Talk:Generation Z/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lede sentence bike shed

Shifting-IP editor 2606.* has been restoring a mangled version of the lede on the basis that my version isn't similar enough to a 2013 version of the article. But all I'm doing is fixing it to match the article body. 2606's preferred lede says:

"There is some disagreement on the name and exact range of birth dates. Some sources start this generation at the mid or late 1990s and others from the mid 2000s to the present day."

I edited the first sentence to "There is no agreed name or exact range of birth dates." because this seems more accurate (people are not actively disagreeing with each other about the range, they're just offering independent dates which differ). The second sentence is palpably inaccurate because it is making the claim that some sources "start this generation" on 12 December 2015. The present day is certainly part of the range of the cohort, but no sources are suggesting that they think the generation starts at the present day, and this sentence is only about the start date. The latest start date given is Strauss and Howe's "roughly 2005". --McGeddon (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This was added to address your concerns "with birth dates ending in 2025" and I changed it back to your words "in the mid 2000s" instead of "from the mid 2000s". We are giving a range, if you want to completely spell it out then we can say birth ranges starting from the mid 2000s, moving through the first decade then proceeding throughout the second decade and ending around 2025" But that's exposition. It's difficult because births are going to happen in the future but I don't think we need to spell it out. Also, Strauss and Howe use 2005 (not "roughly 2005").— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:9c27:25c7:18d1:f239 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 December 2015‎

All we have to get across to the reader is that among all the definitions put forward of the generation, birth dates generally start between years A and B and end between Y and Z. This does not seem particularly difficult. Your current wording ("Some sources start this generation at the mid or late 1990s and others start it in the mid 2000s with birth dates ending in 2025. Ranges end between 2010 and the mid 2020s.") is unclear for suggesting that only "others" end the birthdates in 2025 (where do those who start it in the mid-to-late 1990s end it?), and confusing for repeating the fact that birth dates end in 20225 and "the mid 2020s".

What objection do you have to "Some sources start this generation at the mid or late 1990s, and others in the mid 2000s. These ranges end between 2010 and the mid 2020s."? All you seem to have said is that this wording is not sufficiently close to how this article phrased it in 2013, which is not a reason to reject content.

(As far as I can see the second Strauss-Howe source used is the only one to specify an end date, and it says "(born roughly 2005–2025)". Which is what the article body says when it quotes it.) --McGeddon (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is confusing "Ranges end between 2010 and the mid 2020s" because there are three or four different ranges. What do you think of the current lede proposal? 2606:6000:610A:9000:4446:9169:FAEE:2E1E (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see a current lede proposal. The current lede seems fine apart from "the mid or late 1990s with various ending dates", which seems unnecessarily vague - we should mention that some of these sources consider the generation to have already ended. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well there are numerous ending birth dates, depending on what the start year is. We should not include every person with a press release claiming to determine when the generation starts and ends.2606:6000:610A:9000:892B:948B:6407:6938 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We've now got "Some sources define this generation as starting in the mid or late 1990s and ending in the late 2000s, or mid to late 2010s" written by 2606.*, but I can't see anything in the article body that puts the date of a 1990s generation beyond Mark McCrindle's "ended in 2010". What am I missing? --McGeddon (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This whole lede is now nothing but weasel words, with no clarity. Scr★pIron^IV 20:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've seen worse. I think we can get it down to "people generally define Generation Z as covering the period A-to-B, or covering C-to-D", if the definitions we've got tend to break into two incompatible clumps. I don't think it'd help to attribute the years to anyone in particular at this point in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The structure you suggest would be an improvement. Scr★pIron^IV 20:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone for "The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid-or-late 1990s to the 2010s, or from the mid 2000s to around 2025." - what do people think? --McGeddon (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would it end in 2010 if the start is in 1998, or 2000, or 2001 -- that would be a 12, 10 or 9 year span. See what I mean? I look for a source if that's what you want. 2606:6000:610A:9000:892B:948B:6407:6938 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so where no end date is specified you're making up a minimum end date of "start year + 13" because that's how you think generations should be defined? This is original research. If the article body contains no explicit suggestions that anyone has ever put the end date of Generation Z at "mid to late 2010s", then the lede should not say this either. So yes, this will need a source, and will need to be stated in the article body before it can go in the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get you some sources. 2606:6000:610A:9000:892B:948B:6407:6938 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The definition of a biological or cultural generation is at least 20 to 30 years long. See the dictionary. Also the average age of a woman's first birth in the U.S. is 26 years old.2606:6000:610A:9000:892B:948B:6407:6938 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary definition doesn't matter at this point. This Wikipedia article is just accurately reporting to its readers how "some people" are currently defining Generation Z. --McGeddon (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Generation Alpha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

From the discussion below, there is general consensus to merge the two articles. While the oppose arguments do make attempts to justify the separation of the articles, they are not as convincing as the support arguments, at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Alternate non-standard name DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. From the secondary sources, it doesn't seem to be an alternate name - Generation Alpha is a suggested name for the one after Generation Z, starting in 2010 and switching to the Greek alphabet because we've run out of letters. (One WP:PRIMARY TEDx talk uses the same term for a generation starting in 2000, but I can't find any secondary coverage of it.) --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support merging into a "subsequent generation" section here, if there's not been any wider adoption of "Alpha" as a name yet, beyond McCrindle himself. I've not been able to find many sources discussing the generation following Z, but we can come back to it when more get written. --McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. We can include the term Generation Alpha in the Gen Z article because the dates overlap. It appears that a few marketing consultants (Dan Schawbel and Mark McCrindle) are pushing the term Generation Alpha. That could clearly benefit their consultancies. We merged the "plurals" into Gen Z for the same reason -- to many overlapping dates. McCrindle has a conflict of dates too -- as he has said this: In Australia, a 2005 report from the McCrindle Research Center used 2001+ as the starting point of Generation Zs birth years. Now he is saying Generation Alpha starts in 2010 but earlier said Gen Z starts in 2001+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:7831:a3c1:f9e8:7fe8 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 December 2015‎

References

Generational cohorts are subjective, it's hardly surprising if a writer made a judgment call four years into a new cohort in 2005, and revised that opinion ten years later. Overlapping dates is an inevitable side effect of that - some definitions of Generation Z ("mid-or-late 1990s to the 2010s") also overlap with the dates we give for Millennials ("early 1980s to the early 2000s"), but it's clear from sources that the generations are intended to be sequential. --McGeddon (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now all we have is two or three consultants who say there is a generation who they call Alpha and a few news outlets who report on those consultants work.2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support All the sources refer to McCrindle. Can be merged here with an eye to spinning off again if the term gets more widespread support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I was editing as you wrote that, but I've just added a source which doesn't feature McCrindle and quotes two other writers on the general concept of "the cohort after Generation Z". (It now looks like User:2606.* immediately reverted my addition because it "doesn't mention Generation Alpha", which seems to be missing the point.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as its use is not nearly notable or widespread enough for a standalone article yet. Scr★pIron^IV 18:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly it is clear from many secondary sources that Generation Alpha is the generation that follows Generation Z and although the term Generation Alpha has not experienced widespread usage it would not make sense to merge it with another article for this reason alone as. Moreover, though there are overlaps in the dates, merging the articles together would not be correct because this overlap is true of every generational term's beginning and ending years. Thus merging the two together would be tantamount to merging, for example, all the generations, as they all seem to have overlaps in their beginning and end years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinisterd (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a great quote from The Guardian regarding generational terminology and segmentation: "MTV Presents: "The Currently Desirable Demographic" -- this nickname doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it does get right to the point – namely, that giving each generation a handle is increasingly a cynical attempt to corral young people with disposable income into a singular, easily defined mass for marketing purposes, and in the case of MTV taking it upon themselves to name this crowd (who they call the Founders) also a sad swing at retaining some fading cultural currency. Maybe we’ll shorten it to The MTVCDD?" See http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/02/millennials-10-titles-next-generation-mtv-founders

We should resist turning Wikipedia into a marketing digest and glossary of terms made up by the media as much as we can to keep Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia. 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Generation Alpha is a suggested name for a group of people AFTER Generation Z. So it is totally different. Merging the two would logically mean that we should also merge ALL the previous generation names into one article as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.22.100 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2016‎ (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.

Original Research

This article has tons of original research and we should try to pair it down by removing as much of it as possible. A shorter, more accurate article is better than a bunch of stuff that doesn't have references. More editors helping remove the OR is better than arguing over each proposed removal. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:D495:F821:58DC:DF28 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This comment comes right after you were wrong about OR in the discussions above this one. I think it's time for you to stand down on this topic. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice but this comment is about the entire article. The lede also has original research, you can defend it but that's not what Wikipedia wants. 2606:6000:610A:9000:B51F:1726:2B06:BBC0 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear from Wikipedia's repeated need to protect these pages that you have no idea what Wikipedia wants. Scr★pIron^IV 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You're wasting alot of time arguing over any proposed changes instead of actually doing some work by adding valuable, well sourced content. By the way, what have you actually added to any of these articles? 2606:6000:610A:9000:B51F:1726:2B06:BBC0 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Wikipedia requires a ref. for the second paragraph statement .2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific, what statement ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The second paragraph makes broad statements that may or may not be true, the quote says "A significant aspect of this generation is its widespread usage of the internet from a young age. Members of Generation Z are typically thought of as being comfortable with technology and interacting on social media websites accounts for a significant portion of their socializing. Members of Generation Z have been affected by growing up through the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession, with some commentators suggesting that these events have given the cohort a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity".

Members of Gen Z are currently being born or are as old as the early 20s according to the page. Do all these statements apply to all of them? 2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that every single person in a generation has been through the same experiences? These statements are just general statements, not to be applied to every single individual in the generation. In any case, we tell the reader what the sources say; we don't try and make a more cohesive picture than the sources offer. Imprecision is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We removed alot of this type of stuff from the other generation articles because it's OR and it doesn't really help explain anything and makes broad sweeping statements. It needs a ref. or just remove it. 2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph probably needs another word like "typically" to avoid the confusing suggestion that a baby born today has been "growing up through the September 11 attacks" (which might make a reader wonder if they've misread the previous paragraph or are at the wrong article), but quoting how sources have defined something is not "OR". --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First I want to thank you all for your input. The sources in the body have not defined what the paragraph is saying by talking about such a huge age range of people so it's either OR or synthesis at this point.2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article body says "Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession have greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United States." and is plainly sourced to a USA Today article about Generation Z. ("This new generation has been uniquely shaped by nearly a decade of war and economic uncertainty: Those born in 1990 were 11 years old on 9/11, and ever since we have been at war. They finished high school in 2008, just as the Great Recession began.") At most it just needs a little reframing to clarify that we're talking about the generation as it is widely perceived, rather than every literal member of it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Somebody just born probably isn't "comfortable with technology". These kind of statements make the article lose alot of credibility as an encyclopedia and it's up to us to remove these kind of statements without doing the research and work required to have an accurate statement. 2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And everybody wonders why I stay away from generations articles now... just... wow... Scr★pIron^IV 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're still mistakenly trying to make every conceivable case fit into the description. Our sources don't do that, so I don't see the need for us to do that. Don't let outliers bother you so much. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That article says Generation Z "went to work back in 2012" really? I think the writer meant Millennials.2606:6000:610A:9000:7C63:9513:F08A:1CC1 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Successors

We don't have a reference that says Alpha is the successors generation. In fact, we have a source who uses the year 2000 as the start "Alpha". It should probably be renamed or just move the paragraph under Terminology. 2606:6000:610A:9000:59DE:EDED:8541:5F2A (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have a source that uses the year 2000, I cut it as primary-sourced last month. All remaining sources on McCrindle's Generation Alpha (eg. headline "Here's who comes after Generation Z") are plainly talking about a successor to Generation Z. --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

SO DOES THESE DATES MAKE SENSE?!

This is from you guys, Wikipedia: Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

SO, are you trying to tell me, that Generation Z, can cut the Millennial Generation short? You guys are saying that the oldest person from Generation Z is 22 or 23 years of age as of 2016. That makes the year of birth in 1993. A generation lasts on average between 20 and 25 years from the birth of an individual to the birth of a child. I'm sorry, but are you saying that on average, we were having kids at 13 years of age? I think not. You need to go with your latter years of the early 2000's to around 2025.

This page is very misleading and wrong if you're going to include 90's born people within Generation Z. I can't believe how Wikipedia is totally disregarding who originally coined the term Millennials, William Strauss and Neil Howe, who as historians and researchers started doing the research on the Millennial generation back in the mid 80's all the way up until now before anybody really started to put their 'opinions' in by vague research over a span of couple years or so. A span of 25 to 30 years of research vs a couple years of research from others... Let's get serious now. If ANYBODY had the credibility to end the Millennial generation in the early to mid 90's, it was William Strauss and Neil Howe but they didn't.

Heck, I was born in the mid to late 80's... I'm a Millennial. I'm back in school right now. We just had a conversation about generations. A class with hundreds of students were asked what generation they belong to without it being suggested. Overwhelmingly, the majority of them claimed they are Millennials (remember, these are on average 18 to 22 year old people in college). Nobody who is 90's born claims to be Generation Z unless you suggest it to them like "Hey you're Generation Z", and they'll be like "Well, I guess I am, idk". Deal is, the 90's born people you're claiming to be Generation Z don't even agree with it! It's only if it's suggested to them. And that's all Wikipedia is doing and what these vague researchers are doing. Even MTV and Nickelodeon knows that Generation Z begins in the early to mid 2000's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/business/media/nickelodeons-digital-generation.html?_r=0 http://time.com/4130679/millennials-mtv-generation/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/10/27/introducing-the-homeland-generation-part-1-of-2/#3bd28f0a4fdc

Point is, there are no 90's born Generation Z people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E88C:3300:194E:C396:9B74:6837 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Futures Company reference

An unidentified user with the IP address 2606:6000:610a:9000:300a:f774:e83c:18ba keeps undoing my edits which say the date ranges of the Future company which is part of the Kantar Group. It is in the Terminology section. The are responsible for coining the term 'centennials' so I would like to include this in the article.

1)http://blog.thefuturescompany.com/centennials-make-their-mark-on-media/

2)http://thefuturescompany.com/centennials-infographic/

3)http://thefuturescompany.com/services/generations/

4)http://us.kantar.com/business/brands/2015/the-futures-company-profiles-centennials/

Part of their work includes understanding generations as it says on their website. Can this information be included in the article as they are a legitimate source?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It needs a reliable secondary source rather than just the group's own blog (I've added one, although not one that confirms that they "coined" the term), but seems fine otherwise. --McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have a source for it but it's not really all that relevant or enlightening to mention Centennials is "another name for Gen Z". Do we really need to include every press release or marketing report with paid ad execs who claim to be an expert in defining a new generation? People can look this type of stuff up on the web. It doesn't merit inclusion on Wikipedia because it's not what an encyclopedia would include, maybe a marketing textbook would though. 2606:6000:610A:9000:300A:F774:E83C:18BA (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as we're not misrepresenting that as anything other than what it is, I don't see any harm. "Centennial" does seem to be among the terms being used for the generation, so it seems worth briefly mentioning and referencing it somewhere. --McGeddon (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Do a Google news search on the word Centennials, I got 6490 results and the top eight results on the first Google page were not about generations. Then do a search on Millennials, I got 4,880,000 results. On the first ten pages (I stopped checking after that) every article is about that generation. So IMO it's not significant enough to include "Centennials" on the Gen Z page based on relevance, significance etc.. 2606:6000:610A:9000:D08B:F753:941:E0BA (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? I searched for the term and I found 275,000 results on google. I just happens to be a term mentioned several times. What is the big catastrophe to you if we just merely mention the term and what it is? This sounds unreasonable to me.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A search for the more specific phrase "centennial generation" returns many articles that use the term in a generational context. --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The only results that came up when searching for "centennial generation" under Google "all" was the futures company, a slideshare.net presentation and something called the kruse kronicle (a blog). Under Google "news" not a thing on the first Google search page. The name should be removed from the lede ASAP because there is not evidence it's significant enough to be there. The last reverting editor appears it might be a sock. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7565:1FA4:77F0:832A (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Generation z is 00s borns not those born 1990-1999 they are millennials.

Generation z id from 2001-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodworker87rrrrty54 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

NO 90'S BORN PEOPLE ARE FROM GENERATION Z!

This is from you guys, Wikipedia: Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

SO, are you trying to tell me, that Generation Z, can cut the Millennial Generation short? You guys are saying that the oldest person from Generation Z is 22 or 23 years of age as of 2016. That makes the year of birth in 1993. A generation lasts on average between 20 and 25 years from the birth of an individual to the birth of a child. I'm sorry, but are you saying that on average, we were having kids at 13 years of age? I think not. You need to go with your latter years of the early 2000's to around 2025.

This page is very misleading and wrong if you're going to include 90's born people within Generation Z. I can't believe how Wikipedia is totally disregarding who originally coined the term Millennials, William Strauss and Neil Howe, who as historians and researchers started doing the research on the Millennial generation back in the mid 80's all the way up until now before anybody really started to put their 'opinions' in by vague research over a span of couple years or so. A span of 25 to 30 years of research vs a couple years of research from others... Let's get serious now. If ANYBODY had the credibility to end the Millennial generation in the early to mid 90's, it was William Strauss and Neil Howe but they didn't.

Heck, I was born in the mid to late 80's... I'm a Millennial. I'm back in school right now. We just had a conversation about generations. A class with hundreds of students were asked what generation they belong to without it being suggested. Overwhelmingly, the majority of them claimed they are Millennials (remember, these are on average 18 to 22 year old people in college). Nobody who is 90's born claims to be Generation Z unless you suggest it to them like "Hey you're Generation Z", and they'll be like "Well, I guess I am, idk". Deal is, the 90's born people you're claiming to be Generation Z don't even agree with it! It's only if it's suggested to them. And that's all Wikipedia is doing and what these vague researchers are doing. Even MTV and Nickelodeon knows that Generation Z begins in the early to mid 2000's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/business/media/nickelodeons-digital-generation.html?_r=0 http://time.com/4130679/millennials-mtv-generation/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/10/27/introducing-the-homeland-generation-part-1-of-2/#3bd28f0a4fdc

Point is, there are no 90's born Generation Z people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E88C:3300:A9D8:834B:6818:E0DC (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

       Different countries have different definitions of when generations start and end. Those born in the mid-90s to late 90's are close to the cutoff of Generation Y and the beginning of Generation Z, hence why different countries have it starting around the mid-90's. Plus, there isn't a standard length for generations. Take for example some Generation X definitions. Mid-90's - Late 90's are mostly cusp years, which would roughly translate to ~1993-1999/2000. Plus, the age difference between mid-90s and mid-2000's is less than 15 years, which is hardly a big difference in terms of life stages later in life. For example, 1993 and 2005 age difference is 12 years. This means that most likely they understand the youth culture around them. In the future as well, they would be in the same age group AKA young adults which range from age 18-35. So I can understand why some countries use the mid-90's as a starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC) 

Generation Z is from 2001-2010

I changed it to early 2000s to present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.3.86 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice but the sources say different. Read the article. 2606:6000:610A:9000:3CBB:2189:2E9F:58CC (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede

This is the language we already agreed on back in Dec 2015:

"Generation Z (also iGen, Post-Millennials, or Plurals) are the cohort of people born after the Millennials. The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid or late 1990s through the 2010s or from the early 2000s to around 2025".

We have sources for everything we said so it should be changed back. The word "onwards" is less accurate than saying 2025 because we have a source for 2025. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a possible argument that since it's not 2025 yet, so nobody has been born after 2025, we aren't a crystalball and can't know what those ones will be lumped together with... LjL (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a reliable source (Harvard Business Review and Strauss and Howe) who uses that year so it's okay to say that. It's within the policy. We aren't saying it's for sure ending in 2025, rather have an expert who wrote that. Can you find a source who uses the word or concept of "onward"? See https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-next-20-years-how-customer-and-workforce-attitudes-will-evolve 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The specific wording "onward" may be a little dodgy as it could imply that literally everyone born after 2005 will be Generation Z... But we do have a source talking about "children born after 2005" (i.e. an "after" without an end date). As a matter of fact, among the sources listed in the article body only Howe seems to mention an explicit end date, and 2025 at that. So why mention it so prominently in the lede? LjL (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We have HBR and Strauss and Howe saying 2025. I will look for other sources (again). We have a great source for "roughly around 2025" so we can say it in the lede, because it provides alot of context. We already discussed all this back in Dec. 2015 -- so I'm curious why it needs to be relitigated? "Onwards" is an open ended definition that says nothing, in fact it could mean ending tomorrow, next week, sometime in the future (hence crystalball or never. We have sources like the dictionary that say a social generation is about a 20-30 year time span. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Then if the concept of a generation already implies that, and given we surely have a link to generation in the article, we can just say it is said to begin around 2005 without saying anything about its end or lack of. People can learn it by looking at what a generation is, especially in a case like this of a generation that hasn't "ended" yet. LjL (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can say "starting in the mid 2000s and ending in about 20 to 30 years (from that date)" --- if you have a source. We should spell it out if we have a source not expect readers to go to another page to discover what a generation is or the time span it represents. Currently, we have a source for ending around 2025 so we should use it. If others have a source then they can add that information too. So far nobody does though.

And we could add the HBR source to the lede so we're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice if that's what you're concerned about. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Having a source isn't enough to justify a "generally" given inside a lede when several other sources given in the body either don't agree or make no mention of the end date. LjL (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

We are giving an either/or situation in the lede to cover each range of dates. Yes, other sources (in the body) disagree but other sources agree -- so it's not misleading at all. We can discuss the end point in the lede by explaining that a generation span is 20 to 30 years or we can say "ending around 2025". We have a source for that and at this point you don't have anything. Do you have a source for "onwards"? Please provide it. And btw, the editor who made the changes i.e. "onwards" has not bothered to respond here either. Even though invited on his/her talk page. He doesn't seem all that passionate about it. So why the change from something workable? 2606:6000:610A:9000:2530:3E71:7218:4815 (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed "onward" as I, too, had some perplexities about it, as mentioned above. However, I don't feel comfortable with making further additions. LjL (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC article

They didn't say that about the dates. David Stillman, a researcher who launched a national research project this year with his son Jonah studying young Americans did. So instead of reverting just rewrite it to be accurate. Or it should be removed. 2606:6000:610A:9000:640C:CE76:3601:2A9B (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Generation Z should be from 2001-2025 not 1996 to present. People born in the 1990s are nothing like those born in the 21st century. Theres no official year range.

I think it should start at 2000 or 2001 I think 1996 is too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.3.86 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How many more sections are we going to open on this very same topic (by more-or-less separate editors)? LjL (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyway "I think" and "are nothing like" is not how Wikipedia is written. It's based on reliable sources. It doesn't matter whether there is an "official" year range, either; we cite sources that are peer-reviewed and widely cited in the scientific community, and if they use certain years, we use them too, and if they don't all agree on the years, we present the various possibilities as WP:Conflicting sources. LjL (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Generation Z runs from 2000-2019 IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:EB22:0:18:88DD:801 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Mid 90s vs late 90s

In the lead, it says "The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid or late 1990s through the early 2010s or starting from the early 2000s." This doesn't sit exactly well with me, because mid-90s starting birth years seem to be much more widely used compared to late 90s birth years. Sources that use the Centennials, or the Pluralists (which start the generation in 1997 as opposed 1995) as concepts, seem to be abysmally obscure and little-known - almost as obscure as those who think Gen X started in 1968.

Type in "Generation Z"+"1995" in Google, and see how many hits you get. Compare that to the number of hits "Generation Z+1997" gets.--2601:980:8000:3F82:F47B:BF3B:C0DA:84D2 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit ridiculous to cut the Millennials back to a 12 or 13 year time span i.e. from 1982 to 1995. Even the dictionary says a generation is at least 20 to 30 years long. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6DC1:A851:F078:DB1E (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This article says Z starts in the "mid or late 1990s", not drastically in 1995, and the Millennials article currently says "around 2000", so nobody is really cutting back anything. Mentioning multiple possibilities when they all have sources for them isn't the end of the world. LjL (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the issue is that the dates for "Generation Y" and "Millennials" don't always match up, I have seen the Millenial generation end as early as 1994 or so but "Generation Y" usually goes until 1999, so Post-Millennials may start around 1995 but "Generation Z" doesn't really start until 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02D:EB22:0:18:88DD:801 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kelley School of Business

@DynaGirl: Do we really need to include the citation from the Kelley School of Business? It is a little known university about the size of a community college, does that warrant inclusion on Wikipedia? I would think that it not being a well recognized or esteemed institution it would be a feeble statistic. Can we get rid of that sentence and replace it with something else. Thank you.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. I've noticed you've been removing multiple sources that list Generation Z as starting in the year 1995. In addition to the Source from Indiana University Bloomington, I notice you previously deleted another source from MSNBC, which also says Generations Z starts in 1995: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making Please stop doing this. You can add sources that give it a different starting date to indicate there is debate over starting year, but please stop deleting ones with a date you personally disagree with. Thank you. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Won't that result in the article turning into a never-ending list of likely contradicting sources? Not all sources and points of view are equally WP:DUE. There could be a valid point that a small university with a somewhat fringe point of view is WP:UNDUE in the face of many other more authoritative sources. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but Akhila3151996 explained a reason why they think the source may not be worth keeping, and that reason wasn't "personally disagreeing with it". The idea that it's only ever possible to add sources but never to remove them also seems flawed. LjL (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Akhila3151996: I want to apologize for "personally disagreeing with it". Looking over edit history, I see I actually had you confused with various IP's/new accounts who have expressed via edit summaries etc that they disagree with earlier referenced starting dates. I now see that was not you.--DynaGirl (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: I'm not disagreeing with the birth year. I'm only disagreeing with the source that's all. Why are you jumping to these conclusions? If it can be replaced with a different source I'll be happy.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's actually not a small university. This is from Indiana University Bloomington which has over 40,000 students and is the flagship and largest institution of the Indiana University System. Additionally, MSNBC isn't a minor news outlet. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@DynaGirl:It isn't about how many students it has, I just feel it isn't a well known institution like Cambridge or Princeton. And you are right about MSNBC but I deleted the part that mentioned Davis Stillman, since he isn't a well known researcher, that's all.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My only objection is to the deletion of the potential starting year of 1995, which seems to be occurring repeatedly. This year is supported by multiple reliable sources, so it seems it should stay in the article as one of the multiple argued starting dates. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: That's fine, maybe just look for a better source to include in the article.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually didn't add the Kelley School of Business/Indiana University Bloomington source or the MSNBC source. They'd apparently been in article for awhile. I just objected to rationale for deletion. --DynaGirl (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Kelley Business School thing is an invite to a discussion. It's not the official school position on defining Gen Z. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2C3B:FC33:DFA8:608F (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Properly read in context, it actually is the position. Try again. Scr★pIron^IV 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no context. It's an invitation to an event on campus, most likely written by an intern. It does not clearly state this is the position of the school anywhere. Does the author speak for the school? Who is the author? It's just an event on campus. There are 100s of these type of events on every campus. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2C3A:F9DC:29EF:655B (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@DynaGirl:What's wrong now. You said that you only objected to the birth year starting in 1995 not being mentioned even though it is already mentioned in the article. We can't constantly have disagreements like this. Just find a different source that says 1995, I already said that, why am I repeating myself?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no current consensus to remove this source from the article so I'm confused as to why you removed it again. I also don't see any solid rationale to remove it. Given this is an immature article on a new topic, it seems normal to have such sources with differing start years. Eventually, there will likely be a consensus on start year, but there isn't a consensus yet, and I see no reason to remove multiple reliable sources that list start year as 1995 from the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Original Research

This is Original Research unless you can show where it says that in any of the sources posted after the statement as follows "Generation Z are predominantly the children of Generation X". 2606:6000:610A:9000:7145:1EF9:F87F:4DF9 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no original research there. If you bother to check, you'll see all three of the refs immediately following the statement that generation z is largely comprised of children of generation x explicitly state this. Check them: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/fashion/move-over-millennials-here-comes-generation-z.html, https://www.acui.org/Publications/The_Bulletin/2014/2014-10/26390/, http://www.business2community.com/social-data/15-aspects-that-highlight-how-generation-z-is-different-from-millennials-01244940#h4oAsye6eQQDMxuA.97 --DynaGirl (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're correct, someone added a new ref. and changed the wording. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7145:1EF9:F87F:4DF9 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The above is a rather confusing response because edit history shows it was you who changed the wording with an edit summary saying over time it will obviously switch to millennials as parents. No new sources were added with that edit and no one else added any new references either. None of the existing refs supported your wording change there. Currently, there are no references that support the predominance of gen x parents is temporary. I really think we should just stick to the current sources here.--DynaGirl (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what the articles actually say: "Generation Z tends to be the product of Generation X", and "Raised by Gen X in a world of global connectedness" and "Like their Generation X parents", and "Generation Zers can thank their Generation X parents for this trait". These are all vague statements. At this point it's synthesis to make a statement that is out of context, i.e. that would leave out the fact members of Gen Z will have Millennial parents too (and some already do) -- based on our birth dates in the lede paragraph. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7145:1EF9:F87F:4DF9 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a source which states Generation Z will have Millennial parents too. How do you know the "generation" monicker won't change when the Millennials have children? Huon (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

American Dream sentences

McGeddon, your edit assumes that all Gen Z people do not have Boomer parents, some could, so this is synthesis, and therefore the sentence should be rewritten. In fact according to our lede birth dates some if not many Millennials are now parents too. So your edit is very convoluted. 2606:6000:610A:9000:929:CA8C:2F93:1372 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

