This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 16. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Countries Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add ((WPCountries)) to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

I would prefer this version [1]

because here it is more clear that the names in the lower right cell are a mixture of low-left and up-right. Easier to see which terms are in which section. The content centered looks nicer, (for marketing) , but is less usefull IMO Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand your organizational scheme at first glance, so that's why I centered it, because I thought it was easier on the eyes that way. If you do want to revert it back, since you're the creator of the template I'll respect that, but I think colons to separate the data is good. --Barfooz (talk) 03:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I normally prefer when templates like this are centered, but in this particular case some of the lines contain so little information that centering them does not look particularly appealing. I would use the left-align version myself. And please please please remove that awful ugly Edit link!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That I was the original creator should not be important ;-) , but thanks. I left the edit link for now, it helps me a lot to be faster in edit mode. with templates it is so much clicking otherwise. of course can/should be removed one day. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

is hamlet a subnational entity? It's really difficult. I do not know the answer. Has any administrative meaning? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure. But if there's a place for town, and city... surely hamlet and village should be included? — CuaHL 13:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • maybe :-) Let's leave it until someone "finds out" hamlet is not Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'd say a hamlet is smaller than a village; and "village" seems to be the smallest national administrative division used. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But where to? Adam78 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are too much: List of terms for subnational entities Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't Federal be moved to federal/national, since many nations/countries have capitals (and/or capital districts) even if they aren't federations? --Dpr 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer correct names, i.e. names that the articles use in WP. Some federal districts/territories are never referred to as national districts/territories or there even may be both in one country. Of course these two lines in the template are very close. I thought about having them one follow the other. ... at the end, it is the easiest to only go by alphabet and decide nothing by what the entities might represent. Or shall federal be represented as a sub of national? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted it back because this disambiguated version seems better. Perhaps there's a reason that just hasn't been stated yet which will make the other version seem better. Tedernst | talk 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Council needs dab. But "County council" and "City council" are not subnational entities. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does a "disambiguated version seem better"? What's the point of having a template that leads a reader to a dab page that lists a whole bunch of things, many of which are not related to local government? And what is "Council needs dab" supposed to mean? Why does it "need dab"? --Russ Blau (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you are invited to write a better article, but don't destroy logic of this template Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you would explain what you see as the logic, instead of just dismissing everyone else's opinion as irrelevant, perhaps I could understand what you are trying to accomplish. --Russ Blau (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i don't think everyone else's opinion is irrelevant. where did i state this? BTW, maybe you explain why city council + county concil should be in this s. entity template? In the articles I could not see these are s. entities. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I was a bit frustrated when I posted the other night, and I apologize for my tone. Second, I was not the one who thought city council or county council should be in this template; you must have gotten edits mixed up. I agree they aren't appropriate; a city council is not a government entity any more than the U.K. Parliament is a nation-state.

My concern was over the link to Council, but I see that this has now been fixed and I don't consider it an issue any more.

While I'm here, though, what's up with Croft? I read both Croft (land) and Croft (Scotland), and it appears that the term refers to private landholdings, not a unit of government. Am I missing something?

