1

I recently suggested an edit that changed Pokemon in the title to Pokémon, because that's the proper name of the franchise. The edit also made a similar change in the body and fixed another typo. However, the edit was rejected for the following reason:

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.

I find this very confusing because:

Given those meta posts, is there any reason why my edit of a title from Pokemon to Pokémon would be rejected as being "completely superfluous"?

  • If you read the comments on your last meta link, you'll see that many people see just changing an accent as a rather superfluous edit. For the record, I agree with only suggesting an edit of that to be no I'll cement whatsoever, and would also have rejected it. – Frank Sep 1 '15 at 20:44
  • @Frank There were more upvotes on the answer saying it was good to add the accent than on any comment saying it was too minor. Also, nobody came forward with an answer saying that they thought it should remain as "Pokemon". – Thunderforge Sep 1 '15 at 20:51
  • 6
    Considering you also fixed the "hat" that was a typo'd "What", I'd have approved it, personally. In general, though, if an edit was nothing but changing "Pokemon" to the more technically correct "Pokémon" with nothing else in the post being fixed; I'd say it would be too superfluous for a suggested edit (also, probably too superfluous for posts older than a day or two) – Trent Hawkins Sep 1 '15 at 20:58
  • 3
    I don't think that answer says what you think it does. There was more to that edit than just an accent change. In which case, I would've approved it. But just the accent change is entirely too minor. – Frank Sep 1 '15 at 21:06
  • 4
    I rejected it cause you didn't bother fixing the whole thing (its -> it's, second sentence is lackluster) and rather go for the "lazy edit". Want to edit, make it worth the reviewers time pretty please. I didn't want to edit it myself since I don't play Pokemon, which could have lead to not optimal changes and somebody came up with a very nice edit later on. – Jonathan Drapeau Sep 2 '15 at 13:18
4

There are a few things to go on, but since I am not one of the two users that rejected your edit, I can not tell you what their thought process was.

The difference between é and e can be ambiguous to a native english speaker

The accents on letters emphasis the pronunciation, but they are still the same letter. In other words, "Pokemon" has **the exact same meaning* as "Pokémon". The only differance is that if you had never heard of it before, you might pronounce "Pokemon" with a silent e.

Users can not have an infinitive knowledge of the meta

You should not assume that just because it is on meta, everybody has seen it. Meta exists to argue our points, but sourcing meta when you make the change is a lot more efficient then assuming the users that will review it have read the same post.

The meta in question is ambiguous

The answer in no way states that this practice should be done. The only answer is a user reporting that they have made the suggested changes to their post, and only after deciding the rest of the title needed clarification. The title was "Is it possible to GIVE another player a Pokemon", so there was already question in regards to format.

Forcing the use of é is impractical

At the end of the day, you know what Pokemon is. I do not need to put the é in for you to be able to interpret exactly what I mean, it is just good practice, given it is the given name. That said, how many users do we have on here that know how to put the accent on their e? Short answer - you could not possibly know. Keyboards have an e character - but they do not have an é character. I would consider the forcing of é superficial just on this merit, alone.

Feedback

In the end, many people consider only adding the accent to be insignificant, given the comments and feedback. Your edit should have been at-least been approved with the additional spelling correction, but personally, I would have hit "improve". It appears another user has made the correct edits to the question, with a more extensive edit to turn the question into something that makes a lot more sense. I reference you back to "are title edits superficial", where the answer effectively states "no, but make sure you go over the rest of the question, too"

  • 3
    You raise good points, and I appreciate your thoughtful consideration. In particular, I'm glad that you pointed out that the difference between e and é can seem ambiguous to native English speakers. To bilinguals and non-native speakers, it can look like a misspelling. – Thunderforge Sep 3 '15 at 5:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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