![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Permission to combine this page with that of the G8? Zscout370 19:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
this article should be merged or completely rewritten. As is it makes no sense. Some of it is correctly in past tense. But some is in present tense as if both the g7 and g8 exist.
G7 or G8 might be still available, but since G20 the influence of G7 and G8 is vanishing. Even at 2050 most of G7 will out of Top7 (please see BRIC). For the long run might be better if G7 and G8 merge to G20 as a background or don't merge at all. Gsarwa ( talk) 02:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify merging, it means that this article should re-direct to G8. But then, there would have to be a header on the top of G8 that says:
G7 re-directs here; for alternate uses see G7 (disambiguation). Any comments on whether it is better to move G7 (disambiguation) here?? Georgia guy 01:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No merge. G7 and G8 are distinct entities. There is no validity to the movement to merge. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DocEB (
talk •
contribs)
02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK THE TABLE IN THE G7 ARTICLE? IN THE SECOND MEETING, HOSTED BY THE US IN PUERTO RICO, A GUY NAMED Jan Jordan Rodriguez IS MENTIONED AS THE HOST PERSON!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.109.178 ( talk) 12:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Please make this article about the G7 finance minister meetings. ( Essen). When the G7 meetings for heads of state became the G8 - when Russia was added - the G7 finance ministers did not add Russia. This factual error has existed for far too long in Wikipedia. -- SVTCobra 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a real problem I have with Wikipedia, so I'm not knocking anyone who has edited this page inparticular, it's just that I've just read it and it's the final straw. What is it with the word recent? Why is it used so much then never removed when an article is updated.
This line
The most recent meeting was held on April 11, 2008 in Washington D.C
is fine on it's own but as soon as you add
The G7 held another meeting October 10, 2008, in Washington D.C, to discuss the current global situation with the markets
The previous line become redundant, or at least the word recent does. What annoys me so much is that the editor of the most recent line has put the word "another" in it, therefore aknowlegding the previous line, but doing nothing to correct it.
I don't mean to criticise but Wikipedia is littered with this and I think it needs addressing, please let it start here. If you see any of it please change it and be careful not to do it yourself, it looks seriously bad and personally I think nearly as bad as posting false statements. JimmyMac82 ( talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize I am quite late chiming in to this 'discussion', but I recommend using the [[As of X]] links in lieu of recent. This effectively adds an implicit disclaimer and when people see especially old dates in "as of" links they are more likely to fix it or at least understand they're reading old information. Additionally, the what links here of older as of redirects can be used to systematically seek out old data and update them. BigNate37 (T) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
nytimes reported in printed edition saturday, april 25, 2009, on a "group of 7" meeting held friday, april 24 in washington, d.c.-- 71.183.238.134 ( talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Shome mishtake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.73.2 ( talk) 11:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Permission to combine this page with that of the G8? Zscout370 19:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
this article should be merged or completely rewritten. As is it makes no sense. Some of it is correctly in past tense. But some is in present tense as if both the g7 and g8 exist.
G7 or G8 might be still available, but since G20 the influence of G7 and G8 is vanishing. Even at 2050 most of G7 will out of Top7 (please see BRIC). For the long run might be better if G7 and G8 merge to G20 as a background or don't merge at all. Gsarwa ( talk) 02:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify merging, it means that this article should re-direct to G8. But then, there would have to be a header on the top of G8 that says:
G7 re-directs here; for alternate uses see G7 (disambiguation). Any comments on whether it is better to move G7 (disambiguation) here?? Georgia guy 01:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No merge. G7 and G8 are distinct entities. There is no validity to the movement to merge. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DocEB (
talk •
contribs)
02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK THE TABLE IN THE G7 ARTICLE? IN THE SECOND MEETING, HOSTED BY THE US IN PUERTO RICO, A GUY NAMED Jan Jordan Rodriguez IS MENTIONED AS THE HOST PERSON!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.109.178 ( talk) 12:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Please make this article about the G7 finance minister meetings. ( Essen). When the G7 meetings for heads of state became the G8 - when Russia was added - the G7 finance ministers did not add Russia. This factual error has existed for far too long in Wikipedia. -- SVTCobra 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a real problem I have with Wikipedia, so I'm not knocking anyone who has edited this page inparticular, it's just that I've just read it and it's the final straw. What is it with the word recent? Why is it used so much then never removed when an article is updated.
This line
The most recent meeting was held on April 11, 2008 in Washington D.C
is fine on it's own but as soon as you add
The G7 held another meeting October 10, 2008, in Washington D.C, to discuss the current global situation with the markets
The previous line become redundant, or at least the word recent does. What annoys me so much is that the editor of the most recent line has put the word "another" in it, therefore aknowlegding the previous line, but doing nothing to correct it.
I don't mean to criticise but Wikipedia is littered with this and I think it needs addressing, please let it start here. If you see any of it please change it and be careful not to do it yourself, it looks seriously bad and personally I think nearly as bad as posting false statements. JimmyMac82 ( talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize I am quite late chiming in to this 'discussion', but I recommend using the [[As of X]] links in lieu of recent. This effectively adds an implicit disclaimer and when people see especially old dates in "as of" links they are more likely to fix it or at least understand they're reading old information. Additionally, the what links here of older as of redirects can be used to systematically seek out old data and update them. BigNate37 (T) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
nytimes reported in printed edition saturday, april 25, 2009, on a "group of 7" meeting held friday, april 24 in washington, d.c.-- 71.183.238.134 ( talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Shome mishtake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.73.2 ( talk) 11:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)