Also, should "Dominion" be relinked to Dominion (colony)? That's the only item on that disambig page that is even remotely like a subnational entity, albeit only historically (and you'd probably get some argument that dominions in fact were nations even before they were fully sovereign states. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I mixed edits, but I assume I thought your council question was related. whatever. let's go on. Dominion and croft seem very good questions. Maybe the whole template should be renamed and be called territorial units? Then we could also include kingdoms, duchy etc. Some terms can be both ("County"?), national and subnational. The German Empire included lots of kingdoms, duchies ... Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is loaded with links to disambiguation pages, including Banner (not labeled as a dab, but should be); Council; Department, and probably some others. This leads me to question the whole concept of this template. There are so many different systems of government around the world, each one of which has its own sui generis system of subnational entities, that a template trying to summarize all of them is pretty much useless. --Russ Blau (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 of 50 is loaded. maybe lessen your bias. Furthermore you can also help and start new articles. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where can rural and local councils as SE (subnational entity) be found? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...Dominion (colony) was removed. I think it was in because a dominion is not fully sovereign? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for one thing, the Dominions weren't "country subdivisions", they were components of the BE; which wasn't a country, but an empire comprised of countries. The "(colony)" dab is and was always incorrect and by rights shouldn't even exist (who would search for that??). That is now a redirect to Dominion, which I also just amended to remove the false description of the Dominions of the former Empire as "colonies", which they were not.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In an experiment to try the above, I've created this as a prototype for perhaps three or four similar templates for national divisions other than administrative, e.g. electoral, environmental, developmental... I'm aware, however, that unlike the many varieties of administrative division, there may only be a few varieties of electoral/environmental/developmental/etc divisions. If so, perhaps a single (but efficiently filled) template is most appropriate. I haven't researched divisions other than administrative divisions yet, so perhaps someone might advise; apart from this, however, what do folk make of this approach...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has much less links, and some sub types are deleted. Not sure about the loanwords section. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subtypes are meant to feature in or be linked from the main types' articles, e.g. "county borough" and "metropolitan borough" in or linked from the Borough article. This keeps the template from becoming unwieldy in size or overcomplex. Re the loanwords section, what are you unsure about...?  Thanks, David (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is template-bloat to start with, but jumbling up different kinds of municipalities in different sections, alongside things which aren't municipalities, makes it all the more useless. Just because something is "X district" doesn't mean it should be indiscriminately alongside unrelated things that also are in the construction "X district". All of this belongs more in wiktionary, as it is really a list of lexical terms. I can think of a few that just won't fit, and I know that some of these links go to one country's definition above all others (usually the UK's). "Counties" in British Columbia, for example, aren't the same as counties in other provinces, or in US states, or in the UK; they are court districts and appear only on court documents. "Forest districts" are a subtype of "Forest regions", for another example; there is no other reason other than narrow alphabetization (imposed and interpreted by someone not even familiar with what they are); similarly why the h**l are electoral districts next to municipal districts et al? Because they contain the word "district"? Is that it? Shouldn't they, congressional districts and whatever UK Commons seats are called all be in the same section.

Unwieldy, overbuilt, and full of mistakes and bad links; I've commented on this before; but see it continues to grow, without any real purpose or even clarity; what purpose would it serve on any page, other than to get hits for this template?? I say delete it, and y'all working on it should instead work on improving the articles listed, rather than fussing over this complete waste of time and space.Skookum1 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In converting the template to the ((Navigation)) format being used in country/territory articles, I've:

1. Removed Constituent country, City council and Local council as the first is not a country subdivision and the latter two not used as subdivisions in terms of areas (so far as I understand);
2. Removed Concelho and Freguesia as they have standard English equivalents (municipality, parish).

There are more terms to add, per here and probably elsewhere; I'll start work on the former anon. The emboldened terms on the template should correspond with the most popular terms appearing here. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoping my merged article on Capital districts and territories hasn't bollixed things up to much. on the linkto page for the new article, I notice the old template still seems to be linking through to the many merged articles separately. Don'tknow if time will take care of that or not... Anyway, please revise the template as you see fit; I have no agenda on the template beyond simplifying the unnecessarily complicated and redundant entries the new one replaces.--Natcase 07:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't believe we missed such a key one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't riding be included here too somewhere (a subdivision of county). Jameboy 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess so... Is it a current or historical term, though...?  (I'm not sure after a quick scan through the article...)  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mainly historical, certainly in terms of Yorkshire, but it is still used. For example East Yorkshire is more properly known as the East Riding of Yorkshire. Jameboy 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the redlinked List of terms for contemporary administrative country subdivisions on the template page instead point to Table of administrative country subdivisions by country, or something else? --Quiddity 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AHH -- good catch... the other was either a redirect page or David Kernow's related workup page. He put one heck of a lot of work into this over six weeks back in 2006 with my occasional kibitzing. // FrankB 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I suggest adding a Hide (unit). Also a Tithing is missing (being 1/10th of a Hundred (country subdivision) which you do list}. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)  Done - Also moved related hundred to archaic usages. // FrankB 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone else wonder if this template might be better named "Country subdivision types" (per its category)? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's already been renamed a number of times... see the category's redirects... Country subdivision templates includes other templates specific to types, subtypes and regional templates, including by languages so would say no. Let it be. // FrankB 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Deelgemeente? Voxii (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there some reason why Arrondissement is in capitals? Lozleader (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this showed up on the Indian reserve page; when displayed, it shows Reserve as if the two were equivalent; it has no useful purpose on pages, covers too many languages and countries, jumbles contexts; another bad pipe is for "Land District" which only goes to the Tasmanian ones. This is clutter; especially if it's on all the pages it links to, random and unrelated other than being "country subdivisions"....in multiple languages. Should be TfD'd. I've removed it from the Indian reserve page, and will do so also on other pages where it has no role other than template-clutter. Bulky and poorly arranged, and bloated, is all I see, with no useful purpose.Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks that the edit summary was cut short in my reversal of the recent move. The part that didn't fit contained a suggestion to file a move request if the reason for the revertion is disagreed with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2015; 17:59 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: Hi, you wrote moving back, as not all entities listed here are "administrative-territorial entities". - which are not? Eldizzino (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember this coming up previously on more than one occasion; the presence of such entities is exactly the reason why the template was called "country subdivisions". I by no means can exhaustively pinpoint every one, but oblasts of Russia, for one, are political entities (and explicitly not "administrative-territorial divisions"; at least not in the modern framework). Same would be true for the "federal states", which are normally codified as constituent entities and not just as mere administrative units. I realize this all may not be terribly important within the context of a navigational template, but, a) if we can use a more generic term which fits every entity, why not do it; and b) this can still benefit from a discussion a move request might generate. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2015; 18:20 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: You wrote "administrative-territorial entities". I only used the descriptive "administrative territorial entities", where the parts mean 1) entity = some thing 2) territorial = that covers a surface 3) administrative = that is setup to do some kind of administration. Humans created/declared/established the entity. You also wrote "administrative-territorial divisions" - I did not use that term. The template is about terms of art / designations. It is not about specific classes (e.g. it is about "state" but not "states of the United States", and about "municipality" but not about the U.S. meaning nor the Mexican meaning [~county equivalent]). Eldizzino (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but your wording may still be seen by some as implying specific classes (it certainly was by me!), and between two generic choices ("administrative territorial entities" and "country subdivisions") the latter just seems much less ambiguous. At any rate, I stand by my previous statement that this discussion could benefit from a wider participation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2015; 17:34 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Terms_for_types_of_country_subdivisions&diff=808466871&oldid=808465621

