Talk:Résumé

Most of the discussion of Latin grammer is out of place in the etymology section (quoted below). It is rather esoteric and of no use to a reader looking for information about what a CV is or how to prepare a CV. Perhaps someone could move it to an article on Latin grammer.

The latter would be the genitive of content. The Latin plural would have been the former, being the genitive of possession: to an ancient Roman, "curricula vitarum" would suggest that each document described more than one life. What most people would want from a plural of CV is something meaning "a number of courses, each describing a single life"; this is curricula vitæ.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Before that paragraph went "The plural is curricula vitae, not curricula vitarum." Since the article does not need arguments about what the wrong terminology is, I've removed this section per the above poster's suggestion. pfahlstrom 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want the links to resume posting sites here? Maybe instead of the links to sites, we should do list of articles about sites that post resumes... ? --zandperl 05:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- I've removed the links to Houston, TX resources. We cannot list all cities in the English-speaking world, and it is absurd to just have one.Crculver 17:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A résumé (mainly in the United States; also sometimes spelled resumé or resume) or curriculum vitae (in the rest of the world; sometimes abbreviated to CV) is a document containing a summary of relevant job experience and education, usually for the purpose of securing a new job.

Strange that we have this article at résumé when (by the article's own admission) it's a curriculum vitae everywhere except the USA. Can an admin delete the redirect at curriculum vitae and move the article please. — Trilobite (Talk)

not everywhere. the world isnt made up of english speaking countries only. i've merged the content--resume and CV have different meanings in the US--Ji ang 01:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CV/Résumé difference

It might be an idea to create a separate article for CVs, since the content and style expected from a CV is quite different from that of American résumés?

- I would agree - plus CVs and résumés both have their own unique styles and variations.

Objective

The Wikipedia article says that 'The use of an "objective statement"... fell out of favor by the late-1990s.'

This is news to me. Most everything I've read, and what I've heard in discussions (I work in employment security) leads me to believe that an objective statement is almost required.

What is the "fell out of favor" statement based on? --- AndyVetRep 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formats

For academic CVs in the United States, the oldest entries are generally listed first.
For non-academic employment in the U.S., the newest entries generally come first.

Where does this come from? I'm in academia and I was told to list entries by their importance. I'd like to see references, or else omit lots of this.

--zandperl 21:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vitae or vitæ

Google

about 68,700 English pages for "Curriculum Vitæ" -vitae -wikipedia
about 16,900,000 English pages for "Curriculum Vitae" -vitæ -wikipedia

In most fields, anyone presenting a "vitæ" instead of "Vitae" would bee see as pretentious or pedantic. Using that spelling on this page does not do any favours to a teenager reading this page for guidence. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Australia also share the US definition of Resume and CV... Perhaps New Zealand too.

New Zealand uses CV

Link Spam

Just a note, but this category and other related such as career are prone to link spam. Sources of this tend to be from 2 types of spammer - business (resume posting, distribution, etc) and content sites (usually from SEOs).

The first is obvious to spot, the second a little more tricky so I thought I'd leave some tips:

reference to "content sites" here is focusing on those which are leaning towards or are completely spam - made for search engine optimisation purposes usually.
"content sites" tend to run Adsense, usually sacrificing design and usability for advert placement.
"content sites" usually have clear keyword targeting, usually sacrificing clear, concise content for keyword density. This can be spotted easily with keyphrase duplication in the Page title, H1 heading, links to the pages and body text.
spammers will usually use keyword links (read: generic) over descriptive links in order to boost search engine rankings for this term. Note thought that spammers may also use compliant descriptions to attempt to escape detection, so descriptive links alone should not be a signal of a site being spam free.
"content sites" usually focus on keywords researched on tools such as Overture or Wordtracker - these can produce unusal results (search terms which don't really make sense in plain English).
this use of keyword targeting can lead to an illogical site structure - multiple pages seemingly covering the same topic (but targeting slight variations on the same term).
in addition to these signals, "content sites" usually tend to be poorly designed (although I don't think this should be a factor in determining quality of content).
generally, spam sites will make repeated attempts to get a link, even if it is continuously removed.

In general, when you get a feel for SEO spam pages, you can spot them a mile off. It is a difficult thing to pick up (because there are varying degrees of subtlety involved), but worthwhile for spambusting.

Should we be listing specific "offenders" here? I've seen a few slip by in recent months. What's your thoughts? Weeboab 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsert if they seem fine, but the anon who added them only edited this and curriculum.12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, they added exactly the same links to curriculum, leading me to believe they just used keywords.12:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following link--it looked extremely spammy to me, didn't seem to provide any useful information (unless you're willing to shell out ten bucks), and has a misleading description (I wouldn't call a booklet you have to buy an "article"). Starwiz 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the Purpose of a Resume - Article explaining the purpose of sending a resume to employers.

This link was added as a reference to a change I made in the article. If we want to leave it off, that's fine, but you're jumping to conclusions by calling it spam. I'm new to this editing thing, so if there is another way we are supposed to reference changes, please let me know. Mil97036 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability?

"Because CVs are legal documents, lying on them (on the work experience or the education/training) is a serious criminal and civil offence. An employer has right to dismiss an employee or claim money from him or her in a civil court or even get the employee arrested for making false statements or fraud." This part of the article sounds a bit far-fetched to me and is not supported by any references. If it's okay with everyone, I'll remove it if it cannot be backed up. JSIN 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it's a serious faux pas to do so and could quite possibly cost you your job... not sure if it's legal though. Have to ask on WP:RD. Alphax ^τεχ 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface limitations

I removed the following from the section on British CVs:

[It is obligatory for it to be] in Arial, Courier New or Times New Roman, or an equivalent typeface, if none of those typefaces are available.

I find it extremely doubtful that there are real requirements for CVs that specify any particular fonts, let alone Microsoft fonts. Obviously, one should avoid fonts that are showy or hard to read, but mine is in Myriad and Minion and I find it very hard to believe that anyone would reject it because it uses those fonts instead of Times New Roman and Arial. If, on the other hand, I am completely wrong, and the entire island of Britain does their CVs using only Microsoft Word for Windows with the default font settings, and there is some kind of national standard mandating this, I'd be happy to have it put back, provided an adequate citation can be proffered. Nohat 09:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that these are the default typefaces for CVs in the UK. Both Myriad and Minion are fine, but the idea is not to put "fun" typefaces like Comic Sans on the CV, as it says I am sloppy with my work.159753 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]