1

When rejecting an edit there is an option too minor, what is the definition of "too minor"? Should there be a "minimum characters" requirement on edits? I saw (and did my self) several edits which improved the post but changed very little like:

  • Fixing a single typo/misspelled letter, adding a missing coma
  • Changing a quote from simple text in "" to the quote format of the site.

Are all those (and other minor changes) appropriate?

And, the most extreme example of a minor edit that changes very little I can think of is re formatting the source text of a post without affecting the end result for example like removing extra white spaces, or changing a link format from [link](site) to [link][1] ... [1]:site. This does improve (very little) a post as its "source text" will be more readable but doesn't affect the resulting post at all. Should this be approved?

1

I think that any edit that improves the post, no matter how minor it is should be approved, as long as it's not the case where a user is breaking a single edit to several smaller edits to farm for rep, or when the original posting was not a mistake but rather a style choice, examples are British vs. American spelling for certain words and the Oxford Comma.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .