Talk:Cusper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

So as of now it looks like this. I stuck to sources from scholarly journals, or from higher quality periodicals (Business Insider, Slate, USA Today), or published work from people with recognized expertise in generational theory or consulting (e.g. Claire Raines Associates and Graeme Codrington's Tomorrow Today). I avoided blog posts and things like them (eventhough they are cited elsewhere on Wikipedia on these topics). When I'm a little more awake I'll double check for grammar errors. I also wanted too:

• add a bit more to the Baby Boomers/Generation X section from Mark Wegiersk, Jonathan Pontell and Andrea Stone but that will have to wait. Along these lines, it seems sources disagree about the "cusperness" of Generation Jones. I think it's close enough, but it would be better to have more sources to spell this out.
• add a bit more to Generation X/Millennials from Slate and Business Insider.
• perhaps find more for G.I. Generation/Silent Generation and Millennials/Generation Z. If more sources for these can't be found, it may make sense to remove them.
• wikilink relevant noun phrases.
• I could have included On the Cusp: Understanding Those Caught Between Two Generations and What are the correct birth years for Gen Z, Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers? but found it after I had done most of my research and they didn't add much new.
• I removed On the Cusp: Understanding Those Caught Between Two Generations and My Generations – Segmenting Characteristics of Generation X, Y, & Z on WP:EL grounds, but the last one possibly could be incorporated.
• Incorporate some of the pre-2012 information on Generation X/Millennials cuspers (voting surveys, marketing research, etc). But that might be better left to the Xennial article.
• Formally request to move this to 'Cuspers' (plural) rather than 'Cusper'.

I may get around to doing those things, but for now I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader. :) Have a good day. - Scarpy (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Tweener is not a term which has any significant usage as a synonym for Generation Jones

I’ve heard this cohort between the Boomers and X’ers referred to as Generation Jones many times, but never as Tweeners. Out of curiosity, I just spent some time researching this today, and found that my experience with this is matched by the research. The term Generation Jones has been used many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times across a large number of major media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Associated Press, NBC, CNN, etc. Many notable individuals have used this term Generation Jones as well, including numerous major business, political, and entertainment figures. Moreover, many online dictionaries include the term Generation Jones to describe this cohort between Boom and X.

By contrast, the term “Tweeners” has hardly ever been used for this cohort. There are a few usages in very minor media publications, like small blogs, but no serious usage anywhere that I could find: in the media, among prominent individuals, or anywhere else. Many online dictionaries include the word “Tweener” but not with this meaning. Instead, they define Tweener to mean other things, like young people between childhood and adolescence, players who are in between two different positions in a sport, people who feel in between two different cultures, etc. None of these Tweener definitions in dictionaries, with one minor exception, make any reference to Boomers/X’ers. Even the website tweeners.org doesn’t define it that way. And looking back over the many years of contributions to this Generation Jones Wikipedia articles, I couldn’t find anybody, except Scarpy now, who has ever suggested that the term “Tweener” should be used as a synonym for Generation Jones.

Scarpy, I assume you come from a place of good faith, and care about accuracy in Wikipedia articles. From what I’ve seen of your contributions to Wikipedia, you seem like a serious contributor who has made numerous helpful and accurate edits. If you believe I’m wrong vis-a-vis my above research, please cite references in this Talk section that would back up the idea that “Tweener” has been used as a synonym for Generation Jones enough in the public to warrant that positioning in this Wiki article. Otherwise, I respectfully submit to you that it should not be included in this article. It’s not accurate to use it here, and it creates confusion in relation to the ways that the term Tweener is actually used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultureMaven2000 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the language says Tweeners is less common, but it is cited. The reference is cited in the article and was restored. - Scarpy (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Millennials/Generation Z

Shall we add that that 1999 is the latest year that this cusper group was born in? Here is the source:https://web.archive.org/web/20070316032442/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/working-life/WL00045 --Evope (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The source only lists three cusps: Traditionalist/baby boomer, Baby boomer/generation Xer, Generation Xer/millennial. None of them are Millennials/Generation Z. Some1 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That may be true but it says that the youngest Millenial was born in 1999. --Evope (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Some1 (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR and lack of WP:RS in the Millennials/Generation Z characteristics section

As it is right now, The Face, Medium, Zogo Finance, StayHipp and The Zillennial aren't WP:RS. If you disagree, I invite you to take it up on the WP:RSN. This bit: This group of people were also born during the mid-to late 90's when the annual birthrates of Millennials (echo-boomers) decreased starting in 1994. cites population data, but that source isn't specifically discussing the cusper microgeneration that I can see. So this is WP:OR. This bit: Hitting its highest negative change in 1998, and then slowing back down in 1999. is the same story. This bit: Zillennials are often the children of Generation Jones. cites the Wikipedia article on Generation Jones, so is also WP:OR.

I've been content to let this section stay with better source or citation needed tags or something like that in the past, but it's not had the desired effect as the sources provided are increasingly WP:ORish. - Scarpy (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:ImoutoCompAlex and 2600:1700:C710:21E0:CD88:4ABB:BBA2:D561, please discuss your changes here on the article talk page. Some1 (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC) These sources provided by WGSN and Ketchum are valid and recent sources. There is no societal consensus on what is or is not a cusper, and there is no more gatekeeping to these institutions proposed ranges as the other two that ImoutoCompAlex wants to keep on the page. Smit isn't trying to gatekeep 1992 and Jill Goldsmith isn't trying to gatekeep 1993. Every other cusper group on this page has a variety of institutions and their differing ranges provided. The Boomer cusp sources span 16 years on either end. People should be able to see and reference these sources, and come to their own decision whether or not they agree with any institution's cusper range — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C710:21E0:6562:F4A3:FA0:FD4F (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Editors that aren't familiar with WP:RSP may want to read that. We could bring them to WP:RSN if it's really contentious. My take is basically that... yeah this isn't an exact science. But the sources for WGSN and Ketchum are self-published (see WP:SPS). They haven't been vetted or peer-reviewed by an independent publisher or journal. (PRWEB just publishes press releases, so it's essentially self-published). So I'm not thrilled about either of these sources. - Scarpy (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks for weighing in, Scarpy. I thought since they were attributed to the organizations ("as identified by [whichever organization here]"), that those would be fine since they are the opinions of the organizations itself. But you make a great point about self-published sources and we shouldn't include those here; we don't want this article to become an exhaustive list of whatever non-notable people/companies think or use. I also removed the Buzzfeed source that was recently added since it seemed more like a humor, opinion piece and the author isn't an expert in the field. Some1 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Apologies for the misunderstanding, it just seemed as though the page was undergoing gatekeeping. Are we sure the WGSN article is self-published? Are we certain of the validity of the Vice article as well? Examining (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC) To halt the ongoing edit war, I've applied full protection for 2 days. During this time, I recommend setting up a request for comment or escalating the sourcing dispute to the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 12:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Are all the ranges provided for the various cusper groups peer-reviewed? And one can argue they are less notable, but any less notable than some of the other writers referred to as sources on this page? The two companies had wikipedia pages that I linked so people could investigate the institutions to make their own educated decisions. What makes the opinions of some of these writers Graeme Codington, Susan Mitchell, Don Smit, and some of these institutions like Merriam-Webster, Business Insider, and Vice more vetted than WGSN and Ketchum? None of this seems like a hard science. Each other cusper group has a variety of opinions and ranges offered and none of them are definitive or proven. And then while I understand about avoiding a crowding issue, other cusper groups have 4 or 5 provided sources as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C710:21E0:9133:1ABD:2197:AAF0 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC) How about using the following source: Ubl, Hannah L, Lisa X. Walden, and Debra Arbit. Managing Millennials for Dummies. , 2017. Internet resource. It is published by Wiley. It does discuss generational theory, the concept of cuspers, and cusper ranges that would include a Millennial/Gen Z cusp range of 1992-1998 and a Gen X/Millennial cusp of 1976-1982. It is discussed on page 266. Would this source be more acceptable and work in tandem with the WGSN source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C710:21E0:9133:1ABD:2197:AAF0 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Scarpy, since you did a great job re-writing the Cusper article, could you answer the recent influx of questions and concerns that these new editors and IPs have? Whatever your answer is to them, I'm completely fine with; I just don't want them to continue re-adding and/or removing these disputed content after the page protection expires in the next two days. Also pinging Nerd271 and Kolya Butternut if they'd like to weigh in since they are experienced editors who have edited this article before. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I'm good with Managing Millennials for Dummies. Would add "1992-1998 according to Hannah L. Ubl, Lisa X. Waldenand and Debra Arbit" -Scarpy (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Yep, that book looks like a good source to me too; nice find, IP. Reading some of the excerpts, it also lists 1976-1982 for the Gen X/Millennial cusp, so that can be added too. Some1 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you all for taking the time to work with me on these edits. I do appreciate y'all taking the time out of your weekend. I am not sure why ImoutoCompAlex hasn't joined this discussion so far, but hopefully the user will also recognize the validity of this source. Since the page is currently under protection, would one of you admin editors be able to add the ranges and citations to their respective cusper sections? Also, the book identifies the X/Millennial cusp (1976-1982) as the Oregon Trail Generation and the Millennial/Z cusp (1992-1998) as the Snapchat generation. Could those names could be included under the characteristic sections as well? And my final question would be can the WGSN source that also used the 1992-1998 cusper range be used as a secondary/supplementary source in addition to this book source similar to how Vice is used as a secondary source for the 1993-1998 range? Or there is this other article I found that discusses millennials and their cusps that also uses the 1976-1982 X/millennial cusp and 1992-1998 Millenial/Z cusp ranges. Is this a more acceptable source to use as a supplement to the book source I found? http://www.toposophy.com/insights/insight/?bid=511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Page protection ends on February 21, 2021, at 12:43 UTC (tomorrow), so you should be able to add the information from the book to the respective sections in the article using the citation Scarpy created of the book above by then. WGSN and Ketchum are both self-published sources and should not be included in the article; the 'toposophy' link does not look reliable either so it should not be included. Some1 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you Scarpy and Some1 for the help. Generational theory and cuspers has been an interest of mine lately, so I am glad to be able to collaborate with y'all in updating this page since Millennial/Z cusp is a relatively new subject and its section on this page was pretty empty. I went out and found another book source that also discusses generations and cuspers with cusp range alternatives since I know ImoutoCompAlex appeared to have some issue with a cusp including 1992 despite yet having to join this discussion to explain why. This book source includes a variety of cusp groups between Traditionalists & Gen Z and with an alternative ranges such as a X/Millennial cusp of 1979-1984 and a Millennial/Z cusp of 1996-2001. These cusps are discussed on pages 10 and 11 of this book source: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sticking_Points/PDTUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sticking+points:+how+to+get+5+generations&printsec=frontcover I would like to verify with y'all if this source is okay because I do believe that people should be able to see that there are a variety of definitions/research of cusp ranges out there. I hope that with another point of view shared on the cusper range can demonstrate to ImoutoCompAlex that one cusper range isn't the end all be all.2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I’m skeptical about the publisher for ‘’Sticking Points’’ as it looks like it’s a religious group and may not have the same level of review as academic sources. If you really want to add it see what WP:RSN says. If they disagree than I’m fine with it. - Scarpy (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Scarpy, I did a search and the only past commentary I saw on Tyndale when searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources was: "Tyndale House (publisher) is an unrelated conservative US religious publisher, one of good reputation, but not remotely in the same academic league [as Tyndale House (Cambridge)]". Is a good reputation enough, or should I ask the noticeboard of reliable sources page 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Scarpy and Some1, a couple people have commented in regards to my inquiry of Tyndale House on the WP:RSN that I made yesterday. So far they seem okay with the publisher and me using the source for this page. I will tentatively add the source and ranges to the cusper page. However if the consensus on my inquiry of Tyndale House changes, I will understand if the source is to be taken down. Centennial357 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks for going to the RS Noticeboard and adding those in. Some1 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I actually checked out Managing Millennials for Dummies and it has a lot of valuable information that can be included in the characteristics/traits section for both Gen X/Millennial cusp as well as Millennial/Gen Z (identified as "Gen Edge" in the book) cusp. Unfortunately it seems like gatekeeping may be an issue here. Examining (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I'm glad that you found that source valuable. I definitely agree. To follow-up on your concern of gatekeeping would be: is every range with a valid source on this wiki page gatekeeping? I do not believe the intention for any sources is to purposefully leave out the years before or after, they are just providing ranges that fit their respective research. I think it's beneficial for the other cusper groups that they have a few sources with a variety of ranges to show that no one range is the definitively correct one. If only one range is approved to be up for the Millennial/Gen Z cusp, then I think only one accepted range would appear more like gatekeeping. Would you be able to look at the second book link I provided as well. If that source is also good, then we can add two ranges: 1992-1998 from the first source and 1996-2001 from the second book to provide a variety of research and perspectives. Thanks for taking the time to look at the first source, and thank you if your able to look at the second book as well. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Oh no, I didn't mean that directed at the source nor to you 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8. I'm actually pretty impressed with the extent of your research on this topic and I fully agree that a range of dates should be shown because each of those seem valid and because I've seen a range of accepted dates to include 1992 to 1998, 1993 to 1998, and 1996 to 2001. It just unfortunately seems as though certain users and communities may be resistant. Scanning other forums, I have seen 1992 as a year that is rigorously gatekept from the cusp and it seems like that was the case in the recent editing wars. Examining (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Honestly, thank you so much Examining. As someone who has been delving into other forums out there that focus on generational theory, 1992 is a year heavily gatekept from the Millennial/Z cusp, and the reasons for gatekeeping doesn't often appear to be based on objective studies, facts, or research, but more based on their feelings or opinions of the topic. I also fear that personal biases led to the editing war in the first place. I find it odd that the other user has not joined this conversation so far. But, I would like to make sure that there are a variety of vetted resources with differing cusp ranges on here so that people can use this wikipedia page as a jumping off point to find some more legitimate material to refer to than solely relying on the personal beliefs people hold and share on forums. I am glad to see that "Managing Millennials for Dummies" has valuable material to add to this page for the X/Millennial and Millennial/Z cusps. Please let me know if the second book "Sticking Points: How to get 5 generations working together" could be another useful source to refer to on this page so that we could also add another cusp option of 1996-2001. Thanks for your time. And hopefully with the help from all of you, other users won't be so quick to just remove ranges from this page just because they don't agree with them. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC) What is there to join in on this conversation? This is complete bullshit. The Overwhelming consensus among users in generational forums online is that 1992 is not a cusper year regardless of what these biased studies show. I'll take polling data from generation online communities with thousands of participants over the whims of market researchers who don't know what they are talking about. There are simply no objective facts, theory or evidence that make 1992 a cusper year more so than 1991 for example. If you include 1992 then include 1991 and I'll make the argument that you're gatekeeping 1991 from cusper years. ImoutoCompAlex (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC) The admins already went ahead and said that the WGSN and Ketchum sources with their two ranges could not be used as sources due to them being self-published ranges. I respect that decision. However the other book source I provided is a peer-reviewed and published academic source, which is not made by just marketers like the self-published sources. And what published academic material are these generational forums going off of? Did you go and read what the published source has to say? There is nothing objective about these forums if they are going based off of what "feels right to them" instead of using actual academic sources to back up their claims. Additionally, does 1000 members of a forum that is a hobby without any academic credentials reflect the experience of millions of people? No source on this cusper page is trying to gatekeep anyone; they are just providing ranges that fit their research. And would the members on these forums agree with all the ranges for the other cusper groups on this page? I do not think so, but do you see them deleting every valid academic source and range on this page just because they don't like it? No. If you can find a valid academic source that includes 1991, then the admin editors on Wikipedia will let you include it. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC) This is such a trash move on your end. I seriously hate you. Based off of a marketing booking called "managing millennials for dummies" that no one has given a review or star rating for, you're now allowing 1992 borns to be cuspers but gatekeeping 1991 borns as "old millennials." Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImoutoCompAlex (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC) I'll argue that you're gatekeeping 1991 then for the devil's advocate. How about this source that pits 1991 as a cusper year where they are defined as Genzennials? Genzennials A genzennial is someone born between 1991-2001 who identifies with both Millennial and Generation Z culture. If you're going to stretch the cusp to such a massive scale then might as well include 1991 as a cusper year? Or what is the almighty reasoning for me apparently gatekeeping 1992 but YOU are allowed to gatekeep 1991? Again this is complete bullshit and totally selective based on the whims of market researchers making up date ranges. What;s more important are the actually number of people who identify with certain years by percentage. reddit's Zillennials community and Facebook's Born Zillennial with over 100k members have both done this. Far more objective and data driven polling evidence than any of these books could provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImoutoCompAlex (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC) @ImoutoCompAlex:, please check out WP:Reliable sources if you haven't already, specifically: WP:USERGENERATED, which says Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs... Internet forums... social media sites... Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are ...Twitter...Facebook...Instagram...Reddit.... Also see WP:RSSELF (which applies to the 'Genzennials' website you just added) which says Anyone can create a personal web page... and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Some1 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC) References

