Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Article size 17,000 words.

Over the last several months, the article has grown from 12,000 words (which was already too big) to over 17,000. This is going in the wrong direction. (Hohum ^@) 22:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hohum I have made several recent edits to trim the article down and make it more concise, and made a new subsection detailing the tactics and battlefield conditions, as the "strategy and tactics" section was enormously long under one subsection. The problem most likely lies with the importance, popularity and all the information that can be gleaned from the battle itself. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's great that you have trimmed some parts. However the complexity of the subject isn't an excuse for such an overlength article. This is explained clearly in WP:Article size, with "reader issues/readability" being the primary one here, although it also affects maintenance significantly. Other articles on extremely complex and important subjects do manage to be far smaller, using various means. While the guideline does say that there can be occasional exceptions, I think other alternatives should be carefully considered first. (Hohum ^@) 01:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added a "section sizes" template at the top of this talk page to assist any potential efforts. (Hohum ^@) 01:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Understandable of course and I'll continue to make it more concise, since I am guilty myself of adding a great deal to the article to give more information and signify its importance from all sources, including a lot more Russian ones than just English sources. As noted by historian Geoffrey Roberts for example, there's just so much information about the battle and countless sources of it, so pulling what you can from these sources is a bit hard without taking away from what should be stated and explained. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, should the self-published source by Cameran Guan from https://thebattleofstalingrad1942-1943.weebly.com/historical-background-and-prelude.html still be used? Reaper1945 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

With so many good sources available for the subject, I think you can be fairly ruthless with any questionable ones. (Hohum ^@) 11:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Tactics and battle conditions" & "Significance" sections could use trimming. I will scrutinize them in greater detail at a later date if no one else does. In general however, I think the significant historical notoriety of this battle and mountains of literature published on it warrants a large article. Durchbruchmüller (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is more like a book than an encyclopedia article. It needs some ruthless trimming, IMO. The current bytecount stands at 216,605. Can we at least get it under 200,000? Nosferattus (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I just came to this page for some light reading and it's ridiculously over-written. I appreciate that military enthusiasts want to share their knowledge, but several whole sections are off-topic and full of guff - the 'Aftermath' section for one. I for one would appreciate an editor taking a long blade to this article. Thanks!Newzild (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

the article cites Sokolov data about 2 million KIA and MIA casualties which seems absolutely unrealistic. Soviet forces in Battle of Stalingrad were ~1,1 million soldiers (every soldier died twice?) and Soviet army in total were ~5,5 million people

i suggest to remove this casualties data 95.220.21.185 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that both German and soviet losses are not just Stalingrad, they are for all fighting on the Southern Front from July, which is way more than “Stalingrad”. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The soviet forces 1,1 mils also are not for the city itself, it is for Southern Front. Total Soviet forces were 5,5 mils for all fronts. Loosing 2 mils KIA would mean 4-8 mils wounded resulting in destruction of the whole Soviet army which is absurd

At least read Sokolov page in Russian wiki with translator: he is a freak of Russian history science community, his "researches" are not based on any facts. It is ridiculous that they are used as a serious data here

nothing of the sort. Russians have terrible medicine with incompetent doctors. For every one killed, 1, maximum 2 wounded among Russians. Most of the Soviet wounded died.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

I believe the picture description in the article infobox needs to be reordered if it's to be clockwise from top left as labeled.69.117.200.96 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Tatsinskaya Airfield

Tatsinskaya Airfield is named twice in the article but not linked to Tatsinskaya Airfield needs inline links to the article on Tatsinskaya Airfield 80.189.122.246 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Query on accuracy

I was reading the article recently and noted that in the intro it states the following "By the time the hostilities ended, the German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army had been destroyed..." Now, as I understand it the German 6th Army was surrounded in the city along with the 14th Panzer corps of the 4th Panzer Army and these formations were definitely destroyed. However, the remainder of the 4th Panzer army was not surrounded. According to Glantz and others it fought continuously from November 1942 and even played a major role in The German February/March 1943 counter-attack. So why is it referred to as being destroyed in the Article intro? This is very strange. I mean, if the formation was destroyed then it shouldn't be in existence. The entire 6th Army was surrounded and destroyed and therefore went out of existence but that seems not to be the case with the 4th Panzer Army. Could someone help me with this. I am completely confused. Thanks. 86.183.72.121 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)