Talk:G7

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mario Draghi in 2022 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Olaf Scholz In March 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Group of Seven → G7 – G7 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) 10:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to be uncontroversial. Maybe put it up at WP:RM/T instead? Regards SoWhy 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support clearly common name. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• support clearly common name—blindlynx 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• oppose What about the fact that there are a number of other G7's? We have a disambiguation page. So, shouldn't it be something like G7(international organization) or something, rather than G7 alone? Which G7 gets priority choice of G7 alone when there are numerous G7s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7_(disambiguation) Centerone (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There can be many but they require further clarification, unlike this one. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Regards SoWhy 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

the G7 redirect and this page get the overwhelming majority of traffic for 'g7' related articles [1]—blindlynx 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment as OP. This should have probably gone through WP:RM/T, I incorrectly believed this might be controversial. Maybe someone can do a WP:SNOW close. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Not anymore since there is 1 oppose. This should be now closed by an uninvolved editor but not before 10 August. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This is the common name, and since G7 already redirects here, there's already a consensus that this is clearly the primary topic. MarginalCost (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Giorgia Meloni Premier (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Giorgia Meloni Official 2022 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group of Seven (artists) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Merger with G8 article

I have checked discussions in this and the G8 article, and I am unable to find the promised discussion on why or how it was decided not to merge them.

"G7" and "G8" do NOT refer to separate entities, they refer to a particular annual international forum, and there is no evidence that there ever were simultaneous, competing, G7 and G8 meetings. Allowing separate articles leads to confusion, and there is even a false and unsubstantiated claim that "they are two different entities" in the discussions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G8#Dealing_with_duplicate_contents_with_G7

I re-suggest the two articles be merged. This is not impossible, as the French Wiki has already done so https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_des_sept_(%C3%A9conomie) . I believe that "G7" would be the best name for a merged article, but the final chosen name is not very important, since Wikipedia can easily redirect the user. Agihard (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; however, the discussion pages on the G7, G8, and G8+5 talk pages keep opening and closing at random times (which is only another reason as to why the pages should be merged). If we're able to find a solution for this, I'm sure we'll be able to merge the pages faster. - MateoFrayo (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Due to the general consensus being reached that the pages should be merged, I'll be working on merging all three pages now. - MateoFrayo (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Promotion to B-class

Should the article be promoted to B-class? I believe it meets the criteria, anyone object? Lordseriouspig 05:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

G9 paragraph

I'm not sure that this paragraph in the intro reflects a well-rounded view of the subject (as found in the Renewed calls for expanded membership section). Should the source be merged there with the intro containing only a summary of the section? The paragraph cites Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which is a nonpartison think tank:

> In the 2020s, discussions on G7 expansion are in full swing.[failed verification] For example, according to Ronald A. Klain writing for the Carnegie Endowment, onsidering that the G7 members are Eurocentric, that Japan is the only Asian member, and challenges posed by China, it would be reasonable to expand the G7 into the G9 by adding South Korea and Australia.[12]

Would appreciate input from those more well-versed on the topic. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)