Third Battle of Kharkov

edit

What is "inconsistent grammar" supposed to mean when the article already refers to "Germany's Army Group South"? You changed it from "Army Group South of Nazi Germany" to "German Army Group South", so why do you insist on your change? What is wrong with the other wording or "Germany's Army Group South" when plenty of RS use this? Mellk (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I changed it to "German Army Group South" as that was the concise way of phrasing that sentence, and the one that flows best syntactically. "Nazi Germany" is redundant as there was no other Germany in 1943, there is no real need to add a possessive apostrophe & "s", and it maintains grammatical consistency within the sentence; the article uses the phrase "Soviet Red Army" in the same sentence, not "Communist Soviet Union's Red Army". I was just trying to streamline the wording of the lead and keep consistency. Glass Snow (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it is so that it is in line with "the Soviet Red Army", wouldn't you also write "the German Army Group South"? Otherwise if do not need "the" (I have seen sources use with and without "the"), then wouldn't it be better to write it as "German Army Group South" using one link and without a link to Nazi Germany? Mellk (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, because there were multiple German army groups, while the singular Soviet Red Army is what is referred to. If you want to omit "the" by replacing "Red Army" with the appropriate Red Army front, the equivalent of a German army group, I would have no objections. Glass Snow (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Army Group South was one of the army groups? Similarly, we would be fine saying "the Soviet Southwestern Front" etc. for the Red Army. Mellk (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just think "the" is unnecessary clutter. "The" is only used because in common English, it is almost used when referring to national armies as a singular entity. Saying "Soviet Southwestern Front" without "the" preceding it sounds natural in English, and I would support using it. Glass Snow (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have seen some sources use "the" when referring to one of the German army groups (e.g. "German Army Group South"), and some that do not use "the" (which is why I think this is minor), but I cannot find any that refer to "Soviet Southwestern Front" without "the". This is just from what I have found. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not think sources are required for grammatical minutiae, sources are required for making factual claims within the article. To me, putting "the" in front of the name of the army group or front both sounds unnatural, and just adds pointless text to the lead. As an encyclopedia, all article text should strive to be as concise as possible while describing things or events. Glass Snow (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply