Talk:List of administrative divisions by country

Niger

The names of Subdivisions have changed, following the decentalisation and devolution plan 2002-2006. Most borders remain the same (none of the top level borders have changed). The actual names of the individual subdivisions have not changed in most cases, just the appelation.

• Departments have become "Regions"
• Arrondissements have become "Departments". I've seen two references to devolution to "Arrondissement" level falling above communes, but no list of actual Arrondissements.
• Communes/Communes Urban / Communes Rural. Titles remain the same, but there have been some name changes.

Refs:Mbaye Mbengue FAYE, Faria Ibrahim GESTION DES DECHETS ISSUS DES SOINS DE SANTE (DISS):RAPPORT PROVISOIRE, World Bank, Niamey, Décembre 2001.

FONDS AFRICAIN DE DEVELOPPEMENT: ETUDE DE MOBILISATION DES EAUX DANS LA REGION DE MARADI NIGER. DEPARTEMENT AGRICULTURE ET DEVELOPPEMENT RURAL, OCAR. African Development Bank Group, MARCH 2003

ACCORD ÉTABLISSANT UNE PAIX DÉFINITIVE ENTRE LE GOUVERNEMENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DU NIGER ET L?ORGANISATION DE LA RÉSISTANCE ARMÉE (O. R. A.

I managed to find reprints of the 2002 laws full text, but it seem it was only in the period of 2004-2006 that the renaming was implemented. State department uses the new titles it its most recent counrty briefing but without noting the change.

I'm going to start changing ALL these today, but anyone who wants to help is welcome! T L Miles (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That all seems to have been updated, but there was another big change in 2011, which appears to have created 27 new departments? I think we have a cite showing the parliament passed that change, but no confirmation it was implemented. That would be nice to have along with updated counts on communes. I tagged the appropriate cell. -- Beland (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Belgium and Switzerland

I was wondering whether it is fair to only include one native language in the table, when all languages are official. For Belgium, French and German deserve to be in the table as well (next to Dutch); for Switzerland, German (by far the majority language there) and Italian as well. I don't think this will hamper readability (but respect official multilingualism). Kind regards, --Roofbird (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

The word "megye" is incorrectly in plural, "megyék". I have corrected it. --maxval (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is deliberately in plural form; if you look in all the other entries in this table they all use the plural form. - htonl (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect. Hungarian language doesnt use plural after numerals. And the next entry (megyei jogú város) is in singular too. This not logical. --maxval (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They are now all singular for Hungary, I think. I added a note to the legend; I think the same thing happens in Chinese languages and possibly others. -- Beland (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Canada

I don't understand the change, the second level is Census division, not municipalities. Municipalities (or technically census subdivisions are on the third level. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Census divisions aren't administrative in all provinces. They are statistical divisions in most provinces. I'm glad to see the removal of the individual provincial listings. There are no individual listings for all 50 states in the US. Hwy43 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but they are in some. It should be mentioned in the table. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

if i'm right, at least québec is subsequently divided into régions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Quebec), which, at first glance, i would describe as being in an upper level than the municipalities mentioned in this table (defined as 3rd level subdivisions). each municipality (or equivalent) drops into a corresponding région, as it can be checked here (http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/repertoire-des-municipalites/fiche/municipalite/). any comment? sacdegemecs (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

azerbaijan (and other partially filled-in levels)

i have a conceptual question regarding countries such as azerbaijan, where the first-level subdivisions shows an upper void, lacking subdivisions, and a lower filled with the muxtar respublika. should we understand that the muxtar respublika relies at the same level than the rest of the azerbaijan? if so, the rayons of the rest of azerbaijan can really be considered second-level subdivisions as the rayons of the muxtar respublika.

i asked this because i detected some slight differences comparing the 2 versions of the ISO_3166-2:AZ article, depending on being the english one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:AZ) or russian (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:AZ), the former being purely plain and the latter looking more accurate and adding more nuances regarding the levels of subdivisions.

my doubts grew even more when i found out the article about the regions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Azerbaijan), where the muxtar respublika shows up as an equal subdivisions of the other 9 regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

anyone could solve this conundrum for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kiribati

The Subdivisions of Kiribati page does not mention provinces. (It says it *was* divided into 6 districts, which is maybe the same thing.) I changed this table to reflect the 24 councils mentioned on that page, but someone changed it back. Can anyone confirm which is correct? --Lasunncty (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Regional or de facto federal state

I partially undid revision 956958810 made by 2804:D59:264E:B900:BD8C:A67:BC3D:3B6C, in relation to the Czech republic, because it is not regional or de facto federal state but decentralized unitary state. And I guess that many similarly labeled states/countries are labeled incorrecly too. Kolomaznik (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to have the other countries labelled as either some form of federal or unitary state? Adding "Federal state" to country entries on this page was a recent change. --Merbabu (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I also undid a similar mistake regarding Ukraine which was made by the same user in revision 956956624. I also agree with Merbabu that we do not need this kind of information on this page. --Kammerer55 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer is obviously yes, as first level of administration in fedral state is fundementally fiffrent form that of Unitary states. For example in US you have fedrial goverment with president and congress then you have the states that also have its equals in state congress and governor on its first level and then you have on the level below that you have regional adminstrative units such as local concils and town/city halls. While in Unitary states you have goverment and then head of state and then regional adminstarive unites such as local concils and town/city halls so first level in federal state doesn't mean the same as in unitary state. and then you have regional states which are mixture of both. 06:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)DoctorHver (talk)

Language

This page uses local language names for the subdivisions, even if this is an English language Wikipedia. People expect to see English language on this page and not the local language. For example people who don't understand German or don't have a clue about the German political system will not know what the word Bundesländer mean. They also don't understand that they (as States of Germany) are comparable to US states or Australian states. I don't understand why they are written in the first place in the local name, when most of them (not sure about every single one) have an English language name and an own article with that English name, so the English language name should be used because this is an English language Wikipedia. Ransewiki (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Language - English is primary here, local can be a nice secondary...

Hi there - a lot of work was done by a particular editor to provide the local language names for all of these different types of admin divisions. This is a great addition to the page and wikipedia. However, this is English Wikipedia and these local names have been provided in lieu of the English. Indeed, where (in most cases) only the native name is provided, the link behind goes to an English-named article. Thus, I am proposing that the entries here be reworded to state the English word first and the local language equivalent is provided second in brackets. This is in-line with wikipedia policy and provides the best of both worlds. I actually already began this process a month or so back. I provide Afghanistan here as an example: "34 provinces (velaya'at)" There is a lot of work in this. I can slowly chip away at it. But more than happy to share the chipping with others. :) I also notice on this talk page that this has come up before with comments agreeing that English is primary. Again, thanks to the editor who provided the local names. We should keep great and useful work, but let's now provide the English name as the primary with the native as secondary. --Merbabu (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

PS - as an example of what I propose (it's not complicated - just labour intensive), this is my first change starting with "A" countries: [1] --Merbabu (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the superscript note system is the most intuitive either. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really focus on that. I'd just like to have English on the page. Agreed, note system is confusing. Perhaps a system of ref tags? But step by step. --Merbabu (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Some entries do have number/linked footnotes with "ref" codes. These work ok, right? But other entries have annoying sub and superscript lettering. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, i get it. The superscript is a translation to English. That's a bit silly. And as you say, completely un-intuitive. Should be removed where the English is being added. --Merbabu (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the cap/capital superscript as a start. There didn't seem to be any system as to which countries used it, and some of its uses weren't even on unique administrative divisions. CMD (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic changes! Thanks for all the work so far. It's great to have all the local terms, but it's also great to have their English equivalents clear. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed up to Germany. I'm already finding update needing to be made, suggesting that the lack of English in this article for so long was a barrier to users keeping it up to date! -- ҉ Randwicked ҉ 10:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Argentina

I rationalised Argentina considerably. diff Its entry had a row for each second level division. The rest of the page has a row per 1st level division (country). I know each country has its peculiarities (and I've probably not handled Argentina's perfectly in my edit - please clean it up), but we can at least stick to the format provided here. We do not need to provide a row for each country's 2nd level. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of the split first-division system currently in place for Brazil and China (among others)? I think that's a useful way to separate lower level divisions that differ by first division without the need for notes, which for Argentina would be one row for the provinces and one row for the autonomous city. CMD (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't got as far as Brazil and China. I think I understand your point, and I think I agree. ie, if there is more than one clearly different type of second division (or third, etc), then there can be a split second (or third, etc) row for the country. I think the Brazil one is done well, where 2nd and 3rd are split, and the 4th level (districts) is recombined for one row. Is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps Argentina could also have a second row like Brazil as there seems to be a different type of division for Buenos Aires. Using the China/Brazil example, Australia could therefore also have two rows - one for states, and one for territories. No doubt there are other examples.

