Talk:1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Australian English
Really? An anomalous feature in a featured article. What possible reason? I didn't know Yugoslavia was in that continent, or an Australian colony. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no obvious variation of English more relevant than any other for Yugoslav articles, and it was written in Australian English. Simple as that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Random chance. WP:Own.  Not a good rationale, but it appears to be factual. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop it with this “own” nonsense. Yes, I created and wrote the article, so naturally I wrote it in Australian English, because there is no natural English variation for the subject. No doubt this happens with article creators using other variations of English, it helps avoid grammar errors for starters. If there was a natural variation I would use that, and have in the past. As far as linking the publishers goes, the guidance at Template:citebook says linking can be done if relevant. The publishers are no more relevant in this article than in any other. I’d be interested in your view as to why exactly they are relevant here. Very few FAs I have reviewed over the years have the publishers linked, I have never had a reviewer insist on it in over 60 FAs, and I fail to see the point here either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 15:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nonsense. You need to calm down.  WP:Civil. I hope your stay in hospital went well.  Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, for the purposes of this article Australian English is identical to English English. So, unless someone wants to add the reactions of Labor Party programs to the Division's history, this issue is moot (though I may be wrong). Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I still think that the Australian English template on this article was whimsical. But it is of no great consequence, either. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "I still think that the Australian English template on this article was whimsical." Obviously, as was my comment ... Pol098 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusing editors of "own" without any foundation whatsoever is hardly civil, 7&amp;6=thirteen. And I note you have not provided any justification for linking the publishers, or addressed my points about that. And the Australian use of mobilisation rather than mobilization is entirely relevant to this article, and already existed in the article before mobilization was added by Pol098, so you are wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't change any of the spellings. You have misdirected your ire; so what is your point?
 * Why not link the publishers?
 * Give it a rest; get better and have a speedy recovery. Peacemaker? Ironic, isn't it?
 * WP:Dead horse.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are effectively trolling here. Give yourself an uppercut. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to be fully clear w.r.t. the guidelines, MOS:RETAIN says: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. Usage has indeed been established, national ties as per MOS:TIES don't exist, ergo things should be clear here. GregorB (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)