Talk:Sochi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikification needed?

This looks like it was written by a Tourism Sochi publicist. Can someone with more expertise than myself give an opinion? Escheffel 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

what particularly don't you like? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture Caption?

The caption under the photo of the black sea claims it was taken in 1915. Although I am aware colour photography was first used in 1896, it wasn't until the 40s that someone could take a picture like That. Is this just a typo? was it 1951, not 1915? has the photo been colourised? I don't want to change it, but it would be fascinating if colour photo technology was that advanced in 1915. 71.234.219.101 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please check the article Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

peacock words

"most popular" Russian resort towns? "Spectacular views?" I think these are peacock terms and violates NPOV. Dspserpico 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Border with Abkhazia?

Abkhazia being de jure part of Georgia is not only history but the internationally recognized fact. My wording was neutral enough... I'll restore this phrase and please don't revert it again. --Kober 14:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Kober, beauty of encyclopedia is that anyone interested can click on link and read in details what abkhazia and its status are. Your inserts in each and every article claims that abhazia is part of georgia will not help. For now i'm just asking - don't put f.ing politics in this article. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 14:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to avoid politics you should simply write "Russian border with Georgia" as the world doesn't know the international border between Russia and Abkhazia. Please restore the data or we will have to mark the section as disputed --Kober 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about what knows world. Don't try to divert discussion. It's you who are trying to insert POV statement. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no Abkhazia on the World Map. Exactly guys who add "border of Abkhazia" are trying to involve us into politics. These are russian State authorities watchdogs, who take their salaries to watch Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.14.101 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazia which is known in history also as Egrisi, [further comments unrelated to improvement of this article removed --83.255.61.40 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Second longest?

"At 147 km, Greater Sochi is the second longest city in the world." And the longest would be... ? -- timc | Talk 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Honolulu. It's a unified city-county, and the county of Honolulu includes the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, making the unified city-county - and therefore, the city - about a thousand miles long. However, this is kind of obscure trivia. Tokyo would also be a contender, because the island of Iwo Jima is part of Tokyo-to, and is about 800 miles from Tokyo proper. According to City & County of Honolulu, Guinness has recognized Honolulu as the longest. --Golbez 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added that tidbit of information to the article.-- timc | Talk 20:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

However, since Tokyo-to is so long, and could be considered a city, that would make it 2nd longest - requiring a citation. --Golbez 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found this discussion now. I deleted the reference to Honolulu and just said that Sochi is "the longest contiguous city" in the world ... my reasoning is that we know that there are at least two of these non-connected wormhole-like cities, and there may be many more. I think that it would be nice to mention the wormhole cities in a trivia section perhaps, and if we do I think we should also mention the case of Omsk, which arguably contains a chunk of rock in the Asteroid Belt within its city limits. Haplolology 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. Greater Sochi is not a contiguous city. It consists of Adler, Sochi proper, Dagomys etc. As a contiguous city, Kryvyi Rih or perhaps even Volgograd are much longer. Colchicum 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sochi city incldues 4 intraurban regions : Adler region, Lazarevsky region, Khosta region, Central region.

See http://sochi.org.ru/ustav.shtml - statute of Sochi City (article 4. p.2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.11.224 (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to you on that since I know little about Russia other than random trivia and climate information. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sochi actually comprises its city districts, so administratively Adlersky City District, as well as the rest of the city districts, are parts of Sochi not much different from (historical) "Sochi proper". There just is no reason to consider Adler et al. separately from Sochi, because they are no longer separate. What is separate is the inhabited localities and rural okrugs under jurisdiction of those city districts, but since they are not located in between the city districts borders, the city of Sochi is contiguous.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement, which is now "At 145 kilometers (90 mi), Greater Sochi claims to be the longest city in Europe", requires explanation. The reference for it now points to a bogus GoDaddy site. Putting a ruler against a Google Maps display, I measure about 4 miles from the mouth of Sochi River to M27, and not quite 2 miles more to the northern limit of the dashed lines surrounding the city. A city can claim whatever it wants, but we should at least explain where the northernmost extent of this "Greater Sochi" is, and why the disparate towns within these borders are said to be part of it. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Name of the City

About the origin of the name of the city: Georgians named it as Sochi (სოჭი) - in Georgian it means Larch. I added it in the begining of the article. Hope, this is the right place and useful information. --Dmanagadze 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not in the lead. Furthermore, the Sochi River was named by Adyghe people, not by Georgians, although I suppose their languages are related. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

by Adyghe? hm... where are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.147.29.100 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)‎

Adyghe and Georgian have not been proven to be related. Colchicum 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Info

I find the claim of 51°C in Russia hard to believe. 112°F is somewhat more believable, but it is also the wrong conversion value for 51°C. Not knowing what the original author meant, I am cutting it down to 40°C, which is still higher than the highest temperature recorded in Sochi, but would probably occur in areas not on the water and closer to the Middle East. Haplolology 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

huh? you can't just make up another number because you find it more believable. thats crazy. 50C is not impossible even if it is unlikely. maybe it is wrong but you cant just make it up! 112F is 48C which i dont find that unbelievable. the original author said 51C/112F so one of them must be a mistake. but lets say they both are and instead lets make up a compleely different number that we like, say 40. yes. good work every one, this enclyclopedia shpould be done in no time at this rate. how many nobel prizes do you think germans would have won? 90? that doesnt sound right. i'm going to make it 8. 203.206.99.134 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The temperature and climate values need better and more easily verifiable sources. Throughout the article its described as a "subtropical" summer holiday destination. It may well be a very popular summer destination, but I don't see how it could be a "subtropical" winter olympics. Temperate maybe, but subtropical?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.126.20 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Having been born in Primorsko-Akhtarsk, which is further north, on the coast of the Sea of Azov which is connected to the Black Sea in the north where temperatures have reached around 45°C, I don't find the claim particularly hard to believe. Just compare with, for instance, Bucharesti, in which the temperature almost reached 45°C during the heatwave last month. The climate in southern Russia varies greatly with cold winters and warm summers. 84.202.199.101 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