Prior to my change, Argentina had a row for every second division, which i don't support. Using this logic, we would have 50 split second rows for the USA. --Merbabu (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, while i agree with following the Brazil example, it's going to be a big change. Armenia, Australia, and Indonesia could all have the change...perhaps most entries could have the change. And the United Kingdom could do with some consolidation. --Merbabu (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am referring to. There will be changes no matter what the decision because the current table is highly inconsistent. Other countries are currently set up similarly to how Argentina was before. I'll implement it for Argentina and go from there. CMD (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, much better. --Merbabu (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sweden

I suggest dropping the county councils (now region councils) of Sweden from this list and only mention counties here. See separate discussion on the talk page for the region councils. Belteshassar (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Guyana Neighbourhood Councils Confusion

So currently, it's written here that Guyana has 27 neighbourhood councils, however when I checked on the article, it is clearly more than 27, in fact it is actually 64. What's wrong? Is this article outdated or is the Neighbourhood Councils of Guyana article outdated? IdaeChop (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there were 27 as of the 2002 census, but 64 as of 2012. I could not find if there have been any changes since then, but 64 is at least more current than 27. --Lasunncty (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Brazil

I think the division for Brazil is wrong. Distrito Federal (the federal district) is the first-level division, while Brasília (the capital) would be the second-level division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:C7E4:EBE8:FDD1:4D08:9F9B:BCC0 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Before change the government, Afghanistan has municipalities. These are not mention in the List of administrative divisions of Afghanistan, and should be added. Feliks65mk (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Supra-level

Having in mind that some countries have subdivisions that are "special cases" and can't be classified in current First, Second, Third....level, I'm proposing adding the new level - Supra-level. To be clear what I'm talking about, that are the cases like Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in Azerbaijan, Kurdish Region in Iraq, Transnistria and Gagauzia in Moldova, City of Skopje in Macedonia, Autonomous Region of Principe in Sao Tome and Principe, Kosovo and Vojvodina in Serbia, and Zanzibar in Tanzania. All these entities are one level up in regards to the rest of ATD of these countries. Feliks65mk (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Dual system of administrative-territorial divisions

I want to point out that some countries have dual system of ATD entities. Most clear is the case of Malaysia. The system of administrative-territorial divisions is pretty clear Federation - States - Divisions - Districts - Mukims. But, that is not all, as there is system of self-governing entities (municipalities). These entities - City Halls, City Councils, Municipal Councils, District Councils, and few special cases, can cross the district borders, or can contain more then one district, or part of the districts. In fact, there are two parallel systems - pure ATD and local government system. So, for such countries we need additional line of levels. Thanks. Feliks65mk (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Argentina levels

The current levels of Argentina have wrong entities enlisted. The real categorization should be like this: First Level - Provinces and Autonomous City; Second Level - Departments; Third Level - Parties (Buenos Aires Province only), Municipalities and Communes (in some provinces); Fourth Level - Communes (in some provinces), Local Boards (in some provinces) and Neighborhoods (in some bigger cities). NOTE: Entities called Communes in some provinces are on the same level as municipalities, but in others are municipal subdivisions. Thanks. Feliks65mk (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Belarus

Belarus levels also need some more information: First Level - Regions (Oblasts) and City of Minsk; Second Level - Districts (Rayons) and Independent Cities; Third Level - Town Councils, Urban Councils, Village Councils, and City Districts. Thanks. Feliks65mk (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina has to be corrected with following levels: First Level - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, and Distrikt Brčko; Second Level - Cantons (in Federation only); Third Level - Cities and Municipalities; Fourth Level - Local Communities. NOTE: There is Inter-level between Second and Third levels - City of Sarajevo and City of Istočno Sarajevo, as they have 4 and 6 municipalities respectively. Feliks65mk (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor changes

Noted while checking some link:

• Croatia - 'Local community' links to general article on topic
• Russia - the link refers to 21 republics, and 24 are mentioned here

Jackiespeel (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is no English article for Croatia's local communities, but there is one in Croatian, so I'll link there.
• 3 republics, 2 oblasts, and 1 federal city are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine but currently under Russian control. I will try to make this clearer.

--Lasunncty (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and Bahamas incorrect/clashing information?

This article claims that Azerbaijan has 59 districts and 11 cities, not including Nakhchivan, which has 7 districts and 1 city. Total = 66 districts and 12 cities, for 78 total. 70 contiguous, 8 in Nakhchivan.

The first paragraph of the Administrative Divisions of Azerbaijan article claims Azerbaijan has 69 districts and 11 cities including Nakhchivan, for 80 total. This information completely clashes with this article.

The list itself in the Administrative Divisions of Azerbaijan article lists 69 as the total number of districts and cities in contiguous Azerbaijan, which clashes with the 70 from before. Combined with the 8 from Nakhchivan, we get 77, yet another different number.

Which of these is correct?

This article also claims that the first-level subdivisions of the Bahamas are 17 islands and New Providence, and the islands are further divided into 34 districts. Clicking on "17 islands" brings you to a list with hundreds and hundreds of islands, which are clearly not the actual subdivisions of the Bahamas.

