Talk:Administrative divisions of the Komi Republic

Sosnogorsk

Poking around at http://www.rkomi.ru/republic/goroda/index.php it appears that Sosnogorsk and the selsovets under its jurisdiction are now a District, as opposed to a city under republic jurisdiction. Can someone with a better grasp of this topic (and of Russian) check on that? JFMorse 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, JF! Thanks for your interest in this, it's not very often I get a chance to discuss this topic with someone :)

Concerning your question—the link you found is exactly why I avoid using Russian official websites as a source of information. I much prefer to work with primary sources, which, in this case, are the legislative documents of the Russian Federation and its federal subjects.

The problem with the Komi's official website is that it is not only wrong, but it also contradicts itself on the same page. If you follow the link you provided above, you will see a list of links to the cities/towns and districts at the top of the page and a table at the bottom. Sosnogorsky District has a link, but it is absent from the table below. Which is no wonder, as the table describes administrative divisions as of 1/1/2005, and the district was in fact abolished in 1994 with three other districts. None of the other three abolished districts are listed at the top, so my guess is that they simply forgot to remove Sosnogorsky District altogether.

If you look further, the page begins with the statement that the Komi Republic is subdivided into twenty districts (a dubious wording to say the least), twelve of which are districts proper, and eight are towns directly under jurisdiction of the republic. Well, count the links directly above—to noone's surprise, there are thirteen districts and seven towns—one district too many, one town too few.

Rest assured, I re-checked the Komi's legislature just to be on the safe side. Sosnogorsk continues to be a town under republic's jurisdiction, and there are no plans to re-establish the district.

Again, thank you for your interest. While reviewing this series, if you find something else that looks suspicious, feel free to contact me directly—I am pretty much solely responsible for the content of the articles on administrative divisions of the Russian federal subjects, and while I do my best to keep the series accurate and current, I am but a human and can still make a mistake. Or two.—Ëzhiki (Igel Hérrisonovich Ïzhakoff) • (yo?); 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Great explanation! I had missed the inconsistency; I still get a bit of a headache trying to read Cyrillic.  ;) It's depressing, though, as of the federal subjects I've looked into, Komi's web site is among the more useful. Sigh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. JFMorse 04:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Syktyvkar city district(s?)

I was looking at the 2002 official Russian census spreadsheet and noticed that the city of Syktyvkar has a population of 230,011, yet has only one city district, Ezhvinsky, with a population of 55,725. I did not notice any other city districts. Normally the sum of all the districts would total the city population. Are there other districts that should be included? Backspace 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, yes, the sum of all districts' populations would total the city population. Syktyvkar, however, is unique in that the whole city is not divided into city districts. Ezhvinsky is the only city district with a status separate from the rest of the city; and the rest of the city is not subdivided. Apparently, such arrangement somehow allows for more efficient city management. I am not aware of any other cities divided in such fashion. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Administrative divisions of the Komi Republic. 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/20110928181511/http://perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_01_03.htm to http://perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_01_03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)