Talk:List of subnational entities

There is no reason to complicate what is a simple list by converting it into a table. Removed the dependent territories of the United Kingdom, which are separate from subnational entities. -- Mic 05:32 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

IMHO it's a matter of personal preference which one is easier to read. The number of items per country doesn't necessarily warrant section headers. --- User:Docu

When I created the entry I left the dependent territories of the United Kingdom in by mistake. There is a distinct difference between former "colonies" and subnational entities that is the reason why the dependants had to go. However, there is more to subnational divisions than first order subnational entities. I see no reason to exclude second or third level subdivisions from the list, since it actually is one of the points of the list. In some countries second and third level entities has a more important role than first order subdivisions. Second and third level entities has a place in the list, including the municipalities. -- Mic

We can leave the Wikipedia-definitions of subnational entities (or the definition's implementation) open and include municipalities. Often municipality-lists are similar to Wikipedia-lists of cities, so I'd find them more useful there, besides they can be found on Municipality as well. If we want to detail different levels of subnational entities within countries (or States), rather than just leaving this to the country articles, we should probably detail them here as well, e.g. list which "entities" are included in Subdivisions of Russia. To enumerate entity-lists, we might be better off with a more generic Lists of geographic areas. --User:Docu

I have re-ordered the lists within some countries that include the ISO 3166-2 codes to bring some uniformity to the list as a whole. – Anon 12:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

I have put divisions of Hong Kong as sub item of China. It would also be appropriate to do the same for Macau (the other SAR) and the autonomous regions which are in treated as being in federation with the PRC.

Autonomous regions and special administrative regions are very different. — Instantnood 07:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• different than muncipalities in other countries? different than US states? that's the kind of sub-item we have here. the technical differences between different first level political divisions WITHIN CHINA are irrelevant in this list. SchmuckyTheCat 07:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autonomous regions are ordinary first-order administrative divisions of the PRC. Special administrative regions are not. "Special administrative region" is considered a dependency status by many. — Instantnood 09:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Special administrative region" are also first-order administrative divisions of the PRC. Try finding any source which disputes that.--Huaiwei 19:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any source stating explicitly that the special administrative regions are first-order administrative divisions. The 1982 Constitution doesn't say that (an English translation of the Constitution). For general purpose and simplicity when refer to province-level divisions the special administrative regions are included. There is, however, dispute among the ranking of the chief executives. In many cases the chief executives are placed in much higher ranking than governors and party secretaries of provinces. — Instantnood 06:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

A first-order subnational division simply means it is the highest order in the hierarchy of subnational boundaries. It is not a technial description to be enshrined in the word of the law. You do not need the basic law to mention that term before it becomes one. Just try asking from another perspective, if it is not a first order division, then what is it? 2nd order? If it is considered of higher position then the Municipalities and provinces, for example, then it is still called a first-order division...the others gets relegated to 2nd level and so on, although obviously that is hardly the case here. We do not have any Chinese municipality, province, or autonomous region forming part of an SAR yet. And yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with just how important the governors are. This is a ranking of boundaries..not territories.

So...what is the difference now?--Huaiwei 09:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles at the same level with the provinces of the Netherlands within the Kingdom of the Netherlands? — Instantnood 09:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are still asking the wrong question. This is a listing of boundaries. It has nothing to do with comparisons of status between subnational entities. To take some real life examples, the boundaries surrounding Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory and the state Selangor may involve demarcations of territories of different administrative levels, in that the Kualar Lumpur Federal Territory is considered at a higher level then the state level. But as far as the boundaries are concerned, both of them ARE first level boundaries, simply because both of these entities are not subdivisions of any other subnational entity...they are subdivisions of the country itself!

Is this still not clear enough?--Huaiwei 10:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 1982 Constitution doesn't tell whether special administrative regions are administrative divisions (i.e. autonomous regions, municipalities and provinces). And by the way are you saying Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are subnational entities? — Instantnood 13:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

IC. So since you cant seem to diffrentiate between borders and entities, I suppose you are now suggesting the boundary between HK SAR and the rest of the PRC dosent exist too right? And meanwhile, do I need to respond to your comment on Aruba, when you are obviously picking on something to fight over which has little relevance to this discourse?--Huaiwei 13:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Singapore

Are postal districts, electoral constituencies, planning areas and community council districts subnational entities? — Instantnood 14:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Are these subnational entities? — Instantnood 13:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong, China

Are "administrative districts" subnational entities?--Huaiwei 19:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>I always used the term "administrative district" for "subnational entity". For example, the fifty states, and Washington, D.C. represent the fifty-one "administrative districts" of the United States. Territories such as Guam, American Samoa, etc. I've always called "dependencies." The term "subnational entity" seems vague to me - for instance, the semi-sovereign Amerindian reservations in the United States are not "administrative districts" like Virginia or Oklahoma, but they seem like they would be "subnational entities." I don't know if that clears up anything, but at least you know someone's in the same boat as you. Justin (koavf) 20:58, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

There is a council, a district officer and a district office for each of the districts. — Instantnood 06:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Justin. The thing is the term "administrative" district seems rather vague too, especially when applied to city-states like Singapore, where an administrative unit can sometimes refer to political divisions, census divisions, planning divisions and so on and so forth. And this is made more complicated by the fact that they do not always share the same boundaries, and worse, they can shift substaintiatly over time. Is it possible to factor that in?

In addition, for this particular case, Hong Kong is a sub-national entity in itself, and I do wonder if it therefore opens up the argument that we can also include "administrative districts" of any other city too? What if a New Yorker decides to add a list of boroughs, for example?--Huaiwei 08:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the dispute persist shall we restore the article to its original? (i.e. this version by Tobias Conradi at 16:41, Mar 9) — Instantnood 09:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Original"? What is the difference? Hong Kong is listed where it should be (although it probably shd not even be in this page)?--Huaiwei 10:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you can't tell the difference between the two versions. — Instantnood 13:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

And so? Your point being? Is that relevant to this encyclopedia?--Huaiwei 13:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)