Talk:Zillennials/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protection requested

To control vandalism and unnecessary edits, I am requesting semi-protection of this page

4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@4theloveofallthings: go to WP:RFPP to request page protection. RudolfRed (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Already did. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Donahue 2020 Source Removal

Some1, looks like we need discussion on this source as well. Waka Waka, can you explain more about the reasoning behind not including this source? It was a book published in 2020 by McGraw Hill Education, one of the big three educational publishers. I would think that would be rather reliable and recent of a source Centennial357 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

None born in the 2000s is a "Zillennial", almost all sources agree its a term for 90s borns. Barely any source include people born in the 2000s. I don't think we should add all available and possible ranges here, only the most common which include most of 90s borns. I want to add the Gen Z range in the Gen Z article contradicts itself if we add ranges who ends in the 00s and not in the 90s. Zillennials isn't supposed to be an excessively long micro generation in the first place.

Like Cosmopolitan, Donahue is too recent to be added. Waka Waka (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Donahue is two years old, how is that "too recent"? Personally I agree no one born in the 2000s is a zillennial and I think the ideal definition for zillennials is 1994-1999 or so, but there are different opinions and I think we should try to reflect those rather than going with only two definitions. Plus, the two definitions you insist on using are only a 1-year difference from each other. There needs to be more variety. 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I should also add that there was expressly a written notice not to make any changes to the date ranges without having sources. 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 Pls stop reverting my edition and let's debate that stuff here. --Waka Waka (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Waka Waka “No one born in the 2000s is a Zillennial” and “Zillennial isn’t supposed to be an excessively long micro generation” are both personal opinions that don’t override the reliability or worth of a source. The millennial page has commentary about millennials ending anywhere from the mid 90s to early 00s, which would align with sources ending the Zillennial cusp in 2000 or 2002, so I think this page, the millennial page, and Zoomer pages will be able to align even if ranges here include early 00s borns. Also when it comes to the length piece, the Generation Jones page sets a precedent of a 12yr range, so that shouldn’t inherently be an issue. Lastly, we aren’t just posting any sources on here. All these sources were deliberated prior with wiki admins to filter out which sources were worthwhile or not. Thoughts Some1, Scarpy, and Examining Centennial357 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Waka Waka is not arguing in good faith. Just read his most recent "argument", where he outright lies and says I didn't debate anything when I very clearly did. 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The source is fine where it is. It comes from a credible publisher and a good reason for its deletion hasn't been provided. Some1 and Scarpy have made clear that this is not science. Examining (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. And like I said, the other two sources have a difference of one year. At that point you might as well have only one source.

We need varying definitions with bigger ranges. That's why I think the four we have are perfect for the article. 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the IP who just joined this day to specifically edit this article doesn't want to debate those two sources here and insists there's already a "consensus" here. Let's wait for a mod to semi-protect the article so we can revert his edition and the IP can't revert us anymore. I think the IP isn't going to stop. Waka Waka (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you trying to pick a fight? I have a dynamic IP address. Look that up if you don't know what that means. There is a consensus, as no one has yet come to an agreement that the sources should be removed. And by the way, I did argue for why I believe the sources should be included, if you care to read literally two paragraphs above you. 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Cosmopolitan citation has been added to the Generation Z Wikipedia page.

As the title reads, the Cosmopolitan citation is now in the Generation Z article. There is no reason to take it down here. 68.62.155.13 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no official Zillennial date range.

Those who say that the 1993-1998 date range is official don't seem to understand the fact that specific date range had come from Urban Dictionary. Sources that come from books or political events have as much right to be here. The Cosmo citation can be seen as more credible than the Vice one for this specific reason. 68.62.155.13 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. I don't know why this is even an argument. Suddenly academic books don't count because they're "too recent" (read: two years old)? 2600:4040:579C:300:BDF6:3CF2:2436:2C36 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s the cusp for a reason. Widening the range so that it essentially includes all of the millennials born within the 90s is rather ridiculous in my opinion. I believe that 1993-1998 makes the most sense because the term “Zillennial” is meant to define those who have had an unclear answer to whether or not they were a millennial or a gen z.. given the official millennial dates change.

