these all seem to be reasonable solutions if a little stop gappy i think my problem is that i am seeing this as an outsider to this uk group and the uk group might be seeing the article as a group of insiders writing for insiders my initial problem with the article was that it is unclear and allows different incompatible readings administrative geography certainly makes the article more consistent but i'm not sure it makes the title more understandable unless of course you are a geographer or know all the branches of geography to benefit neophytes perhaps i presume too much in thinking this is the intended audience of wikipedia and any other encyclopedia articles on the subject which this article addresses i would make the following suggestions gut as much of the introduction as possible regarding the four countries and instead refer people to that article since it already exists which would also resolve some problems people have with repetition between these two articles explain what administrative geography addresses e g national and local government hierarchies and how this relates to this article for the love of god rename to whatever is appropriate the section entitled in the uk or eliminate this title because it serves no purpose whatsoeverperhaps to contemporary administration or something that transitions from history although for reasons beyond my comprehension some people are apparently wedded till death to that vacuous phrase i e in the uk move the last paragraph of the intro beginning with historically to the history section or exapnd on the themes it introduces identify the referent of this structure in the history section i e answer the question what structure follow strict style guidelines for the terms division s and subdivision s throughout this article if either is a significant concept for this article incorporate the parliamentary representation section into the section preceding it this would give a structure of introduction history contemporary administration or whatever informal sub divisions international sub divisions as things stand having a separate section for informal divisions suggests the rest of the article is about formal divisions which would be fine if the sections reflected a more transparent and sensible organization to the article currently lacking