All my short edit says is that many of Generation Z saw their parents "struggle with employment during the Great Recession" and that this is thought by Magid to have affected their view of the American Dream. This is the same as the source, and I can't see how it's "convoluted". --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Generation Z

The article uses the phrase "generation Z" over 170 times. We need to start reducing the usage because it's basic writing skill that should be reflected in the article. 2606:6000:610A:9000:FC0C:F262:E2F4:67CF (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean the subject of the article is actually named in the article? Shocking! Call the Grammar Police! It is actually mentioned 83 times (59 times in the article, 24 times in the references) - but I see accuracy is not your strong suit. Your reverts also reintroduce other errors which were previously corrected. We do not need citations in the lede, or to rename sources which are already specified in the citation. Maybe you need a new hobby. Scr★pIron^IV 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions the word "generation" about 168 times (yeah including the ref. section). And "Generation Z" 84 times. It's a one page article (at most). No offense but do you believe that's good writing? The "successors" section uses the word "generation" 13 times out of 3 short sentences, sounds really awkward. 2606:6000:610A:9000:FC0C:F262:E2F4:67CF (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

McCrindle birth years

McCrindle is the one who is using 2010 as the end date. Can you name others? 2606:6000:610A:9000:382B:D833:6100:7319 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring of terminology section

User:Wwwma, I reverted the undiscussed restructuring of the terminology section, because it seemed to de-emphasize the 1995 starting dates, while emphasizing the 2005 starting dates. I seem to recall that while using your various 2606:6000 IPs, you have explicitly expressed a preference for the later starting dates, but the sources have this wide range of potential starting years, and it seems we shouldn’t hide this at the bottom of the section and/or keep deleting those sources. Also, I think it might be less disruptive if you could please just stick to one account while editing the generational cohort articles. It’s evident that you are also editing using the multiple 2606:6000 IPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_X&diff=714590502&oldid=714590273. Doing this seems to give the misleading impression of multiple users supporting your position.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We all have the right to make changes. None of the changes were extreme and they all are within Wikipedia guidelines. When you wholesale revert all changes it appears that you are attempting to ban a specific editor. If you want to dispute a specific edit then go ahead. Wwwma (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I already disputed the edits above. To repeat, I think it's problematic to rearrange things in a manner that de-emphasizes the 1995 starting dates and minimizes that there is currently a 10 year debated span regarding the start year of this generation. I see you reverted again without addressing the concerns and without attempting to gain consensus for your changes . I've restored the prior ordering/wording of that section (but I left in the quote you added, noting your objection to this previous omission via edit summary). It also seems problematic that you ignored BRD as an IP editor, getting the page restricted as a result, and then switched to a different auto-confirmed account and continued to disregard BRD. I think it would be much less disruptive if you could please use only one account because using multiple accounts gives misleading impression that multiple users support your positions.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So leave your Ad Age quote at the top, I don't care. Moving the paragraphs and consolidating the iGen stuff makes sense. Why would you dispute that? Again, you should not wholesale revert someone elses edits. Pick and choose the edits you dispute on an individual basis, and then go through each one. Wwwma (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Gen z starting in the mid to late 90's

Hi, I just want to say i've seen a slew of articles saying that gen z starts in 1995 or 1996. Most demographers nowadays say this so Neil Howe and Strauss maybe outdated. I would like to include a line with some sources saying that gen z starts around this time. What do you guys think if I say gen z starts after '95 or '96 in the "date and age range defining" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila3151996 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

When there are disagreements on definition, we can add multiple sourced definitions. Make sure, however, that the sources are both reliable and clearly indicated in the text. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016 Reply

{Wikiman8999 12:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)}

I will e adding new references later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Linking to decade pages in lead

I've noticed the decades in the lead have been recently wiklinked in multiple generational cohort articles. This seems distracting and misleading. For example, the lead was changed to: demographers and researchers typically use starting birth years ranging from the mid-1990s to early-2000s and ending birth years ranging from the late-2010s to early-2020s. I find the blue links distracting while reading and I think it's misleading because here we are only talking about *mid*-1990s, but we are linking to a page about the entire decade. Similarly, we're only talking about *early* 2000s, but we're linking to a page about the entire decade, etc. I removed the recently added wikilinks. I think decade wikilnks are sometimes useful in generation articles, when we are referring to the entire decade as significant to the generation. For example, Generation X is often discussed as having cultural influence in the 1990s. Similarly, Baby Boomers are often discussed in relation to the 1960s, but I don't think that's the case with the dates in the lead, which are only referring to birth years during part of the decade. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Gen Z starts either 1995 or 1997

Hi, on this page there seems to be a consensus that gen z starts either 1995 or 1997. To reflect this, I think the lead should say starts mid or late 90's to early 2000's. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable people

What is the reader meant to get from User:Akhila3151996's list of names of notable people in this cohort, of six American actors and one Pakistani activist? Are these particularly iconic examples of the generation? Do they illustrate any particular shift in culture that makes them strikingly different to their millennial equivalents? --McGeddon (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I feel that they all do distinct things from millennials that inspire others who are the same age as them. Whether it's utilising social media or standing up for girl children, these people define in a way what it's like to be Gen Z.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If the article is "defining what it's like to be Gen Z" (in terms of social media, women's rights or anything else), it should say that in actual sentences rather than flatly listing some names. I agree that examples can be useful, but a reader who doesn't recognise the names will learn nothing from reading the list.

The examples could be worked usefully into the article, rather than being "remember we talked about social media, well here's an example" callback section at the end. The Telegraph source says "But unlike the older Gen Y, they are smarter, safer, more mature and want to change the world. Their pin-up is Malala Yousafzai, the Pakastani education campaigner, who survived being shot by the Taliban, and who became the world's youngest ever Nobel Prize recipient." - the Wikipedia article here doesn't currently seem to have anything obvious to say about changing the world, but if it did, mentioning Yousafzai in that paragraph would improve it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good idea actually, rather than to simply list names to give examples of how they are influential in their cohort. But where in the article would we put that?-147.75.208.233 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Generation_Z#Characteristics. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section because it's unreferenced. Seems we should have a reliable source saying these individuals represent notable members of Gen Z. If editors make their own picks regarding which young people represent notable members that's wp:original research --DynaGirl (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, picking an all-female and one black male lineup is certainly indicative of something, possibly an agenda - but not necessarily how Gen Zs view themselves or reflective of consensus. I concur with the above comment that this is not objective. It would be better if the section weren't there prior to finding a source accepted by consensus, but it appears that someone has a vested interest in promoting their own ideas, and the section has promptly reappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.114.180 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources have been added, but the section still seems problematic. It seems editors are using it as another place to argue about dates. I alphabetized the list to try to cut down on the placing of individuals with preferred birthdays at front of list. I'm not sure this section belongs in article.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has read the sources whether any Gen Z males were mentioned as notable, other than Smith. Thanks, in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.114.180 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ending dates in lead

I removed the ending dates from the lead. I notice editors have been changing these dates back and forth and sometimes not mentioning that these changes are being made in edit summary. After looking over the date range and defining section, I don't think there's really a clear consensus on ending date yet because multiple sources only give starting date and don't give an ending date at all. It seems with a young cohort, starting dates are probably enough for the lead for now, and hopefully removing the specific end dates will end the edit warring.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Keiiri (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"also known as"

Post-Millennials I can understand as an inclusion here but I doubt the rest of these titles, particularly "Founders, Plurals, or the Homeland Generation", have any prevelant use to be notable inclusions. I suggest their removal. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:89A7:3611:F7B0:9EC4 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see these terms are all mentioned and referenced in article. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but proposals in individual articles guarantee a term any currency. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:C577:1EC1:AEF9:DC9E (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I second the suggestion for their removal. A single (non academic or research institution related) source is not enough evidence to warrant additional names. You can suggest the additional name which was first brought up by a single source if there is support from other sources as well to include the name. I would also suggest after removal to create a talk thread about those names with current sources. Once they get enough credibility and support, they can be added back into the article.
Post-Millennials and and iGeneration both have multiple sources/references so I would suggest leaving those.JJN1991 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Original research in "political views" section

I removed the recently added text which said majority of Gen Z supported Hillary Clinton because the source cited doesn't say this is the case. The source did say 56% of 18-24 year olds supported Clinton according to exit polling [1] and Gen Z could include 18-21 year olds (according to some dates), but there is no way to tell from this source if more than 50% of 18-21 year olds specifically supported Clinton from the data on 18-24 year olds. She could have been more popular or less popular among the younger half of that age range. I tried to find exit polling specific to Gen Z, but couldn't find any. I did find a source titled Hillary Exhilaration Helps Energize Generation Z, which profiled multiple Gen Z Clinton Supporters from NPR [2] and I added it to the section. Probably next election cycle there will be exit polling specific to Gen Z, but I couldn't find any for the past election.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"grew up through 9/11"

I've noticed IP user has been repeatedly adding unreferenced text saying this cohort "grew up through 9/11 terrorist attacks" to the lead. September 11th was one day, so it's not accurate to say Gen Z grew up through one day. It might be accurate to say they grew up through the War On Terror but there's no reference for this. Also, according to some demographers Gen Z birth years didn't even start until as late as 2005.--DynaGirl (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Political Views

there is this survey by the varkey foundation that is one I've the most comprehensive surveys of generation z views I've seen which i think kinds of put a wrench into the idea generation z is more conservative is than previous generations (https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Young%20People%20Report%20(digital)%20NEW%20(1).pdf ) I thinks it would be good idea to put the findings of this survey and compare them to similar surveys of different cohort at the same age as the participants of this survey .

The ages used do not seem particularly representative of Generation Z. Apparently, they surveyed individuals born between 1995-2001, who according to many demographers would be Millennials. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

But to many demographers it is and the surveyors themselves specifically call them generation z do you want them to ask 3-14 year old kids what they think about trans issues???

