Why reject a suggested edit to add a link for a likely-to-be-mysterious acronym?

Question

Below are two identical suggested edits. The first was accepted but the second rejected. Why? The reason given for the rejection was that the edit deviates from the original intent of the post.

Both edit suggestions:

• Were in the highest-rated answers, likely be read by a variety of visitors
• Did not change the texts of those answers
• Added links from dictionary abbreviations (ODO and MW) to EL&U's list of dictionary abbreviations
• Were under questions that are stated plainly, with no abbreviations or dictionary mentions

These answers surely did not intend for dictionary abbreviations to be cryptograms that overshoot the technical levels of their questions. Anyone familiar enough with EL&U to understand an isolated ODO or MW doesn't even need that information when it is contained in a URL elsewhere in an answer.

I don't suggest this kind of edit when the tone of a question seems appropriate for EL&U shorthand in answers. These suggestions were for the sake of clarity, not points. (Anything past the 50 points needed to comment is more than enough for me.)

---

An accepted edit

What are “legacy brands”?
Does the phrase "Legacy brands" just mean "companies that are inherited from generation to generation" or there is another particular meaning? . . .

Answer:

  ⠇
[ODO]

  ↓ edit accepted

[ODO]

= [[ODO](https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/a/148/153448)]

---

Same edit rejected

Does English have an equivalent word for alimungawan?
It's the short semiconscious or confused state after sleep. Very much like a hypnic jerk but you don't go back to sleep. . . .

Answer:

  ⠇
[MW]

  ↓ edit rejected: “This edit deviates from the original intent of the post.”

[MW]

= [[MW]](https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/a/148/153448)

Answer 1

I understand you tried to do something very meaningful to this community. If this community had discouraged using all those non-standard and unfamiliar abbreviations in the first place, you would not have had to make those efforts to link the Meta post.

The first edit was approved by the Original Poster who posted the answer. That's why it didn't require two approvals. The second one was rejected by other users who probably didn't find it necessary to link the Meta post to the abbreviation "MW".

Users have different style and preference. For example, I always use "Merriam-Webster" or "Oxford Online Dictionary", but some users prefer "MW", "M-W", "ODO", etc.

If I were reviewing the second edit now, I would not approve it because it doesn't seem to improve the post very much and if you click on the hyperlink groggy, you can see the link is from Merriam-Webster.

When you have more than 2,000 reputation points, you will be able to edit any post without going through a peer review process, but I would not recommend linking the Meta post to all the abbreviations appearing on English Language and Usage. There could be tens of thousands of them.

Answer 2

The most obvious reason is that two different reviewers had different opinions about linking the abbreviations to the meta post. I'd guess in the second case, the reviewer thought you intended to link to a definition of "groggy" or that it was a snarky way of suggesting that the OP look up the word in one of many dictionaries. It's hard to say.

In any case, I think it's a good idea to link to the meta post for abbreviations and I felt your comment made it clear that that was what you intended.