Suggested edit to explicitly address a naming discrepancy. Why was it rejected?

Question

In the question What is Kronos Corporation?, the accepted answer states:

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation was [...]

This Kronos/Kronas discrepancy is not further addressed in the answer itself, and perhaps understandably created some confusion, with a user in the comments asking for confirmation ("Kronas, surely?"), and the OP insisting that in-game it is definitely Kronos and not Kronas.

Digging in the linked wiki page, I found out that the subject fictional corporation was later rebranded as Kronos Corporation, so I suggested the following edit:

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation (later rebranded as Kronos Corporation) was [...]

with the comment:

added rebranded name according to the wiki link, after comments

But my suggested edit was rejected by both reviewers:

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.

Given the discrepancy of a question about Kronos and an answer about Kronas, and the unresolved confusion and ambiguity expressed in the comments, it is hard to see how my suggested edit did not help to make the answer more accurate.

So, any ideas as to why it was rejected? And should it be?

Answer 1

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 [...]

to

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.

Answer 2

While I did not reject the edit, and I probably would have skipped it had I seen it in the review queue, there is a potential argument to be made for rejecting it.

Edits are usually meant to clarify some ambiguity in the text of the post, fix spelling and grammar issues, or add links. Edits are generally not for correcting technical inaccuracies. If a post contains an inaccuracy the standard procedure would be to leave a comment explaining the inaccuracy and/or downvote the post.

The line between a technical inaccuracy and a fleeting mistake can be fuzzy and can sometimes be a judgement call. If a post says Luke Skiwalker we can probably assume that it’s just a typo for Luke Skywalker, and edit it accordingly. In other cases it won’t be as obvious.

In this particular case, we can see that it’s not merely a typo or a mistake. The answerer deliberately used Kronas in response to a comment. The answerer apparently felt that this is the correct name. If the answerer is incorrect, or partially incorrect, that can be debated in the comments rather than changing the answerer’s formulation.

That said, if I was to reject such an edit I would use a different reject reason. Instead of choosing that the edit doesn’t add anything, I would choose that it deviates from the author’s intent.

Answer 3

The short answer for me is that is would have been better as a comment which it also was.

The confusion was generated in the comments about a minor aspect of the answer and it already seemed to be cleared up. A quick look at the linked wiki, added over 3 years ago, shows the name change clearly. You don't need to "dig into" the page, it's quite clear both in the body and in the meta information panel.

On top of that calling it Kronas in the answer was the initial resolution to the first comment.

It's also worth noting that the answer is talking about the Earth-616, main comics continuity, version where it is called Kronas and the question is talking about Lego Marvel Avengers which is in a different universe. So them having slightly different names isn't something out of the ordinary.

And whilst it is only a minor point there is no current confusion that needs clearing up, the whole post was last active over 3 years ago. I'm sure if anyone was still confused in that time they would have worked it out by now. A comment to clear it up, which you did, would help anyone confused in the future.

And yes I know "comments are not first-class citizens of SE" but in practice they don't really get nuked that frequently around SFF. We are even more lax towards joke and basic commentary comments in general than most of SE. Things just aren't as strict round here.