There just were some syntax highlighting-only edits in the Suggested Edits queue. These edits were approved, but I rejected them because these edits are too minor in my opinion. Sometimes, I also do syntax highlighting-only edits, but then that's not a suggested edit, and I think it is too minor as a suggested edit but acceptable as a 'normal' edit.

Of course, I might be wrong, so that's why I'm asking here. Should be approve or reject syntax highlighting-only suggested edits?

Note: this question is not the same question as "Mass editing of syntax highlighting - good or bad?" because that question is about edits and my question is about suggested edits.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Same difference. Same arguments apply. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 15:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've been approving them, since I feel they make code more legible. I don't see a difference between suggested and not in this case. \$\endgroup\$
    – Geobits
    Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 15:46

1 Answer 1


I would personally approve it unless

  1. the post is very old (I approved these two old post edits today because I didn't notice the date, sorry about that)

  2. the language code used in that edit is invalid (I've seen lang-julia, lang-r and lang-clojure in suggested edits but these codes do not actually exist, there is no support for Julia and R and the correct code for Clojure is lang-clj)

  3. the code is so short it doesn't make any difference in readability (e.g. print "Hello world", or this suggested edit)

  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't realize some of the language codes didn't exist, because apart from one of my edits, they all seemed correctly highlighted. \$\endgroup\$
    – user344
    Commented May 3, 2014 at 14:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nyuszika7h: They all seemed correctly highlighted, because if a language code is invalid, it just uses the "default" highlighting. \$\endgroup\$
    – ProgramFOX
    Commented May 4, 2014 at 13:11

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