Talk:Generation Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Start Date(s) of Generation Z[edit]

Since generation z has a debated beginning point, I would like to discuss why you think it starts when you think it does. For example, I have found sources that state that generation z started 1993 (i.e. Statistics Canada, Aging and Society 7e, news articles)-->links below. I mean if you think about it, they were starting 1st grade in 2000 and in 2nd when 9/11 happened, therefore some might remember the event happening (but might not know the reasons behind it) and some might not. Generally speaking since generation z is the internet generation, these kids were 2 years old when the internet went public. I mean can we honestly consider children of 93 or even 94 not part of generation z. Additionally, I did further readings of generation y and it seems as though generation z is a subset of generation y; like a generation within a generation because they are not grossly different in life experiences.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm

https://books.google.ca/books?id=jLI8BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=generation+z+1993&source=bl&ots=mNffU6AcRd&sig=cI6-usZWn9LgPlrENqUiM4LjoEA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=generation%20z%201993&f=false

http://www.imagination.com/who-are-generation-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the previous discussion about start dates (above). And people have written well researched books and academic articles that extensively discuss all the generational birth dates, check out those sources first. 2606:6000:610A:9000:CD39:EE6:43E6:601E (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I read the previous posts and it reiterated what I was thinking and have read before hand. It seems like that starts date(s) are a very subjective. For example, I can't imagine 93-96 children relating too much with late 80's children where as for 90-92 it is possible. All in all, I guess it is too subjective to give an exact start date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this entire article is very misleading. It says that they surveyed Gen Z ages 14-23. That is impossible. Anyone over the age of 15 would be a millenial for sure. Since even the most conservative numbers show that millenials are as young as anywhere from 1995-2003. Therefore, none in Gen Z are even past the age of 18.
This page is in direct conflict with the gen y page, and it needs to be addresed.
Millenials are Gen Y, because of the year 2000. And all references on the millenial page date them up until 2003. Therefore, this page needs to address the very misleading information, and they need to get rid of such sentences in the page. Gen Z cannot be the same as gen y except for only a couple years. That doesnt make any sense. Gen Z starts around 2004, so none are any older than 15 at most. VisaBlack (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlock the page[edit]

McGeddon this is not your personal page to add what you want while it's locked. I've requested that the page is unlocked immediately. 2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected because you were edit warring, and had broken WP:3RR at Millennials. Normally your account alone would have been blocked for a short time, but since you prefer to use a dynamic IP address, the articles had to be semi-protected instead. Most editors are still able to edit it, it has not been made into my "personal page". You're welcome to make edit requests on the talk page, or to register a Wikipedia account. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, you have been editing against consensus, which is the reason for the page protection. Read above, where your contentions have been refuted by multiple editors. It is perfectly reasonable for editors be allowed to make constructive edits while the page is protected. ScrpIronIV 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an apparent conflict of interest when an editor requests that a page is locked and then continues to edit the page because he/she has privileges.2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It may be a conflict, but not a conflict of interest. There are plenty of times when established editors request a page to be protected from disruptive editing so that articles can be improved in peace. ScrpIronIV 16:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Improving the article "in peace" sounds like you don't like the freedom other editors have to voice their opinion. Just saying......2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You voiced your opinion, other editors listened, and consensus disagreed with your opinion. The issue came when you refused to accept that. Just saying... ScrpIronIV 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with unlocking the page.2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually it does. it quite establishes that you don't understand why the page was locked giving a very good indication that the locking was appropriate and necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The page didn't need an extra long lock because we've been talking out the disputed material on the talk page for days. That eliminates the page from any type of action to improve it for a long time.2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it has clearly been improved. It looks like the page protection has been mostly successful. ScrpIronIV 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics section[edit]

How can this quote be true quote if almost one-half of this generation isn't born yet? Quote: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015 Generation Z made up 25% of that country's population, making them a larger cohort than the baby boomers or millennials.[1]

References

  1. ^ Dill, Kathryn (6 November 2015). "7 Things Employers Should Know About The Gen Z Workforce". Forbes. Retrieved 12 November 2015. 