The Local Government in The Bahamas article claims the subdivisions are the 32 districts + New Providence, which clashes with the 34 claimed in this article.

That article then shows a list of districts, but it only has 25 entries. It looks like the list combines some districts and splits others because that's how the population was calculated. Counting them manually gives 32 districts again.

The Local Government in The Bahamas article also has a Types of Councils section, which has a has a list of island groups showing how the councils are distributed. This list contains 17 island groups including New Providence, which clashes with the 17 plus New Providence shown in this article. There is also a section labeled Major Islands with that has a list with 19 islands including New Providence, which clashes with both numbers. These "Island Groups" and "Major Islands" also don't seem to actually be administrative divisions, just geographical island groups. TurkeyCookTime (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

For Azerbaijan, the total should be either 77 or 78: 66 districts + 11 or 12 cities. Looking at a few other language wikis, the discrepancy is with Shusha. Some list it as both a district and a city, while others list it as only a district. I'm not sure where the "69 districts" came from; it might just be a typo.

For the Bahamas, I noticed this discrepancy a few years ago but have been unable to find a government source to verify how the country is actually divided. If you find one, let me know! --Lasunncty (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost all problems listing

The Indonesian province of Papua has been divided into multiple provinces years ago. Both Indonesia and Malaysia are lacking second and third-level divisions. South Australia is lacking the native Australian territorial councils. The Northern Territory is lacking their newest system of local government areas. Pakistan is lacking any divisions other than first-level. The same situation is present in the eastern part of Russia. Niger, Libya, Algeria are lacking second-level divisions. Papua New Guinea doesn't have second-level divisions. Neither do all of the countries on the Arabian Peninsula. Felleno (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are the issues on the map itself. Felleno (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Bailiwick of Guernsey

Crown Dependencies

You realize that Sark is a constituent PART of the Bailiwick of Guernsey... Rowspan = 3 LEAVES it out and implies it's its own crown dependency.....

Country	Type	Administrative divisions
		First-level	Second-level	Third-level	Fourth-level	Fifth-level+
United Kingdom	Regional
		3 crown dependencies:
		Bailiwick of Guernsey	3 jurisdictions:
			Alderney	12 parishes
			Guernsey		Herm
		Sark
		Isle of Man	6 sheadings	15 parishes, 9 towns and villages
		Jersey	12 parishes	48 vingtaines
				6 cueillettes

Country	Type	Administrative divisions
		First-level	Second-level	Third-level	Fourth-level	Fifth-level+
United Kingdom	Regional
		3 crown dependencies:
		Bailiwick of Guernsey	3 jurisdictions:
			Alderney	12 parishes
			Guernsey		Herm
			Sark
		Isle of Man	6 sheadings	15 parishes, 9 towns and villages
		Jersey	12 parishes	48 vingtaines
				6 cueillettes

The PROPER format should be " rowspan="4" " NOT 3, quit reverting.

You introduce an empty column to the table. This is either incompetence pr vandalism. I m not sure why you keep edit-warring for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Flags

@Malihini208: Greetings! I see your re-addition of flags with the edit summary "I object to removing the flag icon from this list. If flag icons were displayed in this list, it would be easier to understand which country is represented at a glance, so I would like to suggest that the icon display be restored." The problems I see with using flags are:

• The table is highly width-constrained. For some countries, the country name is pushed to the second line of the cell, so the flag is alone by itself on the first line. This looks ugly to me. 2+-word names are also often wrapped so that some words align-left with the left of the flag, which also looks less than pretty to me.
• Flags increase the amount of scrolling needed to see the whole table.
• Flags are inconsistently applied to subnational entities, which makes it a bit more difficult to scan the eye across that data.
• I'm a bit worried that they add noise for some screen readers in an already complicated table, though mine ignores them.

Though they add a nice bit of color, the flags are not all that useful for identification - most readers are unfamiliar with the flags of most countries. -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Beland It would be a different story if the majority of readers were complaining that the flag icons made the article look bad, but if that is not the case, I don't think there is any need to remove the flag icons from this article. Above all, not displaying the flag icons gives the article a stuffy impression, and I think it makes the article less interesting for readers. Of course, if there are any errors in the display or content, it is natural to correct them. Malihini208 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Without taking a survey, we don't know whether the majority of readers think the page looks better with or without flags. We could open an RFC, but given it's a minor cosmetic issue, I've just asked for a third opinion. -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Remove the flags, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons § Appropriate flag use. These are not things that represent a country, and the flags do cause measurable damage to the table layout. Also relevant is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons § Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opining! -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)