Jump to content

Talk:Stalinist architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed

[edit]

Before 1917, the Russian architectural scene was divided between Russky Modern (a local interpretation of Art Nouveau, stronger in Moscow), and Neoclassical Revival (stronger in Saint Petersburg).[6

This is bullsbit. Wikipedia is a collection of propaganda pamphlets, whatever has anything to do with Russia (well, not just with Russia) is more or less propaganda written by dedicated Russophobes and ethno-scum. That's understandable and known. Wikipedia is also totally useless as a reference source because practically all the information it contains, a few chemical formulae aside, are patent falsehoods.

What the f&*k is Russky Modern? Who wrote that - an American? Wikipedia does not differentiate between Neoclassical and Neoclassicist. Modern - in Austria Sezession and Jugendstil, in Germany Jugendstil, Art Nouveau in France in Belgium, was popular from 1880s until about 1905, though in Russia continued if not to flourish but at least to be visible present until about 1910. Neoclassicist architecture (Wikipedia does not diffirentiate between neoclassical and necolassicist which is quite unbelievable but tells a lot about the quality of writing and of editors) came after Art Nouveau (Arts and Crafts in England or Modern in Russia) at about 1910-1911 or just before WWI, it was probably strongest in Austria, in Vienna particularly, though Vienna has fantastic examples of Art Nouveau as well, and there are great examples of neoclassicist architecture in St. Petersburg as well, not necessarily even by Russian architects, like the German Embassy building on St. Isaac's Square by Behrens.

Until Stalin - and unlike United States where ugly, fake historical buildings were built at the time (1910s and 1920s) - like Lincoln Memorial, neoclassical architecture did not re-emerge until Stalin's times, and was not exactly confined to "copying" of old buildings (as was the case in the USA).

Stalinist architecture - whatever. The revival in neoclassicial (as opposed to necolassicist) motives which in Russia followed avantgardist period (constructivism) occurred pretty much everywhere - notably in Nazi Germany and the USA.

Some idiot wrote on conrete panel buildings "for the workers" and compared them with the "buildings for the state" - concrete buildings, wholly inspired by foreign construction practices and by modernist ideas, appeared much later, way after Stalin's death and have nothing to do with Stalinist Neoclassical revival.

With Wikipedia (in all respect useless, harmful in fact because young people do use it as a real encyclopedia which it is not, but you can't avoid it because of so many links and Google rating), an article on something as benign as architectural style is a platform for ideological pamphleteering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.24.5 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"appeared much later, way after Stalin's death and have nothing to do with Stalinist Neoclassical revival." --- then this article should be called "Stalinist Neoclassical Architecture" not "Stalinist Architecture". Because a massive amount of architecture that went on during Stalin's reign, and the phrase "Stalinist" that most people use, including journalists (remember Wikipedia is supposed to, in spirit, reference existing work by professionals), refers to mass industrial structures and mass-housing that actually did exist, and were built, during Stalin's era. Decora (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think you could call stalins architectural style "conservative", and I don't think that Because he had total control, many of Stalin's personal tastes became the law. This is evident in many surviving architectural plans. is very npov. I'm not sure why you need to mention Such an approach was not occurring solely under Stalin because, in Nazi Germany, under Hitler, Nazi architecture had taken a similar turn. in the lead, around this time there was also futurism influenced buildings being built in the UK and the US, should this be mentioned? Really nice pics though and the article could really become something. - FrancisTyers 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify the article according to your views. We don't need totallydisputed tags here for long. --Ghirla | talk 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, for the most part I agree with the edits of User:86.145.18.53. The article is no longer disputed. - FrancisTyers 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Stalinist in Romania.. when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.81.96 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My deletions

[edit]

I deleted some passages because they were blatantly copied. Also, I removed the comparisons to Hitler because they were just ridiculous. This is an article about Stalinist architecture, not about Hitler. Are we to compare everything Stalin did with Hitler? ("Stalin had a mustache--just like Hitler!", "Stalin breathed oxygen--just like Hitler!"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.18.53 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2005

Outside comment: I'm no expert, but the originally-disputed version didn't seem to contain any obvious factual inaccuracies to me. The comparison to Hitler is not totally out of place—how many other major national architectural movements of the twentieth century happened at the behest of an individual? There is a notable parallel between Germany and the Soviet Union, who had the leading schools of modernism in the early twentieth century, which came about because of a climate of experimentation, and both were stifled by totalitarian regimes.

