The proposed WikiProject was not created. Closing proposal due to insufficient editor interest. Ajpolino (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This project would focus on the creation and improvement of Wikipedia articles pertaining to Josef Stalin, his associates, and any aspect of history, life, economics, etc. pertaining to the Soviet Union between 1924 and 1956, when Nikita Khrushchev condemned Stalinism in his "Secret Speech" at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party. Articles pertaining to memories of Stalinism, including in the present day, would also be relevant to the project. Bjberesf (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
Hey, there really should be an answer here!!!
Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.
Have a look at WP:MILHIST, probably our most successful and productive wikiproject when it comes to getting the work done that a project is supposed to do. None of that would have happened if it had forked into 100 or a dozen or even five sub-topical "fiefdoms". The more that wikiprojects coalesce the more effective they are, until they hit the point were they're too generalized to match editorial interest. E.g., WP:WikiProject Football (for association football/soccer, not gridiron) is very effective, but WP:WikiProject Sports is not, because pretty much no one is diffusely interested in "sports" across the board; they're intensely interested in particular ones. By contrast, except for a few academics and students, no one is all about Stalin and Stalinism, but interested in Communism and in Marxism more broadly, and Stalin and Stalinism's role within that bigger picture.
The key point: wikiprojects are about improving articles and creating more of them for complete and quality encyclopedic coverage; they are not fan clubs or special interest groups to promote detailed trivia on topics of narrow interest. Probably 85% of the ones we have should be up-merged to broader topics, because they're dead or dying; doing so would pool more editors topically and thus make assessment, peer review, and other processes that they're not doing at all or not doing well become actually feasible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC); revised: 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]