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.

Introduction paragraph reference to "iGen"[edit] wants to include "iGen" in the introduction paragraph but there are not alot of news sources (or academics) who refer to the cohort by that name. I move to remove it and leave it under the terminology section with the reference intact as it has been for some time. "iGen" also has a commercial connotation. (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not enough sources. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Special section for iGen and Plurals name needed?[edit] wants to have special catagories for the names "iGen" and "Plurals". If so, please provide us with your reasons for -- or against below:

"iGen" --

(1) Not needed -- this term was used in the past for Millennials. See and

Jean Twenge:

"Back in 2006, Twenge, says she used the term "iGen" in a brief reference in a book she'd written. At that time, there was no iPhone or iPad. But there was an iPod and, yes, an iMac computer. She remembers getting the idea while driving to visit her mother-in-law, who lives north of San Francisco. Maybe it was because she was driving so close to Silicon Valley. It just popped into her head, she says, that iGen would be a great name for a generation — and for her book. She pleaded with the publisher to change the book's title, but the publisher found the term confusing and stuck with Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable than Ever Before".

The above book (Generation Me) is about the Millennials and younger Gen Xers -- not Gen Z. See the back cover.

(2) Not needed -- the term has a commercial connotation to it.

"Plurals" --

(1) Not needed -- why do we need a special catagory? Just let all the terms compete. (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Generation C introduction[edit]

I believe perhaps in USA Generation Z is a global adoption, but please have a look into: [1], we do use a lot also the Generation C. I don't want to argue, just add a missing additionnal world, was absolutly not told the previous version. I beg your pardon if not correctly writed, I add a few references into 'further reading'. Best regards --PaKo (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PaKo, you've got the wrong article. This article defines Generation Z as " name used for the cohort of people born after the Millennial Generation." One of your sources describes Generation C as "...a term coined by Nielsen and Booz Allen Consulting in 20101 to describe millennials." --NeilN talk to me 15:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting Google NGram posted by PaKo above but it shows discussion in books about the terms "Gen Z" and "Gen C" back in 1980? I don't think that could be right. (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If you dig deeper, you'll see that books were using A, B, C... as variables. Example. --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, okay, the book is about physics though..... (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional of Centennials to the Generation Z page[edit]

Hi, I saw that you deleted my entry to the Generation Z page - this was actually my first contribution so I am not sure what I did wrong... I added the term Centennials as another popular name referring to Gen Z, which seemed to be in line with the rest of the content on the page and I thought it was an important addition. Below are some links to recent articles that reference this. Can you explain what I did or didn't do? Thanks

This has been widely used in the media: below are some links to recent articles that reference this:


Emsparenti (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)emsparenti


  1. ^ Stung by Millennial Misses, Brands Retool for Gen Z: Marketers Make Small Bets to Catch Constantly Changing 'Centennials' We're so over you, millennials Magic Mirror vs. the Human Experience: Using Technology to Woo Millennials, Centennials (Part 1) Here Come the 'Centennials!' And, Guess What? They're Not Mostly White What Does It Mean to Be a Good Brand Ambassador? Havas Worldwide Chicago is exhibiting a new saucy side it hopes will interest Millennials Sir Martin Sorrell told us why he just created a new agency with Snapchat Move over millennials; Gen Z entering marketing fray
Emsparenti, I have copied your post to my talk page here, so other interested editors can participate in the discussion. The change you made requires sources that show that Centennials is a more popular alternative name for Generation Z than the other alternates listed in the Terminology section. --NeilN talk to me 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New info box added[edit]

This info box makes the range of dates very confusing. Why add another layer to what the lede already says. The lede was debated over a long period of time. Please see the talk page. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The year info adds nothing. --NeilN talk to me 12:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
So, we have two editors who think it does add value, and two who think it doesn't. Such is Wikipedia. ScrpIronIV 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are THAT IP....[edit]

Direct quotes are not required; a reasonable rewording of the source data supports the contribution that you reverted with this diff.[2] But, as I have had to deal with you before, I will bow out of this "discussion" and let you have your little playground before you go running to an admin over it. It's just not worth it. Oh, wait - you already did.[3] ScrpIronIV 18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, direct quotes are required. Wikipedia does not want any Original Research on its site. In fact, they want it removed "immediately". 2606:6000:610A:9000:1489:7F5B:75CB:18D5 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this why you and I were having to discuss whether to say that Generation Z was "2001+" or "2001 onwards"? Direct quotes are not required, it is fine to WP:PARAPHRASE. --McGeddon (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Beginning birth dates[edit]

Below is a discussion about birth dates back in 2013 that is useful: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:35, 14 September 2015‎ (talkcontribs) 2606:6000:610a:9000:89d9:b47b:2ee4:5cbd

(The editor had copypasted the whole of Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_2#Beginning_birth_dates here; I've cut it. Editors can click that link if they wish to read the old discussion.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)