It sounds like you are starting off with a misconception. Reexamine your paradigm. ScrpIronIV 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence besides your casual opinion not based on anything solid? 2606:6000:610A:9000:C136:4CA8:C25B:6D27 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Think about it. The Census Bureau has clearly defined the ages of that generation in its evaluation, in order to come up with a precise figure. The US Government clearly does not agree with your internal assessment of the years of that generation. It would be interesting to see the criteria that the government has used to determine the years included in Generation Z. ScrpIronIV 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'll think about it. The Census does not define cultural generations, it counts the population. See ref. number four and click through to the report on Millennials if you're interested. I don't have time to do your research. Thank you in advance.2606:6000:610A:9000:C136:4CA8:C25B:6D27 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
A few sources use the 25% figure, only vaguely mentioning the Census Bureau. I don't think it's an obvious error - if Generation Z started in the "mid 1990s" and ended today, that's the same two-decade length as the other cohorts. But there's presumably a source somewhere between the Census Bureau (who don't seem to define cohorts by name) and the Forbes article, which takes population figures and applies them to generational cohorts. I'll see if I can turn anything up. --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s"[edit]

How is the range of "mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s" for a single (start) date any different from saying "mid 1990s to the mid 2000s"? An IP editor pointed to this old talk thread where one editor thinks it clarifies that some start dates are in the late 1990s, and the other editor can't see the point. We're talking about a single starting date - it's like saying "Jeff's birthday is somewhere between mid or late February and mid March". If you're defining a range, you only need to give the extremes of it. If we're trying to explain that there are clusters of start dates around the mid 90s, the late 90s and the mid 2000s, we should say that rather than giving a weirdly redundant "dates range from A to J, and that includes C". --McGeddon (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources actually use late 1990s (than mid). So there is a distinction when we mention it in the lede --- it points that fact out pretty clearly. Back in 2013 (above), other editors discussed the difference and opted to put that information into the lede and it's been there for over two years. There's no new sources that would update anything (unless you can find it). In fact, there are alot of new sources since 2013 that use late 1990s. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
So what's a good way to express that? --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not? It sounds very clear. Also the Magid source after the wording uses 1997. We shouldn't misrepresent what they wrote. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Like I say, defining a start date as being somewhere in the "mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s" is no different to saying "mid 1990s to mid 2000s". Saying "mid 1990s or mid 2000s" would be wrong, but the article is saying "to": it's a range. If this sentence is trying to tell the reader something about the late 1990s, it's failing. --McGeddon (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Magid uses 1997 so I moved the sources to back up exactly what you said. Using "or" is okay because the preceding sentence says there is "some disagreement". The next sentence then describes what the disagreement is by using the word "or".2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like we've drifted from "mid 1990s to late 1990s to mid 2000s" to "mid 1990s or late 1990s or mid 2000s" since my first comment, we're possibly at cross purposes now. I'll just copyedit what's there. --McGeddon (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


IGen in the lede paragraph[edit]

Can anyone tell us why IGen has been chosen to be an alternate name in the lede when the terminology section spells out that there are numerous other terms in contention? 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Those other terms are Homeland Generation (Howe), a run of "other names that were proposed" from USA Today (random members of the public, presumably), post-millennials (Nickelodeon using it as a name, Carmichael using it as a frame of reference), iGen (Carmichael and Twenge) and Digitarians (Puzzo).
In terms of weight given in the article, iGen is the only other term to have had more than one source arguing for its use. --McGeddon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
We'll we're not supposed to commercialize Wikipedia. Naming them after a product does that (somewhat). 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede sentence bike shed[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. ScrpIronIV 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. ScrpIronIV 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[edit]

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+ [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:7831:a3c1:f9e8:7fe8 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 18 December 2015‎

References

  1. ^ McCrindle, Mark (18 July 2005). "Superannuation and the Under 40s: Summary Report: Research Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation" (PDF). McCrindle Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-09-21. Retrieved 6 April 2014. Generation X comprises those aged between 24 and 40... Generation Y 1982-2000...Generation Z 2001+ (page 5) 
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. ScrpIronIV 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 (talkcontribs) 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 above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lede[edit]

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... ScrpIronIV 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)

Original Research[edit]

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. ScrpIronIV 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)

Successors[edit]

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)