Supplementary Sources

Scarpy and Some1, I am starting a new talk section since the last one has been closed. I know you two weren't in favor of the WGSN & Ketchum's self-published ranges. However, I was wondering if I could make an appeal in regards to the WGSN source. ( Just in case, here is the link to their case study once again: https://www.wgsn.com/insight/p/article/88103?lang=en ). I read online that case studies are considered a valuable tool in marketing, but I wasn't sure if this case study was enough research to bring more merit to using the source. Additionally, it appears that their Xennial and Zennial cusper ranges line up perfectly with the ranges used by the Managing Millennials for Dummies source. Could this case study by WGSN be used as a supplementary source supporting the range provided by Managing Millennials as the primary/anchor source for said range? Centennial357 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the WGSN source either way; if it gets added back in, I'm not going to remove it. Some1 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

More redundancy doesn’t strike me as a good reason, and we’re opening the article and the topic up to more criticism.

An exercise to consider — think about this article from the perspective of a skeptical reader. Someone looking to dissect and debunk the concepts contained within it. They would be right to ask “what is the science behind the concept of cuspers and why is it important?” If the references are often self-published and self-serving marketing research does that help our hurt the legitimacy of the concept? How about if the publishers of the sources are religious fundamentalists?

What it will look like to them (and increasingly to me on the topic of the most recent group of cuspers) is that it’s a barely recognized concept and that some authors scraped sources together from the bottom of the barrel then used them to duct-tape some fragile paragraphs together.

