Talk:G7/Archives/2013

Merging
Permission to combine this page with that of the G8? Zscout370 19:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? Just don't copy this part of the notice Darkhooda 01:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Only problem is that there still is a G7 which is when the finance ministers meet. --SVTCobra 13:58, 8 June 2007 (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)

Merging problem
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)


 * However, I think some of the information provided on here can be combined into the G8 page, since the G7 plus Russia formed the G8. Zscout370 02:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * G7 still exists. There is a G7 which is when finance minister meet. Russia is not included. Look it up. They met not too long ago. See here: Essen --SVTCobra 14:00, 8 June 2007 (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)

G7 lives
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 note that use of all capital letters is a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:ALLCAPS. Use the shift key please. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:55, 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)
 * Why do people keep changing the G7 to past tense as if it doesn't exist anymore? Here is a helpful article from a RS that shows that the G7 continues. Somehow people think that after the G8 was created there was no longer a G7, which is not true. --SVTCobra (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not to be confused with G8." It IS confusing. I saw an article today for G7 in my local paper saying they were "reaching out" to Russia, and I thought Russia had left the G8 somewhere between its last meeting and today (perhaps something to do with Georgia). Shouldn't that part about not confusing it be at the beginning of the article? DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, the G7 is distinct from the G8, and as such a stand-alone article is more than justified. --andywall (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentisation
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)


 * So fix it. DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah but I can't fix every example of it can I! JimmyMac82 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not every example. But you can when you see it. That's our job as WP's editors: eye mistakes other people made and correct them. It's not fantastic - in fact, sometimes it reeks - but it's what we do. DerekMBarnes (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, I just think this is something that needs point out to people I don't think people pay much attention to it. But bar putting here, how do you address it to the whole of Wikipedia, to make everyone aware? JimmyMac82 (talk) 08:57, 12 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.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

added "update" template to article
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)

Jan Jordan Rodriguez
Shome mishtake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.73.2 (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)