Oliver Pereira wrote:
Is there an agreed definition of what is or is not a
"minor edit"? I
haven't been able to find one, so I've just been guessing. I suspect that
most people are just guessing. So if it's such a big deal to people,
perhaps there should be clearer guidelines on what should or should not be
marked as a minor edit. Perhaps the "minor edit" box should have a link by
it, with the text "What is a minor edit?", linking to a page of such
guidelines.
I shudder at the thought of having yet another rule. Ultimately,
people's common sense should prevail. If I'm reviewing changes to an
article that interests me as an editor, I'll look at all the changes
both major and minor. If I'm reviewing it as a reader, I'll stick to
the major changes.
Eclecticology