This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brazil: Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This is a list of subdistricts in the Federal District. There is only one municipality in the district: Brasília, which encompasses the entire district. Either the municipalities should be reduced to one or this article should be retitled List of subdistricts in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Backspace 17:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

There are no municipalities (not even one) in the Distrito Federal. The correct title of the article is List of Administrative Regions in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Also, while informally we all know that Brasília is Brazil's capital, officially the capital is the Distrito Federal. Ninguém ( talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The map is outdated. Ninguém ( talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This map is wrong! Please! 2 is Brazlândia, for a exemple. And Brazlândia is the RA IV.

200.140.7.207 ( talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have removed the map until an up-to-date one can be found. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This [1] is the right version, it should not have been changed. The name of the article also does not, the correct is: List of administrative regions in Federal District (Brazil). The article follows the list: Template: Municipalities of Brazil. This article is only a list as - Example: List of municipalities in Minas Gerais. The full article is: Administrative Region (Federal District). The map is not out of date, the new administrative regions still have no limits defined by law, so the map is correct. For only those who are on the map are legally defined. 201.33.206.246 ( talk) 16:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I agree, I know the Brazilian legislation and improved a bit version. [2]. 2A01:4F8:C0C:871:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 16:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC) reply

If you check the external links there is a map from a Brazilian government source that shows all 31 regions. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 07:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I do not know if the map is correct, but until we know is better to withdraw. I hope someone who knows how to handle maps update if necessary following the map that is on the source in the article. Someone who can rename the article to the correct name would be nice because it is wrong. The rest of the article is right, as other editors have spoken and follows the pattern of the other lists. 177.130.0.32 ( talk) 22:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The article List of administrative regions in Federal District (Brazil) was merged with Administrative Region (Federal District) in 2012. The reason for the merge and for eventually renaming the article to what it is now is because it makes more sense to have the explanation and the list on the same page. Before removing the explanation again, please discuss and get consensus from other editors. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 03:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Administrative regions of the Federal District (Brazil). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623180832/http://www.brasilia.df.gov.br/005/00502001.asp?ttCD_CHAVE=4352 to http://www.brasilia.df.gov.br/005/00502001.asp?ttCD_CHAVE=4352

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply

As seen in this edit, the previous text, which was encyclopedic in tone, was replaced by a hard-to-understand, badly-translated description which does not adhere to WP:MOS. It also leaves out important information, and appears to be the result of copy-pasting verbatim from legal text and government websites, which were included as refs.

I recognize some useful edits might have been buried in the edit I just reverted (naming of refs, etc), we can reincorporate those manually. However, this is at least the 3rd or 4th time this has happened (not sure if by the same editor), so I thought we needed to take it to the talk page. In the spirit of WP:GF, I urge User: Specdens to reconsider the edit that was reverted. CVDX ( talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You CVDX removed referenced information with content that does not appear in your version. 152.255.101.54 ( talk) 02:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you specify what information that is so we can reach some consensus to consolidate the info and refs into a final version?

The version you reverted to clearly isn't encyclopedic in tone and is seemingly a copy-paste of the Portuguese-language article with bad translation (e.g. "indicated" instead of "appointed")

I'll revert it for the last time and request a third opinion to try to resolve this.

CVDX ( talk) 15:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

CVDX, there is nothing wrong with the text of my version, I checked thousands of textual precedents. What may happen is that the text is not in a sufficiently encyclopedic tone for you. So, let's leave the information from my version of the "list of administrative regions" section, as it has many important founding and legalization dates about administrative regions. Specdens ( talk) 00:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Response to third opinion request:

I would suggest keeping the existing "History" section, which is sourced and intelligibly written, adding to the table the citations in the "Legalization" column of the modified table, and removing the "foundation date" column, which seems to add nothing of value as a total "convention". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply