Talk:Curriculum vitae

Latin grammar

moved from the article:

The plural of curriculum vitae is curricula vitarum. Ignorant people, even among the educated, often write curriculum vita under the very confused impression that the genitive singular noun vitae is plural.

The reason for this misinterpretation is that the word is of the first declension, which means that the noun follow this grammar:

• Nominative singular - vita
• Genitive singular - vitae
• Nominative plural - vitae
• Genitive plural - vitarum

fabiform | talk 17:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ought to be merged

This really should be merged with the résumé article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about things, not words, and a British CV is the same thing as an American résumé. Since I'm an American I'd say use the "Curriculum vitae" name for the whole article, by way of trying to not seem too nationalistic. There could be a section on an academic CV, which is a very different beast (in the US, at least), and is where the term CV is generally used in the States.

I disagree. Even in the US, resume and CV are not the same thing, at least in academia. Libcub (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The last series of dot points after 'As with résumés, CVs are subject to recruiting fads. For example', is confusing, as most of the dot points refer to résumés instead of CV's. Re-phrasing the sentence to: 'Résumés and CVs are subject to recruiting fads. For example', is clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elms 45 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the discussion about this should be in one place, and apparently that place is Talk:Résumé. Teemu Leisti (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Résumé#Merge_proposal to be exact. Just wanted to clarify because apparently the articles were merged before. This page was then removed and then reinstated, and there is a new discussion going on now. Mheart (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

about Latin

I removed the whole phrase about "curriculums vita" which didn't make any sense. In latin the plural of "curriculum vitae" is curricula vitæ (meaning "courses of life") or "curricula vitarum" (meaning "courses of lives"); in english the plural is "curriculums" (or, abbreviated, CVs). --EffeX2 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

These are two different meanings. "Curricula vitae" refers to only one life: many different documents for the same person or maybe many copies of the same documents. "Curricula vitarum" refers to more than one life: different documents for different people.

An employer may have several curricula vitarum upon his desk, while a job seeker may send several curricula vitae to different companies. Among the curricula vitarum, the employer may then select one curriculum vitae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.55.190 (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Way too confusing

The Latin explanation is very difficult to parse. In fact - it seems purposely obscure.137.30.122.155 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Æ

"the character Æ – lower case æ (in ancient times named æsc) when used in the Danish, Norwegian, or Icelandic languages, or Old English, is not a typographic ligature. It is a distinct letter—a vowel—and when alphabetised, is given a different place in the alphabetic order. In modern English orthography Æ is not considered an independent letter but a spelling variant, for example: "encyclopædia" versus "encyclopaedia" or "encyclopedia" unless I missed something Typographic ligature states that is a spelling variant, as the article stated. Threadnecromancer (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

Comprehensive or Concise?

The article states that the CV is supposed to be comprehensive. However, I've had three HR managers tell me that a CV should list no more than five past jobs, and be only one page long. Not very "comprehensive", is it?Presidentbalut (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

thanyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.48.192 (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "three HR managers" may be an authoritative source on a particular company's policy, but they are not one on universal practice. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Personal Statement CV

Possibly some useful content, but doesn't seem notable enough for a separate article - this is an encyclopedia and not a "how to" careers-advice guide. PamD 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would say that each section of a CV does warrant it's own page - as many unemployed people will be looking for specific information and a specific explanation of each step of CV writing - I understand this is not a 'how to', however the article simply outlines what a personal statement is (as an encyclopedia would) and cites links for those wanting more information. Perhaps some links within this article could link to the curriculum vitae article however I think this explanation does deserve it's own page. A CV is so extensive and there are so many elements to it that need explaining for those wanting a definition of each section, which may be confusing in a long onepiece article on a curriculum vitae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleysk (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirected. Hayleysk has tried to create a similar article twice under two different titles - both including spam website links - applied the same redirect rule as on the first occasion. Might be some useful content, but it is not a stand alone subject in itself or one on which to add spam links. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A short CV

The right-hand, top figure captioned "A short CV."

Is the caption supposed to be a joke? The document is 69 pages long.

72.169.80.80 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curriculum vitae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403101518/http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxplural.html to http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxplural.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge résumé into curriculum vitae. The reasoning is described in this rewrite of the article intro:

A curriculum vitae, often shortened to CV, is a short written summary of a person's career, qualifications, and education. This use of the term for such a short summary is the most common usage in both North American and British English. In North America but not elsewhere, the term résumé is a common synonym for CV in this sense of short career summary.

The term curriculum vitae (and its abbreviation CV) is also used especially in academia to refer to very extensive or even complete summaries of a person's career, qualifications, and education including publications and other information. This has caused the widespread misconception that it is incorrect to refer to short CVs as CVs in American English and that short CVs should be called résumés, but this is not supported by the usage recorded in American dictionaries. And UC Davis, for example, specifically points out that "[i]n the United States and Canada, CV and resume are sometimes used interchangeably" while describing the common distinction made in North American academia between the use of these terms to refer to documents with different contents and lengths. --Espoo (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Curriculum Vitae and Résumé do NOT have the same meaning, especially in American English, and merging them would only serve to create more confusion. A short CV is a short CV, not a résumé, and merging the articles would further the confusion between résumés and CVs. It would lead to the view that résumés are simply "short CVs" which is also incorrect. If we need to I would rather just have us add a "for information on CV's go to 'Curriculum Vitae'" banner to the top of the page. ElectroChip123 (talk)

Merriam-Webster specifically says that they are synonyms, so we can be sure that CV usually does mean the same thing as résumé in American English most of the time, i.e. outside academia.[1] There is no confusion since CV simply means something very different in content and length in academia (which is apparently why US universities started using the word résumé to refer to the much shorter CVs students write for jobs outside academia). --Espoo (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Fully concur with User:ElectroChip123's position. I just saw this because I was wondering if Wikipedia has any references to the 20-year-old joke in The Onion about how "resume" means to "unpause Resident Evil 3". User:Espoo clearly has no understanding of how the word "résumé" is actually deployed by native speakers of American English, and is cherry-picking, misquoting, and misinterpreting sources. Dictionary definitions are notorious for failing to adequately capture subtle nuances in meaning and idiom; they tend to capture denotation, not connotation. (In California, that critical distinction between denotation and connotation is taught in high school sophomore English courses around age 15 or 16.) It looks like the UC Davis document is being quoted out of context. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to revert article back to 20 March 2021

I propose to revert the article back to the last good version on 20 March 2021, before User:Espoo made a mess out of it by publishing inaccurate original research in violation of all WP core policies (NPOV, NOR, V, etc.). Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)