Talk:Curriculum vitae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| This article was nominated for merging with Résumé in the past. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was to not merge. |
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
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)