The rules state to italicise and/or bold any words in the overview that are shown in that way on the case but, if the overview is entirely in upper or lower case, to capitalise accordingly.  If the overview is entirely in bold, should it be contributed as such?  It seems daft to have an overview entirely in bold or italics, just as it would be in upper case.

This was discussed at length in the rules committee forum... over multiple threads. It came to Ken having to decide how it needed to be for the main database... and his decision was exactly as on case... so that means if the entire overview was in bold and/or Italic then the entire overview needs to be bold and/or italic in the profile as well.

Yes, it was your Kwai contribution that prompted this - I can't say that it is bold because there is no point of reference.  If certain words were in bold then you can tell but because the whole thing is the same then then, whilst the text may look thick, that would be the typeface rather than bold.

Sorry, I voted no before I checked this and saw you had replied.  Thanks for resubmitting. 

Quoting Nosferatu:

Quote:
The rules state to italicise and/or bold any words in the overview that are shown in that way on the case but, if the overview is entirely in upper or lower case, to capitalise accordingly.  If the overview is entirely in bold, should it be contributed as such?  It seems daft to have an overview entirely in bold or italics, just as it would be in upper case.

There are tens of thousands of fonts, and while CAPITALIZATION can usually be recognized quite easy, this does not apply to italization and still less to boldization.

Of course I don't know the broad agreement from the Contribution Rules Committee. But in my view a font cannot be bold without the possibility of comparing it with the un-bold.

If an overview is written in only one font style, there is a good deal of evidence first that this is the regular font style.

Love, bbbbb

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
There are tens of thousands of fonts, and while CAPITALIZATION can usually be recognized quite easy, this does not apply to italization and still less to boldization.

Of course I don't know the broad agreement from the Contribution Rules Committee. But in my view a font cannot be bold without the possibility of comparing it with the un-bold.

If an overview is written in only one font style, there is a good deal of evidence first that this is the regular font style.

Love, bbbbb

I basically wanted to write exactly the same. If the entire text looks the same how can you say it's "bold"?

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
In typography, emphasis is the exaggeration of words in a text with a font in a different style from the rest of the text—to emphasise them.

(bolding by me )

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
In addition, while I agree that we should not enter an all bold font...as there is no point of reference...and italic or slanted font is easy to spot and should be entered that way.

If there was used a slanted font, we should not add the italic attribute to the text, since we do not enter font information. We can only enter text style attributes.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
In addition, while I agree that we should not enter an all bold font...as there is no point of reference...and italic or slanted font is easy to spot and should be entered that way.

If there was used a slanted font, we should not add the italic attribute to the text, since we do not enter font information. We can only enter text style attributes.

If memory serves, most of the people involved in the discussions, disagree with you.