Talk:G7

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)

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)

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)

It seems this was never put into action, but as I agree with everything the nominator said I think it would be best if we can work on merging these articles which cover the same organization. The current split essentially results in this article missing a lot of information between 1997-2014. For clarity for future editors this was discussed back in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019 - while those resulted in the decision not to merge, from reading the arguments it honestly seems to me that a lot of those editors just had a different perspective as they were much closer to the 2014 renaming and many of the arguments don't hold up now. Yeoutie (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

There is only two G in G7, one USA G and another is Israel G, others are there only for saying G G 2001:16A4:43:4E78:2492:EDFF:FEB9:D126 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be clear on your above statement. Israel is not G7 country, so adding it in this context would be inaccurate. Fade258 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)