 rapid classical 2223120 no no
1 0 2068329 1 blitz bullet 2068329 yes yes
2 1 399411 3 blitz bullet 1198233 no yes
5 0 232056 5 blitz blitz 1160280 yes yes
5 8 86814 13 blitz classical 1128582 no no
5 5 100722 10 blitz classical 1007220 no no
20 0 42818 20 rapid classical 856360 no no
8 0 94695 8 blitz blitz 757560 no no
10 5 44987 15 rapid classical 674805 no no
2 0 233300 2 blitz bullet 466600 no no
5 2 50831 7 blitz blitz 355817 no no
5 4 35938 9 blitz classical 323442 no no
4 0 57058 4 blitz blitz 228232 no no
0.5 0 384998 0.5 blitz bullet 192499 no no
3 1 42254 4 blitz blitz 169016 no no
1 2 35681 3 blitz bullet 107043 no no
1 1 46661 2 blitz bullet 93322 no no
0.25 0 256592 0.25 blitz bullet 64148 no no
0 1 58782 1 blitz bullet 58782 no no

7+0 perhaps because it's kind of the longest blitz you can play in blitz category.
Seems like both tournaments and quick search button have an impact. But maybe lichess just build these elements by experience, knowing that these time controls are the most popular, I don't know.
For 15+15 (which would also be rather quick, but a massive improvement for me – in maybe 50 percent of my classical tournament games I get into time trouble) a three hour tournament would not be bad, would it? I see five hour tournaments in 10+0, why not a three hour tournament 15+15? Plus: We always speak about it like we have to fill tournaments on a daily basis, but one or two tournaments a week in f.e. 15+15 time control would be nice. They could serve as tournaments for the rapid time category. Classical would need a league system, I would not play more than one 60+0 game in a row (at least if it lasts let's say one hour or 90 minutes or even close to the maximum). At some point the currently used tournament system on lichess would not work anymore. But I don't think that point is reached after 10+0, 15+15 should work as well.