I guess my point is it seems difficult to describe the traits of a generation when looking at cuspers (and even more difficult if it's members of the previous generation). What specific content are you suggesting be added from this source? --DynaGirl (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

well specifically in figure 18 in the study called "new ways of living " the percentage of which who support trans equality (74%) and gay marriage (63%) vs those who support non-violent freedom of speech even if it offends ethnic and religious minorities (49%) has me quite skeptical that the latest generation is more conservative compared to other cohorts at the same age and i doubt that older cohorts would be in support of trans equality and gay marriage at such high rates and for freedom of speech that even offends ethnic and religious minorities at such low rates if they were polled at the same age as these participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.162.153 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to include brief text regarding ages surveyed and survey findings, but it doesn't seem reasonable to say something like this "puts a wrench" in the other referenced content, as you say above. Specifically drawing conclusions not in the source would be original research and it seems the various studies are looking at different ages and different views. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Political Views

I suggest removing the section on political views until after the 2020 election when those classfied as Generation Z will have actually voted. A couple surveys and opinion pieces do not represent a whole generations political views. In addition just because 34% of students would vote for Donald Trump does not mean that they are more conservative. Also it's not even a majority, most students didn't even answer the surveyAllSportsfan16 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

There is no reason to remove sourced relevant content from the article. Some of what you deleted wasn't even relevant to the U.S. This time you deleted with no edit summary at all, but last time you deleted you made clear that you disagreed with sourced survey assessment that Gen Z tended to be more conservative than Millennials. It's fine to add sourced content to balance this regarding Gen Z tending to be progressive or liberal leaning (as long as it's not original research - please see above talk page section), I've already done so and will continue to do so, when I come across such sourced content, but deleting content because you personally disagree with it just seems disruptive.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The sourced content can be easily disputed. The opportunity lives source talks about data, but then doesn't show any evidence of it. The sources that are used in this section are week. Also one survey of students asking to choose between Clinton and Trump does not indicate whether one is more conservative or liberal. Not to mention over 30% of respondents said that they would not vote, which basically nullifies any conclusions that you try to draw from the survey. There are no data points to prove Generation Z's political leanings because most haven't voted in an election yet. There needs to be data before a claim can be made. From personal experience I can tell that Generation Z will not be more conservative, just look at all the high schoolers staging walkout after the election. You need actual results to tell the political views of generation. This is why that section should be deleted. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Also after a quick google search I found another survey that said the opposite of the Hispanic Heritage one: http://www.hmhco.com/media-center/press-releases/2016/october/one-vote-2016-results:::

If you can "easily dispute it" (with reliable sources in a way that doesn't involve original research) just do that by adding that content to the article, instead of section blanking. I added the Houghton Mifflin mock election results from school children you linked above to the section. I did not add any of the previous content to that section (except the recent NPR source about Gen Z Clinton supporters), but the content about conservatism appears to be solidly sourced, on topic and relevant. Nowhere in the section does it say that it's proven that they are more conservative, the section just reports survey results and attributes them to the sources cited. Seems to be the issue is personal disagreement that Gen Z is more conservative than Millennials, but that appears to be what multiple reliable sources from the U.S and the U.K are reporting right now. Wikipedia is just suppose to reflect reliable sources.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the sources you've brought to argue against the claims that Gen Z is more conservative compared to Millennials actually support that claim, but the Houghton Mifflin source does not support the Hispanic Heritage survey that this is to the extent that more supported Trump than Clinton. The CNN exit poll you previously linked shows 55% of 18-29 year olds supported Clinton and 36% supported Trump (this would be mostly Millennials or entirely Millennials depending on dates used) [3]. The Houghton Mifflin mock election of older elementary, middle and high school kids (this would be all Gen Z or mostly Gen Z, depending on dates used) supported Clinton less, with 47% supporting Clinton and 41% supporting Trump [4]. I'm not suggesting we add this comparison to the article, because comparing these sources in such a way would veer into original research, but you haven't provided any sources yet that contradict the basic claim you object to, which is that sources are reporting Gen Z is comparatively more conservative than Millennials. Looking at these two sources, they actually support that assertion.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'm really just trying to convey is that the politics section shouldn't be in the article because there are only a few data points to go off and they differ from each other and not many people categorized as Generation Z have actually voted. I would hold off on this section for another couple years, but it's clear I'm not going to change your mind so I'll just leave this article to you.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As previously stated, I didn't originally add this content, but don't support your deletion of this long-standing, referenced content. The way it's written, Wikipedia is not saying that it's a fact that they are more conservative. We're attributing this to source and simply saying that according to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation they are more conservative. Also, the manner in which you're deleting seems disruptive. You previously deleted entire section with no edit summary [5] and recent deletion of referenced text : "According to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, members of Generation Z tend to be more conservative than Millennials." was made with inaccurate edit summary. You wrote in edit summary you were updating numbers, but didn't update numbers, you deleted this sentence again. [6]--DynaGirl (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree but in a different way. Conservative is to broad. Words like conservative and liberal have a lot of context and I don't think that they can be applied this easily to a generation that doesn't even have 18 year olds in its ranks. Saying "they think X, whereas others generations thought X" is one thing. But they are simply to young and without data to start applying political labels on yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.169.11 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit from more of a global view of politics. Against the fashion in the US, the UK's recent vote had massive Labour following from young voters. These voters (18) would be likely be late, late millenials or early Gen Z's depending on definition. This is a massive shift from the Conservatives to the Labour government given in part to young voters; and a disaproval rating of Teresa May's Conservative Government, and also a following the Labour's Campaign. comment added by Lee_Vilenski 13:13 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Sources in Political Views

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation source (http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/) makes claims about political *affiliation* that the actual data cited doesn't claim. And where the data cited claims to have a 0.5% error margin, the data is terribly skewed racially as to make that claim suspect (for example, Texas is 70% "white" and all correspondents were "hispanic"; other states like New Jersey have racial makeups that do not represent the state, being heavily skewed towards minorities, and some states have no minorities represented at all). Additionally, with how some of the questions are worded (including spelling mistakes) some of the answers seem... odd. אמר Steve Caruso 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The text is attributed to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation. Googling "Hispanic Heritage Foundation" it appears to notable non-profit, but looking over the section, I'm not sure the text attributed to website http://afterthemillennials.com meets standards for reliable sources. It seems to be self published by someone named Anne Boysen. Google search for Anne Boysen doesn't suggest she's notable researcher.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The results of the survey can be found here. http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/

Elaborating on Steve Caruso's point, I am removing it from the main page for the following additional reasons:

-Survey does not reveal the specific questions asked to respondents
-Gives an extremely bizarre segment to "first time voters" -which is physically impossible to have its own breakdown segment- given that all highschoolers would be first time voters
-In the methodology, provides this tidbit of info: Research topics and objectives for each phase are identified and refined through a collaborative effort of partnering organizations -suggesting the methodology isn't even handled by the hispanic heritage foundation

LylaSand (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems this large survey from Hispanic Heritage Foundation is being challenged/removed based on disagreement with finding/because President Trump is controversial, and not really because of sourcing issues. The objection that the specific questions aren't given seems strange as this survey is regarding election vote (i.e. Clinton, Trump or declined to vote, not questions). Not only is the original survey from Hispanic Heritage Foundation a reliable source [7], a quick google search shows survey is also covered by multiple other sources [8],[9],[10]. Per due weight seems this should remain in the article. Also, it’s important to note that individual Wikipedia editors disagreeing with a survey or questioning it, isn’t grounds to say this isn’t reliably sourced. Please find reliable sources that contradict or question these findings if you disagree. Some are already in the article and already discussed in the current political views section.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times and National Review are not reliable sources, they are right wing propaganda trying to push an agenda. And HuffPo is usually regarded as clickbait.

The Washington Times, National Review and HuffPo are only being used as back up references as cites for a single sentence, yet I see you used this as your explanation for disruptive section blanking [11].--DynaGirl (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is getting extreme. While it's clear designations of conservative vs liberal have become increasingly polarized, a lot of the edits to this section lately make no sense. For example, deleting multiple referenced mentions of "conservative" with explanation of globalizing the section [12]. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tip for fixing the current state of the Political Section

A quick note to everyone upset about the political bit: You need to properly challenge this through wp:RFC. I've met stubborn people before, this won't go away through discussion. I'm honestly not up for it, but if someone starts it, I'll chip in. Dryfee (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dates in lead

Auror Andrachome/IP 69.161.121.223, would you please explain how changing dates in lead, so they no longer summarize the dates in body of article serves to “globalize” article? [13],[14],[15] It’s inaccurate and it’s not supported by referenced text in body of article to change lead so it says it’s been decided that Gen Z starts in 1996. Only a few US sources use that date, so this doesn’t “globalize” the article. A range of other dates are used. For example, Australia’s McCrindle research uses 1993; Turner Broadcasting uses 1997; Goldman Sachs uses 1998; Asia Business Unit and Philippine retailers use 2001 etc.

