Talk:Angrivarian Wall

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / European / German

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

Connexion vs connection

Why is it so important that connexion is used here instead of connection? I can see this word has been corrected to connection on several occasions, but consistently reverted back to connexion each time.

This is a rare spelling that is only used by a small minority of English speakers (chiefly, British Methodists). There should be some justifiable reason to use rare alternate spellings – for example, using connexion in articles about the British Methodist Church.

Wikipedia should be written to be broadly accessible, wherever possible. It doesn't make sense for articles to be specifically targeted towards the British Methodist audience at the expense of everyone else.

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Connexion" is an entirely valid spelling, albeit mainly found in British English. For example it is listed as such by the Cambridge Dictionary. It is uncommon, but Wikipedia doesn't ban uncommon or regional spellings. In fact, WP:ENGVAR supports the fact that Wikipedia should reflect the real world. As long as "connexion" appears in proportion to its usage (i.e. we don't splash it all over Wikipedia or use it in US-related articles, a region that uses the newer spelling) that is a fair reflection of the world and readers will learn something new. In terms of accessibility, the spelling change is so slight and the pronunciation identical, so I don't think any reader could possibly misunderstand it. In terms of linguistics it derives from the Latin connexio and so is the original and linguistically more accurate spelling. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said it's not a valid spelling, nor that people wouldn't understand it. But based on the edit history, it's clear many people are at least confused by the decision to spell it this way, and think it ought to be changed. You will probably agree that between two interchangeable words, if one causes the reader to stop reading the article altogether and instead focus on the word's unusual spelling (even compelling some people to edit it), that word isn't the best choice. The less disruptive word is preferable.

You brought up ENGVAR, which states: "For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable". This isn't the same as color vs colour, where the American and British variations have an established spelling unique to their respective speakers. Because even in the UK, connection is the more common spelling, and connexion is rare enough that many British readers would consider it "strange or incorrect".

I don't really care about this enough to bother with it any further. Perhaps other editors will see this discussion in the future and can confirm what I suspect: that connexion, while perfectly understandable, is a confusing choice; and that connection is the preferred and more accessible spelling. In which case, hopefully you will respect the consensus that forms and let the change stand. Maybe that won't even be necessary, and you will come to that realization on your own. Best of luck in your future edits. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]