Someone completely deleted my section about the analytical data collected by Pew Research Center and how they changed the Millennial dates in the name of keeping characteristics distinct between generations.. this led directly to those on the cusp lacking generational identity and even leads to their exclusion in important analytical data.

But again.. someone editing from an IP literally trashed my whole section in favor for some strangely sourced clusterf*ck of a bunch of different ranges… giving absolutely no importance to the ranges and reason for including them. Subject matter is supposed to have a reason.. a purpose. That is also why I am heavily pushing for IPs and new editors to be barred from editing this article for the meantime. To give it the chance to survive and not be nominated for deletion because IPs can’t stop including nonsense and deleting important info. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

4theloveofallthings why are you removing all the source citations? 1993-1998 making “the most sense” is your personal opinion, and going off of Pew’s changes is just one source to possibly discuss the cusp. That doesn’t discount all the other ones that were already approved for the cusper article. Unless you have more reasoning than personal preference, those sources should go back up. Additionally, the way you changed it is off. For example, the 1992-1998 range, you combined two names from two different authors but left the citation for a source not written by either of them. Looks messy. Also some of the phrasing you used through the article seems to come off as original research and lacking citations. The article should provided cited facts, not including personal opinion/feeling on the subject matter, which is why I went and made a couple tweaks to your phrasing. Thoughts Some1 and Examining? Centennial357 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason and purpose to including more ranges. It's to provide a broader perspective of what it means to be a zillennial. Limiting it to one definition is overly simplistic and unencyclopedic. Like the other guy said, the definition you insist on was started by a freaking Urban Dictionary entry, and all the sources that use that definition cite that entry. If you ask me, that's much less of a credible source than either of the sources that have been discussed and agreed upon in the cusper article.

Just because you made the article doesn't mean you made it perfectly. The point of a free encyclopedia like Wikipedia is for people to improve articles. And the idea that IPs and unregistered users somehow matter less goes against the WP:HUMAN policy. 2600:4040:579C:300:A4A0:A7C:F15C:D9EA (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you need to understand that most of the Zillennial definitions such as 1993-1998 had their origins from Urban Dictionary. That is not a credible source. What about the people born in 1999? Even 2000 births are often considered as well since they were born before 911 as well as the last in the 20th century. Xennials consist of people being born from 1977-1985. That is 9 years. Generation Jones is a decade. Most of the 1992-1998 and 1993-1998 citations had their original source from Urban Dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.155.13 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Notable People Section

4theloveofallthings, it looks like we also need to do something about the notable people section. It’s getting out of hand. It’s great that there are so many loved celebs, but there has to be a way to limit it to a couple per birth year. Not sure how to gauge the “most famous” as in the first to come up with a Google search or with famousbirthdays.com? But it’s currently too cluttered. Not every celeb is needed on here. I also think there should be a variety for the notable people included be it nationality, ethnicity, what they are famous for, etc. Also, and thoughts from Some1 and Examining? Centennial357 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I was legitimately just coming here to say this exact thing. Two to three people per birth year should be more than enough. Examining (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we have a list of famous zillennials in a separate article, perhaps? On a separate note, how do we determine which zillennials are worthy of being included in the notable people section? 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the whole 'Notable people' section should be removed since it's unsourced and basically trivia. Some1 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this more. Again, I feel like this page should bounce off of other cusper pages like the Generation Jones and Xennials page. Examining (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Was thinking this as well when I was editing earlier today. I like your idea of picking a variety of different people of different backgrounds and different specializations. If anyone has a proposed idea as to how we should set the criteria for individuals in the notable people section, I’m sure we are all open to suggestions. Anyone?

