I see “Bolding mine” when bolding a quoted post where there was no original bolding and in fact, I usually try to do it. Is it required because of the “don’t change quoted posts” rule or is it just considered polite?
If it’s required, I need to report myself because I forgot to add it and my 5 minutes is up.
It’s polite but not doing so is not a violation of any rule in and of itself.
I disagree completely. It is a distinct change.
It is polite insofar as the poster/quoter, presumable commenting on that portion of quote, perhaps can skip isolating by repeating the key phrase or word that is being commented on. Otherwise you are changing distinctly what the quotee has decided to highlight by emphasis, or not to.
ETA: Somebody better report Nars or he’ll be out of the running for the annual SD gifts.
I believe it is required under the “don’t change” rule for quotes and I do believe its (not putting “bolding mine”) gotten a warning or two. But in my memory/experience its one of those things where the Mods try to read intent on your part and if its being done in anger or for clarity.
As Bone says, from a moderating point of view it is considered polite but not required. I would be surprised if not adding “bolding mine” in the absence of any other change has received a warning, so I’m going to ask for a link to any such instance. It’s possible it has gotten a note on occasion as a reminder of proper practice.
I suppose that someone could drastically misrepresent what another post said in this way, and that could earn a warning. But it’d be a warning for misrepresenting the post, not for the bolding per se.
And of course, there’s also the reverse, where formatting is removed, but that’s easy enough to do by accident through copying and pasting, so I don’t think anyone would care too much about that.
I’ve bolded, to draw attention the portion of the quote that I was focusing on.
I’ve never used the obvious “bolding mine,” nor have I ever received a Mod note or warning.
(Bolding mine.)
Like this?
Unbolding mine.
{Rainbowing mine}
If I got a report on it I’d give it a look-see. If the bolding seemed intended to alter the meaning someone - I’m not sure how but let’s just say it did - I’d be tempted to do something about it. But I don’t think I ever have.
That said, best practices would be to indicate that the bolding was not done by the originator of the quote. Just a good idea to do so for clarity’s sake.
(bolding mine)
What about cases where bolding creates a new message?
(Just kidding, but it has happened)
Lines mine.
The real question: why do do we have to use a gerund now instead of a noun? Typographic equality now!
Typographic equalititions unite!
Normaling mine.
ETA: Actually, can you take text in a quote and un-ital it but not bold, underline, color?
Plus, fonting. Garamond’s not mine.
What font/size is default for browsers for SD? Then you can do it, at least for readers who don’t futz with their CSS sheets. Who the hell knows what they’re looking at to begin with.
A common alternative is (emphasis mine). This also applies to italicizing words in a quote. Pointing out that the emphasis is (or is not) in the original quote a fairly standard editorial practice.
Yes, indicating such changes to the quote is best practice IMHO. It is also routinely used in publication, typically with italics.
Like so:
Emphasis added.
In the case of italics, it’s especially helpful to know whether they were in the original or whether they were added by the quoter. But I think this carries over to bolding as well.