|Generation 9/11 was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 28 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Generation Z. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|The content of Pluralist Generation was merged into Generation Z on 11 January 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|The content of Generation Alpha was merged into Generation Z on 28 January 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation Z article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussions if considering re-nomination:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads with no replies in 31 days may be automatically moved.|
|This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): BillyDoo2 Connecticut College students in Wiki Ed course "The Net Generation" are undertaking a significant revision of the page on 12/10/15 based on research of this topic conducted in fall 2015..|
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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 126.96.36.199 (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)
"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 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)
Workplace mindset of Generation Z vs. Generation X
While the youngest are still being born, the oldest members of Generation Z are now 19 years of age and are making the journey from full-time education to the workplace. They are eager, digital natives with a unique approach to the concept of work.
Gen Z is acutely aware that the lines between work and personal life are blurring. Work is a mindset for them, not simply a set of tasks to complete or objectives to reach. And with constant access to email and the latest collaboration platforms, most don’t switch off. But while conversations about this always-on workforce have focused on the technologies involved – the separation between work and personal devices becoming increasingly rare – little attention has been given to their mentality.
Meanwhile, younger generations are shaping their careers. Generation X are now typically reaching middle or senior management positions. Millennials are starting to make headway and rise up through the ranks. And now, of course, we have Generation Z; keen trailblazers, who are just leaving the education system and entering the world of work.
Businesses must embrace this unique mindset toward technology and the concept of work in order to harness Gen Z’s natural always-on attitude. This will prove a key tactic to embracing digitalisation, improving agility and adopting new collaboration platforms across the business.
As a case study, we can take Ricoh as an example
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  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  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)