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 .