On removing the Notable people section: I personally feel this is a useful way for readers to identify popular figures they are aware of to the identity. It provides familiarity and a better way of understating who exactly the cohort is made up of. If others are in agreement about removing it though, it’s certainly not a necessary section to include. That’s just my two cents! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced, systemically biased, indiscriminate trivia. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. I think everyone here should have a good read of Wikipedia's content policies, if they want to contribute productively. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

MasterChamp69 you should review what was said here by ~~ AirshipJungleman29 seeing as you added the notable person section back in without taking of the note of the discussion here Centennial357 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is a total mess in general. Synthesis and contentious phrasings are all over the place. Half of the article tries to claim that date ranges on fashion websites are somehow scholarly pronouncements on the matter. I don't think a single source in the article is both reliable and used properly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29, I agree to an extent. There does appear to be a lot of synthesis and contentious phrasing. I’ve pointed out through these various talk topics that many are trying to make edits or make additions that sound like total personal opinion, which needs to go. A lot of these kinds of edits have been happening lately as you’ve noticed. Regarding to sources. There was a discussion on all them in the cusper page before they were added here. A lot of sources suggested in the past were cut for valid concerns like yours. On the flip side, generations being a social or soft science is going to have certain news segments or fashion websites such as Vogue influencing the perception of what is considered “Zillennial” or not. There is a fine line to be walked there for sure. I do want to help find worthwhile and reliable source though Centennial357 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, zillennials aren't a widely accepted microgeneration (yet), so the sources in the article are pretty much all we have at the moment. I do think the article should stay up, because zillennials are objectively a thing. But it might take a while before the article can become bigger because of more media mentions.

I should mention that I personally disagree with all the definitions listed in the article. My definition is 1992-1999, because those are people who were born in the 90s and were in high school in the early 2010s, which I think are defining characteristics for being a zillennial. But that's my personal opinion, and the article needs to reflect what experts say, which so far it does. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal biases should be avoided in this article. This page should only reference sources that mention and define Zillennials. Zillennial (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I know, hence why I said "But that's my personal opinion, and the article needs to reflect what experts say". 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The only definition I think is "scientific" is the Donahue one because that comes from an academic McGraw-Hill textbook. The others are like you said from fashion magazines, and they got their definition from an Urban Dictionary entry, which is hardly an authoritative source.

I do think the Cosmopolitan one should stay up because it was discussed and decided to be a valid source, and it's also the most recent mention of zillennials in the mainstream media. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an account/username in order to foster communication over commenting anonymously? And like I said, all these sources had been discussed priorly in the talk section of the Cusper page. Ubl, Walden, and Arbit were published by Wiley which focuses on academic publishing, and the WGSN source was a study for example Centennial357 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous. But you do have a point about the other sources now that you mention it. I guess I was focusing only on the names I recognized, none of which impressed me. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m the one who initiated this article, and I even agree with you. The sources got completely destroyed and the whole article became a joke the second that IP editors were flocking to it. I requested for it to be protected over a day ago but nobody got back to us on that. We needed time to develop. Perhaps it should be moved back to its previous draft state and further developed before reintroducing it to the mainspace when it is properly sourced, formatted and maybe even the micro generation has a bit more recognition? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We improved your article greatly. When you started it, there was only one range, there was a section about millennials ending in 2000 that was contradicted by the source you cited for it, and there was an unsourced picture of four random people you decided represented zillennials, one of whom was Madison Cawthorn of all people. We cleaned up the article for you and made it more encyclopedic and less opinionated. Could it still be improved? Of course. Is it better than it was at the start? Absolutely. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You’re absolutely incorrect. Take a look at the revision history. I did have one range (93-98) because that range was the only one that was cited by a research facility, Pew Research Center… not by Pop Sugar Magazine or whatever you guys gutted my reliable sources in favor of. The article started out as a coherent text from an uninvolved voice. One that doesn’t include personal opinion or original research… and certainly not one that copied sources verbatim and pasted them into the article risking copyright issues for Wikipedia. You took the article and sent it flying in a million directions … I wouldn’t be too proud of yourself there, bud. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research Center has never decided a definition for zillennials. In fact, they've never acknowledged zillennials exist. The 1993-1998 range came from an Urban Dictionary definition that was regurgitated by pop outlets like Vogue and Vice. Zillennials are not a universally agreed-upon range, and it's not a science. It makes sense to have multiple ranges from varying sources to provide a broader perspective of what it means to be a zillennial. Limiting it to one range that is entirely opinionated removes the encyclopedic validity from the article. We want a wide range of opinions when it comes to soft sciences, not just one. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You speak as though the ideal would be having multiple date ranges.. that’s not logical. The ideal is one range.. the only reason to include others is if reliable sources are conflicting… you say “you only had one range!” Which leads me to believe you haphazardly went seeking out other interpretations just to include regardless of where you sourced that information from… do I need to further explain why you destroyed the article .. or? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the ideal is to have more than one range. Even on the articles for generations with more settled definitions, there are multiple ranges. I don't know why this is an issue. We added reliable sources that gave varying opinions on what the zillennial range is, which is exactly how articles for soft sciences should look. 2600:4040:579C:300:49C1:FB50:D2CC:FF2B (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be morphing into social media bickering quickly. Let's try to focus on the sources (most of which have already been vetted) and figure out how best to use them to improve the article. This isn't a personal blog and no other generation related articles come from one source. Examining (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm here again and still stand by my inclusion of 1990 for the Cosmo source. "Back in 2020, Gen Zers and young millennials—aka zillennials, folks between the ages of 18 and 29—mobilized en masse across America. They marched, flooded TikTok, rallied historically underrepresented constituencies, and ultimately voted their way to some historic wins for lawmakers in battleground territories."