45C in Bucharest? I don't believe that. That's more than 5C above the previous record. Things like that just dont happen. I'd like to see an official weather report. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, you said "almost" and "around". Every statistician's favorite words. lol Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a moot point now, but I want to add two more things: no, 112F is not 48C; it's roughly 44. Also, the reason why I figured 40C would be okay is because other cities nearby have had 40C, even if Sochi itself hasn't, and the article as it was worded than was including an indefinite "inland" area which could certainly include those warmer areas. I could have linked to plenty of weather records for that claim, but at the time I didn't think anyone would be so picky. Anyway, I chose 40 because I am sure that no place north of the Caucasus (at least in Europe) has recorded 44, 48, or 51 degrees Celsius as an official shade temperature, and 40 is a round number, so I didn't feel the need to find the absolute maximum down to the nearest degree. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Шәэча

Please, chekck the "Adyghe" spelling, placed at the top. It is actually Abkhaz, as it uses schwa (Cyrillic). The Adyghe uses only palochka from additional Cyrillic. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Names

The name of the city in languages other than Russian should go to history section and not into the intro. It's neither official nor spoken by any significant amount of the city's population afaik.

Do you think we should use transliteration or IPA for the three names in the history section? Alæxis_¿question? 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both IPA and transliteration would be useful, if you could add them. I am, unfortunately, not that proficient in IPA, and I do not know the transliteration rules for languages other than Russian. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I could do that for Abkhaz. Alæxis_¿question? 19:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I adde the Adyghe name to other language section of template. If someone will be oppose, let me know before remove. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a RUSSIAN city

What is this idiotism with georgian names and territories? Remove this. 91.76.3.175 06:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want people to listen to you, kindly follow normal practice and post to the bottom Nil Einne 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a georgian name (sochi means fir tree in Georgian) and used to be a part of Georgia [further comments unrelated to improvement of this article removed --83.255.61.40 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.14.58 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2007‎ (UTC)

before bolshevicks Georgia was a part of Russian Empire. Russia never conquered this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.217.161.212 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Twin cities

Currently, there are two conflicting sets of information which replace each other from time to time:

• Sochi has one sister city, as designated by the Sister Cities International, Inc.
  • Long Beach, California

VS.

• The twin towns include:
  • Cheltenham (1959)
  • Menton (1966)
  • Rimini (1977)
  • Espoo (1989)
  • Long Beach (1990)
  • Trabzon (1991)
  • Pärnu (1994)
  • Weihai (1996)

Could anybody investigate the matter? I presume the Sister Cities International lists only U.S. sister cities, no? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of all of the 'twin towns' for this city is unsourced, that is why I removed it and replaced it with the sourced information that has only Long Beach, which is sourced. If you can find sources for the other cities in some way, then feel free to add the rest. But remember, all information must be verifiable. Dr. Cash 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that sister cities/twin towns can change. A good source for this information might be the Sochi local government body website. I presume it's in Russian so whoever can understand that should check it out Nil Einne 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sochi-international.ru/pages.php?id=2&lang=eng will do for me Vanky 17:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Social and Municipal Problems

This section does not seem to have been written with NPoV. None of the claims are sourced. Mkeranat 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Seriously people, cut it out. I'm about ready to protect this article. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, as annoying as it may be, I also find this edit war amusing. Sorry to disappoint the vandals but changing what it says on wikipedia is not actually going to change who has jurisdiction over the city. Nil Einne 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plz, protect it, no sense in editing it over and over again 190.21.35.4 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Olympic bid

Shouldn't the "main article" link now go to the olympics 2014 article rather than to the bids article now that sochi have won it? SGGH ^speak! 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Longest city

As I've already tried to explain to the user who keeps adding this detail, it doesn't matter what you regard. It is OR to say there is no longer city so it must be the longest city in the world. As with ALL matters on wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth is the core here. It's verifiable that several Wikipedia:reliable sources call it the longest city in Europe. They don't however consider it the longest city in the world as Honolulu is the longest city for them (not that this matters since if they don't call it the longest city in the world, nor can we). So far, there is no reliable source that calls it the longest city in the world and unless one can be found, this needs to be removed Nil Einne 06:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed earlier in this talk page. I assumed the consensus reached then would be still a consensus today so I reverted it and deleted the source, my reasoning being that it's pretty much undisputed that the city is 145 km long, and that it's the longest contiguous city in the world. And as I said above, if you count Honolulu, why not also count Tokyo, Omsk, and any other "cities" that have outlying areas listed as their property? But, hey, I dont want to fight, I don't have any personal connection to Sochi or Russia so I'll let someone else revert it again if they want to. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm removing one of the sources, since I checked it out and found factual errors on it. Personally, I don't think the other source is reliable either ... you probably won't find one that's not in Russian ... but I don't really think a reference is needed for something this trivial anyway. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is needed. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability again:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.