Please see “Date and age range defining” section in body of article. Please add dates from notable researchers demographers to that section instead of using popular press sources to repeatedly change dates in the lead. Also, changes to dates in lead shouldn’t be marked as minor edits. Please read WP:MINOR.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation Z. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161022215519/http://www.marcomm.news/gen-z-is-the-most-conservative-generation-since-those-born-before-1945/ to http://www.marcomm.news/gen-z-is-the-most-conservative-generation-since-those-born-before-1945/

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) 06:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Bratniks

I removed this recently added terminology and recently added cartoon image because it appears to be referenced to a self-published website from an obscure cartoonist. Source doesn't meet WP:RS. Also, including this terminology and the image seems to go against WP:Due weight. There do not appear to be any demographers or researchers, or even reliable popular press media sources, which call this cohort "The Bratniks".--DynaGirl (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I see how your point regarding Due weight is applicable. Thanks. Susangrigg1 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Generation Z. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080730/http://magid.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MagidPluralistGenerationWhitepaper.pdf to http://magid.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MagidPluralistGenerationWhitepaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080730/http://magid.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MagidPluralistGenerationWhitepaper.pdf to http://magid.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MagidPluralistGenerationWhitepaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151211130032/http://textually.org/textually/archives/2005/03/007687.htm to http://textually.org/textually/archives/2005/03/007687.htm

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) 16:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and poorly sourced names in the lead

"Homeland Generation" and "Centennials" do not belong in the article's lead because they are not common names for Gen Z and are only supported by single sources (an online poll for Homeland and one article based on a PR company for Centennials). The only names I see used in a preponderance of WP:RS reliable sources are Generation Z (the oldest name), iGeneration (an increasing preponderance of sources), and Post-Millennials (Pew Research AND the US Dept of Health and Human Services). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.254.44 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE (text)

Please note Wikipedia's policy on Undue Weight which states that "reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." This policy makes it fairly clear that neologisms like "Centennials" and "The Founders" do not belong in the article's lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.254.44 (talk • contribs)

Seems removing Centennials and Homeland Generation but keeping iGeneration is actually giving undue weight to iGeneration, as this name isn't more common, and iGeneration is a name also applied to Millennials, so it's much less specific than the other two. Also, seems Homeland Generation should be in there as this is the name used for this cohort in Strauss–Howe generational theory so it's rather significant and it is used by way more than one reference as inaccurately asserted above. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I accept User:DynaGirl's argument that there are enough WP:RS reliable sources in support of including iGeneration and Post-Millennials plus Homeland Generation in the lead. "Centennials", however, lacks any substantive sourcing. Even within the article's body itself, there is only one promotional link. 203.126.254.44 (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My stance

Personally, I feel that iGen and iGeneration should be included since most Millennials grew up without Apple devices. Why do the names have to be terribly accurate? They're nicknames, by the general population and the internet. As a member of Generation Z myself, I'd like to ask that "Homeland Generation", "Centennials" and "iGen" be re-added. My generation needs a name, or many! In the first paragraph. Please. StellaRover27 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Emerging consensus

After reading everyone's comments, I see the following points of broad WP:CONSENSUS.

1. Generation Z remains the most widespread name and is the appropriate article title.
2. Most editors seem to prefer a version of the lead that includes other notable names for Generation Z.
3. The names iGeneration, Homeland Generation, and Post-Millennials are widely used by a preponderance of WP:RS reliable sources (media, governments, prominent academics).
4. There are a number of other names being promoted by various organizations, many of which are covered in the body of the article, including (but not limited to) "Founders", "Centennials", "Plurals," "Gen Wii", et al. These neologisms are not supported by a preponderance of sources and should not be included in the lead.

Can we agree to a stable, WP:CONSENSUS version of the lead based on the above points? 203.126.254.44 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Year changes by IP

Note that an IP has repeatedly falsified what the Goldman Sachs' source has said here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested correction of terminology

The article is correct but the terminology needs to be changed to its corrected terminology because when I started Generation-X I also included two more generations to follow which originally was a joke to the Baby Boomers so we didn't feel excluded and should resemble spaceship looking text. Here is the correct terminology for our generations as follows:

Generation-BB Generation-X Generation-GG Generation-XX Generation-XXXXX

Thanks! 98.176.94.169 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Show some sources using those terms and then those could be added. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Start dates could use some work to reflect recent developments

I notice that the article currently says "mid-1990s to mid-2000s" and I feel that's a bit outdated. Most reputable sources now give a start date between 1993-1997, with most giving 1994 or 1995. Including pew research (1997), Forbes (1995), and many other sources giving dates in the 1993-1997 range. This range makes more sense than "mid 1990s to mid 2000s" because it also hits the big aspects that are used to describe gen-z much better, those being growing up with access to the internet, growing up connected to technology in general, and being mostly influenced by a post-9/11 world (putting them at either being born after 9/11, or being so young (5-6) that they were mostly influenced by the world after it). I propose that the range on the article be changed to better reflect this by just saying "mid-1990s" Fullmeasurez (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It was vague before because little research has been done, but now that research has been done, the lead should be changed to reflect that. Someone963852 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have additional dates from demographers, marketers or researchers, please add them to the date range and defining section. The date range in the lead is based on that section. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Add- Please don't add references directly to the lead or pick just one reference out of the date range defining section and add it to the lead to change the dates. The lead is a summary of dates from various notable researchers and demographers referenced in date range and defining section. Please don't pick just one of the references from that section and use it to change the date range in the lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Date and age range definition" section isn't a place to list what random companies list as their range. It's a place to list sources that actually research and state why the range is the way it is. Quality over quantity. An MTV article and a Randstad Canada Youtube video, for example, aren't in-depth reliable sources. There's also a discussion going on over at Talk:Millennials#Cut_down_the_Date_range_section?.Someone963852 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We've limited the date range and defining section to notable researchers, demographers and marketers. For example, Randstad is a notable human resource corporation that studies generations in workforce. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're using the Randstad article, then it states: "Randstad Canada describes Generation Z as those born between 1995–2014", which also supports the lead of mid-1990s. But that's beside the point. The Randstad source [16] is not a research article to study the generations/ date range; they are defining their own ranges for survey-purposes.Someone963852 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Weird box at the top

For me, an empty <pre> tag (which appears as a thin grey box) appears at the top of the page, inside the parsed wiki. It does not show up in preview mode, when previewing the exact current source—in addition, I have never seen it on any other page, so it is not some kind of malfunctioning notification tied to my account rather than to the page. I see no <pre> tag in the preview that should cause it, and testing other tags is futile without making lots of edits since the box does not show up in preview mode anyway. Does anyone else see this box? Does anyone know what on earth this is, what could cause it, and by extension, how to get rid of it, as it is jarring?

Technical details
This <pre> tag is the first element within the .mw-parser-output div, reaffirming to me that it is in fact an output of parsing the page and not some kind of notification message that is malfunctioning. It has no content and no HTML attributes. Purging the page did not help.

ThinkingCat (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw the weird box too but seem to have removed it by deleting white space at the top of the article [17].DynaGirl (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I figured out what happened—while researching Wikipedia formatting, I discovered that putting a space before the first line is a way to create a code block (see "Preformatted text blocks" on mw:Help:Formatting). The whitespace must have made a code block out of the (visually empty) contents of the Use dmy dates template. Still weird that that code block didn't show up on preview though; but it's fixed, so I guess we don't need to worry about that. \(^_^)/ ThinkingCat (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Size of generation Z

Under Characteristics, a Forbes article is quoted as saying Gen Z is 25% of US population. Ten years of births is nowhere near 25% of population. Sajita (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

March For Our Lives

I notice the section regarding Generation Z and March for Our Lives was recently deleted with edit summary describing it as poorly sourced but it's actually sourced to CNBC, New York Times and The Hill (newspaper). I've recently read quite a bit of reliable source coverage regarding March For Our Lives and Generation Z and will add additional sources to this section when I get a change.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In The Hill, it's a blog piece. In the NY Times, it is an opinion piece. What needs to be sourced that this event defines the generation - from a reliable, independent news source. Not an opinion piece. What is being sourced in these opinion pieces and blogs is a letter written by three organizers of the event - which is most assuredly not a reliable source to define anything except their own views. In no way does that letter express the views and opinions of an entire generation - not, at least, until an expert in the field of generations actually publishes that. Scr★pIron^IV 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper) is a political newspaper and website. The Hill is actually providing secondary source coverage of the NY Times Piece: Dear National Rifle Association: We Won’t Let You Win, From, Teenagers. In addition to the reliable sources already in article [18], [19],[20], quick google search shows a lot of media coverage linking March for our Lives & Generation Z such as this from Forbes [21] Huffington Post [22] and The Atlantic [23]. I think at this point it deserves mention in the article that the media is describing March for Our Lives as an indication of the political inclinations of Generation Z. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like the sources, find other ones. As the second largest march in the US's history, there are hundreds of sources talking about how the organizers, which are members of Generation Z, made the march, so it is quite notable and should be on this page. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This really seems biased to me... you really think this event was organically developed by members of generation z? Aren't high school teachers overwhelmingly democrats? Imagine if your teacher encouraged you to skip class, would you really care about the reason or would you just take the opportunity for a free holiday? I realize this is conjecture but shouldn't common sense be a factor here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.132.38 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

March for our lives reference should be removed, as less than 10% of the rally comprised people under 18 years of age, with the average age being 49. [24] This is not activism by gen z and thus should not be presented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syko97 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Overlapping of Gen Y (Millennials) and Gen Z birth dates

Could anyone fix the start and ending birth dates for Gen Y and Gen Z as they are clearly overlapping in a way that makes it difficult (or impossible) to tell them apart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.102.7 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no consensus on where the line is, possible years range from 1990 to 2001. In my opinion, 1999 is the last year of Gen Y (AKA millenials) and 2000 is the first year of Gen Z (AKA zoomers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfume (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove alternate names from lead paragraph

I would like to suggest removing the list of alternate names from the lead paragraph. In the last month alone, the number of alternate names has increased from three to five, some of debatable common usage, and any alternate names are already detailed in the terminology portion of this article. Since different users would no doubt have their own opinions on preferred names for this generation, I think it would be easier to write a WP:NEUTRAL lead something along the lines of "Generation Z or Gen Z, also known by a variety of other names, is the demographic cohort...". Thoughts? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to support this. At the very least it seems the most recent addition of "Generation Sensible" should be moved out of lead with perhaps brief mention in the terminology section. It was apparently recently added to lead despite no coverage in body of article, and with only one source from popular press, seems rather WP:UNDUE in opening sentence of the lead. DynaGirl (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made the change. Further discussion by new users is welcome below. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The only names for the generation that I've ever heard/seen used in the common parlance are "Generation Z", "Gen Z", and "zoomers"; all other nicknames seem to be just academic. – Monkeyfume (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

deleting word "conservative" from article

@Auror Andrachome: Why do you keep deleting word conservative from article? You have yet to respond to this in above talk page section, so starting separate section here. Your edit summaries haven’t addressed this, saying “globalize article” or "concise language”, but how does deleting the word conservative globalize the article? You even removed the word conservative when it was part of a direct quote, making the quote inaccurate. I get that conservative vs liberal has become increasingly polarizing, but it’s hard to make sense of these edits, and article text, especially direct quotes, should match source cited.