Patrice Peck mentions voting, but also the activism prior. Not only were those born late in the year 29 during the vote, but even more to most of those born in 1990 29 in the 2020 activism before it. Fbronco (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Some1, Centennial has reverted my inclusion of 1990 while referring me to you, and I stand by the argument above. It should begin with 1990. Fbronco (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss at the section above: Talk:Zillennials#Cosmopolitan. I have no opinion on the Cosmo source. Some1 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Date Ranges Bullets vs Prose

Some1 I understand that the prose format is used for the sources in the Xennial page. However is a giant block of text the easiest way to convey the info. I think bullet form makes it clearer to see what the ranges were and easier to find said ranges corresponding sources. Another suggestion may be just splitting each range and its sources into separate paragraphs in order to help with comprehension? Centennial357 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'll split it into more paragraphs. I would oppose bullet point formatting since none of the other generation articles have them for their date range sections (and for a good reason). The way the section is currently laid out now is an improvement [1]. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we perhaps list the ranges in chronological order so as not to seem like we're playing favorites? 2600:4040:579C:300:C4D8:6B25:C767:5137 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources with the same ranges should be listed together in the same paragraph (which they are now); commonly used ones should be placed first (1992-1998 and 1993-1998 both have four sources each); outliers can have their own paragraph (fourth paragraph); all of this per WP:WEIGHT / WP:NPOV: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Due/undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements... (emphasis mine) Some1 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan

I see that the Cosmopolitan source was recently removed by User:Masterchamp69 [2] with no edit summary. Cosmo was previously discussed at Talk:Cusper#Cosmopolitan, but I guess the discussion could continue here since this is a new article. So what were your reasons for the removal of the source? Some1 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There were removals made by B2123 in the notable Zillennials section. Just randomly removing people. I assume based on personal preference. Another reason I requested semi-protection status of the article. Unconfirmed users also need to calm it down. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

MasterChamp69 you can’t keep removing the cosmopolitan article that has already been vetted without proper reasoning. Admins have already reversed your removal multiple times, and it is getting old quickly. Some1 and AirshipJungleman29 anything else you can add regarding this? Centennial357 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Fbronco the Cosmo article was discussed with you at length already in the cusper page discussion. Some1 said to remove the approx. symbol since it was understood to be approx. due to the nature of the subject. 1990 is not being included for less than 2 months. Discuss the matter with Some1 before trying to edit that again. Centennial357 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note regarding your edit summary here [3], I'm not an admin and the only comment I've made about the Cosmopolitan source on the Cusper talk page is "Agree with Scarpy" [4]. I'm not sure who suggested to remove the approx. symbol, but it wasn't me. The full discussion can be read here: Talk:Cusper#Cosmopolitan. Some1 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you might've gotten me mixed up with Scarpy who removed the symbol [5]. Some1 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Scarpy per referral from Centennial and Some1, I still stand by my inclusion of 1990 for the Cosmo source. "Back in 2020, Gen Zers and young millennials—aka zillennials, folks between the ages of 18 and 29—mobilized en masse across America. They marched, flooded TikTok, rallied historically underrepresented constituencies, and ultimately voted their way to some historic wins for lawmakers in battleground territories."Patrice Peck mentions voting, but also the activism prior. Not only were those born late in the year 29 during the vote, but even more to most of those born in 1990 29 in the 2020 activism before it. For example, a 29 year old activist in the earlier half of 2020 was more likely to be born in 1990 than 1991, even if they were 30 at time of actually casting a ballot.

