The starting point for any such discussion is always the community rules and guidelines; everything else comes second, and it must not contradict these written rules.
According to our own SFF help page on editing (practically identical to the general SE one):
Common reasons for edits include:
- To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
- To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
- To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
- To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
- To add related resources or hyperlinks
Furthermore, the SE FAQ on editing states:
Users can edit the questions and answers submitted to the site. This gives the site a wiki feel, and allows the information to constantly evolve and remain up to date.
The revision history of the subject answer in What is Kronos Corporation? reveals that the respondent initially posted an answer about Kronos; challenged by a comment, they edited to Kronas, and understandably so, since back then (May 2016), there was no mention at all of any Kronos in the linked supporting evidence. This left the thread in a rather awkward situation of a question asked about Kronos and an answer provided about Kronas, without further clarifications, but the asking OP was happy and accepted the answer. So far so good.
3.5 years later (November 2019), someone (myself, he/him) stumbles upon the thread and is puzzled and confused with the unresolved discrepancy Kronos/Kronas; looking at the linked evidence as is now, he finds a reference to:
the rebranded Kronos Corporation
(emphasis in the original). He leaves a comment as a first remedy, and proceeds to suggest an edit, from
In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation was [...]
In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation (later rebranded as Kronos Corporation) was [...]
which (edit) gets rejected, hence the question here.
Given the full context as exposed above, the suggested edit:
- Added updated info, not available at the time of writing the original answer
- Moved the relevant info from the comments to the post itself
- Resolved the discrepancy Kronos/Kronas, and addressed the confusion facing any viewers today
- Did not change the meaning of the post
- Did not conflict with the author's intent; on the contrary, it would seem that it resolved the issue in a manner that would be desirable by the author, and it would be the choice of the author themselves, had the updated information been available back then
In short, the suggested edit added value to the post, while being fully compliant with the community rules and guidelines, and without contradicting the author's intent. Hence, its rejection seems unjustified.