Talk:Buenos Aires (province)

New Banner?

Yet another Argentina banner :)

Existing banner

Proposed banner

Can I suggest this replacement for the Buenos Aires province? The existing one is just a bit bland to me... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll replace for now. Anyone objects we can revert. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not the best light imaginable, but it's certainly an improvement over the other one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing cities as other destinations

@Ceever: instead of counter-productively edit warring and calling me a dick, let's discuss this here. To keep things short:

1. Cities are very rarely listed under Other destinations (exceptions would be something like Taize in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté) – the "Other destinations" section is primarily for parks, itineraries, and rural areas.
2. WV:7±2 does not apply to bottom-level regions.
3. the list can be alphabetised later (likewise, descriptions can also be added later).
4. the "Other destinations" section does not necessarily have to be filled.

So there goes it – that's my argument for why those 10 ""Other destinations"" should be listed under "Cities". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to define a couple different regions. Looks like a bunch of places are clustered in the north and a bunch clustered further south near the coast. Why not split this region into 2 regions? 2601:2C1:8602:4DE0:DA2:6D1D:1717:E02C 15:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Regionalisation is an entirely different topic here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@SHB2000:: I am sorry, but I feel you are overreaching your authorities here, and here is why:

1. The previous user indeed has a valid point about the regions, and I already made the same point before. Thus, it is not an entirely different topic, and the way you frame this is far from valid and shows your true intentions.
2. The fact that you weren't able to properly sort the cities in the first place and now find weak excuses about maybe later adjusting it, shows that you are messing up WV just because it better fits your view of reality. Who if not you was supposed to do the sorting? Some else because you feel too noble to do a simple sorting?
3. You reverted my change based on one invalid argument (of 3) and did not even take the chance the second time to adjust the sorting (which was a pretty obvious no-brainer), so it feels more like someone else is edit warring here.

Basically this is a non-sense discussion about what each of us considers more applicable for this region article based on more or less weak points. I feel your points are pretty weak and non-nonsensical, while you think the same of my explanation.

However, what matters more is how we behave on this platform and which are the consequences of this behaviour. Disrespectful "I-am-always-right" behaviour deters potential new editors, frustrates longtime editors, and also lowers the quality of content on WV, because value is created from input variety and not from a single opinion. You having been here for a good two years (as I see from your contributions)—my recommendation to you is to lay back and just let things be sometimes, even if this conflicts with your opinion. I had to learn the same lesson, and it really is for the better of the platform.

Feel free to act on my comment as you like, but I don't feel it worth investing any further energy on this discussion just for a few lame arguments from both sides.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no extra authority than you do here, by the way. But like you, I also won't be investing time and energy into this trivial issue. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)