A few quotes in talk and citations added to the article could probably settle all this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 17:07 Z

The factual accuracy was describing the style as conservative. I haven't read anywhere of stalinist architecture being "conservative" :) - FrancisTyers 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall to have contibuted a single line to this article, but I'm pretty sure that the Stalinist architecture was both traditionalist and revivalist in its approach. It aimed at reviving the architectural forms of past periods, mainly Renaissance and Neoclassicism. Perhaps a specification wouldn't be out of place. --Ghirla | talk 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly was a conservative return to monumental Neoclassicism, after the radical departures of Modernism, Constructivism, Futurism. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 18:27 Z

changing the name

[edit]

this is classicism but stalinist one. builddung huge glorius buildings is not for workers, it is for stalin and the state. that's why we should call it stalinist. these are 'classicism' buildings but not the original classicism, stalinist classicism. Superzohar 06:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide any evidence that "Stalinist Classicim" is the established name for the architecture style? --KPbIC 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that this architecture make use of classicist elements.

it opposite of modern. soviet regime didn't let use modern architecture so architect came back in time and used clasical elements. Superzohar 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One simple reason why I oppose the name, Stalinist Classicism not only applies to architecture, it can apply to many other elements: arts, music i.e. it is a broad term. Moreover just how Classic was it is also disputable, some designs did formally remind of Neoclassic European architecture, whilst others went for traditional motives, I mean the VDNKh in Moscow, all of the republic pavilions were styled after the traditional tendencies of those republics. And the Seven sisters in Moscow were based on the Kremlin Towers. So I do not see an argument out of sense of naming for confusion that it would cause. --Kuban Cossack 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet architecture around the pretty corners

[edit]

Sure, this is all pretty and great, but the article should certainly also cover the standardized, mind-numbing architecture of less important government/factory/apartment buildings built during the Soviet regime. That is, what you see when you look beyond the fancy regions of any post-Soviet city. In some regions, such buildings tend to be painted with distinctive yellow color and have white window frames, other regions have just plain concrete buildings.

Unfortunately, examples of these appear to be fairly hard to come by on the Internet. There's an article about this on the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Хрущёвка. Here are some more examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Anybody who has played Half-life 2 will also know what I'm talking about. -- intgr 17:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article on Vitaly Lagutenko, the father of Khrushchyovka. NVO 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken, but it is beyond the title heading, and there is a lot on panelak already. There is more to be done specifically on the topic. First, it seems to focus on a narrow segment of architecture, both in time and function. Sort of a tourists' snapshot. It was wider than this. Factual stuff that's needed here:
  1. Early St.Arc.
    • Early St.Arc. examples (1932-1937: Langman etc.), quite different from what the article claims!
    • Make clear that before Khrushev's standartization, there was low-grade and middle-grade construction, also a part of St.Arc. Baraki. Poselki. Mention the other two reasons why St. dumped constructivists.
    • Mention the 'Early St.' revival (Afina Estate block etc.) of our times. It all comes back.
  2. St.Arc. and the GrandMasters
    • Fomin (!), Schusev, etc. how they fit into St. establishment and the link to 1907-1914 Neoclassical revival
    • Dushkin et al. - prized, lots of contracts, but not Stalinist at all!
    • Ethnic varieties (Tamanyan). Could be integrated into 'Abroad' section (it is abroad now, anyway)
  3. Late St.Arc.
    • The buildings awarded Stalin's prize in 1950-1951 (Zholtovsky, Rybitzky, Rosenfeld-Suris, Miminoshvili. Stylistic turn.
    • Make clear that in the last years of St., specifically starting with Jan.1950 MGK conference, St.Arc. took a turn from slow, expensive projects to fast-track construction and modernized technology. There was a brief period, ca. 1951-1958, when residential construction quality reached it's peak, at a lesser cost than traditional St.Arc., and looked nice too.
    • How it paved the way to what Khrushev did NVO 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting of your post. People don't normally edit others' posts so I hope you don't mind. :) -- intgr 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article refers to one particular style of building used in the USSR of the time, in particular used for public buildings and high class housing and doesn't extend to the more banal buildings of period such as housing for ordinary workers.
The example photos above are of buildings that look more recent than the Stalin period. They're also not specific to the USSR, they could be in Western Europe for example, though admittedly probably not so shoddily built or poorly maintained. But essentially they are no different from something you could see in London or Birmingham and therefore fall outside the scope of the article. Booshank (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, these are early 1970s. However, a frequently omitted fact is that the switch to prefab concrete was launched well before Stalin's death; Khrushev added political drive to build them on a mass scale but the basic "new" technologies have already been tested. NVO (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to reformat the article

[edit]

This are above comments expanded to a complete article plan.

