Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

15
  • Just saw this for the first time. Can we have an "edit summary should be in the edit summary box, not the body of the edit" option? It's quite a common one that I've rejected for and about 50-50 split between "wrong feature" and "vandalism". Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 7:23
  • @awoodland possibly ... we are still working the kinks out of this Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 7:36
  • 1
    Can we change the order of these and make something else the default selection? It's not very often that I reject a post for copying junk but it's usually either "too minor" or a "radical change." Too much work just to select the real reason and click on "Reject." Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 8:00
  • 2
    @waffles, did you just accidentally post the same screenshot twice? By the way, I need another reject reason: DNR "Do not resuscitate: the patient is dead" Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 9:04
  • @Benjol oops ... I messed up that edit :) Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 10:41
  • @waffles: Jeff's already [status-completed] it! Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 12:18
  • 1
    @waffles: On the "Radical Change" one could you put at the end, "e.g. change to the meaning of code." Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 12:20
  • “Copied content” should not be the default selection. It's a distinct but uncommon case. Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 13:27
  • 1
    I can't find a case that applies to an edit that's simply incorrect. It's not “copied”, not “invalid”, not “too minor”, and not “vandalism”. It changes the meaning, so it's not “style”, but it's a minor change that should be allowed if the correction was right so it's not “radical”. A retag, for instance. Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 13:34
  • 6
    Please do add free-forms reasons now, and turn them off later if it turns out nobody uses them. The list is going to take some adjustments; in the meantime, don't make us pick nonsensical reasons. How do you hope to review the data if there's no way for reviewers to say “I wanted a custom reason here” anyway? Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 13:39
  • @Gilles, it will probably have to wait a few days, we could add an "other" reason as a stop gap Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 14:20
  • 2
    @waffles Yes, please do. Better provide no feedback than misleading feedback. Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 15:42
  • @waffles How about my suggestion here? any plans on implementing it? Commented Sep 30, 2011 at 16:04
  • Coming here to add my upvote to @Gilles request for free-form reason. Hard to decide which category "Adding a Tag-wiki to an empty tag, but the tag wiki is not the least bit useful as suggested" falls under. "Radical Change" doesn't quite cover, "suggested content is not useful". Commented Oct 4, 2011 at 4:31
  • I would add "question is too old" reason.. many old questions are edited with minor stuff like "i" -> "I" or code formatting and bumped to the front page. Commented Oct 24, 2011 at 12:58