Talk:G8

Current relevance

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)

The news story that you referred to is about the most recent Group of Eight summit in May 2017. Actually, it is now the Group of Seven, as Russia is no longer part of the Group of Eight. The Group of Seven forum that you mentioned is the same as the Group of Eight, but without Russia. For reasons that I don't understand, Wikipedia has chosen to keep both article pages rather than merge them. The Group of Eight and the Group of Seven are the same group, on Wikipedia, that is. As for continued relevance, I don't know about that. It is a subjective judgement. I do know that the next annual Group of Eight/Group of Seven meeting in 2018 has been announced and a location determined. The official 2018 G8/G7 sherpa has already been appointed. So the answer is yes, the forum is still meeting.--FeralOink (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate paragraph at end of Relevance section

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)

Dealing with duplicate contents with G7

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:

1. Making G8 to be about historic organization that existed during 1997-2014, and G7 to be the group of seven countries without Russia, including the summits of both leaders level and finance ministers level, or
2. Renaming G8 to G7 to be about leaders summits of G6→G7→G8→G7 which continue the numeral counts, and renaming the old financial G7 article (previously about the finance ministers meeting) to G7 (financial group) or something.

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:

• the annual summit table should list only the summits from 1997 to 2013 (and maybe the Sochi 2014 one, marked as cancelled; the rest should be linked to the full table in G7 article). Well, it doesn't even make any sense anyway that while the title states that it is a past organization ("G8 was an inter-governmental political forum ..."), the table still includes present and future summits not involving Russia.
• The history section should contain only contents involving Russia and/or the 1997-2014 period. Anything beyond that should only be summarized with the link to the fully detailed one in G7 article. --Portalian (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As no one is participating in the discussion, I will begin moving and removing duplicate contents as stated. For the summits table, now I think completely removing it and linking to the main table in G7 page is more appropriate than just removing a part of it. Plus, the G6/G7/G8/G7 eras in the main table should be marked and separated more clearly. --Portalian (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Current Relevance: "Russian G-8"

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)

@MateoFrayo, are you still of the opinion that something should be written about this "alternative G8"? Have the been any developments in the last year? My Gussie (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @My Gussie,

Still haven't seen any updates about the topic, so unfortunately nothing yet. Will definitely keep you posted if something pops up though.

MateoFrayo (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2023 (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) 12:48, 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)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• support clearly common name—blindlynx 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support former. Name sounds like “the Gang of Four”, and not an economic group at all! Student7 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Agree that this is the common name, and will stay symmetrical with the pending move at its successor, G7. MarginalCost (talk) 22:55, 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.