  • Background. 1920s. Constructivists vs. mass building vs. Albert Kahn etc.
  • The early years (1932-35), demise of constructivists
    • Political will. 1932 crackdown on unions. 1935 Molotov's program, influence of Kirov murder
    • Constructivists' own weaknesses - floorplans, quality, experience, not scalable.
    • Role of arhitectural elders (Fomin, Schusev, Rerberg, Zholtovsky) and how they became official art.
    • Palace of Soviets contest
  • Prewar years (1936-1941), major one-of-a-kind projects
    • Not for the masses: A clear idea that St.Arch, as we see it, coexisted with lots of makeshift low grade construction.
    • Attempt to do ensembles, block-wide projects and how they failed for lack of technology and commitment
    • Example: Langmann (Moscow), Fomin (Kiev)
    • Metro (Example: Dushkin) where non-Stalinist architecture was very well welcomed. Burov's Lace House probably belongs here too.
  • Post-war (1944-1951)
    • Rebuilding Kiev
    • 7 sisters (who coined the name? seems like its English Wiki exclusive)
    • 1950-51 Stalin prize projects (Zholtovsky, Rybitzky, Miminoshvili) as a sign of things to happen
    • Ethnic varieties, example: Tamanyan (may be merged with 'Abroad', it is abroad after all)
  • A turn to mass construction (1951-1957) yet still Stalinist
    • 1951 MGK conference. Call for speed and scalability. Technologies for mass construction. Prefab concrete. 1951 Logutenko house at Skakovaya St.
    • 1953-1957. The summit before demise. Fast-track, large scale projects (Peschanaya St.). First 'standard houses' ans the last with old quality of life and build.
    • The crackdown. Example: Hotel_Ukrayina (Kiev)
  • Revival. Examples (Paveletzkaya Plaza, Triumph, Afina block)

NVO 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version more or less complete, please review

[edit]

Not to start a flame war of parallel text - opinions, please. The text is naturally moscowcentric; additions on other cities and the Canals required.
Stalinist architecture, new version for review
I'll keep it in the sandbox for a while, collecting photos.NVO 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but to many weasel words like a caption "ugly" but nice. Also the Metro can be expanded, add Mayakovskaya/Ploschad Revolyutsii as an early example. The VDNKh is you are aware was began with the mosaics that were latter crudely overpainted...Also feel free to add my Gagarin Square image...It shows perfectly how the Stalinist architecture began to demise... As for neo-stalinism then IMO the first example was the white house in Moscow...it contains certain influences that are unmistaken...--Kuban Cossack 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok, replaced the ugly thing with something nice. through me a link to Gagarin, the one I found doesn't show much difference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NVO (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Here is another word of advice - PURGE all americanisms from the langauge, this is an international encyclopedia and Moscow is technically in Europe which uses British English. You not need go full extreme to switch to British but International English, that IMO should be the one that wikipedia use (e.g. Metre, Aluminium etc.). It does wonders for the clarity of the article. Also a bit off note, but since you are writing so many bridge articles, why not code a template for Moscow's bridges? The image in question is the current wikipedia article... --Kuban Cossack 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of British or American spelling is left to the author of the article, as long as it is consistent, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Although naturally you're allowed to state your opinions. -- intgr 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a job for native speakers. NVO 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem is that it is not consistant. Most of Moscow's article, for example all of the Metro stations I wrote in British English. Although its not the spelling, but its the grammar. Words like "downtown" are not found anywhere outside the US. What's wrong with using "centre" or if you like "center"? I know the manual of style, but there are things we can do that excede it...Anyway, just further wanted to mention that http://www.walks.ru 's author, Alexey Troshin has allowed full free distribution of his works, in commons there is a special template for that. This should be helpful to you. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content first, accents later. Anyway, I cannot write in the unfamiliar Brit language, this would be an odd invention. Last time I heard something like live Brits was an Irish-Estonian plumbers crew somewhere on Rublyovka. BTW, in Novo-Romanovskaya far from you?NVO 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IDGI

[edit]