I get that the millennial/z cuspers want and deserve recognition like other cuspers, but you’re selling them short and doing them a disservice if you use junk to justify their existence on Wikipedia. It’s better to wait for the sources to appear and good research to be done than to write something weak and difficult to take seriously. - Scarpy (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia page really shouldn't be free advertisement for non-notable people. Haydn Shaw is a consultant and speaker, and markets himself as a "leading expert on the multiple generations, leadership, change management". This website says he is also "an ordained minister who speaks and consults with churches and religious organizations." Note that all of his books have been published by Tyndale [1], and the missions of the publisher are to "minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through literature consistent with biblical principles"[2] and "[publish] conversation-starting books that dig into real life issues with a Christian perspective."[3] Shaw's first book was "Generational IQ: Christianity Isn't Dying, Millennials Aren't the Problem, and the Future is Bright". From the book that is currently in the article, the cusper ranges are taken from a table and there was only a short, generic paragraph about cuspers in general. Plus, none of his books have been peer-reviewed or cited by reliable, independent third parties sources, which makes this even more promotional-ish, hence my removal. Some1 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some1 & Scarpy, I am going to play devil's advocate in regards to the Shaw source since you both have different reservations. Are we certain that Haydn Shaw is non-notable? He seems to have received strong remarks from both HuffPost (https://www.huffpost.com/author/haydn-shaw) & Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/11/11/how-millennials-are-disrupting-the-global-workforce/?sh=7686f7976654), both stating that he has been researching generations in the workplace for decades, and they mention that he has received positive remarks from both TIME and The Washington Post. His book (going to guess the first edition since the second edition I cited just came out at the end of 2020) has been cited 48 times per a scholar.google.com search. And while he may be an ordained minister, does that take away from him having a bachelor's and a master's degree in Organizational Administration & Leadership? (https://www.linkedin.com/public-profile/in/haydnshaw?challengeId=AQFnMHe-2rp3GwAAAXfv-S-OcDT0KGNREYDJWKoMSkHuGNIb3_bv4hc84yq8zMuoBM5o_IwC8VjZFlchdX_APDtRo2bUGuxhtw&submissionId=cd7c95e9-7359-6816-a5e1-e7efb56a810e). I understand not referring to a book of his focused on solely a religious sub-demographic, but the Sticking Points doesn't appear to be focused on taking any religious specific slant. Lastly, I don't believe that every religious institution loses credibility as a source. While I am not claiming that Tyndale Publishers is anywhere near the academic prestige of institutions such as the University of Notre Dame or Georgetown University, these universities for example also have Christian missions, do academic research on religious topics, as well as research in a variety of other fields, but I do not think people would write them off or be so skeptical for them having a religious foundations/associations. So just as those Christian universities can research areas outside of their Christian scope, could Tyndale Publishers be publishing material that is not necessarily religious as long as its not seen as offensive to their religious beliefs? To be honest, I do not see how generations in the workplace would have anything to do with upsetting a Christian. While I believe skepticism should be taken towards any source, I think Haydn Shaw appears to have noted experience in this field unless the sources I linked are heavily playing him up. And if he is indeed is well-versed in the subject matter, I do not see why not to refer to his work, even if he has only used Tyndale House as his publisher, which I did run by the reliable sources noticeboard. At the end of the day, if you both still want the source down, I will understand. This is a collaborative effort, and I want to update this article the right way. However, I just wanted to make sure we had the full picture on Haydn Shaw Centennial357 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

unless the sources I linked are heavily playing him up, yes, that. The HuffPost link is a profile that is written by Shaw himself, since it says Contributor and isn't an actual piece written by HuffPost. And the Forbes article is written by a 'Former Contributor' (hover over the icon and it says "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own'); see 'Forbes.com Contributor' under WP:RSPSOURCES. Even a quick glance at the first page of Google results on Haydn Shaw shows he's not notable. Anyone can claim that they're an expert in a field or subject, and we don't know if Shaw is actually an "expert" or not since there's no reliable, independent third party sources calling him or citing him as one; he just claims that he is. (He is a consultant with his own business focused around generations, of course he's going to say he's an expert in the field.) Some1 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Centennial357 I largely agree with Some1 here. There's plenty of smart and accomplished Christians in the world, and if the publisher was more scholarly/academic I wouldn't have an issue with Hayden Shaw as the author. I know that WP:RSN weighed in here and I'm backpeddling a little bit, but their answer surprised me in a way that I didn't expect: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330#Tyndale_House: I would not cite this source on the Armenian Genocide article, for example. Academic sources are usually available for theology and are preferable to this source, but it's probably a reliable source on conservative Christianity and the cusper article isn't anything that would require a higher standard of sourcing. It's sort of saying "this is a source that you can get away with using" it's not saying "this is a preferred source for this topic." I was disappointed with the opinion of RSN on the topic of the cusper article in general and was surprised by it--this notion that it's in some category of articles that don't require scholarly sources. I certainly didn't write my contributions to it thinking of it that way and I suspected it would be attacked if I did (there were plenty at the time that didn't even take the existence of Xennials seriously). - Scarpy (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy I will accept the backtracking in regards to the Shaw source. I understand the hesitation and the reasoning behind taking it down, and I will not be pushing that source any further. However, I still don't completely understand the reasoning for taking down the WGSN case study. It provides their methods, data, and their conclusions drawn from the data they collected. It seems transparent to whomever checks out the source. While other cusper groups have sources that I don't see what research/data they are drawing their conclusions from. For example, the Vice article for the millennial/Z cusp, the first Business Insider article for the X/millennial cusp, and USA Today article for the Jonesers all seem more based upon opinion/point of view of the writers than citing research/data that explains how they drew their conclusions. What makes their opinions better to use as sources than using a case study that explains where it drew its conclusions from? I honestly thought the case study was very interesting to read on the matter of why they viewed 1992-1998 as a cohort. Centennial357 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Centennial On WP:RSPSOURCES USA Today is green, Vice and Business Insider are yellow (no consensus). If in the latter case the go red, removing then would likely make sense. Even opinion sections have editors and are fact-checked by news outlets and I’m good with sourcing factual claims made from them and opinions attributed properly.

As far as WSGN goes — their methods may be innovative and impeccable. If so they should be able to have them published in a peer-reviewed journal. If I check the Marketing category on Scopus there’s 237 marketing journals. There’s not a lack of places to publish their work if it’s that good. - Scarpy (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I may walk this back a little bit. It seems that WGSN does have something of a reputation in the scholarly literature as a good source for traditional fashion forecasts. For fashion trend forecasts generated in a traditional approach, this study collected data from WGSN, a world-renowned service provider for fashion trend forecasting (WGSN, 2019). WGSN’s trend analysis is consistently cited throughout academic literature as one of the most trusted sources for traditional fashion forecasts (Jackson, 2007; Rousso, 2012). this is from one of the few places I saw it discussed, however. [4] ... yeah... ehh.... fashion forecasting isn’t quiet the same as generational theory, but... if you want to add WGSN back I won’t complain. - Scarpy (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Scarpy for digging and finding that out. I appreciate you taking the time to look at the study and for looking deeper into WGSN. Examining posted in the reliable sources about WGSN and no one after several days has commented on it. This is good to know. Centennial357 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloomberg Press Release

Scarpy and Some1, as you two probably have guessed, I am still on the hunt for articles & studies out there for cuspers, especially the Millennial/Z cusp group. I came across a press release made by Bloomberg about a study pertaining to GenZennials. From what I can tell Bloomberg is considered a reputable source, so does them doing a press release of someone's study give that study more reliability. In the press release it includes the study's methodology, data, and conclusions. Here is a link: https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-08-07/telaria-and-sling-tv-research-reveals-connected-tv-is-key-to-reaching-undecided-genzennial-voters-ahead-of-the-2020-presidential

I think the study offers a very interesting perspective of this cusper group and their relationship to technology and media, and where they look to for information when it comes to political events. Definitely an interesting piece to the puzzle about the cusper group's mentality and behavior. Please let me know what y'all think. Centennial357 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The study doesn't talk about Cusper groups nor the Millennial/Generation Z cusp; they just call the group of people they surveyed GenZennials. Trying to reach or imply a conclusion that is not directly stated by the source is an example of WP:Original research, and Wikipedia has policies against adding OR to articles. Some1 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Some1, I am confused, does one have to use the word cusper in a study or article for it to count? The study is discussing the unique experience of a specific group that they said had the name of GenZennial. Would GenZennial mean anything other than the cusper group when the term is connected to the cohort when the term is searched? And would the issue hold the same if they did a study on other age ranges and their behaviors if they listed an age range that they referred to as Xennial or Gen Jones? Centennial357 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Telaria did an online survey of those ages 18-29 (per the Methodology section: "An online survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of 1,500 respondents, age 18-29.") and they just called the group they surveyed GenZennials for short. Nothing more is stated than that. Implying or trying to reach the conclusion that GenZennials is somehow a Millennial/Gen Z cusper group, or that GenZennial is a name for the Millennial/Gen Z cusp, is WP:Original research (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources) since none of that is stated or supported directly by the source (see the first sentence of this comment again). For all we know, they probably called them GenZennials because the people they surveyed included people from the Millennial generation and Generation Z and they didn't want to be too wordy or repetitive in their report. But we don't know, since it's not stated by the source. Xennials and Generation Jones are cusper group names that have been established by reliable sources; "GenZennials" is not and saying "Would GenZennial mean anything other than the cusper group when the term is connected to the cohort when the term is searched?" is WP:OR, since, again, these are "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Some1 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Basically, since there has been no majority consensus on what the millennial/Z cusp label should be, we can not assume that they used GenZennial to refer to cuspers? You're right, they do not explicitly say why they used the label GenZennial. Even though I find it odd that they used it in the first place if they weren't referring to a specified generational cohort. They could have used "young voters," "voting block," "these voters," "this cohort/group," etc. instead of a generational portmanteau. Centennial357 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but for somewhat different reasons. Primarily, Wikipedia has specific guidelines regarding press releases, see WP:PRSOURCE. It's also worth pointing out that while it's on Bloomberg, it's syndicated from Business Wire.

What they're calling GenZennial here are people born between 1990 and 2000. I usually see the mark for Gen Z starting around 1997, so this is a group with cuspers, but I agree it does feel a bit ORish in the sense that they're not specifically looking at cuspers. It's more people born in a 10 year timespan. For example, you could study a group of people born from 1970-1980 that kind of overlaps with what most people call "Xennials" but they but it's not trying to home in on "how do people born at the end of the Xer and beginning of Millennial generations behave?" I also followed the link and can't get to the actual study linked from the press release [5]. - Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Well the 1997 Gen Z start date seems to be a more recent popular start date in the last couple of years. You could have sources or countries to this day that are pushing for a 1995 start and then plus or minus 5 years gets one 1990-2000. Then I agree that the phrasing is nebulous because out first they are referring to people who would be 18-29 in 2020 for the election as GenZennial which would be 1991-2002. However, when they did the survey, did they limit the survey to just the people that would be 18-29 in 2020 or all people who were 18-29yr olds of 2019? Then in reference to your other comment, if they did study the voting trends of 1970-1980 borns would a researcher call them Xennial for short without meaning they were all Xennials? I wouldn't think someone would do that. Would definitely be odd. Plus there shouldn't be an issue on cusp length when a Silent/Boomer cusp has a source that spans 13 years and the Boomer/X cusp has a source that spans 12 years. Centennial357 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we're slightly veering off topic here; the issues with the source have nothing to do with cusp length; it has to do with the source being a press release and about how using the source in this article fails WP:No original research, as explained by the comments above. As Scarpy said, the study is not specifically looking at cuspers and has nothing to do with cuspers or generations. The study is looking at how "CTV political advertising" affects eligible voters under the age of 30 (which is why they surveyed people ages 18-29). Instead of labeling their respondents "young adults," they decided to come up with a different name to use in their report. That's pretty much all there is to it. Some1 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I followed the link Scarpy provided for press releases, but it didn't really clear the air for this source since the PRSOURCE blurb discussed more a concern about effusive self-praise, while this was Bloomberg sharing a study and not talking anything up per se. My initial question was more is Bloomberg reliable - which the reliability boards seemed to say it was - and would such a well known agency be sharing this study if it didn't hold merit? However, I see that you found a concern with the source that was unrelated to my initial question. I get it, since GenZennial isn't considered the definitive name for the cusper group and since the study didn't explicitly state why they chose to use the term GenZennial for the cohort they did the study on, we can't assume that their intentions were to use the term to refer to them as a cusper group. The term hasn't reached the level of Xennials or Gen Jones. And I only made a comment about cusp length due to Scarpy having a reservation to the proposed range of the study due to the start of the group being a distance from 1997. I didn't mean to cause any trouble Centennial357 (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No trouble was caused so don't worry. I didn't mention anything about press releases in my first two comments since my chief concern with the source was WP:Original research. I'm glad that we both agree now that the source fails WP:NOR. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t want to ruin the congenial tone, but a couple of points. I didn’t give an opinion on the size of a cusper date range. If this study was attempting to focus on cuspers, we could easily find out by reading the study, but searching the name I see nothing in Google Scholar [6]. Wherever it was published, we can be prettt certain it wasn’t in a peer-reviewed journal.

I’m a little worried about a slippery slope here. I get that you want to find sources. Start with Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic. You might have some luck with Google Books. There’s some other suggestions in the template at the top of the talk page. There may not be a lot there, but the oldest Millennial/Z is 29. It may just take sometime. - Scarpy (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy and Some1, I want to address the slippery slope notion. There is a reason I ran this source by you two in the first place. From what I could tell, Bloomberg was considered a reputable/reliable source on the noticeboard archives, which is the only reason I thought it was worth pursuing in the first place. I come across plenty of stuff that I can tell wouldn't make the cut as a viable source on here, but when I come across something that may have more merit - which I thought something shared on Bloomberg would be, I'm going to run it by y'all. I recognized that it wasn't an article or study written by Bloomber directly, ergo, my initial hesitation and reaching out to y'all. I still wonder why Bloomberg decided to share the study in the first place, but I understand Some1's reasoning for not using it. I'll probably come across and run three times as many sources that end up falling short than the ones that y'all see making the cut. I'm sorry if that comes off as a nuisance, but I'm trying to collaborate and improve this page the right way. So call it wishful thinking since as you said Scarpy, the Millennial/Z cuspers are still just in their 20s, and I acknowledge that. However, I have come across a couple solid sources so far, and I may come across more. Thank you two for taking the time to work with me. It is appreciated. I am dropping this source and off to hunt for something else Centennial357 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

They might have published it because someone emailed it to them? They “publish” (syndicate) a lot of press releases [7]. What would make you think this was any different? - Scarpy (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

if you think we’re being hardasses here check out some of the exchanges I had in Talk:Xennials/Archive 1 and Template talk:Generations sidebar/Archive 1. When I’m talking about skeptical people, they’re some of the characters I have in mind. The more the article relies on scholarly sources the less we open ourselves up to editors that say “this only exists in the popular press and is therefore irrelevant by comparison to other topics” (paraphrasing). We’re wise avoid tempting fate by unnecessarily increasing the proportion of sources used in the article that are just barley passed the reliability mark. Eventually someone like that will find themselves reading this page and decide throw their weight around. we don’t want to make it easy to criticize. - Scarpy (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Scarpy, I do not think you're being difficult. I'm new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm still learning the ropes and ins and outs of adding to the page. I really do appreciate both of your guidance in the matter. I will get the hang of it with time, and I am glad to see that Wikipedia has measures to make sure that articles on here aren't just free rein for putting up just anything. I don't think many people realize that their are measures in place to try to bring real information to the table. Centennial357 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Would it make sense to say that the Zillennial microgeneration could be anyone born from 1993 to 2001, almost synonymous with the length of Bill Clinton's presidency?

47.150.227.254 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs WP:Reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Popsugar

Scarpy and Some1, I am going to clarify from the get-go that I don't see this as an academic source. I view a recent popsugar article in the same light as I see as the USA Today source for the Boomer/X cusp, the first Business Insider article for the Xer/Millennial cusp, and the Vice article used for the Millennial/Z cusp. They weren't citing any studies or published books. Instead, those articles were written based on reflections of the writers' experiences for the stated cusp age group in said articles, and this popsugar article reads very similarly to them.

The article: https://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/what-are-zennials-48195753

The RSN archive on popsugar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#PopSugar states that popsugar has a gatekeeping process that makes it liable, and that it has been sourced by known RSs, but to keep it to non-BLP entertainment related subjects. And this popsugar article discussing Zennial cuspers & the current "generation war" is a media/entertainment topic current to Millennial and Gen Z relations.

Similar to the currently cited articles for the other cusper groups, I think many in the suggested Zennial age range of the article - 1992-1998 - the same range used by the Managing Millennials & WGSN sources - would relate to the experiences stated in this article, as Jonesers did for the USA Today Article or Xennials did for the first business insider article.

It appears it was even shared on an ABC news talk show in the past few days: https://www.abc4.com/gtu/do-you-feel-left-out-of-the-generational-war-you-might-be-a-zennial/ As can be seen by the description of the Zennial segment in text below the clip, it reads exactly the same as the beginning of this popsugar article.

So again, I understand this isn't an academic published book, journal article or study, but I thought it was of a similar vein to some of the other non-academic articles sourced on the page, so why not run it by you two Centennial357 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

for content or to add another citation to a date range? Both? - Scarpy (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say both. There is another cusper range on the page with 3 citations, so I'm sure number of citations isn't the issue in of itself. However, I would like to flesh out the characteristics section more than possibly other cuspers' characteristics sections because the millennial/Z cusp does not have a separate page devoted to it, unlike Gen Jones and Xennials. I believe that it would aid writing the section to have as many sources as possible - naturally - and this source helps balance out the others. I think each source offers a different perspective that when synthesized together will make a better Millennial/Z cusper description, and this article is currently relevant. The millennial vs gen Z "generation war" has been getting media attention and has been a societal topic of debate. Even my Joneser mom was talking to me about "side parts" and "skinny jeans" from this clash entering popular discourse, and I think an article like this one is drawing some popular attention for the first time for this cusper group that feels caught in the middle of this frenzy. Plus, I know that I resonated with the experience discussed in this article and I do fall in this age range, even comments like our parents thinking that our baby beanie collections would be worth a lot one day hit home with me. Like the other cusper groups having the more personal self-reflective articles listed before, this one offers a more "grounded"/"real"/"down to earth" take on the cusper experience that could help round out the description. With all that in mind, as long as I cite these resources that I have found, am I good to bring life to the characteristics section of the millennial/Gen Z cusper section in lieu of a devoted page to said cusp? Centennial357 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts: The first Business Insider article for the X/Millennials cusp looks like a supplement for the second Business Insider article; I rearranged it so the preferable one is placed first. I also wouldn't say the PopSugar article is on the same vein as the USA Today or Vice articles, since the PopSugar one is an obvious opinion piece written in first person, whereas the other two are not. I also noticed that none of the 'Characteristics' sections are sourced using these types of sources (Vice, USA Today, Business Insider, etc.). Some1 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The second business insider article - if supplementary or not - is written in first person using both first person singular and plural, just like the Popsugar article is written, and that business insider article was seen as sufficient to be cited. Then the other articles like the Vice and USA Today are built around a handful of interview quotes and observations of the writer, which also seems very opinion piece oriented when they aren’t built upon published literature/studies of generations. And to your other point, if these articles are considered viable enough to be cited on the page for date ranges, why would the sources not be acceptable to also cite in their respective characteristics sections? I still think this article is very pertinent to popular discourse on generations - and a cusper group - in the country currently, which doesn’t capture such attention often in popular discourse. Centennial357 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The second Business Insider article is used as a supplement for the date range also sourced to Business Insider, but it can be removed since the other Business Insider citation worked fine on its own. As I stated before, nothing in the 'Characteristics' sections are cited to Vice or USA Today or any other opinion-like pieces. This is because we can't assert an author's own opinions and experiences as if they're facts that characterize the whole cusp or group of people. I understand you are enthusiastic about this topic and find these opinion pieces personally relatable, but I just want to repeat the comment made by another editor above since it needs to be said again: "I get that the millennial/z cuspers want and deserve recognition like other cuspers, but you’re selling them short and doing them a disservice if you use junk to justify their existence on Wikipedia. It’s better to wait for the sources to appear and good research to be done than to write something weak and difficult to take seriously. Some1 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what if it’s used as a supplementary source for the range in the same way the other sources are - because I think people will find it of interest to read like those other articles, but then don’t use the material in the characteristics section? It could be citing the news clip or the article itself. It is relevant to the current popular discourse happening today in regards to Millennial vs Gen Z culture. Centennial357 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "use it as a supplementary source"? If I'm understanding your usage of "supplementary sources" correctly, which you've used before in the previous discussions, you're thinking "here is a date range, and these are all the sources that support this particular range." If so, that's not correct; the sources themselves dictate which date ranges are added to the article and if there's more than one sources supporting a particular date range, it's because all those sources use that particular date range. Anyway, I think adding the ABC4 news clip as a citation to the 'Zennial' name in the first sentence of the Characteristic section is fine. Regarding adding random articles to a Wikipedia page for the sole reason of them being "relevant to the current popular discourse happening today", that is not a strong argument for inclusion as there's million of articles out there that are relevant to people's lives today but they don't get added to Wikipedia for the sake of it being "relevant to what's happening today." Otherwise, Wikipedia articles will become inundated with junk. Some1 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So use the ABC 4 news clip as another source for the 1992-1998 range as stated in the clip & can cite it for the name Zennial in the characteristic section as stated in the clip? I really don’t mean to be difficult, but when the article seems to meet the reliable source noticeboard’s use of Popsugar material and seems in a similar vein to a few other sources listed be it the business insider one with first person perspective and the others with a few interview quotations and observations of the writer which also seem more opinion/interest piece. Interesting non-academic articles to read. Centennial357 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I think we came up with a compromise. And "Interesting non-academic articles to read" isn't an argument for content inclusion, see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Some1 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, compromise met, thank you Some1 Centennial357 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I had to revert my self-revert since the ABC4 article didn't really "identify" those ranges; the ABC4 article text made it seem like they did but in the video, they plagiarized the PopSugar article without mentioning PopSugar. I see that Yahoo! had shared PopSugar's article [8] so now I'm okay with it being in the article in the Date ranges section. The ABC4 source works fine for the Zennials name citation so that can be left in. Some1 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Some1 for looking further into it and making the updates Centennial357 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Gen Z/Alpha

Does it mean that the Gen Z/Alpha Cusp generation born between 2010 to 2015?

SonicTV64 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent WFXB Broadcast

Scarpy and Some1, hey guys, has been a while. Hope you’re having a good start to summer.

Still keeping an eye out for references of my fellow Zillennials, and I came across a broadcast made by a Fox affiliate a week ago discussing Zillennials. I understand it’s a short segment, but it discussed 1992-1998 Zillennials carving out their own identity and demonstrates the cusper group is gaining more traction in popular consciousness:

https://www.wfxb.com/2021/05/26/theres-a-new-term-for-people-who-arent-a-millennial-or-genz/

Thought I’d run it by y’all Centennial357 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m good with the source. What did you want text do you want to cite with it? - Scarpy (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I added the source to the names given sentence since there are at least two sources now that use the term 'Zillennials'. I'm unsure if it should be included in the 'Date range' section though since the article (and video) lacks a bit of substance. Some1 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Editions of Vogue

Scarpy and Some1, I stumbled across two different foreign editions of Vogue that had articles discussing Millennial/Z cuspers:

Vogue Mexico: https://www.vogue.mx/moda/articulo/tendencias-de-moda-zillennial

and Vogue Greece: https://vogue.gr/fashion/zillennials-poioi-einai-kai-poia-fashion-trends-protimoyn/

I understand enough Spanish to know that it was discussing cusper fashion with a 1992-1998 range, and then Greece’s I needed google translate but again they used a 1992-1998 range.

I know Vogue is quite prestigious of a magazine, but didn’t know what y’all think of non-English sources. Unfortunately, I didn’t see an English edition of Vogue discussing the topic. But I didn’t think it would hurt to share them. Centennial357 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with either the Greek or Mexican sources. Vogue is generally reliable. There's a "language=" parameter in cite journal template that we can use to indicate what language the cited source is in. I would perhaps lean towards the Mexican one as there's probably more English-speakers who are familiar with Spanish than there are English-speakers that are familiar with Greek. But I'm good either way. - Scarpy (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, those two sources look good to me too. Some1 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Would like to add a few lesser established sources that use both 1991 and 2001 as "GenZennial" years. What Source types are considered acceptable?

NezukoKamado. Hi, I was wondering if I could be allowed to add some sources that reference 1991 and 2001 within the Millennial Gen Z cusper range. Several mainstream publications have used "GenZennial" cusper years which is often a massive range of 1991-2001. While it's less well established than other ranges I was wondering what sources I can provide that will qualify to be added to this page? There are legitimate sources out there that include these. I particularly see 1991 and 2001 as years that gets gatekept a bit and would like to know the specific criteria for adding those sources here so they are not removed. I would also like to add "GenZennial" to the description alongside MinionZ and Zennials. What type of source do I need to provide so these will not get removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NezukoKamado (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Telaria and Sling TV Businesswire/Bloomberg sources were already discussed at great lengths here: Talk:Cusper/Archive_1#Bloomberg_Press_Release. The short version of the discussion is that it is a press release (see WP:Reliable sources) and the organization is not specifically studying cusp groups, micro-generations, the Millennial or Generation Z cusp, etc.; they're just surveying people born during a 10-year timespan for their TV-related report (see WP:No original research). Some1 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Images

@DobZeapin: I could get behind these images if they weren't introducing unsourced material (e.g. names commonly unused in the cited literature, and percentages that are unclear in origin). As they are now, Some1 is correct, these are WP:OR- Scarpy (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some1 and Scarpy, thank you both for keeping an eye out on this page. I see there has been a lot of interest lately on this page with some new users. I agree with the reasoning behind taking the images down. Centennial357 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I tried to add the images but they dont seem to save It shows a pretty good indication on how years overlap between generations Im not certain why the images keep disappearing DobZeapin (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@DobZeapin: I like the idea of images/infographics for the page. Would bring another engaging element to the page. However, the names and years described as the cusp in the images didn’t appear to have any data/research/sources that supported the images breakdowns. Plus, the breakdowns don’t quite align with the approved sources cited on the page so far, so those sources don’t validate the images unfortunately. Centennial357 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I just thought it would have added a good visual tool on how the generations overlap but I didn't know there had to be a major list of rules DobZeapin (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@DobZeapin: I wouldn’t call it a major list of rules, but yes Wikipedia has some rules. Unlike what many think of Wikipedia, people can’t just post whatever they want. There needs to be some evidence/data/source to cite. So if those images you added used percentage breakdowns and cusp ranges/names that you liked without references to solid sources, then it can’t go up. Otherwise, multiple people could spam the page with images of whatever generational percentages and cusp ranges they liked. Centennial357 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats understandable DobZeapin (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@DobZeapin: Just to be clear, I'm in favor of adding images to the article, the important point is that content in images has to follow the same guidelines as content in the article. With some modifications these would be fine. Also, please review Help:Talk_pages#Indentation - Scarpy (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Some1 and Scarpy, What type of modifications do you require? I made it as the median year of each generation being the 100%er of the generation

So for example 1989 is 100% Millennial because 8 years older and 8 years younger than them is the designated Millennial generation group. And so as you branch out older from 1989 your birthyear overlaps with more of the Gen X crowd and as you branch out younger than 1989 your birthyear overlaps with more of the Gen Z crowd.

I was just trying to make it easy to see how Generations overlap with the ones beside it and just happened to choose the 4 youngest and 4 oldest of each Generation to illustrate how generations that overlap are typically given nicknames such as Xennial and Zennial. So I'm not sure which items on the images are wrong and which areas need to be modified DobZeapin (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@DobZeapin: I will default to what Some1 and Scarpy say since they know much more about Wikipedia’s guidelines, but the questions that I would ask would be this: what makes 1989 the 100% millennial birth year? Is there a source that you have stating that? Because 1989 +\- 8yrs - as you stated - would suggest a 1981-1997 millennial range, but when one looks up ranges, one can find 1977-1995 (Generational Kinetics), 1980-1994 (McCrindle), 1981-1996 (Pew), 1982-2000 (US Census Bureau), etc. So where does the 1989 100% millennial figure come from? Then the follow up question would be what source do you have stating that a cusp is the first or last 4yrs of a generation? I’ve seen Generational Kinetics research state 3 to 5yrs before and after a generational cutoff for example. Centennial357 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

DobZeapin, your images are WP:Original research, meaning it is based on your personal, unsourced interpretation of these cusp groups and their date ranges. None of the sources on this article use these percentages/calculations that you had personally came up with. If they don't, then Wikipedia images also can't per WP:IMAGEOR / WP:V. Until there are commonly used/typically used/widely accepted specific ranges for each of these cusp group (which there aren't yet), an image isn't needed for this specific article. Some1 (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

All good I thought it was something minor but it seems they need a complete overhaul DobZeapin (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the Millennial/Gen Z Cusp

Hi there! Wanted to run these sources by moderators first to get a "yay or nay". They are from valid sources and the ranges fall within both millennial and gen Z. Generation K or Generation Katniss was one of the early names that were being thrown out for an overlap of millennials and generation Z and they're short enough to build a micro-generation (1995-2002). Would it be feasible to add these?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/were-beginning-to-learn-what-the-generation-katniss-really-cares-about/?outputType=amp

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-generation-k-2016-4

Examining (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There's already a section about "Generation K" here: Noreena Hertz#Generation K (2015). Generation K is not a generational "cusp" group per se and isn't defined as one by those two articles either, so it doesn't belong on this article per WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Generation K is more in the same vein as "Generation C". Some1 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Just thought I'd ask. I've been seeing much buzz about the topic and thought I'd add that as a suggestion for a "semi-inclusive" range for a little variation like the other cusp groups. I know the ranges for this cusp group in particular are still slightly controversial. But yes, like you said the articles don't point this out as a range for a cusp in and of itself. Thanks a lot!

Examining (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description

I prefer the wording Person born near the end of one generation and the beginning of another to Person born near the border separating two generations. The second gives the impression that there are clear boundaries between generations, which is not the case. @Thrakkx: do you have strong opinions on this? - Scarpy (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I enjoy editing short descriptions since I use mobile a lot. I was trying to get the short desc to conform with WP:SDSHORT Thrakkx (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Meditations on Enstarz

A while back Some1 removed the reference that included Enstarz.com for the Zillennial date range. I want to be clear that I'm 95% certain this was the right thing to do. That being said, I saw Zillennial's edit back in June and considered reverting it immediately, but didn't because I hadn't taken time to investigate Enstarz or the author of the article.

I'm thinking back a bit to the previous discussion around WGSN and fashion forecasting. Where when I considered a kind of WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning, it made sense to include it, not because it was published in scholarly literature, but because it was cited in scholarly literature as having a good reputation. (Some what similar to a previous discussion had on RSN]).

My reasoning on Enstarz as a source: (1) If we use a backlink checker, Enstarz is cited in reliable sources sometimes, but not terribly often (compare the articles it's cited in to RSN perennial sources). (2) Enstarz's content targets Zillennials specifically as a demographic, and there's an argument to be made that they could have domain knowledge. (3) taken together, (1) and (2) gave me a faint scent of reliability for this topic, but the specific article is more of an opinion piece and it's reasoning for the date range is unfortunate Glamour Magazine identified the Zillennial age group as starting in 1993 and ending in 1998, but I am going to stretch that to 1999. (Let's be real, if you were born in a year that did not start with a 2, you deserve to be with the rest of us.)[9]

I would say, if Enstarz published some thing that was like "hey, what we do is make content for Zillennials and here's how we identify them as a group and why this date range makes sense" (especially if there was collaboration with other people who study this kind of thing) I could get behind using an article like that as a source to augment the currently listed date ranges. But if the reasoning is like "let's be real..." then that's what WP:RSEDITORIAL would call opinion or junk food news or soft news or to use a term that's fashionable lately, a thought-terminating cliché.

I also made an effort in the article to cite sources that point out that these date ranges aren't an exact science, which is why there's so many of them and they vary so much. If you're reading this, and you're born in 1999, and you'd like to call yourself a Zillennial, you have my endorsement as the (so far) largest contributor to the content within this article. I will sign and notarize a letter to this effect should you want one. But, as a larger point, don't let Wikipedia content dictate your identity. This is all written by fallible humans, and you are the foremost expert in yourself. - Scarpy (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

But if the reasoning is like "let's be real..." then that's what WP:RSEDITORIAL would call opinion or junk food news or soft news or to use a term that's fashionable lately, a thought-terminating cliché. Agreed. I also googled Enstarz and (at the time I'm writing this) their Instagram page has 98 followers and their YouTube channel only has 368 subscribers; their opinions aren't exactly noteworthy. Some1 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)