24
$\begingroup$

The edit review system appears to have been updated, and among the changes is the removal of the "too minor" reason for rejecting an edit.

Does anyone know why this has been changed? Are minor edits now to be approved?

I noticed it when I tried to reject an edit that had only added an extremely rare tag to an already well tagged question. I was left wondering what to do.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Reason for change: What guidance should be given when edits are rejected? The disappearance of Too Minor brought up a legitimate concern: what to do with absolutely trivial edits now? (Like changing "it's" to "it is"). See What should be used in place of “Too Minor?” which, at the time of this comment, still awaits a satisfactory answer. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 2:14
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ This is particularly important on math.SE because we have a community custom to respect the OP in various ways. For example, if I use $\phi$ everywhere in a post, and someone changes that to $\varphi$ everywhere, the resulting edit should be rejected with "too minor" or some similar reason. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Mummert
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 11:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My proposed replacement for "too minor". Up/down if you like/do not like... $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 13:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did the general stackexchange site kill that (extremely handy) reason or just MSE? $\endgroup$
    – Adam Hughes
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @AdamHughes This is SE network-wide. My links point to relevant discussions on Meta.SE. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 15:04
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ What I do like is the new option to "reject and edit". But for rejecting trivial edits, we something that serves the purpose previously served by "too minor." I've had to make custom comments to that effect. Most of the edits I reject are blatantly too minor. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Sep 9, 2014 at 15:53
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ If someone changes "it's" to "it is" or $\phi$ to $\varphi$, then this is not to be rejected for being too minor, and indeed it never was. This is rejected because it is an invalid edit: substituting your own style for someone else's is invalid. The question is what to do when someone changes "it's" to "its" and is correct. $\endgroup$
    – RghtHndSd
    Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 3:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Adding my assent to reappearance of "too minor," and providing a bump. When I do review edits, I frequently encounter minor edits that do things like add minor, unnecessary text to the question. This option needs to come back. $\endgroup$
    – Emily
    Commented Sep 12, 2014 at 17:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

The void left by the removal of "Too Minor" reason has since been filled by the introduction of the rejection reasons

no improvement whatsoever

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

and

irrelevant tags

This edit introduces tags that do not help to define the topic of the question. Tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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