Talk:Carbon copy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Typography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

I have heard that the term CC was used long before typewriters or carbon paper so this definition may be the modern adopted origin but not the true one.

IIRC, people used carbon paper when writing out forms, etc., to get multiple copies without having to write it again. Wizrdwarts 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think cc: actually stands for courtesy copy, not carbon copy or any Latin phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.254.20.253 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of CC (in this context) meaning anything other than "Carbon Copy". In fact, the first time I heard of it standing for "Courtesy Copy" was while reading this article. Of course, I'd be very interested to hear about any reliable sources that report a usage of the term "CC" as it relates to producing copies, predating the invention of carbon(ated) paper. But honestly, I don't think such a source exists. Nezuji (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the section on email categorically states that cc does not mean carbon copy, instead meaning courtesy copy. However, there's no citation of any sort and this goes against my understanding of the abbreviation, and also contradicts the assertion later in the same section that BCC stands for "Blind Carbon Copy". I've deleted the first half of this section to reflect the inconsistencies and kept the latter half (which has citations) in preference over the first half (which does not, as well as using a rather rambling example). If I remember, I'll revisit this when I have a bit more time and try to find some evidence one way of the other, regarding CC in emails.GGdown (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hail back to the days when people actually said the phrase "copy conform so-and-so" to instruct the secretary that the letter should state "CC so-and-so" and so-and-so was to receive a carbon copy. Not to question the wisdom of GGdown, but I'm pretty sure it always meant "copy conform" even in the days of physical carbon copies.137.205.183.109 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart for encyclopedic reason, I added the e-mail section because a lot of people ask me what is Carbon copy. I would like to be able to direct them to a tutorial. Wikibook may be better, what do you think? Reply to David Latapie 14:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article states: Carbon copying, often abbreviated to c.c., was originally the technique of using carbon paper to produce several copies of paper documents. This technique is still used quite a lot. Shouldn't the article say: Carbon copying, often abbreviated to c.c., is a technique of using carbon paper to produce several copies of paper documents.

The term Cc has entered the vernacular as a common verb "To Cc." Appropriate conjugation is:

• Simple present: I Cc the email.
• Present continuous: I am Ccing the email.
• Simple past: I Cced the email.
• Past perfect: I had Cced the email.

I don't think the above section really belongs in the article, since the notion of

SO To is normal. CC is if you dont expect a reply, and BCC is to hide the other recipients?? Realg187 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"recipients listed in the BCC field receive a copy of the message but are not shown on any other recipient's copy (including other BCC recipients)." In the article about BCC it says this behavior is not defined by spec and should not be assumed to be always true, so it should be fixed in this article. --mafutrct (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In business writing, when a person is referring to the one copied, I've never seen cc, but always cc: e.g. Please reply to James and his cc: and enclose our brochure.

But what is the best way to refer to cc: when it is more than one person? cc:s cc:'s ccs cc's bcc:s bcc:'s bccs bcc's

When it is used as a verb (past tense), as in "You were cc:d on that memo." Is it that, cc:d or cc:'d cc'd Nwayes (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Wikipedia is somewhat limited, but it looks like the "If you ever receive [...] on your letter" (under the e-mail section) violates the encyclopedic style guidelines. 65.188.207.172 (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard "carbon copy" used as a verb like CC. Like "To carbon copy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common mistake. Dating from over 1000 years ago, "C" meant that a copy was made or sent. The standard plural form of a single letter abbreviation is so repeat the letter, e.g. p/pp for page/pages; v/vv for verse/verses; s/ss for saint/saints. C and CC were used in business correspondence long before carbon paper was invented. This fact is attested even in the 20th century when carbon paper was used. Stenographic schools taught typists to use C alone if only one copy was being sent to someone else, even if it made by carbon paper rather than being retyped. Similarly, it does not mean "courtesy copy".Ron B. Thomson (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Can you find

reliable sources which agree? Marnanel (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Professor Thomson is old enough to remember back when this was common usage. The hilarious thing about Wikipedia is that the say-so of a person _who was actually there_ does not qualify as a reliable source.137.205.183.109 (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CC is definitely used as "Courtesy Copy" as well, by English people. We may also want to align with [1]. Piet | Talk 11:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia but it appears to me that the latest edit breaks the Manual of Styles for using first person pronouns "It is now 2020 and we no longer need to call it Carbon Copy." I'm also not completely sure "It is now 2020" is appropriate, since it will not be 2020 forever. Lastly, the definition of CC has been debated here before, the latest edit appears to say CC originally meant carbon copy, but it has now "out lived it usefulness," and "CC from here on out will be courtesy copy." This is erroneous as no one has 'decided' the meaning of CC will now be courtesy copy (or at least there's no reference to any institution deciding CC would change meaning.) 73.206.37.58 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing at all about the history of the method, or of early copying machines where carbon paper was a key part. From the article on James Watt I understand that the copying machine was one of his later inventions, and one he spent a great deal of time and effort on. His designs seem to have used an early form of carbon paper. I figure the origins of the device and the Watt connection, should be mentioned here?

Carbon copying was also used outside of office-work even in the 19th century. I remember reading that August Strindberg used a mechanical copiator to get multiple fair copies of his writings in the mid-1880s, when he was living in France and Switzerland and sending scripts by mail back to his publishers in Stockholm. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]