I agree that if the edit makes improvements to the readability of the question, it should be kept.
I agree that this could include naming conventions, but we must look at each case, uniquely.
I do not agree that the edit was to change a variable name, nor that it made the question more readable; in fact, there was a bit more to the edit than a single name change, and I felt the other additions only added redundancy and more incorrect grammar.
Looking at the edit in question, I found a couple of changes that lead to my rollback:
Title change: "Object moves to certain point?" to "How to make an object move to a certain point and have it stay there?"
- Improves on the question, but retains the same readability issue, in that it poses a statement as a question. Statements and questions are both acceptable titles, but they do not work, together. I interpret this as a minor language discrepancy, as I see this "statement-question" format used, a lot. Regardless, in English grammar, it does not work.
- I felt, at this point, adding that the user wanted to the object to stay at the position after movement completed was a bit obvious. Look at it this way, if your not moving anymore, you must therefore be "still". This might seem like a minor caveat, but I'm a firm believer in ensuring the question title sounds inviting and non-awkward. To me, the inclusion of the obvious sounds awkward.
The inclusion of "then having it stay at that point."
- Much like in the title, I felt this added awkward redundancy to the question. When you stop moving, you are still, you should not need to clarify so for us. Regardless, I included a smaller addition of "and stay", which I feel confirms this requirement in a shorter way.
The inclusion of tags c# and direction and the removal of the tag vector.
- A non-event for the purpose of this discussion; I initially thought the tag change unnecessary, but I was wrong. direction does seem more relevant to the question than vector, which in retrospect, appears to fit in best as a meta tag. Ultimately, we don't use tags if they only serve a meta purpose, they should directly categorise the question.
The restructure of the user's comment
- Ultimately, I did not find the change to offer any improvement to readability, past grammar and punctuation. I believe we should try to use grammar and punctuation in comments, but in context, it is unnecessary.
- If the asker intends to use pseudo-english in their comments, let them. Comments should not be important to the question, regardless.
- Name change:
- In singular context, an appropriate name change, but explaining that the user wants to move to the position
wak serves the same purpose.
- Assumes that, in context of that specific asker's script,
wak is primarily the target destination. This may not be an accurate assumption; while the value may provide the target destination, it is entirely likely that it could be primarily used for some other purpose.
- In conclusion, the name change makes it easier to read for everyone else. The simple explanation makes it easier to read for everyone else, but retains its readability in direct context of the asker.
Ultimately, the edit was compared with the edit that was made, prior. I felt that I was able to best retain author intent, while make the question more readable, going off the previous edit.
The question now makes complete sense. You might say that it made sense before my edit, but it did not necessarily make grammatical sense. I take grammar into account, when I cast my votes, or rather I improve on any issues instead of down voting. In this case, I was removing my down vote.
I understand the some users may confuse correct grammar, coming from a non-English background. I know other users may simply be game developing geniuses with a less-ideal understanding of English, regardless of native language. This is all completely fine, in my book, because we have users that are knowledgeable enough to perform the cleanup, and despite the rare complaint regarding required effort, it does not require much.