Everything in the Wikipedia should be verifiable. Lots of things in Wikipedia articles are stated without giving a source, true, but at the latest as soon as something stated as a fact is questioned, it must be removed if there is no reliable source. Ideally, nothing should be added without stating the source. Gestumblindi 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a Russian (or other foreign language) reliable source (wikipedia policy is quite clear that while English is prefered, foreign language is fine in absense of that). For something like this, even the cities' official website would be fine. I disagree it's a simple matter though. For these sort of supposed world records there tends to be all sorts of technical and definition issues. Also even ignoring definition issues it's a bit too ORry IMHO for us to mention records we (as editors) happen to notice. After all many cities probably have some quirky statistic you can come up with as a world record. If a reliable source doesn't note the record, then nor should we. That's why IMHO we should only include well sourced record claims. Even better if we can attribute these claims to an entity Nil Einne 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would agree neither source is particularly good and would be fine with removal of both claims from both articles. The Guinness World Record claim for Honolulu appears to be bogus and is not even supported by the source so I removed it but left the record claim. Nil Einne 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate and the Winter Olympics

The article says: Sochi has a humid subtropical climate; with winter temperatures rarely falling much below freezing and with the average winter temperature of +6 °C and repeatedly mentions this warm climate. Given this, I would like to see something in this article regarding how Sochi is proposing to deal with the Winter Olympics. The other cities chosen for Winter Olympics since 1924 all seem to have a markedly colder winter climate (like Chamonix, Innsbruck, Lillehammer, Salt Lake City etc.), thus making them seem far more suited for winter sports than Sochi. Gestumblindi 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sochi itself is on the shore of the Black see and indeed has a subtropical climate. However almost immediately next to it there are Caucasus mountains. Krasnaya Polyana, where the outdoor competitions will take place, is in 39 km from the coast, however it's located at the altitude of 550 m, so the climate is a bit different there. Furthermore it's surrounded by 2000+ m mountains where it's even cooler (remember Putin saying about 5m-snow cover during the presentation :)). I don't know how it should be incorporated in the article, maybe you could think of something... Alæxis_¿question? 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, those numbers mean it indeed falls in the Cfa humid subtropical category (January average >0°C, July average >22°C, sufficient summer precipitation) - a rarity for that latitude. It quickly drops off to an "oceanic" climate (as it becomes Cfb since it gets below the 22°C July isotherm before it gets to the 0°C January isotherm - a rare quirk due to elevation) and then a humid continental climate (Dfb) farther up where the events take place. CrazyC83 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

History

How about before 6th century? Dojarca 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Putin, Chirac, Schroeder

The 3 are in Sotchi right now for energy talks. Not sure it's worth mentionning, and no time right now. reference: [1] Nicolas1981 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits of population figures

The following is a cross-post from User talk:Ezhiki#Sochi

The population of Sochi in its administrative boundaries by Census,2002 is 397.103 inhabitants. See Census results in Russian on Official site http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_01_04_3.htm. —Yufereff; 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yufereff! Thank you for your concern, but note that the 397,103 figure refers not to Sochi proper, but to the city of Sochi with the inhabited localities under the city's administrative jurisdiction. The population of Sochi proper is 328,809, which is what should be reported in the infobox (all other cities' infoboxes are populated that way; Sochi should be no different). I also restored the 1989 Census figure, which is important for evaluating the most recent population trends and is reported for all other Russian cities as well. Please do not remove this number. Finally, the 329,481 figure was removed because the urban population of the Sochi area is, according to the very site you cited, 332,778; I am not sure where you got 329,481 from. I have restored the correct version again. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. But are you sure that 336.514 is only urban population? Where you got this data from? It was total population of the city in 1989 up to 397.103 in 2002. By the way do you ever interest, that Sochi's urban population for 4 years (from 2002 to 2006) up from 328.809 to 329.481 - for the last 20 years it never fall down. This figure was got from postcensus Russian statistics in paper, —Yufereff; 09:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 336,514 was urban population only. Sochi proper (i.e., the city itself, without any inhabited localities which are under its jurisdiction but are not a part of the city itself) comprised four city districts in 1989: Adlersky, Khostinsky, Lazarevsky, and Tsentralny. If you add up the populations of each of those city districts as reported by the 1989 Census, you'll get 336,514—same number reported for the city as a whole. The breakdown is available here (copy of the official results of the 1989 Census). As such, the 336,514 figure of the 1989 Census directly corresponds to the 328,809 figure of the 2002 Census, which includes population of the same four city districts. The 332,728 figure of 2002 refers to the population of Sochi proper plus the population of urban localities under jurisdiction of the city (which is the urban-type settlement of Krasnaya Polyana (332,728=328,809+3,969), and the 397,103 figure refers to the population of Sochi proper plus the population of all localities (i.e., urban and rural) under jurisdiction of Sochi (397,103=328,809+3,969+64,325). So, the bottom line is that while the population of Sochi and the inhabited localities under its jurisdiction did indeed go up between the Censuses, the population of Sochi proper went down from 336,514 to 332,728. Since the Sochi article is about the city proper, and not about every inhabited locality in its vicinity, we report only the population numbers for the city proper. Best, —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A rifle shot in passing

