Template talk:Generations sidebar/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Generations sidebar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Dates
We really shouldn't add dates to the sidebar because the exact dates contradict the various date ranges given in the article leads. This is true even of older generations. If editors keep adding dates, maybe we should consider whether it will be too disruptive have a sidebar at all in the articles, considering several of the articles are already protected due to longterm edit warring over dates. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Xennials
I removed the recently added Xennials from this template. This is a popular press neologism, instead of a cultural generation studied by researchers and demographers; however, a wikilink for a description of this neologism is on both the Generation X and the Millennials page as Oregon Trail Generation . --DynaGirl (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. All generation names are popular press neologisms at some point. It's notable enough for it's own article and has been "discovered" conceptually though three different lines of reasoning (hence being named Xennials, Catalano, or Oregon Trail). There is also scholarly research on the topic (e.g. Xennials, Oregon Trail Generation). Seems to fit the criteria to me. - Scarpy (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- The term is a subset of Millennials and X, not a full 20 year generation. So adding it on the sidebar doesn't follow the logic of the sidebar list. Why is it so important to you?2606:6000:6111:8E00:1124:2AA1:50E3:8523 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @2606:6000:6111:8E00:1124:2AA1:50E3:8523: A micropayment is still a payment, just like nanoparticle is still a particle. A microgeneration is still a generation. So, I suppose I'm for adding it and other notable cusper generations, Generation Jones is the only other one I'm aware of. - Scarpy (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Scarpy, "a micropayment is a payment" and a "nanoparticle is a particle" but an Xennial is not a generation. "Xennial", "Oregon Trail" and "Gen Jones" are already explained in the body of the Millennial and X articles. They also have separate pages. Check any dictionary for the definition of a generation, most say its anywhere from a 20 to 30 year time span (not 5 like Xennials). Could you tell us why you think a 5 year period "is a generation" in the context of the major generational categories like Baby Boomers, Xers, and Millennials? At best, Xennials are a small part of two generations (on the cusp of each one, covering a 2 1/2 year period in each). 2606:6000:6111:8E00:ED69:D091:969B:AE5F (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @2606:6000:6111:8E00:ED69:D091:969B:AE5F: They're culturally distinct and their characteristics aren't encompassed by those of the overlapping generations. If you look up the wiktionary definition of generation you'll see it accounts for this "9. A specific age range in which each person in that range can relate culturally to one another." It seems the facts are the opposite of what you're describing. - Scarpy (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- This template is for main generational categories. Please respect WP:BRD and do not re-add without attaining talk page consensus. DynaGirl (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: thanks. I'll similarly point you to WP:DTTR and WP:OWN. I'll also ask that you pay a bit more attention to the edits that I'm making as the two I made today were both attempts at comprise (e.g.inline template added initially and then including all notable cusper generations). I'll draw your attention specifically to this bit in WP:BRD: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." I'll also point out, I've seen no consensus on declarative statement you just made - "This template is for main generational categories." In fact that's a brand new objection to including cusper generations that you hadn't made before. Also, just to be clear, were you editing as User:2606:6000:6111:8E00:1124:2AA1:50E3:8523 earlier? - Scarpy (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the IP. I only edit from this account. Looking over the above talk page discussion and edit summaries I see multiple rationales have been provided to you already. Also, there's no scholarly research that I'm aware of currently on Xennials. It's all just popular press stuff at this point. There's none referenced on the current Xennials article. The closest thing to "scholarly research" on the Xennials page is Australian sociologist Dan Woodman saying "The 'Xennials' must be taken with several grains of salt. There isn't yet any strong academic evidence for the grouping". DynaGirl (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: Then I'll try to make you more familiar with the scholarly literature I'm aware of. When Generations Collide has been cited over 1500 times and identifies the cusper generation between Baby Boomers and Gen X (Generation Jones) as well as the generation between Gen X and Millennials (Xennials). As pointed out previously, regardless of whether or not it currently appears in the article, there is more scholarly research on Xennials either discussing them specifically or as a unique generational subset (e.g. Xennials: a microgeneration in the workplace, Do you have enough “Generational Glue” in your organisation?, Packaging Value by Generation--Results of a Finnish Study, The Consequences of Digital Socialization: Examining the Effect of Age Cohort Norms and Facebook Use on Voter Turnout, Boomers to Millennials: Generational Stereotypes at Work in Academic Librarianship, Upending the Double Life of Law Schools: Millennials in the Legal Academy). It's also worth pointing out, Anna Garvey's original article on The Oregon Trail Generation has been cited in scholarly literature. It's true, I don't see much of this in the article on Xennials, but that's a question about the quality of that article. - Scarpy (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Scarpy, have you read any of this "scholarly research"? I'm not sure the links you provided support your arguments. I've read Lancaster's When Generations Collide but it doesn't support your argument