What does this sentence mean? "The ensemble that a Stalinist building will contain can be very broad, not only in the overall motif, but also in the technology that lies underneath the rich decorations." Anyone opposed to its removal? It seems rather out-of-place in the section that it's in. Recury 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics

[edit]

Very little info on aesthetics in this article. Stalinist architecture to project an image of order, rigidity, repetition, and power. Elements of prerevolutionary architecture were manipulated to create a composition of interchangible parts, a metaphor for the subjugation of the individual. Tipi Tiki (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go ahead if you can reliably source the statements (statements on aesthetics will always be subjective). Keep in mind that stalinist architecture as a whole was never intended for anything, at least publicly and you will not be able to source anything on order, rigidity and repetition. There are plenty of buildings that refute each of these claims. On a broader look, the subject never had a program statement of its own, but there was a rapid sequence of short-lived attempts to formulate it - all in Soviet newspeak that is incomrehensible without lengthy annotations. NVO (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "Stalinist architecture", but many government buildings in the UK are intended to project an image of order, rigidity, repetition, and power. Take the Westminster Tower - post election - might not the sound of Ben Ben be considered a metaphor for the subjugation of the British people?

the Soviet Red Star

[edit]

many building was designed as a shape of the soviet red star, like the Red Army Theatre in moscow and the metro station near the kremlin wall. פארוק (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Designed - probably yes, although what is "many"? Built - no, definitely not many (or just the two named by you?). Highly impractical for anything larger than a newsstand. Look for five-rayed-star plans ... in France! Star forts and the contest of the Académie d'architecture. 85.140.69.133 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]



White House (Moscow) + Monument to the Conquerors of Space

[edit]

is this buildings are wedding cake style ? ....... פארוק (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really. "Wedding cake", the legacy of New York's 1916 building code, is unique to Manhattan's tight quarters. In its simplest form, wedding cake is a plain tower with tapered top. Like a pencil: only a small part of the tower is tapered. Your Soviet examples were built in practically open areas (White House replaced a nearly-rural two-storey neighborhood), and have lean (sor of...) vertical towers set on wide flat bases. And they were not subjected to anything close to NY-style restrictions (they weren't necessary in open fields...).
  • At any rate, "wedding cake" is not a style. It's just a shape that yields the greatest space for a given constraint. Once the code was changed, "the cake" was dropped for good. 91.76.102.225 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you :) פארוק (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:University Lomonosov 1991.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:University Lomonosov 1991.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Langman sto.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Langman sto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resource

[edit]

Ideology Through Geometry by CAMMY BROTHERS for the WSJ DECEMBER 20, 2011 from London regarding Building the Revolution: Soviet Art & Architecture 1915-1935 at the Royal Academy of Arts Through Jan. 22, 2012.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro novosibirsk 1945.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Teatro novosibirsk 1945.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Joseph Stalin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Joseph Stalin.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow dorogomilovo 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Moscow dorogomilovo 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Moscow dorogomilovo 1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An open courtyard / half yard

[edit]

I noticed that most of the buildings surrounding an open courtyard equity or a half a yard that has 1 side open and 3 closed from the other side. Am I right ? פארוק (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article - change to "Socialist Classicism"

[edit]

"Socialist Classicism" is the designated and widespread name of this architectural era. You'll also find way more Google and literature entries on this term than on "Stalinist architecture", which would rather limit it to the USSR anyway, at least to the reader's understanding. Which is of course wrong. I suggest a move. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I wouldn't mind calling this "Socialist Classical", but I fear that's close to notional novelty, as "Classicism" is the regularly used term, no matter what style is used precisely. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed redirect page "Stalin Gothic"

[edit]

My professor for History of the Soviet Union uses the term "Stalin Gothic" to refer to this style, should I make a redirect page for that that leads to this article?

Cameron Nedland (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even similar to Gothic style. Cathry (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stalinist architecture. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"wedding-cake architecture"

[edit]

This term shouldn't only be applied to East Germany; it's a term that many journalists and a significant fraction of the general public in English-speaking countries would apply to many efforts of Stalinist architecture (certainly Moscow University etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that the German term Zuckerbäckerstil as noted in the article is also used in German mainly for the Stalinist architecture found primarily in Moscow and elsewhere in the Soviet Union. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations missing?

[edit]

Many parts of the article - mainly the features subsection - has missing citations on what would be crucial information. 63.225.172.102 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stalinist_architecture&oldid=1217664325"