The good thing is that, after 9 months after my expansion, the page has undergone no substantial alterations. The bad thing is that a ghastly template keeps getting ever longer, courtesy of User:Ezhiki. --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to shorten it by restoring the custom location map or by supressing the location map altogether. Any other comments regarding possible improvement of the infobox (or at least regarding how to make it less "ghastly" and more Ghirla-approved) would be very helpful and are also welcome. What is not helpful is whining in passing. You know pretty damn well that I am not a great fan of these infoboxes myself and what specific reasons for creating this particular one were. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The template for Russian cities looks longer than those for most other cities, doesn't it? These pesky templates have a nasty propensity of getting ever longer. As the edit history of Petrozavodsk shows, they tend to oust vital illustrative material from the page. That's what my gripe is about. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but I need something tangible to work with. Are there fields you feel are not necessary? Can something be compacted (if so, how)? Will smaller font be readable? These are the kind of suggestions I am looking for. As you understand, having authored the template, I would tend to overlook a possibility for improvement that might be perfectly obvious to an observer such as yourself. Best, —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

urban population

should not be smaller than the city population. i think it probably means in the surrounding area, in which case it should be a sum of the city population and the urban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.200.186 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The number in the first column is not the city population; it is the total population of the city plus all the places (both urban and rural) in its jurisdiction, so, obviously, it would be higher than just "urban population", which is the combined population of the city proper plus that of the urban localities in its jurisdiction. This is also why this number is higher than the number shown in the infobox (which is the population of the city and city only). —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mayor retired

Vladimir Afanasenkov retired after health issues. Jambulat Khautov is acting mayor. [2] --Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

population

In the box on the side, it lists one population figure (presumably from the 2002 census) while the population progression box lists 2 other population amounts for that same period. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.143.122 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish people were more careful when updating data... The 328,809 is the number reported by the 2002 Census. I made a correction to the infobox accordingly. Thanks for catching this! —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 1, 2010; 14:49 (UTC)

maps needed

currently in article

Multiple maps are needed for this article, for the many readers like me visiting to find out about this Winter Olympics site city. A much larger scale map showing all of southern russia, all of georgia, even all of Turkey so that the Mediterranean Sea's outline can be seen, would be appropriate for this world-level article. Where in the world is it? How is it being discussed as being in the southern part of Russia. If it was just a city of local interest, then a local map is okay, but even that should have some labels! And, in the current map, what are the bodies of water; why few/no labels; and what is that inset map at lower left: is that larger or smaller scale or what? And where is the location of the ski areas, at something Krasnodar, up some river from Sochi? --doncram (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You do know that clicking on the globe icon next to the coordinates (43°35′07″N 39°43′13″E) brings up a zoomable map of the area? That tool should address most of your concerns right there. You can also click on the coordinates and select your favorite map service to study the area further. With this in mind, trying to jam all kinds of maps into one article would be quite redundant, although I agree that a separate map of the Olympics facilities' locations would be most helpful. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2010; 15:08 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Ezhiki. The idea is the map displays where it is regionally and the map in the corner of it where in Russia it is. All you have to do is click the globe to see location continentally and globally. That's what it is for. Your proposal is redundant. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the inset map at lower left is a map of Russia? Funny, it doesn't look like that, given that it places an island way out at sea.... Yes, i understand that Russia does have a separated piece and the Russia map is not incorrect. My point is that the map is LOUSY for communicating to world-wide encyclopedia readers. That inset map, or a larger version, should show some bodies of water and perhaps have a label or two and should in general be more recognizable for what it is. Improving the inset map, or removing it and replacing it by a larger separate map, would address my concern. --doncram (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to give it a shot? :) —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2010; 15:51 (UTC)

Speaking of inset maps, would one like this quality (see it used in Kyakhta) be more to your liking? —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 17, 2010; 15:54 (UTC)

map showing all of Krasnodar Krai with seas in blue

Thanks, yes, something like that would be better. Like the full map of Russia showing Krasnodar Krai within it (at right) would help, showing water areas in blue and giving enough so that Russia is clearly recognizable. I still think a map centered more on Sochi but at a largish scale, showing some of Russia, all of Turkey, some of the Mediterranean, would help most in situating Sochi for many world-wide readers, including U.S. readers.

Speaking of places in or near Georgia, :) , there's a similar situation with the map included in Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site article. That's a reasonably important historic site in the U.S., that many people from outside the U.S. visit on-line or even in person, so in that article it would be relatively more important to show the location within a U.S.-level map. Other U.S.-based editor(s) there have disagreed with me and returned it to show the state-level map (which works fine for U.S. readers like themselves). The state-level map is indeed suitable for many other local historic sites of U.S. or local interest only, but for places of world-class importance a larger perspective map is helpful, IMO. I haven't tried to raise that issue about the more important U.S. historic sites for wide discussion yet among U.S. historic sites editors, but maybe some Europeans could help in a discussion at wt:NRHP. We have to keep in mind that U.S. readers see images of the U.S. map multiple times every day, in weather reports and in political news coverage and otherwise, and they have it well memorized, but they have much less clue what Europe looks like, really. Like how Europeens see maps of Europe's country outlines every day, too. Those shapes of Federal states within eastern Russia are completely unfamiliar to me, but if i could see some country level shapes then i and many other U.S. readers would grok the situation okay. --doncram (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Years later, back to address the same problem: the article, now viewed frequently, lacks a decent map showing Sochi within a labelled, large-scale map showing full Black Sea and/or other shapes recognizable to world-wide readers.

Black Sea map with recognizable country outlines, with labels for "Sochi", "Black Sea" and "Sea of Azov" showing Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, other countries. Could be better if Sochi were labelled more clearly.