Your most recent revert marks 5th unexplained deletion of word conservative and you’ve been reverted by 2 different editors at this point.[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] Please engage in talk page discussion and explain your desired changes and attempt to seek consensus. Also please see wp:minor. Please don't mark repeated reverts, especially ones which have been disputed by multiple editors "minor".--DynaGirl (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think "conservative" has different meaning in the US than in other places. That still doesn't excuse the deleting it from the quote, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the changes don't even make sense. How can a generation be "fiscally right-leaning [...] with respect to marijuana legalization, transgender issues and same sex marriage"? pwnzor.ak (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Replacing the word "conservative" with "frugal" or "fiscally right-leaning" is confusing and is not supported by sources cited. With respect to globalization, it seems the parts of the political views section using word conservative refer specifically to the U.S. and U.K. where the word has similar meaning. The section is already tagged regarding need for globalization, so hopefully this will encourage editors to add info beyond US and UK but I don't think changing the US & UK info so it no longer reflects sources cited globalizes the section. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auror Andrachome: at this point you’ve reverted 2 more times to remove “conservative” from article without bothering to participate on talk page at all [30] [31]. This makes your 7th undiscussed revert which has been objected to by 3 different editors. Could you please begin to discuss on talk page? Also, please stop marking repeated reverts WP:MINOR. These are not minor edits. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auror Andrachome:, I see after taking a break you are back at it. The source cited doesn't support limiting it to "fiscally" conservative. Also, again, please see WP:MINOR. Please do not make changes not supported by source cited and please only mark edits minor if they superficial changes like typos. Edits that change meaning aren't minor edits. DynaGirl (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to say that I support what @DynaGirl: is doing here. – Monkeyfume (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: you need to lay off and stop hounding these articles as if you were its gatekeeper. Auror Andrachome (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Auror Andrachome, it's not acting as a "gatekeeper" to revert changes to article text not supported by references cite. This is basic WP policy. If you review this talk page section, you'll see current consensus is clearly against this change. Please stop making this unreferenced change. DynaGirl (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

there is no exact date, here nobody can believe the intelligent nor the correct, we are all equal to the reasoning

Hi, I'm from Mexico, a consort that the Z generation can start from the end of 1993 although there is no exact date since it is depending on what person has lived with the evolution of technology, there are sources that say since 1993, others since the year 2007 and others since 2006. In my opinion I think it should be from January 1994 but I repeat, there is no exact date. It depends on the census and the person. LynScott (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a source

One of the recent edits used a source that was originally in the article [32][33] and re-worded it to incorrectly state that [34] "An earlier 2014 report from Pew Research described Post-Millennials as born after year 2000.[29]" But the article/source used to back up that claim is not a Pew Research Center report (it is a book interview), nor did Pew Research Center, the research company itself, ever described Gen-Z as starting after year 2000 (the rewording of the source implies that the Pew Research Center stated those prior-end dates, but they did not; the author of the book did). Incorrectly rewording and mispresenting the source is contrary to npov and verifiability. Additionally, the old wording of the source is also incorrect. Andrea Caumont never stated anything, she is just the poster of the article. Paul Taylor, the author of the book, did. The source in the article should instead say something along the lines of: "Paul Taylor, in his discussing his new book The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, states that generations typically span about 20 years which would point to a start of Generation Z at 2000" and the source should be placed above the MTV paragraph instead of where it is now.

Comments on the proposed changes? Someone963852 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems both of the references from Pew Research should be in the same paragraph. In my opinion, the only reason the 2014 reference and the content included in that reference is notable enough to be included at all is because Pew published it. The current text didn't mention Andrea Caumont and I tweaked it to say the 2014 publication from Pew includes the starting date of 2000 for accuracy. I think getting into all that detail about how it's included might be undue weight. The thing that makes it notable enough to be included in the date range and defining section is that it was included in a Pew Research publication. Paul Taylor and Andrea Caumont are not particularly notable and seems they don't warrant mention in the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research included the year 2000 as start year for the cohort" is still inaccurate and misleading. If Paul Taylor (which the article is solely about since it's a book interview for his book) is not notable, then why is the article being used as a source? That is giving the source undue weight especially if it is not notable and it's being placed behind the main Pew source. Yes, it is posted by Pew Research Center, but the article is a Paul Taylor book interview, not an actual research report from the Pew Research Center like the source preceding it. And again, the wording implies that the Pew Research Center stated those start dates, but they did not - Paul Taylor did. So the wording should be changed to accurately reflect the person stating those dates. Either the article accurately reflects what the source states to avoid contradicting npov and verifiability, about Paul Taylor and what he thinks the end dates are (since he is the one suggesting those end dates, not Pew), and if Paul Taylor and his book (since that is what the source is about) is not notable enough, then it is undue weight and the source does not belong in the article. Someone963852 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of that source says that Paul Taylor works for Pew Research. The source literally opens with "Pew Research Center’s Paul Taylor appeared on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” to discuss his new book, The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown". I think it would be unnecessary detail to mention Jon Stewart or the Daily Show, but considering Paul Taylor both works for Pew Research and wrote a book on generations, I guess it's reasonable to mention him and his book in the article text. I added it to the article [35]. DynaGirl (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So, the source is a press release describing an appearance on The Daily Show.... He hasn't given any opinion for any date ranges. I can't see how this is worth citing just because he says generations typically span 20 years. If this is an opinion shared by Pew, surely there are better sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased & Misleading Facts

The entire entry solely makes references to the US, yet is written as though the facts listed are absolute inferences to all other regions. Research and citations are needed for other regions such as (but not limited to) Latin America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Oceania in order to facilitate a truly objective and balanced assessment on the sociology of this group.

This article applies to the Western world, so Canada and Australia are referenced. This article is not meant to apply worldwide. Do you think that should be pointed out in the opening? --Frmorrison (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The majority of references and data are from the US (with minimal accounts from Canada and Australia) - as such, it's not possible to make brushstroke inferences on the group as a whole. Likewise, it's not possible to infer the characteristics cited apply to the Western world without any references to Europe. Agree with the suggestion to place a regional disclaimer at the top or to retitle the entry to something like Gen Z in America or something. Businesses (even those outside of the US) will look to this article for basic demographic information since Millennials are getting older so it's important to state clearly to which region these facts and findings apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.120.101.9 (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The only biased and misleading fact is that the whole article says Generation Z when we all know Generation Z are the true millennials I'm Generation Y and I'm certainly not going to let myself be called a millennial when people get to be called Generation Z Generation Z is millennials Generation Y is Generation Y deal with it on the last Gen Y to roll off the block and I'm not going to be called a millennial I'm not going down without a fight and you baby boomers can deal with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:6D00:749:BC7E:33A3:A104:7335 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is moronic and dominated by US marketing and PR concepts. All the 'generations' articles are bad (Americans seem obsessed with this stuff) but this one really is a content free zone. I would add a WP:GLOBALIZE tag but can't be arsed. --Ef80 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"early-2000s" vs "mid-2000s" in the lead

The status quo of the article is currently "mid-2000s" (before the recent edit by [36] which was later reverted by me due to no consensus and returning it to the status quo [37]). Looking at it again though, the lead should state "early-2000s" instead of "mid-2000s" since only one source in the article starts it in the mid-2000s. Likewise, none of the sources in the article starts it in the "late-2000s". Someone963852 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

USA POV

This article reflects mainly a point of view from the United States, little to no part of it mentions the status of the generation in other countries, continents, and cultures. Rosbife (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbife: I started a discussion on splitting above. Feel free you join. Nerd271 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Info box

@Trivialist: If it were possible to link to the draft with the splitting notice, I would have done so. The template does not work for draft links, so I decided to create that info box for people's convenience. Nerd271 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Cuspers

@Osrius: Please refrain from removing that sidebar on the major generations. The cuspers are not part of the main sequence. Nerd271 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osrius: You realize that people can still check what edits you actually made, right? Misleading edit summaries could get you into trouble, you know? Nerd271 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osrius: Frankly, I'm not sure if I can be any clearer here. Xennials are examples of what we call Cuspers, people at the boundary between two different demographic cohorts. We already have a link for them in the "See also" section. What's the problem? That sidebar is only for the major generations of the Western world. Nerd271 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271: I started to re-add the sidebar, but I noticed that we already have a navigation template, {{Cultural gens}}, at the bottom of the article. This does what the sidebar sets out to do in a manner more consistent with other articles. Thus, I suggest going with just the bottom template rather than the sidebar. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: One is vertical and at the beginning of a page while the other is horizontal and at the bottom of a page. I don't see why we should not have both. Let's be honest here. Not everyone reaches the very bottom of a page. In both cases, we list the major generations only, though in the case of the horizontal template, we could also list the cuspers which Osrius is so desperate to include. Nerd271 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Based on the notes in the Culture gens template, I would strongly advise against listing the cuspers—at least, not without discussion and gaining a wide consensus at Template talk:Cultural gens. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Good point, though we can still add the "Xennials," which O desperately wants. They are included in the list of generations, which is one of the requirements. Nerd271 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Osrius added Xennials to the list of generations; it doesn't really belong there either. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Of course he did! Should have checked. An anonymous editor removed it, though. Nerd271 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osrius: Again, your misleading edit summaries could count against you, you know? Nerd271 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Echo Busters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Echo Busters. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Generation Zyklon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generation Zyklon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Generation Alpha

Howdy folks! A draft for Generation Alpha is available here. Please take a look and share your constructive feedback on its talk page. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up your draft a little bit. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: Thanks! I knew I made mistakes somewhere. It's always useful to have someone else read your work. Nerd271 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not call those mistakes, I was merely revising to make it easier to read. Anyway, it looks good enough to publish the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Generation "Glass"

In the Successors section, it says an alternative name is "Generation Glass", for the digital glass screens that have become the primary medium of content sharing. First of all, the oldest Gen Alphas are like 7 and are not sharing content at all, and screens are not a new invention; they could barely be attributed to Gen Z.  Nixinova  T  C  00:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the term