and they do not mention Geneation Jones at all. Also, Generation Jones is not a term referring to cuspers. Generation Jones refers to the later half of the Baby boomer generation and sometimes early Generation X. Cuspers are a smaller grouping, those born at the end of one generation and beginning of next, not the younger half of one generation. Generation Jones is basically terminology for the younger half of the Baby boomer generation and is not discussed by Lancaster. Lancaster refers to Baby boomer/Generation X cuspers but does not use the term Generation Jones, and does not use the same dates as used for Generation Jones. I own and have read this book. They also don't mention Xennials. I see that you've linked something from Squarespace. Squarespace is a user-published website space, not a scholarly journal. Some of these don't seem to be reliable sources and some of the abstracts you've linked don't mention Xennials. One which appears to be a reliable source discussing generations in the workforces actually says "Very few academic articles on generational differences mention cusp generations and none address their unique opportunities for organizations in the workplace", supporting the current lack of research in this area.DynaGirl (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: If you want to get in a semantics war about what a cusper generation is, then I will modify my terminology slightly to "notable microgenerations" or I'm also happy to used your original term for notable "cultural generations." Either way, you're basically arguing my point, cusper generations (being a subset of microgenerations or cultural generations) are a real thing (in at least the three cases identified in When Generation Collide).
- Scarpy, have you read any of this "scholarly research"? I'm not sure the links you provided support your arguments. I've read Lancaster's When Generations Collide but it doesn't support your argument and they do not mention Geneation Jones at all. Also, Generation Jones is not a term referring to cuspers. Generation Jones refers to the later half of the Baby boomer generation and sometimes early Generation X. Cuspers are a smaller grouping, those born at the end of one generation and beginning of next, not the younger half of one generation. Generation Jones is basically terminology for the younger half of the Baby boomer generation and is not discussed by Lancaster. Lancaster refers to Baby boomer/Generation X cuspers but does not use the term Generation Jones, and does not use the same dates as used for Generation Jones. I own and have read this book. They also don't mention Xennials. I see that you've linked something from Squarespace. Squarespace is a user-published website space, not a scholarly journal. Some of these don't seem to be reliable sources and some of the abstracts you've linked don't mention Xennials. One which appears to be a reliable source discussing generations in the workforces actually says "Very few academic articles on generational differences mention cusp generations and none address their unique opportunities for organizations in the workplace", supporting the current lack of research in this area.DynaGirl (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: Then I'll try to make you more familiar with the scholarly literature I'm aware of. When Generations Collide has been cited over 1500 times and identifies the cusper generation between Baby Boomers and Gen X (Generation Jones) as well as the generation between Gen X and Millennials (Xennials). As pointed out previously, regardless of whether or not it currently appears in the article, there is more scholarly research on Xennials either discussing them specifically or as a unique generational subset (e.g. Xennials: a microgeneration in the workplace, Do you have enough “Generational Glue” in your organisation?, Packaging Value by Generation--Results of a Finnish Study, The Consequences of Digital Socialization: Examining the Effect of Age Cohort Norms and Facebook Use on Voter Turnout, Boomers to Millennials: Generational Stereotypes at Work in Academic Librarianship, Upending the Double Life of Law Schools: Millennials in the Legal Academy). It's also worth pointing out, Anna Garvey's original article on The Oregon Trail Generation has been cited in scholarly literature. It's true, I don't see much of this in the article on Xennials, but that's a question about the quality of that article. - Scarpy (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the IP. I only edit from this account. Looking over the above talk page discussion and edit summaries I see multiple rationales have been provided to you already. Also, there's no scholarly research that I'm aware of currently on Xennials. It's all just popular press stuff at this point. There's none referenced on the current Xennials article. The closest thing to "scholarly research" on the Xennials page is Australian sociologist Dan Woodman saying "The 'Xennials' must be taken with several grains of salt. There isn't yet any strong academic evidence for the grouping". DynaGirl (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: thanks. I'll similarly point you to WP:DTTR and WP:OWN. I'll also ask that you pay a bit more attention to the edits that I'm making as the two I made today were both attempts at comprise (e.g.inline template added initially and then including all notable cusper generations). I'll draw your attention specifically to this bit in WP:BRD: "To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." I'll also point out, I've seen no consensus on declarative statement you just made - "This template is for main generational categories." In fact that's a brand new objection to including cusper generations that you hadn't made before. Also, just to be clear, were you editing as User:2606:6000:6111:8E00:1124:2AA1:50E3:8523 earlier? - Scarpy (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- To your especially captious point regarding a PDF hosted on Squarespace - it's a working paper from Rebecca M. Bryan a Ph.D in political science from then University of Buffalo, SUNY. True, the paper isn't yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is still from a scholarly source. All of these articles discuss Xennials or "Oregon Trailers" if not specifically in the abstract.
