Jump to content

Template talk:Generations of Western society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TreadingWater (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 1 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Inclusion in generational articles

I hate to be negative, but we've been through these generational info boxes several times now. Considering the lack of consensus there is regarding dates, names and succession of generations, they seem to me to give a false sense of reality to the subject. I suggest not including it in generational articles...Peregrine981 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


what if I just put generic decade ranges for all of them, and no concrete dates? Nasa-verve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a fork of a deleted template? If not, please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this area, I am completely unaware of any deleted templates. Okay, what I did is take off the dates, and just leave it as a generic navigational template, without the controversial dates. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been nominated for deletion, please see here for the discussion. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed deletion tag per Wikipedia:Deletion#Proposed_deletion which states: "Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag." Nasa-verve (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to the WP:PROD process, not to discussions. Please don't do that again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honest mistake, I did not realize the difference until now. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direction

Now that it has been decided not to delete this template we should decide how best to use it. Are we going to keep it restricted to American generations? And if so, where will we place it? I would be opposed to placing it at the front of all the generations articles that currently try to discuss generations from a global perspective, if we maintain it as an American template, which I think we should, as it would get unwieldy if we include all possible global permutations, or too minimalist if we include only those that apply globally. Also, if we are indeed using List of generations as our source, then they currently do not match. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generations includes some which are controversial, such as recent readdition Generation Jones and perennially questionable MTV Generation. Although I suggested the deletion of this template, as eternal vigilence seems necessary to avoid questionable generations from occuring, we need to be clear as to the requirements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, I think we should make this into a horizontal template to put at the end of articles, to avoid giving it so much prominence, so as to avoid over-legitimizing the names it uses, and because of its US focus.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones

Generation Jones certainly needs to be included on any list of current cultural generations. It is automatically included now in scholarly, political, and pop culture discussions and lists of generations. It was on Wikipedia's list of cultural generations for a long time, as it should be. Unfortunately, one editor erroneously removed it from this list; I am now returning this list to the way it was for so long.TreadingWater (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I voted for deletion previously. Consensus is clearly that GenJones should not be in this template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to support deleting the template, go ahead, but, per consensus, Generation Jones is not going to be in it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete this template, that's probably OK with me, but if it stays, it will absolutely continue to include GenJones. And you are fully aware that there isn't anything remotely resembling a consensus supporting your view.TreadingWater (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was that the template should only contain undisputed generations. Generation Jones is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were knowledgable about generatons, Arthur Rubin, you would know that there is dispute about all generations...their names, their birth dates, their existence, etc. Fortunately, GenJones is not a particularly disputed generation; in fact, you are one of the only editors who disputes it.TreadingWater (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Generations_of_Western_society&oldid=317379214"