Wikipedia

Talk:35th G8 summit

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

WP:MOS (flags)

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This seemed like it might be a grey area .... The following was copied from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#G8:

Question: Flagicon-templates are used in the succession boxes at the bottom 35th G8 summit and each of the corollary articles about the other 30+ G8 summits. I don't see any specific guideline which would inform me that this use has been considered one way or another. The flags seem to be useful for navigation. If there is a guideline which is conventionally construed in a way that suggests a problem I didn't recognize, this posting may help to avoid a complaint in the future. Do you see a potential problem?
Answer: Those flags are less useful because they actually obscure information. People have to recognize the flag to understand the meaning, and not everyone will instantly recognize, say, the Italian flag. This is an example of where words are better than flags. See this guideline. Cop 663 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the context of this article, if a flagicon-template were to be questioned in future, this brief exchange could help speed up the process of resolving whatever problems might arise.--Tenmei (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:IEA logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Budget

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Cerejota deleted the segment about a projected budget (for which details are yet unknown); and that edit summary succinctly explained his/her reasoning -- "then we dont have to say." In my view, this might become an arguably defensible edit in July, perhaps; but not now.

I'm persuaded that in February 2009, this article's non-standard, forward-looking point-of-view requires mentioning such unknown, unpublicized or unclarified aspects of pre-planning. The context for this seemingly controversial point is created by what is known about the previous summits; and my confidence in focusing on this small detail is underscored by the evolution of pre-planning for the 36th G8 summit in Canada.

I've now undone this one edit; but maybe it makes sense to develop my explanation a little further. If my argument is not clear enough, please help me figure out how to explain it better. Now that Cerejota's timely edit causes me to think of it, my guess is that it probably makes sense to post a summary of this thread on the talk page of the evolving article about the 37th G8 summit in France. --Tenmei (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CITE stand against this section. An un-sourced, OR/SYNTH statement has no reason to exist anywhere in the encyclopedia. Even if this event is in the future, it is in the immediate future, so it will be increasingly watched. We deserve to give our readers and article that doesn't have placeholder sections that only clutter the article with un-published synthesis. I reverted the revert. --Cerejota (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Excellent work, now it reads like a real section. --Cerejota (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

7% of GNI on aid?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following appeared in the New Statesman.

"The failure on aid is unconscionable: amid much fanfare at the 2005 Gleneagles summit, the G8 pledged to double aid to the developing world by 2010. In 2009 the G8 is $34 billion dollars a year short of this target. The perennial cycle of generous international aid pledges followed by subsequent failure to deliver them must come to an end. It is time for the G8 to deliver on its ‘IOUs’. That is why we have proposed a ‘Gleneagles recovery plan’ and a new roadmap, ‘Route 0.7’, for the world’s rich nations to meet their promise to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid."<:ref>Moore, Michael. "Stop these broken promises," New Statesman (London). 23 March 2009.</ref>

If this notion develops any traction, it might deserve mentioning in the article? Otherwise, this is nothing more than a few nice words strung together in a pleasing manner.--69.86.119.207 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

G8: ITALY WANTS TO MOVE SUMMIT TO L`AQUILA

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article cited as reference states that the change in location has not been approved.

http://www.lifeinitaly.com/node/5263

Time to change the logo? http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/LogoG8_Aquila,2.pdf <-- this is the new version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.229.198 (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it just me, or is more than half of this article outdated, still talking in the future tense, and a lot of it looks like a news article, instead of an encyclopedia entry. --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

EU participation

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a slow-motion edit war about one aspect of 35th G8 summit. It needs scrutiny and discussion.

Collapsed argument and details

Beginning with the 3rd G7 summit in London in 1977, the President of the European Commission or his successor President of the European Union has been a formal participant in successive annual events -- see "EU and the G8". In each article about G7/G8 summits, Lucie-Marie has deleted text about EU participation. These serial reverts ignored hyperlinks in the supporting inline citations which were also deleted. Despite attempts to engage discussion here, no consensus has been achieved. Her opinions here have merit, but they remain only opinions. No cited source supports these reverts. Our core policies require something different. WP:V seems relevant because "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


Group of Seven or G7+1
Group of Eight or G8+1


A slow-motion edit war is worrisome; but discussion can be constructive -- see Muskoka 2010: G8 members

The edit history of 36th G8 summit records an unhelpful pattern:

  1. diff 17:40, 9 July 2008 Lucy-marie (6,628 bytes) (→Composition of summit leaders)
  2. diff 16:48, 20 July 2008 Lucy-marie (10,987 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit: EU is invited and could be left off the invite list so it is not a oermenet member)
  3. diff 21:54, 10 April 2009 Lucy-marie m (24,339 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit)
  4. diff 19 March 2010 JLogan (24,837 bytes) (EU is a permanent participant, not merely a guest. check the main page)

The same pattern is seen at 37th G8 summit:

  1. diff 21:54, 10 April 2009 Lucy-marie m (12,394 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit)
  2. diff 09:28, 19 March 2010 JLogan (12,628 bytes) (→Leaders at the summit: EU is permanent participant, not just a guest)

This thread may help resolve the issues, or it may help bring clearer focus. --Tenmei (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:FredrikReinfeldt.jpg Nominated for Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:FredrikReinfeldt.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 35th G8 summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 35th G8 summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:35th_G8_summit&oldid=1197022513"