- There is a significant amount of shifting of goal posts here. First your objection was that Xennials was are a "popular press neologism, instead of a cultural generation studied by researchers and demographers." But by your own admission they are a cultural generation as identified not just in When Generations Collide but in several other sources. I pointed you in the direction of that research, once generally and then a second time more specifically, and now... now your objection is completely unclear. It's clear to me, and seems clear to you, that both Xennials and Generation Jones have notability outside of being "popular press neologisms" and have a cultural significance. So the only argument is that classifying them both as cusper generations is technically wrong, but that's irrelevant to the first criteria you set out.
- I will point out that, this is very much a WP:OWN thing to do. You essentially declared without consensus or input that this template should follow criteria you selected. Then through discussion it became clear that the things you want to exclude met that criteria you originally set and now you're still against it? Help me understand here. - Scarpy (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Should cusper generations (e.g. Generation Jones and Xennials) be excluded from the Generations sidebar?
The consensus is to limit the template to the main generational categories.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should cusper generations notable cultural generations that are not synonyms of other generational terms but that may represent cusper generations or microgenerations (e.g. Generation Jones and Xennials) be excluded from the Generations sidebar? - Scarpy (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Amended per discussion below. - Scarpy (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Limit template to the main generational categories, The template should remain limited to main generational categories. Changing this to include neologisms like Xennials, Generation Snowflake etc doesn't seem appropriate for the template on the series on generations. Only the main generational categories are researched by demographers, marketers, etc, and only the main generation articles are backed by statistical cohort analysis which compares one cohort to the others using data, rather than just journalist and news blogger opinions. The main generation articles are also much longer and much more in-depth than the articles on various terminology articles such as Xennials. Also, links to the smaller terminology articles can already be found on the related main generational category articles. DynaGirl (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd ask you comment on the actual proposal. This is about including identified cusper generations, not "neologisms" like "generation snowflake." - Scarpy (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to comment on your proposal as written because it contains errors. Generation Jones is not actually terminology for cuspers. Cuspers refers to the last few years of one generation and the first few years of the following generation. Generation Jones refers to the entire younger half of the Baby boomer generation, not just the cusp years. Neither Generation Jones nor Xennials are "identified cusper generations" as defined by Lancaster. Xennials does refer to cuspers, but the cuspers identified by Lancaster are described by different dates than those used for Xennials. Also, you say you're not talking about neologisms, but Xennials is currently a neologism. To be clear, I don't think Xennials should be added to the template, neither should neologisms like Generation Snowflake or Strawberry generation, nor should older more established terminology like MTV generation or Me generation. The template should remain limited to the main generational categories.DynaGirl (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DynaGirl: Will amend in response to above discussion if there's dispute as to the "cusperness" of Generation Jones, am for adding notable cultural generations or notable microgenerations. I'll also point out that "neologism" is a subjective term. We've shown that conceptually the cusp of people at the end of Gen X and the beginning of the Millennial generation are discussed often even if the terminology is different. Secondary sources have been appearing on the topic. (e.g. in WP:NEO "The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."). It's also worth pointing out the definition of secondary sources is larger than the definition of scholarly sources. The idea that because it's predominately in the popular press that it's a neologism is a departure from Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms.