I just added map at right to the article, at the very top. It is more important than the article's infobox. It is more important than any map currently in the infobox. Where in the world is Sochi, is the most important question that this article should address. --doncram 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

City portal

New city portal Sochi news,photo and anather infomatiom about city of resort sochi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.46.189 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Longest city in "Europe" again

Surprisingly, A large number, perhaps majority, of sources place Sochi in Asia. While "Sochi is in Asia" wording is not appropriate, the well-sourced inclusion of this view is quite appropriate and I will include that as a WP:verifiable fact. Note especially that I included two strong WP:RS sources Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary and National Geographic atlas (current edition), both of which actually draw a "Europe - Asia" line on three or four maps with Sochi clearly on the Asian side. A vast majority of relevant sources agree, when defining the Europe-Asia divide, also using, as these two sources do, the Greater Caucasus watershed as the Europe Asia divide. (When you are in Sochi, you are on the Black Sea, looking up at the southern (Asian) side of the main Caucasus range.) This Caucasus definition of the past century or so is also what has become WP:Consensus in a half dozen other articles such as Europe and Boundaries between continents and List of transcontinental countries. The edit doesn't say "is in Asia". However, excluding "some sources say Asia" from the Sochi article is not an option unless you can change the consensus on all those other WP articles (you won't) and can get National Geographic, Websters, other WP:RS sources to change their maps (you won't.) The entire "longest city" part is geographic trivia that belongs in the Geography section of this article, not the lead. DLinth (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What milds the climate of Sochi?

When one checks weather in Google Maps it's striking how winter temperatures just a little bit North from Sochi are always very low instead of dropping gradually over vast area. Is it because of the mountains that the climate of sochi is so mild? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.97.201 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate data

I have reverted all recent changes back to 8 March 2012. I am unclear why the data needed changing, given the same Pogoda.ru.net page is given as the source before and after the changes. Was there an error? Was the information on the pogodo page changed? Also WP:NOENG does ask that English language sources are used so that English-only speakers can assess the cites. Please explain the situation and the reasons you wish to make climate edits. Thanks very much Span (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Olympic controversies section

This section seems to have been copied wholesale from the Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics article. These are international issues, it doesn't belong in this article about the city. Gymnophoria (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Cleanbug (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Sochi

We need create article of List of tallest buildings in Sochi. Table can be copied from the article of List of tallest buildings in Lisbon or other. Photos are in Commons. Data about skyscrapers are here. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Sochi

about half of the reporters (US at least) are pronouncing this "soshi"...including one in the field today actually discussing the pronunciation!

what am i missing? is russian "ch" actually closer to english "sh"? do they know something about french influence that i don't?

of all the non-english names to butcher, why is everyone having such a hard time with THIS one?! this should be a no-brainer. 209.172.25.250 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why other commentators on this page think that the pronunciation is so obvious. I've heard it called "sɔtʃɪ" (as in watch), "sɔxɪ" (as in loch), and "sɔʃɪ" (as in wash) and here on this page, it seems that it's pronounced "sotsi". As most people don't know what sounds make up Russian, I'm not surprised that there's confusion as to how it's pronounced.

Apart from all this, just because a name is pronounced one way in the local language, it doesn't follow that, even given the same name in another, that the pronunciation is the same. Paris, isn't pronounced "Parrí" in English, Seville isn't pronounced "Sevilla", nor spelt the same way.

It would help if someone could find out the official name in English and put up the standard, if not correct, pronunciation. That said, if people really want to know the pronunciation they can do like I did and click on the Russian pronunciation. Jayjase 88.5.141.106 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A discussion about the pronunciation of "Sochi" is archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 January 4#Pronunciation of "Sochi". —Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd ed., revised, electronic version), which seems to be more or less the same as this, gives [ˈsɒtʃi]. This does not, of course, mean that it's the only acceptable pronunciation. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 27, 2014; 17:48 (UTC)

i can understand some disagreement over the "o" -- which the linked discussion is consumed with -- but how about that "sh" vs "ch"? no, i don't expect russian or any other language to match up phonetically to english, but if russian "ch" is closer to english "sh" than to "ch", you'd think we'd have noticed 100 years ago. i don't hear people saying "anton shekov", for example. "shaikovsky"? nope. "sheshniya"? never once.

yes, we yanks are notorious for butchering foreign pronunciations (e.g. kyoto and myanmar with 3 syllables), but faced with a transliteration like "sochi", reporters with no knowledge of russian whatsoever are suddenly defaulting to "soshi" (be it soe-shi, suh-shi, or saw-shi). why on earth? 209.172.25.250 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Population & Area in the infobox