Not just for the late 1990 birthdays who were 29 when casting their ballot, but also for activists prior throughout the year who were 29 and born in 1990. Fbronco (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The author of the article most likely used the term Zillennial as a catch-all for any young voter under the age of 30. Since the source doesn't provide a concrete date range, I've moved it to another section. Some1 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Abercrombie Interview

WWllheroe, I do find the article discussing the interview interesting since Abercrombie is a well-known company, even if only a quarter/third of the article actually discusses said “Zillennials.” I just don’t know about getting a concrete Zillennial range from this article.

They explicitly say their target demographic is 25-29yr olds. That’s not going to change next year, and it would have been the same target demo last year. So does Abercrombie’s concept of Zillennials become 1994-1998 next year because 1993 borns will be 30? Or will they drop calling their target demo “Zillennials” next year because they believe it’s just 1993-1997 borns?

Additionally the article didn’t specify what years the VP considered young Millennial vs Zillennial, so there’s no way to guess. One is just making assumptions. They say their research of their target demographic for the past 2.5yrs demonstrated this new “Zillennial mentality,” and that would have included 1991 and 1992 borns in that research.

As a result, it’s too nebulous to really say what are the true end caps of what they consider Zillennial and how many more years they’ll be calling their target demo “Zillennial.” It may be best to leave this source out of the birth range section, and instead use it for the characteristics/traits section.

Some1, Examining, or Scarpy do you have thoughts on this? Centennial357 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

On the flip side, it could be said that last year, their target demographic was 24 to 28 years old, and now this year, they are currently 25 to 29 years old. Basically, this source is similar to the Cosmopolitan one, with both not having defined birth year ranges. I think it would better if the sources used in the birth year section specifically define the birth ranges of this cusp group, that way editors won't have to guess what the sources "actually" mean and basically use original research. Some1 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Some1 I do not agree about the Cosmo article and eMarketer interview being the same. The Cosmo article explicitly stated the 18-29yo voters of the 2020 election and stuck to it even when discussing new young voters to come after them. This interview on the other hand doesn’t specify if they stuck to the same age group (1993-1997 borns) throughout their 2.5yrs of research and it doesn’t say if this Zillennial notion of 25-29 yr old target demographic didn’t apply last year or will next year say when 1998 borns become 25. Honestly though, companies’ target demos don’t tend to get older every year, nor do I think they’d change the name of their target demo after one year either. Anyways, there is much more ambiguity there in that interview than in the Cosmo article Centennial357 (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Both are similar in the sense that they don't define exact birth year ranges (e.g. 199x-199y/200z) for the cusp group, making editors guess what they think the sources mean e.g. 1991 v 1993 and 1990 v 1991. If their focuses were actually defining and studying the Zillennial cusp group, then they would've included specific years like the other sources in the birth years section do. If they don't, then it's better to just state what the sources says itself about the zillennials cusp group, like what this article currently does with the A&F and Cosmo sources. The information from the two sources still come across the same without editors trying to shoehorn in specific birth years using wp:or-like calculations when the sources themselves don't explicitly mention specific birth years. Some1 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Needs Stronger Sources

As an individual who has been watching this page since it has been published I've seen that many disposable accounts and vandalism is occurring. This is because there is still not yet a consensus on who exactly qualifies as a Zillennial. Sure: there is a few mentions of the term in articles online, but it's not yet been well defined. I personally think this page needs an overhaul with a better backbone of information, there isn't a reason why it should be focused so intensely on the Date and Age Range section. Especially when there really is not a description of what a Zillennial exactly is. Zillennial (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Zillennial, the beginning of the article as well as the traits/characteristic section of the article seem to be describing what a Zillennial is. However, could they be fleshed out more based on info from the dozen plus sources cited in the article, I would say so. I would also agree that we should be on the look out for more sources to include. Regarding a standard definition or range for what qualifies as a Zillennial is a separate issue. As is seen with most of the cusper cohorts described in the cusper page & the individual cohort pages, most cusper groups - be it Joneser, Xennial, etc. - don’t have a strict range definition. Each group has a variety of ranges listed. I’m sure the Zillennial cohort won’t be better defined in comparison to the others. Just need to keep finding more sources from published books, studies, or articles from reputable sources that can be used to flesh out the page more. Centennial357 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Update the new Zillennial Page to Align with the Cusper Page

