Talk:Cf./Archive 1

Entirely different definition in common use

Cf. is the abbreviation for the latin Contra Factum. It's used commonly in British and Australian legal parlance during comparisons, can can be read as meaning "as opposed to" or "but not".

Eg.

Bananas are yellow. Cf. Oranges.

120.20.63.92 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Tom.

How is this "entirely different" than the definition and examples used in the article? All of the proper examples, aside from the biblical "exception," use "cf." in the same way you do in your example. Also, new talk topics belong at the bottom. Agnosticaphid (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I was trying to say is that your suggested alternate abbreviation for "cf." (which would actually render it "c.f.," for the reasons stated in the formatting section) is not substantively different than the meaning and usage discussed in the article. While you may think that "cf." stands for something else, you'll need to come up with some evidence of that before this long-standing article's changed.Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph

Wow. That last paragraph is the single hardest to decipher bit of writing I've seen on wikipedia. I'd edit myself, but I'm not even really sure if it needs to be there. So I start the discussion...

Discuss!

[anonymous] 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought the example itself was good, but it went far afield from the subject at hand (the actual abbreviation cf.). Hopefully my rewrite removed the cruft while leaving the important part, but if anybody has any further improvements, they're welcome. —Ebarrett 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

more examples

this article definitely needs more examples... 69.113.7.9 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

Isn't it appropriate that the link to the disambig page ("For other uses, see Cf") could be written as "For other uses, cf. Cf"? puzzleMeister 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

65.170.43.34CF65.170.43.34

Bold Cleanup

I made a bunch of changes, for the following reasons:

• First, a general one... "compare" is very related to "contrast," and maybe one is a subset of the other or it's the same thing in a logic class. But the word "compare" does not itself mean contrast. As such, to write "cf" does not mean the understanding fo the pre-cf phrase can only be undrestood by contrasting it with the post-cf phrase. If I say "Feliz Cumpleaños is Spanish for Happy Birthday (cf. Cascabeles is Spanish for Jingle Bells)", that does not mean I wrote that to show how Jingle Bells is a different song than Happy Birthday--it's just bringing up another Spanish translation which would help one understand Feliz Cumpleaños. Sorry, small distinction, but throughout the article, authors said stuff like "it is often used by authors... to refer to other academic material which may contain an argument or statement differing to theirs." No, they are merely establishing a lens with the proper prescription.
• In binomial nomenclature, cf goes between the name of the species and the name of a similar species. So "Feliz Cumpleaños cf. Happy Birthday," meaning "The song they're singing is called Feliz Cumpleaños, and I think it may even be a Happy Birthday variation (and if you want to know what I mean, you should probably compare it to Happy Birthday.)" Again, the phrase is not necessarily saying that understanding comes through pointing out the differences, but the similarities, between the two songs. --Mrcolj 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

read aloud?

how should this be read aloud? "Confer?" "See-eff?" "Compare (to/with)?" Jieagles 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be read as "compare" because that's how it's translated in English. No "to" or "with" is used. Agnosticaphid (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Varlaam (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

reversion of edit and change to example

I reverted the last edit. That edit eliminated the "cf. q.v." part of the parenthetical in the formatting section, but I think that that's probably the best example of proper usage in the whole article and really think it should stay.

I also changed the first example (of legal usage), because I'd written the other one but it was vaguely incomprehensible. I'm not sure this one is that much better. If anyone can come up with something else, please do. Agnosticaphid (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cf. ?

Is it not capitalized at the beginning of a sentence? Varlaam (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a great question. In my writing, I ordinarily capitalize it when it's at the beginning of a sentence. But I can see the article certainly doesn't. Do we have any other views on this? Maybe we should capitalize? AgnosticAphid talk 23:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: While the use of cf. for "see" is widespread, usage guides consider it incorrect.

If this note (italicized in heading, above) is accepted as true within the context of the article, and given that it is supported by a usage guide ref, it seems inappropriate then to present an example of "incorrect usage" (in bold, below) as though said example were "correct usage". This was mentioned/deleted in an edit ~Nov 2011(?) but the example was left in b/c it was "[referenced elsewhere] in article" -- discuss or remove? Propose removal of both parts.

i.e. "Formatted properly, the abbreviation has a single period after it ("cf.", not "c.f.") because it represents a shortening of the single word confer, not two words as in "quod vide" (cf. "q.v."). Use of italics for abbreviations of foreign words and phrases has become less common in modern usage, especially for such common abbreviations as cf., e.g., etc., i.e., and viz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223fms (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not excellently worded. It'd be better if the "not two words as in quod vide" was "not two words as in "id est"" because then it wouldn't be the same example twice. Perhaps I'll change that now. But I think the idea is, "compare cf to q.v." not "see q.v.", so it's not an incorrect example, I don't think. AgnosticAphid talk 04:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The style guide does not say it is "incorrect" to use cf. anywhere, it points out that you are saying something that you may not have wanted to say.

"The Australian language Dyirbal has a remarkable gender system; cf. Dixon (1972)."

• This is "incorrect" if Dixon 1972 just expressed his view that the gender system of Dyirbal is remarkable.
• This is "correct" if the judgement of the gender system's being remarkable is due to the present author: the reader is not sent to Dixon (1972) to verify that Dixon said "remarkable", the reader is invited to consult the work by Dixon, presumably on these gender systems, and make up their own minds if they would not agree that they are remarkable.

"That which is animal, therefore, does not perceive the things that are of God cf. 1 Cor 2:14."

• this would be "incorrect" if Cor 2:14 would simply state that "That which is animal does not perceive the things that are of God". Instead, the verse goes

  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

• Therefore, usage of cf. is "correct", as the reader isn't just sent to look up that 1Cor 2:14 does in fact say "that which is animal does not perceive divine things", he is invited to read the verse and consider if this could not be used in support of the statement made by the present author (the "present author" here being Calvin).

--dab (𒁳) 14:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis, for the most part. You're right that it's not "wrong" to use cf. to mean "see" – it's not like that violates the nonexistent Offical Rules of English – the writer will just come off as uniformed to people who pay attention to style guides and professional usage. I disagree that it's correct to just use cf. to say, "if you consult Dixon or Corinthians you'll find a sentence (or a few) that back up my paraphrase." That's using cf. to mean "see," not "see, by contrast or by comparison." Just because somone paraphrased rather than made a direct quote doesn't mean it's a comparison. AgnosticAphid talk 12:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

reference 10

does not seem to be making the statement you credit it with making. rather just indicates that q.v. should be used instead of cf. when referencing information from earlier in the same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.114.111 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, 68.163.114.111. Plus, I kind of don't think that about.com is a WP:RS, particularly since it repeatedly says "c.f." Rather than "cf." which is just wrong. I removed that sentence. AgnosticAphid talk 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Italics or not?

I see the title and first use of this abbreviation are italicized, but further down in the article it is not italicized. I feel we should at least be consistent within the article. And do we also need to note that in print sources sometimes this abbreviation is italicized and sometimes not? Invertzoo (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does say in the article that "Use of italics for abbreviations of foreign words and phrases has become less common in modern usage, especially for such common abbreviations as cf., e.g., etc., i.e., and viz."

I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not it should be italicized. I'm also not sure whether or not it should be capitalized when it's at the beginning of a sentence. (In my writing, I capitalize it in the unusual event that it begins a sentence, but I'm not sure about here.)

The MOS has this to say: "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English," but it also says "Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization."

So, I think it's unsettled, but personally I slightly prefer not to italicize it. What do you think? AgnosticAphid talk 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

cf. vs cp.

The article doesn't say anything about when cf. is used and when cp. is preferable.--82.119.162.110 (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)