Talk:Generation Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NewFavicon icon.svg           Merges. Click [show] to reveal
NewFavicon icon.svg           WikiEdu banners. Click [show] to reveal


Article too long?[edit]

I'm considering adding a "too long" header at the top of the article. I noticed that Millennials already has one with 182 kB of prose [1], and Generation Z has 151 kB [2], which is pretty similarly sized. And according to WP:SIZERULE, this article "Almost certainly should be divided". But I wanted to ask for other opinions before I added the header.

As for how to fix the large size: One of my ideas was to make a separate article from Religious tendencies as well as Political views and participation, possibly Political and religious views of Generation Z. Another way to get the size down is to rehaul the Demographics section (as I mentioned in another talk page section). As for the education section, there's a variety of things we could do with it; making it a separate article could work, though the section as it stands right now might be a little broader than just Generation Z, so I don't know what such an article would be called. But I think the main issue is that there's just a lot of irrelevant (to the article) information throughout the article right now that we could get rid of. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I made the draft article Draft:Political and religious views of Generation Z by just copying the sections already in this article. It obviously has some work to do before being published, we need to develop the content and rethink its organization (possibly by country/region?) if it's going to be a full-fledged article. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Goodness sake! Kids these days are already politicized despite the fact that not all of them can even vote yet. But back to your suggestion, I think we should also consider cutting out the bits that pertain only to the United States as opposed to mentioning it in the global context for members of Generation Z in that country already have a dedicated Wikipedia article. Nerd271 (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree. Though I think we should still keep some sort of summarizing information about Generation Z so that this article doesn't become "Generation Z in the world except for the United States", and then link the US sections on this page with those summaries when possible (using see also or main article templates) BappleBusiness (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait, reading your response back, I'm now unsure what you meant. In my other response, I thought you meant removing sections pertaining to the US in this article. If you meant removing the sections pertaining to the US from the Political views article, I have mixed feelings about that. We should try to move the in-depth political information about the generation (no matter what the country) to the Political views article-- that option will allow us the most room to expand in the future. Though we can and should have a good amount of information about the subject in the US article, I think moving the main efforts to the specific Political views article makes more sense.BappleBusiness (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Political views of Generation Z[edit]

I've worked on Draft:Political views of Generation Z (which no longer includes Religious tendencies) for a while now, and I believe it's ready for mainspace. It's not perfect obviously, but the changes that need to be completed at this point are more suitable for an article rather than a draft. We need to reduce the size of this article, as I previously said in Article too long?. I think this subject in particular is especially appropriate for an article, as it can and almost definitely will grow as the generation ages. I put the split template at the top of the section to get people's attention, so please leave me your thoughts. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note that I expanded and reorganized the section in the draft, so please look at that!BappleBusiness (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Education section split into new article[edit]

As part of a continual effort to shorten this page and other generation pages though the Summary style, I was thinking about splitting the education section off due to it being extremely long. However, as I look at the section more, it seems to me that if we were to split it off, it may make more sense to call it something like Educational trends of the 21st century or 21st-century educational trends as opposed to Education of Generation Z. Since education, especially primary/secondary education, is more of a product of the decisions of older generations, it may make more sense to leave generational labels out of such an article. Any thoughts? BappleBusiness (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Educational trends of the 21st century" This would expand the scope considerably. Millennials were still in their school years in the 2000s, and part of Generation Alpha has started their school life in the 2010s. Dimadick (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes it would, but I'm not sure if that would necessarily be a bad thing. It would definitely be a more useful article than Education of Generation Z. Most of the work is already done in this article and Millennials#Education and Generation Alpha#Education. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Date range dispute[edit]

Agrso and Zillennial, I think it is time to settle your dispute regarding the date range.

Frankly, Agrso, I should report you for either edit warring or disruptive editing - for completely ignoring the consensus that you helped reach on the talk page not even a month ago (Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#Date range revertion) by readding the 2019 Irish Times source. It seems to me that you have a bias toward 1995 and you need to evaluate your editing. And honestly Zillennial, you are not completely innocent either, I think you should examine your bias towards 1997 as well. One example is shown at Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#New Source Supporting Generation Z start date at 1996 where a 1996 source was thrown out due to your preference for 1997 (by the way, I have added this source, since we cite them in other areas of the article). These biases are clear in the sources you both add, and I remind you that Wikipedia should be written in a neutral point of view and you should try to achieve balance in your sources.

I mention your editing patterns because I think (or at least want to think) that you both genuinely want to help make the article better, even if your biases (which everyone has, including myself) can get in the way. So I think it's time we establish a consensus on appropriate guidelines for what should be included in this section. If we need to, we can seek dispute resolution, but we should try to do this by ourselves first. I hope we can agree right off the bat that 1995 and 1997 will not be recognized as the sole beginning year on this article for a while; it is simply too contentious, not only here but in the actual world.

I think there are 2 main issues that need to be addressed:

  • Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?
    • On one hand, definitions are ever-changing, and including fluctuations in a source's opinion can reflect this.
    • On the other hand, including outdated definitions can hold back the encyclopedia's ability to reflect consensus and clutter an already overly-large page (see Talk:Generation Z#Article too long?, this article currently has 132 kB of readable prose).
  • What kinds of sources should be included?
    • Types of sources that have been used include: newspapers, online news publications, demographers & experts, think tanks & analytics companies, marketing firms, consulting firms, banks, government sources, and dictionaries. (let me know if I missed any)

If we can settle these issues in this discussion, we can, hopefully, end this continuous dispute. And if this doesn't, we can at least have a consensus to point to in the future. Agrso, Zillennial, and other editors, please give your opinions on the issues listed above. BappleBusiness (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have been following Wikipedia policies. Frankly BappleBusiness, you can report me for either edit warring or disruptive editing - you are free to report me anytime you want. But just so you know, I have already reported this matter to Wikipedia administrators and this resulted in Wikipedia administrators blocking user Zillennial because he violated Wikipedia policies. I was not blocked. Zillennial was blocked. In case you haven't noticed, I have regularly added sources for various different starting birth years including 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 2001 which proves that I have little bias. On the other hand, the user Zillennial rarely adds sources for any starting birth year other than 1997 and other users in the talk page have already noted this user's bias toward 1997 (this has been noted various times, check the Generation Z talk page archives). In fact, the Wikipedia administrators sided with me last time I reported user Zillennial (for violating a wide range of Wikipedia policies - you can check this user's block log). User BappleBusiness you don't seem to be a Wikipedia administrator (correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest, you seem like a relatively new Wikipedia user, so are you sure that you can threaten me and hurl these accusations? Personally I do not want to respond in a controversial manner. Wikipedia administrators have already analyzed this situation before and accordingly blocked user Zillennial. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. Best regards. ---Agrso (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Very respectfully, I don't care that you've been editing since 2007. I also never claimed that Zillennial was in the right; in fact, if you read the original post, I said that their editing practices were also problematic. I was specifically pointing out your readdition of the March 2019 Irish Times source, which you previously agreed to remove. If I couldn't trust you to create consensus, it would make it difficult to work with you (but I have noticed you removed it again, so thank you). My intention was not to threaten you at all - I don't plan to report anything; I really do believe you are working in good faith. I wanted to just summarize how toxic this discussion has become (though perhaps I went about it the wrong way) and present a solution: have a content-driven discussion about the article and establish a precedent and consensus. I can imagine that having the same content arguments over and over again for almost a year now is tiring. So please, can you give your opinions on the issues raised above so we can start such a discussion. Bapple Business (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, I will not be changing Agrso's additions and have let up since the previous months. All I have been adding is various sources that add to the changing date ranges. If you look at the newest edit I have added new sources that include a 1998 start date and readded the Strauss and Howe Generational Theory (as it is still an important source). Also, might I add that whenever Agrso has been accused of disruptive edits, they play victim instead of owning up to what has been done. Yes, in the past year or so they consistently changed the sources to fit their own personal narrative, and yes I was adding a "1997 start date" as well, which I will own up to it. I've since begun adding different view points. There's not much else to be said. I will not change Agrso's additions to the part of the article from now on UNLESS there is good reason. --Zillennial (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Because of the dispute between the two users above (Agrso and Zillennial), the 'Date and age range' section of this article has basically become inundated with years from random, non-notable newspapers or marketing/consulting companies (what makes definitions from Metro Weekly, a 2015 article from MTV, Adweek, etc. noteworthy for inclusion?). More weight should be given to ranges from demographers or those who actually research or study members of the generation. "Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?" I think so; listing that organization V used year X in 2018, year Y in 2019, year Z in 2020, and year A in 2021 is impractical; just use the year from their most recent report since that's what they're presently using to define Generation Z. I have attempted to clean up the overly long section with what I think should stay and should go per WP:WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I like your edits Some1, and I think it makes sense to limit it how you did. But two sources I was wondering why you chose to remove from your revision were the Center for Generational Kinetics and Strauss & Howe. I'm personally not sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but they do seem to be in the area of sources we would want if they are significant enough. As for Strauss & Howe, I would argue that even if one disagrees with their theory, it's hard not to acknowledge their significance in the field. The only question is whether The Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z - even though they label it as after Millennials, their date range is way off the consensus. I'm not disagreeing with your choices per se, but I'm curious to understand your thought process. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but after googling them some more after your comment, it seems like Jason Dorsey is the president of that organization and he or his company was referenced in some recent and reliable secondary sources [1][2][3][4][5] that have to do specifically with Generation Z (one of my reasons for keeping/removing the sources the way I did), so I will add that back. Strauss and Howe I asked the same; I couldn't find multiple recent and reliable secondary sources using Strauss/Howe's years for Generation Z in their research or report that primarily focuses on Gen Z. So I agree with you that their "date range is way off the consensus"; per WP:WEIGHT and WP:VNOT, their definitions don't warrant inclusion, especially when no recent reliable secondary sources use their definition of Generation Z (assuming that their Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z first). Some1 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright I'm pinging Some1 (talk) and BappleBusiness to say that from forward on I will only update the article to fit what sources are already added. The date ranges DO however change every year, the American Psychological Association uses 1998 as a starting date for Gen Z now. 1 2