Talk:G7/Archives/2015

G5
User:Thewolfchild started this interaction on my talkpage. I moved it here as it pertains to the article.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Explain...?
You added this edit to the G7 (major advanced economies) article some time ago. In it, you mentioned the "G5", yet add added no link, reference or any kind of notation to clarify just what you meant by "G5". (There is a "Group of Five" (also known as G5), but that does not fit with the context of the article.) Is it simply a typo? Did you mean "G6"? If so, then a correction is needed, along with a ref and some additional notation (for example, in the context in which "G5" is used, it appears to refer to 5 of the 6 countries (less Italy) that form the G7, along with Canada). If this is not a typo, then explain just what "G5" is. - the WOLF  child  10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks yes, and whats worse is that those url's changed, check it out! ach... I added what I could just now. it takes more digging, i think they are not proud of their elitarian beginnings and so that stuff is disappearing. wolf, you are right. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your reply makes no sense and does not address my question at all. Again, in the edit (noted above) that you added to the G7 article, you wrote;
 * Did you even look at the edit I cited? I am (again) asking you to explain what you meant by "G5". - the WOLF  child  18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User: Thewolfchild I will move this to the article talk page, I don't understand why you even wrote on my talkpage . FYI: I find your angry tone uncalled for.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User: Thewolfchild Re: Is it simply a typo? No.
 * Re: Did you mean "G6"? No.
 * Re: "If no, explain just what "G5" is: The very first sentence mentions what countries the G5 were: United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, Japan and France.
 * Re: Did you even look at the edit I cited? Yes.
 * I hope this helps. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A. You first replied on your talk page, so don't complain about it now. (and, my question didn't "pertain to the article" so much that it did your edits. Why post to the article talk when my question was directed specifically to you?)
 * B. My "tone" is not "anger", it's frustration... at your bizarre reply that did not not address my question at all. (it's as if you were answering someone else, and mistakenly posted to me instead)
 * C. The "sentence that mentions the "G5"" was added by you after I asked you about it. Don't act as if I somehow missed it. (Do you even know how edit histories work? Anyone can see what you added and when you added it.)
 * D. No... this doesn't "help" at all. The "History" section is a mess... your mess. And I see that even now another editor disagrees with your contributions and you are on the verge of an edit with them. If multiple editors are disagreeing with you, where do you think the problem is?
 * E. Try to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. - the WOLF  child  11:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

edit warring about the term G5
you have twice reverted WP:RS content Oct 4 and Oct 7, without discussing. You know, this is edit warring. The correct thing is to follow WP:BRD. so, here is your chance, the place to discuss.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I never reverted you. I tried to correct what you added without removing your edit. You are probably confusing me with someone else. Anyway...The G7/G8's predecessor is the G6, not the G5. The first G-summit was a G6 summit. The term "G5" was not used to describe an official group. There has never been a summit called G5 summit. I think we already talked about this. It is ok to mention the term G5 but it is not the G7's predecessor. The G7/8 begun in 1975 as a G6. Barjimoa (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The way it was written was confusing and misleading. You have a G7, but then there was a G6. but before that there was G5 (which linked to a completely different "G5"). Then there we're back to G7... sort of, but not really, until 10 years later. Or was that 11? Was it the Louvre Accord of '87 or the Tokyo Eco. Dec. of '86? Then it mentions G7 coming after G5, (but not G6?), then goes on to mention Canada and "G5+", but there is no mention of Italy. There was also no distinction between "summits" and "forums", simple meetings and official policy groups.


 * I have done a minor re-write of that one small, but troublesome paragraph, based on the reliable source that is cited with it. Hopefully this clears things up. If anyone want to change it further, please do so, just... don't go and re-vert it back to what it was because that simply didn't work. If anything, I think the whole section could use further improvement, meaning moving forward, not backwards. - the WOLF  child  01:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)