Talk:Erwin Rommel

At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that this article ought to be split. I recommend that a sub-page be created for "Rommel in WWII" then a shortened version can be left on the main page. Semaurer01 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that There should not be an article for Rommel in World War two. There should however be one on Rommel's career during WWI. Tankishguy (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that we do not have enough information about Rommel in WWI to merit its own article. If you have more information that you wish to add, then creating such an article seems to be the best way to do it, but this will not solve our length problem. Do you have a strong reason to oppose the creation of a Rommel in WWII page? if so, please explain. Also, just creating a page about Rommel in WWI cannot come close to fixing the length problems so if that is what you propose. then we need to find more things to omit or move. Semaurer01 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Meh, fair, how about making a "Rommel in the world wars" article to fit as a compromise? Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea. Semaurer01 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Should I get to work on it? Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you know a lot more about the topic than I so you should start the project. Semaurer01 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this needs to have further discussion before we actually split it. Could you create the discussion, due to the fact that I do not know how to? Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Use WP:split Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Nvm Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Neither do I. We will both have to do some reading for this. Semaurer01 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Just whatever you do, try and backup or preserve the text and sources the article currently has. MoreDarkAges (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The current image showing a younger Rommel is clearly AI edited/upscaled. The original picture has sharper detail in the cap badge and epaulettes. The strap across the brim of his hat should be a finely braided rope not the mess that AI has come up with. His left eye is also lacking a wrinkle above the eyelid, and overall rougher skintone. The image for much of this pages history has been of him at the peak of his career. I think it would be best to revert to it as it is also a greater indicator of who he was. 50.92.17.67 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The lede should mention his war crimes in France, such as the executions of Resistance members and his use of slave labour to build the Atlantic Wall. 2A00:23C5:C419:D301:3082:82DC:98D4:F8E3 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Insignificant stuff. Executing non-uniform-wearing spies and saboteurs is standard fare in wartime. The slave labour was organized by others. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick to claims of interest, such as those in the novel about the Rommel myth and similar sources. MoreDarkAges (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I propose that the sections About his activity in World War one and World War two in Europe Should be split into a different Article named Erwin Rommel in the World Wars To mitigate size. Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that would be useful in terms of being a logical separation per WP:SPINOUT. He was a soldier and these are his only wars, and so therefore completely central to his biography. The better option would be to condense the detail across the board, but in particular in the WWII section, which already has an excessive detail tag. Most of the subsections on campaigns and battles in that section could be condensed into one paragraph focussed not on the campaign or battle but his influence on it, allowing the campaign or battle article to tell the full story. The Atlantic Wall subsection is unnecessarily huge, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, I think all of the sections starting with "Death" are prime candidates for serious condensing and trimming. This article definitely needs to be reduced by more than 7,000 words, probably more. Some assessors would want it reduced by an additional 6,000 words or so, at least to qualify for a restored GA assessment. I may not agree with the need to reduce it by all of the second number of words, although the more words, the more likely the article assessment would need to remain at B. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Everything about a person that happens after they are dead could be a separate article. We could call it "legacy" or some such.MoreDarkAges (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Rommel was relatively low rank in World War I, and it's questionable how notable he would be if he hadn't both promoted himself and been successful in Word War II. Also agree that the sections after (and including) "Death" are far too sprawling. Removing the things that created his notability (his military record in both wars, especially Word War II) seems counterintuitive to me. Peacemaker67's suggestions seem sensible. Intothatdarkness 13:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a small note: Actually, entire studies have been written on Rommel's experience in WW1, including books such as Rommel and Caporetto by John Wilks and ‎Eileen Wilks as well as Dan Dimancescu's Rommel in Romania: The Forgtten Story of World War I. 1916-1917. So it might be entirely possible to write an article called "Erwin Rommel in the First World War". Applodion (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"...large stocks of fuel, vehicles and equipment were captured, many of which were pressed into Axis service"

How can fuel, vehicles and equipment be "pressed into service"? Did they resist? ~2026-12257-56 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)