The article doesn't seem to explain anywhere what Gen Z means. The alternatives are defined. I think it's important to point out that Gen Z derives from a placeholder that ignores Gen X wasn't alphabetical, yet people tried to called the next generation "Y" and subsequently this one "Z". I think if it's made clear how absurd and ultimately meaningless this naming convention is (since Y got rejected and X isn't referring to the letter) people might be more apt to come up with a better name. Otherwise this might end up being the first generation to get a name that has absolutely no meaning other than a vague misunderstood reference to a previous generation. Obviously those reasons aren't why it should be in the article. It should be in the article since Wikipedia usually gives the etymology and the etymology here is of particular importance. The reason for the name given is generally a big part of all the other generation articles. J1DW (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your question of what Gen Z means is answered in several places in the article, not least the lede and the Terminology section. I think though, based on the rest of your edit that what you're really asking is why are they called Gen Z, rather than Gen Y - or indeed anything else? Can you clarify if you're wanting to expand the article on the origin of the name, or what the term Gen(eration) Z represents? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I stumbled across the slang for "Gen Z" to be a "Zoomer" (aka Zoomer Generation), and its a bit of play on words to the X,Y,Z and the Boomers. feel free to further research this to determine if the word "Zoomer" should be applied to the article somewhere. Gizziiusa (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Gizziiusa

Zoomer is just a dumb term for when a kid is acting boomerish. Most of us do not at all want to be compared to boomers.  Nixinova  T  C  00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Some editors have noted that although this page is supposed to be international, it appears to be quite U.S.-centric. Therefore, I am preparing a draft for Generation Z in the United States. It is already quite different from this article. Information about the U.S. is not hard to find; one only has to make sure one is using reliable sources. But that is already standard at Wikipedia. I think this article should be split for reasons of size and content. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Nerd271 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

While Generations are used internationally, other countries have alternate names or don't really care about generations. The article should be US-centric because that country is the one that uses generation names frequently. If you want an international article, that is one you should be creating. Like Generation Z (international). --Frmorrison (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: If my understanding of your comment is correct, you would like to see this article merged with the draft I created. Fair enough. Let's wait and see what other people think. Nerd271 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could combine some of the content of your draft into the main article, but making two articles is a poor plan. --Frmorrison (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: Alright. Let's see what others say. Nerd271 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant to make two separate articles. This would affect all the other generations articles too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Please explain what makes you think that would be the case. Nerd271 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We want consistency among the generations articles, and I would think that any reasons for splitting this article would apply to the other generations articles too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I honestly do not think it would be a problem, though. Like I said, information about the United States and her people is not hard to find, so it should not be too hard to discuss them extensively in their own articles. We can go as deep as we want or as far as we can find reliable sources. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Nerd271 (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I support splitting the article, when I come to Wikipedia I do expect to read about generation Z in general, not a whole bunch of US-related statistics. Besides, to respond to Frmorrison, I am from the Netherlands doing a communications study and we do talk a lot about different generations because they do have a big influence on the marketing and communications of companies. Have a nice day, Coldbolt (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the split, because Generation Z is a US-centric concept so it's not out of the ordinary for the article to be US-centric. If another country has their own equivalent of Generation Z, then another article should be created for that specific group. Like Frmorrison stated, merging your draft with the main article sounds like a good idea to me. Someone963852 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that this was already been discussed. I think that simply adding more context of the Generation Z in other countries might help avoiding the bias. But forking the article seems ok to me too, as long as there is more international content here. Rosbife (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271: I think a lot of the content on your Generation Z draft is very informative. Do you want to merge it with this main article? Someone963852 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Thank you for the compliment. But unless there is a clear consensus in that direction, I would rather not. I maintain the opinion that this page should contain mainly information pertaining to Generation Z worldwide and the draft, and thus the proposed split page, should specialize in the U.S. Nerd271 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271 That makes sense, but Generation Z is more of a US concept than a worldwide concept, so I'd thought it'd be a good idea to merge it into the main article. Mind if I use some of the stuff from your draft such as the "Operational definitions" section and merge it to the main article? Someone963852 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Its counterpart in this article is the "Date and age range definition." The only real difference is that it is shorter. Nerd271 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271 I like how the Pew source is currently expanded on your draft; it is better worded than the current one. Mind if I change the wording on this current article to match that? Also, the "Alternative names" section will be a good addition to this article since there's so many names floating around like "Zoomers" and "iGen" for this generation in the media. Someone963852 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Feel free to use the paragraph I wrote about Pew. The "Alternate names" section over there corresponds to the "Terminology" section over here. When I started that draft in May 2019, I copied and pasted what was then the current revision of this page and ruthlessly cut out anything that seemed superficial or supported by unreliable sources. Thus, marketing agencies and self-promotional materials were the first to go. Nerd271 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. I made the change here [38] with a few words differing from the draft. Someone963852 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks great! Of course my opinion might be biased because that's almost what I wrote. Nerd271 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271, do you want to expand it on the Millennials article too? Someone963852 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: I took the liberty to restore your comment. Did you mean adapting the bits that pertain to both the Millennials and Generation Z to the Wikipedia article for the former? If so, please go ahead. Of course you will need to read the sources and rephrase certain things so that the focus will be on Generation Y rather than Z. Nerd271 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Tally

Not so fast, Morrison.

The people who wanted to keep just one article are: Frmorrison, Kolya Butternut, and Someone963852. We have thus far a total of three votes for merging.

Those who want to split this article are: Coldbolt, Rosbife, and myself. We thus have three votes for splitting. It's a draw, unless more people join the discussion supporting either side. Nerd271 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been over four months, and little input from people. A draw equals status quo. Article splits are usually when they get too long. This one has plenty of room to grow. It is 58 kB in prose and when it gets to around 90 kB is when you think about a split. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: That is not a bad suggestion at all. As of the time of writing, the size of my draft is 153,176 bytes while that of this page is 99,925 bytes. Anyway, I will wait for a few days and make a formal Request for Comments, which should garner more attention. Nerd271 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Page size is not measured like that. When you see that this article is 99 kB, it is really only 58 kB because a lot of the size is made of references that don't count for size. Your draft is 109 kB in prose, but 100 kB isn't a hard rule so it is fine to go a little over. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. So how did you get those numbers? Nerd271 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a button on the side bar under tools, it is called "Page Size". I assume there is an option to add it, but it was added years ago. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have it. Nor could I find it in 'Preferences'. But I did find something similar, known as prose size. According to Xtools, at the time of writing, my draft contains 83,540 characters and this page 48,241. Assuming one character roughly corresponds to one byte, we have 83.5 kB and 48.2 kB, respectively. I never realized one page was that much smaller than the other. But that's what we have. Nerd271 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Tuition Fees to Student Aid Ratios 2008-8 (OECD).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Cutoff

Pew Research Center already selected 2012 as the final birth year for this generation although it may be subject to change.--Paleontologist99 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Due weight and sourcing in the political polling section.

The political polling section has major WP:DUE issues; some polls are given entire paragraphs, while others are summarized into just a sentence, with no valid rationale that I can see between the two. The Harris LGBT poll in particular gets a massive paragraph, while the Varkey Foundation and Populus ones get two brief sentences; the International Federation of Accountants poll gets a massive paragraph, while the Pew Research Center poll (which is from a far more prestigious source) gets one sentence. We need to either give polls equal weight, or (even better) give weight in accordance to coverage in reliable sources and the reputation of the source. Additionally, some of the sourcing is weak - many polls have no secondary sourcing at all and aren't done by outlets who provide obvious notability or reliability on their own; eg. The Gild link is to a marketing firm, while The Gild itself is another marketing firm with no reputation for polling. Their methodology is taken apart here - it's an internet quiz with no screening - but the important thing from our perspective is that they're not a reliable source for this and marcomm.news, cited as a secondary source, isn't reliable enough to provide that; a proper secondary source would provide the context necessary to understand the poll's limitations. --Aquillion (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by many different people. Some only want to briefly summarize a poll. Others want to provide more information, not just on the results but also the background and context. If you want to expand on something, do so. Also note that polls often ask more than one question. Nerd271 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

Generation Z, or Gen Z for short, also known as Generation Swipe (source below)

https://www.superawesome.com/2016/02/23/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-generation-swipe-and-vr/ 80.178.97.9 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think this is a reliable source? Just because somebody posted something on the Internet does not make it notable or reliable. Nerd271 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019

At the very beginning of the article, after the phrase "Generation Z" is first introduced, there should be an addendum within parentheticals (immediately following) that adds on something to the effect of "also known as Centennials" -- seeing how, phonetically, the term "Centennials" is to "Generation Z" as "Millennials" is to "Generation Y." When edited, tt could appear and read within the entry as follows:

"[b]Generation Z[/b], or [b]Gen Z[/b] for short (also known as [b]Centennials[/b]), is the demographic cohort succeeding the Millennials."

Here are some links that reflect the terminology of "Centennial" as being an alternate/synonymous reference to "Generation Z"...

• http://inclusiveexcellencetour.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Centennial-Generation.pdf
• https://thoughtcatalog.com/stephanie-casella/2015/09/the-differences-between-centennials-generation-z-and-millennials-generation-y/
• https://digiday.com/marketing/5-things-brands-need-know-centennials/
• https://www.bbva.com/en/centennials-generation-never-known-world-internet/
• https://www.inphantry.com/from-millennials-to-centennials-the-passing-of-the-torch/
• https://www.firmofthefuture.com/content/what-you-need-to-know-right-now-about-the-centennial-generation/
• https://sig.org/so-who-are-centennials
• https://zephoria.com/marketing-to-centennials/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQHZRAxWuo
• https://econsultancy.com/stand-aside-millennial-here-comes-the-centennial-report/

Eichy815 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources only, please! Nerd271 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Trebling

Thank you for the edit, Frmorrison, but 'to treble' is a real verb; in this context, it means exactly what you think it means. Nerd271 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Treble may work in a lesser known meaning, but it is better to use common English so there is less chance of confusion. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect statistic (missing decimal point)

The statistic for ratio of sexes in Asia states there are 112 males to every one female. That should be 1.12 to one, or 112 males to 100 females. TommyB5000 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for proofreading. Nerd271 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)