I'm confused. The population and area listed in the infobox seem to be neither for the entire four-district City of Sochi/Sochi Urban Okrug, nor for the central city district (Tsentralny City District). So, what exactly is the 343,334 residents within the 176.77 km2 measuring? Is this a measurement of the physical, contiguous urbanized area, only, regardless of city district boundaries? Are the current listings in the infobox consistent with how populations and land areas listed for other Russian "cities"? Perhaps, this needs to be made more clear. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Both area and population are given for Sochi Urban Okrug, and both are referenced. The way population area are indicated is consistent with all other articles on Russian localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are not the Sochi Urban Okrug and the City of Sochi the same thing? Or, is the former a statistical division while the latter is an administrative division? I'm still not understanding this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sochi Urban Okrug is municipal division, and the City of Sochi is administrative division.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but is there a way you could explain the difference in a few sentences? I've read the pages for both of these type of divisons and administrations and still can't figure out what each measures. In the United States where I live, a municipal division is the same thing as an administrative division. What does an Okrug measure/describe, and what does a city measure/describe in Russia? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Ezhiki can describe it better that I can, but if he does not show up I will give it a try. In the case of Sochi, the administrative and municipal units are the same, so that they have the same population.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A short (an an extremely oversimplified) answer is that the administrative-territorial divisions are the divisions used for the purposes of the federal and krai governments (including, but not limited to pensions, police, mail, etc.) while the municipal divisions are the divisions used for the purposes of local self-government (including, but not limited to local roads maintenance, trash removal, etc.). The borders of administrative and municipal divisions are often identical (as is the case with the City of Sochi and Sochi Urban Okrug), but not always: in Krasnodar Krai, for example, Anapa Urban Okrug comprises the territories of two administrative-territorial divisions (Town of Anapa and Anapsky District). In some federal subjects the differences are quite major. Regardless of the differences, the administrative and municipal divisions are two different aspects which always need to be covered separately, and since they are not always identical, it's important to keep track for which entity a certain statistic is reported. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2014; 13:48 (UTC)

folded part of this lengthy discussion

I think I get it, now. It sounds like Urban Okrug, in this case, would be something equivalent to a "county", over here, and a "city" would be municipal corporation within an Urban Okrug, except in this case, Sochi City and Urban Okrug are coterminous. So, I think I got that. It still doesn't answer my question as to the land area listing in the infobox, though. If Sochi City and Sochi Urban Okrug share the same boundaries, than that means the the area of both would be 3,526 square kilometers and the population 420,589, right? In the case Sochi "proper" would either be the Urban Okrug/City (3,526 square kilometers) or the Tsentralny City District (32 square kilometers), neither of which measures 176.77 square kilometers. Where is that number coming from? (Criticalthinker (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

They are coterminous alright, but are still separate, unrelated entities (i.e., the City of Sochi is not technically "within" the urban okrug; perhaps it would help if you think of the administrative and municipal divisions as two independent layers over the territory of the krai).

As for the population/area confusion, here's another interesting bit to wrap your head around :) What the article calls the "City of Sochi" (note how "City" is capitalized) is the administrative division which in Krasnodar Krai happens to be called a "City". The "city of Sochi" (with "city" not capitalized) refers to the territory of the city proper (and that includes all four city districts, but not other localities in jurisdiction). The population of the City of Sochi (the administrative division), as well as of Sochi Urban Okrug (which has identical borders) is 420,589. The population of the city of Sochi (the territorial entity which is the major part of the administrative division) is 343,334. Both figures are given in the source to which the population data are referenced. Whenever possible, the infobox gives the population of the territorial entity, not of the administrative division containing it, hence the 343,334 figure is used.

The area figure comes from this source (see the table on page 3). The 176.77 km² figure is the combined area of the four city districts (which constitute the city proper). That figure is used in the infobox to make the population density calculation (which is automatic) consistent—I think you'd agree that dividing the population of the bigger administrative division by the area of city proper (or the population of the city proper by the area of the bigger administrative division) is meaningless.

I hope I haven't totally confused you with this explanation! Please let me know if anything remains unclear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2014; 16:57 (UTC)

P.S. I think much of the confusion was due to the fact that the article interchangeably defines "Sochi proper" as either Tsentralny City District or as the combination of all four city districts. I've made a few tweaks to hopefully clear that up.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2014; 17:09 (UTC)

Наверное, ещё для понимания надо отметить, что Пахомов является главой именно мунициального образования ("Глава города Сочи - высшее должностное лицо муниципального образования город-курорт Сочи" [3]) и именно муниципальным властям подчиняются разные МУПы и т.п.. А "город" (если он не федерального значения) - это в большой степени просто адрес. Кстати, по тому же уставу "Наименования "муниципальное образование город-курорт Сочи" и "город Сочи" равнозначны". Всё сложно. --TarzanASG (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that the term "city" has multiple meanings (even in the official documents—and Krasnodar Krai's laws are especially muddy about the distinction) complicates things considerably. Capitalizing "City" when referring to the administrative division and not capitalizing it when referring to the inhabited locality alleviates this somewhat, but it's still pretty bad... Add on top of that the fact that the "city of Sochi" reference in the Charter is actually the municipal formation's full proper name (i.e., it's not the name "Sochi" with a qualifier "city", but the "city of Sochi" as a complete name), and you'll have complete and utter confusion :) I didn't go into such details in my comment above, since they technically have nothing to do with the original question about the area and population.

As for the City Head, since inhabited localities do not have such a position, to most readers it is either pretty clear that the position refers to the municipal formation or the distinction is of no significance at all. In the infobox, the field is already under the "Municipal status" header anyway, so any further clarification would probably be redundant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2014; 19:13 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I fear that you have confused me more than before. I guess unless it's explained to me in a way to compare it with American "counties" and "cities", I'll probably not ever get this. The only thing I can wrap my head around is that perhaps the "city of Sochi" (lower-case C) is a statistical divison that measures a contiguous urban area as opposed to the "City of Sochi" (upper-case C), which measures the administrative division regardless of urbanization. I guess both figures in the infobox are measuring the statistical, contiguous urbanized area within the different city districts of the City of Sochi. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel that confusing you is largely my fault; I shouldn't have gone into unnecessary details in my post above. If you don't mind, let me try explaining once again. I hope I can properly use the US counties and cities as examples, but I'm afraid I'm neither terribly knowledgeable about how exactly those work (not to mention that they work differently in different states) nor sure it would be a good analogy since Russian divisions have unique qualities not found in other countries. I'll try to do my best, though.