• removal of items (e.g. the Service districts, School district, National capital region, National capital territory)
• mislinking items (e.g. Land district changed to Lands administrative divisions of Australia)
• addition of country specific items on top of the general term (e.g. County municipality plus County municipality (Norway), County municipality (Nova Scotia))
• missorting of items (e.g. Mountain resort municipality not below Resort municipality)
• missorting of top-level items : Canton before Borough
• turning general item into country-specific item (e.g. Special district into Special district (United States))
• removing part of the name from the label (e.g. Non-metropolitan county changed to Non-metropolitan)

Can someone intervene? 85.182.83.131 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Federal city - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Independent city - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Autonomous ward - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. School district - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. National capital region - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. National capital territory - 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Republic - 92.229.160.22 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Free and sovereign state (Mexico) 92.229.160.22 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. Special municipality 77.179.74.97 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Zone - the link to Zone (territorial entity) was removed by Funandtrvl 2017-09-05 [2] The page itself deleted 4 March 2014 by DragonflySixtyseven 80.171.160.223 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. City state - since English nouns are normally head-final and the template sorts by head, it should be under state not city. 77.179.168.102 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Special administrative region - should be under administrative region 92.229.160.22 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Autonomous republic - should go into main section, since it is based on Republic 92.229.160.22 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. Borough should be placed before Canton 92.229.160.22 (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014-09-05 Funandtrvl added six non-English language specific templates [3]

1. ((Arabic terms for country subdivisions))
2. ((French terms for country subdivisions))
3. ((Greek terms for country subdivisions))
4. ((Slavic terms for country subdivisions))
5. ((Spanish terms for country subdivisions))
6. ((Turkish terms for country subdivisions))

Later two more have been added:

1. ((Polish terms for country subdivisions))
2. ((Portuguese terms for country subdivisions))

On the individual pages, e.g. Muhafazah, these are used standalone. So one cannot navigate to the foreign language term pages and use the footer navigation to navigate back. Footer navigation in general is used for navigation between all items mentioned in that navigation box. To stick to that concept there are two options

1. the non-English language templates should be removed or
2. the full template added to all articles involved

Adding the full template to all makes the language specific navigation less usefull, since items are harder to find between the items of the other languages. Even more so, since the templates are collapsed twice. 80.171.160.223 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed as requested. They didn't work properly.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been a long time since User:Tobias Conradi was banned, and the main article was formally renamed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country subdivision. There are an awful lot of redlinks in this template. The categories also need considerable cleanup.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Examining the logs, all of these redlinks were creations by sockpuppets of User:Tobias Conradi.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]