This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
G8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Is this forum still meeting? A recent article describes a "fraught Group of Seven summit". Was it this forum, or the different Group of Seven forum? 23.121.191.18 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going delete the last portion of the Relevance section, that begins with this (odd) verbiage: "The interactions between leaders often went into interpretations." The first incident, about Merkel and Bush, had nothing to do with climate change according to the source cited (New York Times). The second incident, about Donald Trump, had nothing to do with the G8/G7, and doesn't even correspond with the dates of the 2017 G8/G7 meeting.
The Relevance section reads like a statement of Wikipedia editorial opinion. It is probably correct, but I will try to phrase things more neutrally. I'll clean up inconsistent verb tenses too.-- FeralOink ( talk) 09:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have read the above discussions about not merging the pages G7 and G8, citing that they are two different entities. From my understanding, there were two main options suggested by the do-not-merge comments:
But what I see now is that we failed to implement either option. Instead, we now have two very similar articles, which apparently confused many readers [1] [2]. This article still contains a lot of information about G7 outside G8, plus the G7 article now becomes all about leaders meetings and none about financial one. (The table of finance minister summits previously existed in older versions was deleted and replaced by a duplicate table.)
I guess the first option seems more viable now as G7 becomes more relevant in the context of a group of countries (not a group of presidents or finance ministers). In order to do so, this article should be made more clearly that it is a historic organization. For example:
As of June 15th, Russia's Duma Speaker has stated that they will create a new "Group of Eight" along with China and Iran. I believe this should be noted and to an extent, added to the article.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/russia-to-form-new-g8-with-iran-and-china
Possible Members (National Post) Include: - Russia - China - Iran - India - Indonesia - Brazil - Mexico (?) - Turkey
MateoFrayo ( talk) 01:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move —usernamekiran (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Group of Eight → G8 – G8 is the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. Per MOS:ACROTITLE, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". This is the case here. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
G8 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Is this forum still meeting? A recent article describes a "fraught Group of Seven summit". Was it this forum, or the different Group of Seven forum? 23.121.191.18 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going delete the last portion of the Relevance section, that begins with this (odd) verbiage: "The interactions between leaders often went into interpretations." The first incident, about Merkel and Bush, had nothing to do with climate change according to the source cited (New York Times). The second incident, about Donald Trump, had nothing to do with the G8/G7, and doesn't even correspond with the dates of the 2017 G8/G7 meeting.
The Relevance section reads like a statement of Wikipedia editorial opinion. It is probably correct, but I will try to phrase things more neutrally. I'll clean up inconsistent verb tenses too.-- FeralOink ( talk) 09:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have read the above discussions about not merging the pages G7 and G8, citing that they are two different entities. From my understanding, there were two main options suggested by the do-not-merge comments:
But what I see now is that we failed to implement either option. Instead, we now have two very similar articles, which apparently confused many readers [1] [2]. This article still contains a lot of information about G7 outside G8, plus the G7 article now becomes all about leaders meetings and none about financial one. (The table of finance minister summits previously existed in older versions was deleted and replaced by a duplicate table.)
I guess the first option seems more viable now as G7 becomes more relevant in the context of a group of countries (not a group of presidents or finance ministers). In order to do so, this article should be made more clearly that it is a historic organization. For example:
As of June 15th, Russia's Duma Speaker has stated that they will create a new "Group of Eight" along with China and Iran. I believe this should be noted and to an extent, added to the article.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/russia-to-form-new-g8-with-iran-and-china
Possible Members (National Post) Include: - Russia - China - Iran - India - Indonesia - Brazil - Mexico (?) - Turkey
MateoFrayo ( talk) 01:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move —usernamekiran (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Group of Eight → G8 – G8 is the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. Per MOS:ACROTITLE, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". This is the case here. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)