Imagine a blank contour map of Krasnodar Krai which only shows the krai's outside borders. Imagine all populated places on that map shown as dots. Now imagine you have two transparencies shaped like Krasnodar Krai. The first transparency shows the borders of the administrative divisions ("administrative districts" and "Cities"); within each administrative district the borders of "Towns", "settlement okrugs", and "rural okrugs" are also shown. The other transparency shows the borders of the municipal divisions ("municipal districts" and "urban okrugs"); within each municipal district the borders of "urban settlements" and "rural settlements" are shown. If you lay one transparency over another, you'll find that the borders of both upper-level and lower-level administrative and municipal divisions are largely the same but not entirely identical. And if you lay any of the transparencies over the map, you'll be able to see which division any populated place on the map falls into.

Using the US divisions as examples, counties will correspond to Krasnodar Krai's administrative districts. "Cities", since they are administrative divisions with the status equal to that of the administrative districts, can also be equated to US counties (although, as far as I know, the US does not have this exact concept). Lower-level administrative divisions ("Towns", "settlement okrugs", and "rural okrugs") do not have a US counterpart.

Upper-level municipal divisions (municipal districts and urban okrugs), I think, also do not have a US counterpart (unless there are states where the immediate local government operates on the same level as the county government yet is not a part of it). Lower-level municipal divisions (urban settlements and rural settlements) correspond to the US local government units (cities, towns, villages, etc.).

Does all this make it any clearer?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 20, 2014; 14:21 (UTC)

Not really. In America, I believe it's rather simple. With but a few exceptions, you have the national government, state government, and administrative counties. Within administrative counties, you can have cities (sometimes villages) and statutory townships/towns. In a few rare cases, you have consolidated city-county governments. There is no other municipal/administrative divsion/local government below cities or village governments.

My only understanding, thus far, is that in Sochi, the administrative district and municipal district are merged, that they are one-and-the-same. It also seems that there is AT LEAST one other layer of local government below this merged government in Sochi and that is city districts. All I'd like to know is what the infobox population and land area numbers represent, because they neither seem to represent Sochi's central city district (Tsentralny) nor the administrative district/municipal division that is the City of Sochi. It appears to me that the numbers represent another kind of measurement, maybe of an urbanized area, and not any municipal/local government definition of Sochi.

I guess what I'm getting as is that this sentence "The 176.77 km2 figure is the combined area of the four city districts" simply can't be true. The four city district of Sochi cover a very large area. Perhaps you mean that figure is the combined area of the contiguous urbanized portions WITHIN the four city districts, but the actual city districts include a lot of non-urbanized/empty land. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the US it is indeed a lot simpler. Like I previously said, the administrative/municipal duality is something very unique to Russia, which makes it so difficult to find a working analogy.

Regarding your statement that in Sochi, the administrative district and municipal district are merged, that they are one-and-the-same, that's totally incorrect (sorry!). Sochi is neither an administrative nor a municipal district; it is a "City" (a unit equal in status to that of the administrative districts, but still an entity different from them) within the framework of the administrative-territorial divisions and an "urban okrug" within the framework of the municipal divisions. "Cities" are never a part of administrative districts, nor urban okrugs can ever be a part of municipal districts. A "city district" is a unit into which "cities" (note the lack of capitalization) are divided, and there is no municipal counterpart to these units. City districts may have other territories in their jurisdiction. Those territories are considered to be in jurisdiction of the city districts, but not a part of them (i.e., they are a part of the "City", but not the "city").

Which brings me to this. The combined territory of the four city districts (city districts proper, which constitute the city proper) is indeed 176.77 km². It is the territory in jurisdiction of those city districts that is much larger (and includes a lot of non-urbanized/empty land). The territory in jurisdiction of Sochi's city districts is actually incorporated as rural okrugs, which can never be a part of a city district proper.

Still clear as mud? :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 21, 2014; 14:54 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the tldr; version:

• Adlersky City District (CD)+Khostinsky CD+Lazarevsky CD+Tsentralny CD="city of Sochi" (inhabited locality, a territorial unit with an area of 176.77 km²)
  • Adlersky CD has one settlement okrug and three rural okrugs in jurisdiction
  • Khostinsky CD has two rural okrugs in jurisdiction
  • Lazarevsky CD has six rural okrugs in jurisdiction
  • Tsentralny CD has no rural okrugs in jurisdiction
• "city of Sochi"+one settlement okrug+eleven rural okrugs="City of Sochi" (administrative unit, with an area of 3,526 km²)
• within the municipal framework, the whole territory of the "City of Sochi" is incorporated as "Sochi Urban Okrug" (which has no lower-level divisions).

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 21, 2014; 15:07 (UTC)

Well, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The "territory in jurisdiction of the city districts," whether it is urban or not. So, I was correct in stating that the smaller number is a statistical mearusement of built-up area as opposed to a measurement of local government. This is quite a bit different than here in America where a "city" almost always refers to a local government jurisdiction/municipal division regardless of whether or not the built-up area fills the boundaries of the local government jurisdiction/municipal division.

