The Archaeologist Badge requires one to have edited 100 posts that were inactive for 6 months. Now, I have no objection to people trying for this badge, but it can be slightly frustrating when someone makes a petty edit to an ancient post. Digging up old posts (and taking up the valuable space on the front page, mind!) should be for meaningful edits, not for minor ones.
Now, in the review queue there is a reject button for minor edits, but of course "minor" is in the eye of the beholder. However, I feel that one is less sympathetic to minor edits as the age of the post increases. My proposition is this:
If a post has lain inactive for 6 months but is edited and this edit is sent for review then in the review queue area a banner should be displayed saying "this post is older than 6 months".
(I should say that this proposition was "inspired" by a 2-year-old question which was edited to change OK to okay, along with some other petty things. My rub was that the correctness of okay over OK is debatable! But it was accepted...)
Bump: I would like to re-propose this proposal. This was brought on by this rather minor edit to a question which has lain dormant for (as near as makes to difference) four years. Also, the edit goes against the second comment (which has 7 upvotes)!