Talk:Zimbabwe begins vote recount

TheCustomOfLife, I do not wish to get into an argument over the spelling of this word. But I ask if you would like it if I went over your writings, changing the spellings to British English? For example is there any Wikinews policy saying I can't spell a word how I want? I would have thought the author should have first choice.

And just to let you know (if you didn't already), this word is derived from Latin connexio (stem connexion-). It therefore seems to make more sense with this spelling. Also the Oxford English Dictionary says it is an acceptable spelling.

As I said: I am not looking for an argument and I hope we can get on with each other, I would just like my spellings customs to be respected. Harris Morgan - (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

I asked someone from the UK in our chat room if "connexion" is an acceptable spelling for journalistic practices. They agreed that it wasn't. So please let's not pull the "across the pond" difference. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Connexion is a severely depreciated spelling. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I ask you why do The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, The DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) recognise it as an alternative, usable British spelling (from "across the pond") and why do the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary and the The Australian Oxford Dictionary give it as alternatives?

I believe that connexion from the evidence above (not from "in our chat room") can be a perfectly legitimate commonwealth English spelling. Harris Morgan - (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Please cite where respected journalism outlets currently use the word "connexion." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did a search for "connexion BBC" on Google, and pulled up three news articles in the Top 10. Surprise surprise, they all spell it "connection." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there is no journalistic English dictionary (not as far as I am aware). I am not willing to do original research as you have done above and I have given a lengthy list of respected dictionaries which give connexion as a legitimate British alternative. Is there a Wikinews rule about spelling? Following the Wikipedia rule, the author's choice prevails and, being the one who wrote the text, I think it is for me to decide the spelling. Harris Morgan - (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Why go for "the alternative" when there's a #1 use? It's an alternative spelling because it's fallen out of use. This is not the place to try to "bring it back." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. If you're a professional author you consider what your audience will understand most readily. Most differences in US-UK English aren't as extreme as the depreciated spelling you're using to dig a hole. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian: I have acted neither abrasively nor inconsiderately in this discussion. I suggest that you revise your statements. As the Meta page says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." I suggest that it was rather inconsiderate of you to call me a dick considering I am using an Oxford-recognised alternative spelling. I am in no way digging a hole.

TheCustomOfLife: In the dictionaries, it has two options: connection and connexion. The dictionary itself defines alternative (n.) when used in a context of having two choices as meaning "(of two things) mutually exclusive." So I suggest that you also revise what you said.

Gentlemen, I am really not here to just cause conflict. As I have said many times above, I would just like my spelling habits to be appreciated here. Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

ahh come one Harris, so by your ideas, i could write an article in ye olde english?!?! connection is the most common and appropriate, and our articles would read like thesauruses if we were to write all our articles using "alternative" spellings. i think you need to accept that connection is the most appropriate spelling...

Actually, there *are* journalistic spelling dictionaries. They're called style guides. Most such guides will denote a single spelling authority for issues of conflict. Archaisms are spellings which are not in common use in the past 35 years, and obsolete are spellings which are not in common use in the past 75 years. Please note that the OED uses similar guidelines in its listings. - Amgine | ^sw 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the dictionaries above denote connexion as an archaism or as obsolete... does this give it an all-clear? Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Why are you so gung-ho about this spelling? TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you were slightly too gung-ho in removing it without discussion or prior consent. Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, if there's a stylistic error, I'll change it. I don't think I need to discuss obvious stylistic errors. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

stylistic?? its a spelling mistake, if you want us to discuss things like this, we would have to work 300hrs/day! --MarkTalk to me 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As Amgine said, Actually, there *are* journalistic spelling dictionaries. They're called style guides. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the style guide specifically allows for multiple common spellings, with specific support for the cultural group which is the article subject, followed by the original author's choice.

That said, I've examined books.google.com to find recent common publications which use this spelling, and with the exception of a Regency romance novel (1979) I have found none in the first 150 listings other than academic, reprints of 1800s editions, and a couple of economics essays (circa 1950s). This would suggest it's almost unheard of in common use in the past 75 years. - Amgine | ^sw 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. This is not over. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Oh, isn't it? The consensus is against you. It is over. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me Wikinews policy stating that community beats author's spelling rules. Which are legitimate, sourced rules at that. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

give me the policy that says old/latin english can be used..--MarkTalk to me 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my final post. I consider the whole thing over now. It is not Old/Latin English. It is used in modern literature at [2] and is permissed as an alternative, usable form in all of those Oxford dictionaries above. Let's leave it at that. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

For the sake of completeness, I examined the first 100 text of your b.g.c link. 2 were not academic or reprints of historical - both were biographies. - Amgine | ^sw 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

D-U-N

Glad it's sorted. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC).