Open main menu

Talk:Generation Z

The defining lineEdit

The years vary on Gen Y vs Gen Z. The defining factor is if you could remember life without the internet or social media. If that is the case you are most likely gen X. If you have always had access to the internet and can't remember life without technology you are Gen Z. This Starts as early as 1990 for some Americans. this is incorrect. Gen Y starts at 1980 and goes to about 2000 so gen Z can't start at 1990! Gen Z is not millianals as is so often confused please do some more research and correct this page. gen Y and Gen Z can't be a carbon copy of each other or they wouldn't be two different generations now would they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

According to the Pew Research Center, Generation Y (the Millennials) were born between 1981 and 1996 while Generation Z were born between 1997 and 2012. Each demographic cohort has a range of birth dates of 15 years. See more here. Nerd271 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Workplace mindset of Generation Z vs. Generation XEdit

While the youngest are still being born, the oldest members of Generation Z are now 25 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[1]


  1. ^

Misrepresentation of a sourceEdit

One of the recent edits used a source that was originally in the article [1][2] and re-worded it to incorrectly state that [3] "An earlier 2014 report from Pew Research described Post-Millennials as born after year 2000.[29]" But the article/source used to back up that claim is not a Pew Research Center report (it is a book interview), nor did Pew Research Center, the research company itself, ever described Gen-Z as starting after year 2000 (the rewording of the source implies that the Pew Research Center stated those prior-end dates, but they did not; the author of the book did). Incorrectly rewording and mispresenting the source is contrary to npov and verifiability. Additionally, the old wording of the source is also incorrect. Andrea Caumont never stated anything, she is just the poster of the article. Paul Taylor, the author of the book, did. The source in the article should instead say something along the lines of: "Paul Taylor, in his discussing his new book The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown with Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, states that generations typically span about 20 years which would point to a start of Generation Z at 2000" and the source should be placed above the MTV paragraph instead of where it is now.

Comments on the proposed changes? Someone963852 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems both of the references from Pew Research should be in the same paragraph. In my opinion, the only reason the 2014 reference and the content included in that reference is notable enough to be included at all is because Pew published it. The current text didn't mention Andrea Caumont and I tweaked it to say the 2014 publication from Pew includes the starting date of 2000 for accuracy. I think getting into all that detail about how it's included might be undue weight. The thing that makes it notable enough to be included in the date range and defining section is that it was included in a Pew Research publication. Paul Taylor and Andrea Caumont are not particularly notable and seems they don't warrant mention in the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research included the year 2000 as start year for the cohort" is still inaccurate and misleading. If Paul Taylor (which the article is solely about since it's a book interview for his book) is not notable, then why is the article being used as a source? That is giving the source undue weight especially if it is not notable and it's being placed behind the main Pew source. Yes, it is posted by Pew Research Center, but the article is a Paul Taylor book interview, not an actual research report from the Pew Research Center like the source preceding it. And again, the wording implies that the Pew Research Center stated those start dates, but they did not - Paul Taylor did. So the wording should be changed to accurately reflect the person stating those dates. Either the article accurately reflects what the source states to avoid contradicting npov and verifiability, about Paul Taylor and what he thinks the end dates are (since he is the one suggesting those end dates, not Pew), and if Paul Taylor and his book (since that is what the source is about) is not notable enough, then it is undue weight and the source does not belong in the article. Someone963852 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of that source says that Paul Taylor works for Pew Research. The source literally opens with "Pew Research Center’s Paul Taylor appeared on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” to discuss his new book, The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown". I think it would be unnecessary detail to mention Jon Stewart or the Daily Show, but considering Paul Taylor both works for Pew Research and wrote a book on generations, I guess it's reasonable to mention him and his book in the article text. I added it to the article [4]. DynaGirl (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
So, the source is a press release describing an appearance on The Daily Show.... He hasn't given any opinion for any date ranges. I can't see how this is worth citing just because he says generations typically span 20 years. If this is an opinion shared by Pew, surely there are better sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased & Misleading FactsEdit

The entire entry solely makes references to the US, yet is written as though the facts listed are absolute inferences to all other regions. Research and citations are needed for other regions such as (but not limited to) Latin America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Oceania in order to facilitate a truly objective and balanced assessment on the sociology of this group.

This article applies to the Western world, so Canada and Australia are referenced. This article is not meant to apply worldwide. Do you think that should be pointed out in the opening? --Frmorrison (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The majority of references and data are from the US (with minimal accounts from Canada and Australia) - as such, it's not possible to make brushstroke inferences on the group as a whole. Likewise, it's not possible to infer the characteristics cited apply to the Western world without any references to Europe. Agree with the suggestion to place a regional disclaimer at the top or to retitle the entry to something like Gen Z in America or something. Businesses (even those outside of the US) will look to this article for basic demographic information since Millennials are getting older so it's important to state clearly to which region these facts and findings apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The only biased and misleading fact is that the whole article says Generation Z when we all know Generation Z are the true millennials I'm Generation Y and I'm certainly not going to let myself be called a millennial when people get to be called Generation Z Generation Z is millennials Generation Y is Generation Y deal with it on the last Gen Y to roll off the block and I'm not going to be called a millennial I'm not going down without a fight and you baby boomers can deal with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:6D00:749:BC7E:33A3:A104:7335 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is moronic and dominated by US marketing and PR concepts. All the 'generations' articles are bad (Americans seem obsessed with this stuff) but this one really is a content free zone. I would add a WP:GLOBALIZE tag but can't be arsed. --Ef80 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the term "Zoomer" be mentioned in terminology?Edit

The term Zoomer (a play on the term Boomer) has increased in use online in the past couple of years when referring to gen Z. It is used frequently on reddit and 4chan. wiki/zoomer already lists this page under the possible meanings portion. this term refers to the fast pace at which tech and gen z culture changes in the formative years of "Zoomers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I could be added if you can find a decent source. Reddit/4chan is not a good source. --Frmorrison (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe that it really should be, but I can't find any Wikipedia-approved source that mentions this. Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfume (talkcontribs) 22:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It showed back up again, with only Reddit, 4chan, and Urban Dictionary cited as sources. I removed it per WP:RS and this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have almost never seen Generation Z called this way, and I do read a lot about this demographic cohort. It does not appear mainstream to me. Nerd271 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It has recently become widely used online beyond the above mentioned sites, and I agree it should be added, although I don't have the priveleges to do so. The following sources aren't about the terminology itself, but show it to be in common use:

MegaPowerTape (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@MegaPowerTape: Thank you for you proposal. But please keep in mind that just because someone puts something on the Internet does not mean it's true. We should stick to reliable sources. That rules out opinion pieces, blog posts, and pretty much all pages that are not exactly factual in nature. Opinions of people with the relevant expertise, such as sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and demographers, however, do count. That means only the Rolling Stone and The Independent satisfy the requirement of reliable sources here, though some editors advise caution when using the later after March 2016. But in your Rolling Stone link, the author cites 4chan, which is not a reliable source. For more information, please refer to this list. Nerd271 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think a number of those sources do qualify according to that list however, including the independent, rolling stone, and others (as well as a couple which are yellow, such as salon). It also just seems appropriate, since the term Zoomer is the most predominantly used term for people in generations z other than the two already listed (i.e. sites such as tik tok, parts of reddit, 4chan, discord, etc). If we're concerned about people putting down lots of nicknames we can just remove those that don't have a source Haxonek (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progressEdit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

there is no exact date, here nobody can believe the intelligent nor the correct, we are all equal to the reasoningEdit

Hi, I'm from Mexico, a consort that the Z generation can start from the end of 1993 although there is no exact date since it is depending on what person has lived with the evolution of technology, there are sources that say since 1993, others since the year 2007 and others since 2006. In my opinion I think it should be from January 1994 but I repeat, there is no exact date. It depends on the census and the person. LynScott (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposalEdit

Some editors have noted that although this page is supposed to be international, it appears to be quite U.S.-centric. Therefore, I am preparing a draft for Generation Z in the United States. It is already quite different from this article. Information about the U.S. is not hard to find; one only has to make sure one is using reliable sources. But that is already standard at Wikipedia. I think this article should be split for reasons of size and content. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Nerd271 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

While Generations are used internationally, other countries have alternate names or don't really care about generations. The article should be US-centric because that country is the one that uses generation names frequently. If you want an international article, that is one you should be creating. Like Generation Z (international). --Frmorrison (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Frmorrison: If my understanding of your comment is correct, you would like to see this article merged with the draft I created. Fair enough. Let's wait and see what other people think. Nerd271 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you could combine some of the content of your draft into the main article, but making two articles is a poor plan. --Frmorrison (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Frmorrison: Alright. Let's see what others say. Nerd271 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I would be very hesitant to make two separate articles. This would affect all the other generations articles too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Kolya Butternut: Please explain what makes you think that would be the case. Nerd271 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We want consistency among the generations articles, and I would think that any reasons for splitting this article would apply to the other generations articles too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I honestly do not think it would be a problem, though. Like I said, information about the United States and her people is not hard to find, so it should not be too hard to discuss them extensively in their own articles. We can go as deep as we want or as far as we can find reliable sources. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Nerd271 (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I support splitting the article, when I come to Wikipedia I do expect to read about generation Z in general, not a whole bunch of US-related statistics. Besides, to respond to Frmorrison, I am from the Netherlands doing a communications study and we do talk a lot about different generations because they do have a big influence on the marketing and communications of companies. Have a nice day, Coldbolt (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose the split, because Generation Z is a US-centric concept so it's not out of the ordinary for the article to be US-centric. If another country has their own equivalent of Generation Z, then another article should be created for that specific group. Like Frmorrison stated, merging your draft with the main article sounds like a good idea to me. Someone963852 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that this was already been discussed. I think that simply adding more context of the Generation Z in other countries might help avoiding the bias. But forking the article seems ok to me too, as long as there is more international content here. Rosbife (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd271: I think a lot of the content on your Generation Z draft is very informative. Do you want to merge it with this main article? Someone963852 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: Thank you for the compliment. But unless there is a clear consensus in that direction, I would rather not. I maintain the opinion that this page should contain mainly information pertaining to Generation Z worldwide and the draft, and thus the proposed split page, should specialize in the U.S. Nerd271 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Nerd271 That makes sense, but Generation Z is more of a US concept than a worldwide concept, so I'd thought it'd be a good idea to merge it into the main article. Mind if I use some of the stuff from your draft such as the "Operational definitions" section and merge it to the main article? Someone963852 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: Its counterpart in this article is the "Date and age range definition." The only real difference is that it is shorter. Nerd271 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Nerd271 I like how the Pew source is currently expanded on your draft; it is better worded than the current one. Mind if I change the wording on this current article to match that? Also, the "Alternative names" section will be a good addition to this article since there's so many names floating around like "Zoomers" and "iGen" for this generation in the media. Someone963852 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: Feel free to use the paragraph I wrote about Pew. The "Alternate names" section over there corresponds to the "Terminology" section over here. When I started that draft in May 2019, I copied and pasted what was then the current revision of this page and ruthlessly cut out anything that seemed superficial or supported by unreliable sources. Thus, marketing agencies and self-promotional materials were the first to go. Nerd271 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Great. I made the change here [5] with a few words differing from the draft. Someone963852 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks great! Of course my opinion might be biased because that's almost what I wrote.   Nerd271 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Nerd271, do you want to expand it on the Millennials article too? Someone963852 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: I took the liberty to restore your comment. Did you mean adapting the bits that pertain to both the Millennials and Generation Z to the Wikipedia article for the former? If so, please go ahead. Of course you will need to read the sources and rephrase certain things so that the focus will be on Generation Y rather than Z. Nerd271 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


Not so fast, Morrison.

The people who wanted to keep just one article are: Frmorrison, Kolya Butternut, and Someone963852. We have thus far a total of three votes for merging.

Those who want to split this article are: Coldbolt, Rosbife, and myself. We thus have three votes for splitting. It's a draw, unless more people join the discussion supporting either side. Nerd271 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been over four months, and little input from people. A draw equals status quo. Article splits are usually when they get too long. This one has plenty of room to grow. It is 58 kB in prose and when it gets to around 90 kB is when you think about a split. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Frmorrison: That is not a bad suggestion at all. As of the time of writing, the size of my draft is 153,176 bytes while that of this page is 99,925 bytes. Anyway, I will wait for a few days and make a formal Request for Comments, which should garner more attention. Nerd271 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Page size is not measured like that. When you see that this article is 99 kB, it is really only 58 kB because a lot of the size is made of references that don't count for size. Your draft is 109 kB in prose, but 100 kB isn't a hard rule so it is fine to go a little over. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. So how did you get those numbers? Nerd271 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have a button on the side bar under tools, it is called "Page Size". I assume there is an option to add it, but it was added years ago. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Unfortunately, I don't have it. Nor could I find it in 'Preferences'. But I did find something similar, known as prose size. According to Xtools, at the time of writing, my draft contains 83,540 characters and this page 48,241. Assuming one character roughly corresponds to one byte, we have 83.5 kB and 48.2 kB, respectively. I never realized one page was that much smaller than the other. But that's what we have. Nerd271 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"early-2000s" vs "mid-2000s" in the leadEdit

The status quo of the article is currently "mid-2000s" (before the recent edit by [6] which was later reverted by me due to no consensus and returning it to the status quo [7]). Looking at it again though, the lead should state "early-2000s" instead of "mid-2000s" since only one source in the article starts it in the mid-2000s. Likewise, none of the sources in the article starts it in the "late-2000s". Someone963852 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


This article reflects mainly a point of view from the United States, little to no part of it mentions the status of the generation in other countries, continents, and cultures. Rosbife (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbife: I started a discussion on splitting above. Feel free you join. Nerd271 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Info boxEdit

@Trivialist: If it were possible to link to the draft with the splitting notice, I would have done so. The template does not work for draft links, so I decided to create that info box for people's convenience. Nerd271 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


@Osrius: Please refrain from removing that sidebar on the major generations. The cuspers are not part of the main sequence. Nerd271 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osrius: You realize that people can still check what edits you actually made, right? Misleading edit summaries could get you into trouble, you know? Nerd271 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Osrius: Frankly, I'm not sure if I can be any clearer here. Xennials are examples of what we call Cuspers, people at the boundary between two different demographic cohorts. We already have a link for them in the "See also" section. What's the problem? That sidebar is only for the major generations of the Western world. Nerd271 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd271: I started to re-add the sidebar, but I noticed that we already have a navigation template, {{Cultural gens}}, at the bottom of the article. This does what the sidebar sets out to do in a manner more consistent with other articles. Thus, I suggest going with just the bottom template rather than the sidebar. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred: One is vertical and at the beginning of a page while the other is horizontal and at the bottom of a page. I don't see why we should not have both. Let's be honest here. Not everyone reaches the very bottom of a page. In both cases, we list the major generations only, though in the case of the horizontal template, we could also list the cuspers which Osrius is so desperate to include. Nerd271 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd271: Based on the notes in the Culture gens template, I would strongly advise against listing the cuspers—at least, not without discussion and gaining a wide consensus at Template talk:Cultural gens. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred: Good point, though we can still add the "Xennials," which O desperately wants. They are included in the list of generations, which is one of the requirements. Nerd271 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Osrius added Xennials to the list of generations; it doesn't really belong there either. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── @Kolya Butternut: Of course he did! Should have checked. An anonymous editor removed it, though. Nerd271 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Osrius: Again, your misleading edit summaries could count against you, you know? Nerd271 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Echo Busters" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Echo Busters. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"Generation Zyklon" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generation Zyklon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the termEdit

The article doesn't seem to explain anywhere what Gen Z means. The alternatives are defined. I think it's important to point out that Gen Z derives from a placeholder that ignores Gen X wasn't alphabetical, yet people tried to called the next generation "Y" and subsequently this one "Z". I think if it's made clear how absurd and ultimately meaningless this naming convention is (since Y got rejected and X isn't referring to the letter) people might be more apt to come up with a better name. Otherwise this might end up being the first generation to get a name that has absolutely no meaning other than a vague misunderstood reference to a previous generation. Obviously those reasons aren't why it should be in the article. It should be in the article since Wikipedia usually gives the etymology and the etymology here is of particular importance. The reason for the name given is generally a big part of all the other generation articles. J1DW (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your question of what Gen Z means is answered in several places in the article, not least the lede and the Terminology section. I think though, based on the rest of your edit that what you're really asking is why are they called Gen Z, rather than Gen Y - or indeed anything else? Can you clarify if you're wanting to expand the article on the origin of the name, or what the term Gen(eration) Z represents? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I stumbled across the slang for "Gen Z" to be a "Zoomer" (aka Zoomer Generation), and its a bit of play on words to the X,Y,Z and the Boomers. feel free to further research this to determine if the word "Zoomer" should be applied to the article somewhere. Gizziiusa (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Gizziiusa
Zoomer is just a dumb term for when a kid is acting boomerish. Most of us do not at all want to be compared to boomers.  Nixinova T  C  00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Generation AlphaEdit

Howdy folks! A draft for Generation Alpha is available here. Please take a look and share your constructive feedback on its talk page. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up your draft a little bit. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Frmorrison: Thanks! I knew I made mistakes somewhere. It's always useful to have someone else read your work. Nerd271 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I would not call those mistakes, I was merely revising to make it easier to read. Anyway, it looks good enough to publish the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Generation "Glass"Edit

In the Successors section, it says an alternative name is "Generation Glass", for the digital glass screens that have become the primary medium of content sharing. First of all, the oldest Gen Alphas are like 7 and are not sharing content at all, and screens are not a new invention; they could barely be attributed to Gen Z.  Nixinova T  C  00:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


Pew Research Center already selected 2012 as the final birth year for this generation although it may be subject to change.--Paleontologist99 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Due weight and sourcing in the political polling section.Edit

The political polling section has major WP:DUE issues; some polls are given entire paragraphs, while others are summarized into just a sentence, with no valid rationale that I can see between the two. The Harris LGBT poll in particular gets a massive paragraph, while the Varkey Foundation and Populus ones get two brief sentences; the International Federation of Accountants poll gets a massive paragraph, while the Pew Research Center poll (which is from a far more prestigious source) gets one sentence. We need to either give polls equal weight, or (even better) give weight in accordance to coverage in reliable sources and the reputation of the source. Additionally, some of the sourcing is weak - many polls have no secondary sourcing at all and aren't done by outlets who provide obvious notability or reliability on their own; eg. The Gild link is to a marketing firm, while The Gild itself is another marketing firm with no reputation for polling. Their methodology is taken apart here - it's an internet quiz with no screening - but the important thing from our perspective is that they're not a reliable source for this and, cited as a secondary source, isn't reliable enough to provide that; a proper secondary source would provide the context necessary to understand the poll's limitations. --Aquillion (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by many different people. Some only want to briefly summarize a poll. Others want to provide more information, not just on the results but also the background and context. If you want to expand on something, do so. Also note that polls often ask more than one question. Nerd271 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019Edit

Generation Z, or Gen Z for short, also known as Generation Swipe (source below) (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think this is a reliable source? Just because somebody posted something on the Internet does not make it notable or reliable. Nerd271 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Generation Z" page.