Just as an extreme example, if you go look at the population and land area figures for the city of Anchorage, Alaska, USA, you will see that the primary figures correspond to the entire municipal jurisdiction, with the "settlement/urbanized area" for the "city" of Anchorage listed below those of the municipality. "City/city proper" whether it is capitalized or not, almost always refers to a local government area/jurisdiction in the United States when talking formally, regardless of how small or expansive the jurisdiction of the local goverment is. I think what I understand, now, is that in the United States, what is listed in Sochi's infobox would be spoke of as the "Sochi urbanized area", as it crosses/spans multiple local government area jurisdictions/municipalities.

The 177.77 square kilometer number does not measure a local government jurisdiction as I originally thought it did. The figures in the infobox are measuring a "city" in the sense of a "built-up area/urbanized area/statistical settlement/locality" and not "City" in the sense of a "municipality/district/local government jurisdiction". This makes sense to me, now, and was really all I was asking. Other country's wiki pages also use the "city" defintion as opposed to the "City" definition.

BTW, thank you for going through all of this work. I am only trying to figure this out because I am genuinely curious about how other countries define their cities. This has been a really interesting discussion, though, it was frustrating, at times, for things to be "lost in translation" as they say in English.

EDIT: Actually, I see that the Russian version of Wikipedia actually does make the difference between the contiguous, built up settlement that is "Sochi" and the "City of Sochi/Sochi Urban Okrug" as this page exists ru:Муниципальное образование город-курорт Сочи, along with the regular settlement (or what you refer to as the "city proper") page. What's the English translation/transliteration of Муниципальное образование город-курорт Сочи? --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, now that we have all of that out of the way, out of genuine curiosity, within the City of Sochi along with the city proper and the 79 rural localities, what is the name of the one urban-type settlement mentioned in the article, and is it an administrative division of one of the city districts with its own local council (subordinate to the city district council, of course), or is is simply locality without a local council? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to post a reply to your above post and forgot. But if you think it's all cleared up and out of the way, perhaps there's no longer a need. But please do let me know if there is still anything there that needs addressing.

The urban-type settlement in question is Krasnaya Polyana (where the Olympics took place). It is administratively a part of Krasnopolyansky Settlement Okrug (which also includes four rural localities); the settlement okrug is in turn subordinated to Adlersky City District of the City of Sochi. Within the municipal framework (i.e., in terms of local government), it is simply a part of Sochi Urban Okrug, subject to the urban okrug's administration, although per Sochi's Charter, the local government recognizes the administrative hierarchy and may use it within the framework of its activities.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2014; 14:45 (UTC)

Thanks! I do remember seeing Krasnaya Polyana during the mountains events in the Olympics. BTW, I do believe I'm finally understanding this. One more question, is there a map available showing all of the administrative divisions of the City of Sochi (i.e. first the city districts and then the administrative divisions of the city districts)? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

City districts do not have divisions :) The rural and settlements okrugs are considered to be in jurisdiction of the city districts, but are not a part of them (in other words, there is no one term that describes a city district proper+entities subordinated to it). As for the map, I don't have one handy, sorry. I live in the US, so things like this are not easily accessible to me unless they are available online, and a quick search did not yield any useful results (there are plenty of street maps and krai maps, but none show the borders of the low-level divisions). The best our own WikiCommons can do is this kind of maps, which do show the borders of low-level divisions in dotted lines, but somewhat misleadingly paint both the territory of city district proper and the territories of entities in the city district's jurisdiction in red, as if they were one single entity. In reality, the city district proper is the coastal territory within the area in red, and the remaining dotted areas are rural/settlement okrugs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 4, 2014; 16:24 (UTC)

I think you may be getting too caught up in the specific terms I use. When I talk about city district administrative divisons, all I was talking about were that there are rural okrugs (and one settlement okrug) within the administrative/geographic/physical boundaries of a city district. For instance, within the administrative/geographical/physical boundaries of Adlersky City District lie one settlement okrug (Krasnopolyansky Settlement Okrug) and three rural okrugs. I believe what you're telling me is that the four administrative okrugs do not combine with the "unparished" parts of Adlersky City District as a single entity/government, but this was unimportant to me in this particular instance. I was just interested to see the map of the lower-level administrative divisions, as you say. When I say "within", unless I'm making it clear that I'm talking about it from a local government standpoint, I'm usually talking about it in the physical/geographic sense of the administrative divisions. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I tend to overexplain things, as you may have noticed :) Anyway, if I happen to stumble upon a decent map showing the borders of the lower-level divisions, I'll make sure to share it with you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 5, 2014; 12:58 (UTC)

In Southwest Asia?

Bizarre statement: "if one uses the Caucasus Mountains as the divide, Sochi is in Southwest Asia, falling on the southern (Asian) side of the Greater Caucasus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not bizarre if you had looked at the two very reliable sources for this statement, National Geographic (p. 59 in their 2014 10th Edition atlas) and Websters, both of which have maps showing Sochi in SW Asia. The Caucasus Mtns. are the divide...see Borders of the continents for much more detail on this. Europe and Asia are separated by physical boundaries (seas, mtn. ranges) which is a good thing... If Europe and Asia were to be divided strictly by political lines, what with all the political changes, big areas would be jumping from Europe into Asia and back (making no sense) from one decade to the next. The 2800 to 3000 meter Caucasus peaks just northeast of Sochi separate it from European Russia.DLinth (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sochi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104023836/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/13/sports/EU_SPT_OLY_2014_Sochi_Environment.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/13/sports/EU_SPT_OLY_2014_Sochi_Environment.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303093135/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/ressources_documentaires/europe_non-ue/russie/sotchi-2002.9189.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/ressources_documentaires/europe_non-ue/russie/sotchi-2002.9189.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)