Talk:resumé

resumé#Noun

This word and its usage is prevalent outside of the US. Its use in at least Australia is marked by the pages on the other spelling variants. Therefore, it is not solely an American term. BTW, the use of American for US is offensive to people from other parts of the Americas, especially Hispanic and Indigenous people. Considering the dialect continuum with Canada, and the French connection, ruling as non-Canadian seems silly. I'm going to simply remove the American and US terms and replace it with outside the UK. I would like some response from User:Connel MacKenzie. Thecurran 02:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The earlier rollback was for removing the location tag. As there has been considerable discussion on these three pages, and you didn't discuss it first, it is pretty hard to wonder what you were thinking. While earlier discussions (particularly on the related terms' talk pages) concluded that CV is the UK equivalent to this, mainly US term, other dialects tend to use both. But "particularly US" fits way better than "particularly outside the UK", as the former is true, the latter is not. --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't particularly outside the UK true? Particularly in the US denotes almost US exclusivity, whereas in Australia CV is seen as a foreign term, unlike resume(sp), so p'ly in the US seems false. The pattern of English users dividing the world into just the UK and the US ignores the rest of the world. In addition, CV is well-used in the US. Thecurran 05:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It (in this case) indicates US origin not "exclusivity." As someone else noted in their edit summary or one of the other variants, "outside UK" is simply inaccurate. At any rate, the US and UK tags are used primarily to differentiate spelling types; identifying region is secondary. CV is used in the US, but only very rarely; it is atypical, to say the least. The only plausible uses here are by visiting/confused Europeans, or headhunters scouting internationals. In Australia, from what I've been told, they use both interchangeably. --Connel MacKenzie 07:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin should be explained in etymology. How about using the label Pan Pacific for usage from the Pan-Pacs. I live in Australia. I grew up in the United States. I am a citizen of both countries and have spent more than a decade in each. I also have many contacts from both countries. In my experience, CV is used by people born, bred, and living in the US with others of the same type but CV has to be explained to people born, bred, and living in Australia that don't have much experience with foreigners. Thecurran 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Connel -- In the US, CV means "carrier" as in w:USS Enterprise (CV-6); normal use is "resume" (with varying accents). People might know about CV meaning resumé, but its use is definitely exceptional. Cynewulf 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin is a question of word history. The tag is for current use of resumé. I have no idea how it's used in Australia. "Outside the UK; particularly US" may be more appropriate. But why are you two discussing CV, and are you sure you're even discussing that or curriculum vitae? Hard to tell on the wrong page. DAVilla 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, I see this has been brought up in WT:TR. DAVilla 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me blind, but in which edit was the regional tag removed? Only the most recent, it seems, which wouldn't explain the rollback. Oh, the UK tag. Then I am blind. But why rollback everything else as well? DAVilla 02:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)