Scarpy, Some1, and Examining I see that there is a new Zillennial page. I’m excited to see someone starting a new page devoted to the Millennial/Zoomer cusp generation, just as there are devoted pages for Gen Jones and Xennials. However, I wanted to see if this new page so far held up. I see they are using a variety of sources that I wasn’t sure if the sources held up to the standard we already use on the Cusper page, and I also wanted to see about this page being updated to align more with the years used in the cusper page, as well as get this new page linked to the cusper page. Thank you everyone Centennial357 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Centennial357, the state of this current newly created article is frankly below average since it's filled with WP:Synthesis / WP:Original research. Just look at what I had to recently remove: [6]. Lots of the references used in this article do not support the statements at all and don't even discuss the Millennial/Gen Z cusp itself. Your help in cleaning this article up using the sources found on the Cusper article will be very much appreciated. Some1 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Some1 I would be happy to help clean up this article. Can we put a temporary protection on this article? It was shared on Wikipedia, and it’s clear that people are making anonymous vandalism edits based on their opinions, and not making edits backed by sources. Thank you for any help on that front Centennial357 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the date range sentence from the lead since there's no widely agreed upon birth years yet for the cusp group, so hopefully that slows down the drive-by opinion-based edits. I also copied all of the content from Cusper#Millennials/Generation Z over to this main article, so the article currently looks like this [7] at the time I'm writing this comment. The Characteristics and traits section could use expansion from existing sources. Some1 (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just requested semi-protection of the articles due to these reasons. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

4theloveofallthings, I agree there needs to be protection from edits from anonymous and new users with all that is going on. However, the Cosmopolitan and Donahue sources had been deliberated in the Cusper page prior to here. I think they should stay up until the open discussions on those 2 sources lead to solid reasoning for removing them. Centennial357 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to edit and engage wherever necessary. It seems like the page has already caught fire. I will try to take notes from the Generation Jones and Xennials pages. Examining (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Scarpy, Some1, Examining, Centennial357, i think we should do something with Anonymous user 81.32.60.17 because he keeps putting 1994-2000 range without any reliable source backing it up, and erasing the 1993-1998 sources without any reason, just because he doesn't like it, and also another guy said that 1992-1998 and 1993-1998 sources were made up inspired by Urban Dictionary which is not true, the 1993-1998 range was the most popular range from almost 2 years, it was published in April 2020, while Deon Smit and AnnaMarie Van Wyk published their article in December 2017. Also the 1992-1998 range from Urban was published in November 2019, while authors Arbit, Ubl and Walden published their book in April 2017. So clearly those two ranges are publishings made by professionals while this guy is posting a range taken out from his imagination, just like a common redditor would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWllheroe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys, i know Wikipedia doesn't accept Daily Mail as a reliable source, but i still wanted to share with you this article, i found it interesting because they made their own microgenerations for every generation, from Silent to Gen Z, the names used are interesting https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11672303/Born-cusp-two-different-demographic-groups-micro-generation-tribe-here.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWllheroe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting reverting back changes to the article. I don't believe Urban Dictionary is a credible source at all.

The first so called "citation" appears to be self-searched and not credible. It's a homemade PDF that literally cites Urban Dictionary. There hasn't been a concensus to have 1993-1998 as the official Zillenial Age range, since there are many sources in the article that extend it to 1999 and 2000. This microgeneration hasn't been well researched since its still too young. In comparison, it took until 2017 when mainstream media decided on the general Xennial date range (and those people were in their 40s). WaterLightning (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that first citation was written by the user who added it. I reverted it and changed the range to the years most commonly included in the Zillennial cohort. 108.26.184.191 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)