- Terms like MTV generation are synonyms for Generation X. So to be clear I fine with excluding synonyms. - Scarpy (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Scarpy, the cusper terms, Xennials, Oregon Trail, and Catalano etc. do not describe a "generation", they describe a 5 year time span. Why would they be included in the term "generations"? That would be misleading. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:ED69:D091:969B:AE5F (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I wish you wouldn't repeat yourself and then force me to repeat myself. I would follow this dictionary definition of a generation as in wiktionary A specific age range in which each person in that range can relate culturally to one another - Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to comment on your proposal as written because it contains errors. Generation Jones is not actually terminology for cuspers. Cuspers refers to the last few years of one generation and the first few years of the following generation. Generation Jones refers to the entire younger half of the Baby boomer generation, not just the cusp years. Neither Generation Jones nor Xennials are "identified cusper generations" as defined by Lancaster. Xennials does refer to cuspers, but the cuspers identified by Lancaster are described by different dates than those used for Xennials. Also, you say you're not talking about neologisms, but Xennials is currently a neologism. To be clear, I don't think Xennials should be added to the template, neither should neologisms like Generation Snowflake or Strawberry generation, nor should older more established terminology like MTV generation or Me generation. The template should remain limited to the main generational categories.DynaGirl (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd ask you comment on the actual proposal. This is about including identified cusper generations, not "neologisms" like "generation snowflake." - Scarpy (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Limit template to the main generational categories Agree with DynaGirl, and this conversation is a waste of editing time.2606:6000:6111:8E00:ED69:D091:969B:AE5F (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Limit template to the main generational categories – they follow one after another and have a sense of canonical-ness to them. I would consider having an autocollapsed section underneath with a title like "Other generational terms" except that seems to open the gate for any number of terms made up by some random magazine article to be added, and related arguments, and directing people's attention to them doesn't feel particularly helpful imo. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Title of sidebar
@Samantha Ireland: I don't think 20th Century Generations is a fitting title. The Lost Generation only has one year in the 20th century, and the generation after Gen Z will be fully in the 21st century. The list contains the major, named generations in the U.S. Many of these are used in other countries and especially in English speaking /Western countries, but they are not universal. They are still probably the most popularly used generation names in the world. Major (Named) Generations sounds awkward but may be most accurate. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Or this could be changed to Major generations of the Western world. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Generation T
@Kolya Butternut: I appreciate your attempt to remove senseless edits. However, I actually am in the middle of creating a Generation T article. It already exists on Spanish Wikipedia, and is listed in the Spanish Wikipedia generations list. I have translated the article and citations, and I'm waiting for it to be approved. I simply added it to this sidebar so that the article would be ready to go live when it is (hopefully) approved. --Heber89471 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Generación T doesn't appear notable either... but maybe add it here: Generation Z#Successors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Timeline Date Chart
| WP:BLOCKEVASION / IP blocked |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The dates on the timeline chart conflict with most of the discussions about birth dates. 104.173.197.231 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Some1: This fellow has a strange habit of reverting himself, if you check the history of the sidebar. Nerd271 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I must say I am skeptical, given that you reverted yourself for the same edits multiple times. @Cmglee: Care to join in? You added that time line. Nerd271 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
|
graphic above or below list of generations
I made a change yesterday moving the list of generations in this template above the infographic, which was reverted by another editor. I would argue that having the list first is an improvement because, per Template:Sidebar, sidebars are intended to be navigation templates. The image in a typical sidebar is just an attractive picture which is representative of the topic in question. The graphic here, on the other hand, is information-dense, takes a minute or so to take in, and is of only occasional interest to readers. It also looks better below, IHMO.
See alternative version here. Can other editors comment? Thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the template looks much better with the graphic above the list. But personal opinions aside, the source code with the image at the top uses the
|image=field which automatically places the image at the top for templates; this is the default. See Template:Fascism sidebar, Template:Anti-fascism sidebar, Template:Pizza, Template:Feminist philosophy sidebar, etc. for examples. Using<br>to manually move the image to the bottom is a personal preference and is not the standard. And regarding navigation, it is not as if the image is so humongous that readers need to scroll down to see the list; they don't. And sidebars on Wikipedia articles don't show up in the mobile view. Some1 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)- This sidebar is abusing the purpose of images in sidebars in general by presenting a lot of information in what's intended to be a decorative image (as it is in the examples you gave). It's also the only sidebar I've seen with an image this large, which is necessary because it wouldn't be legible at a standard size. This divergence from normal sidebar practice opens up the possibility of further nonstandard changes to compensate. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cmglee, since you created the image, is it possible if you could somehow design it so the image is fully legible from the sidebar without having users click on the image? Maybe this might involve removing the top left white box from the image to make the image size smaller. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some1, Danbloch I added the simple language so that adding lang=simple hides the legend and event overlays as in above thumbnail. Is that better? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- cmglee Yes, definitely; it looks really simple and neat. Is it possible to make the names of the generations larger in size in lang=simple mode? Also, could "G.I." be removed from "Greatest/G.I. Generation" (so it can simply say 'Greatest Generation')? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some1
Done The overlap of the bottom two with the bar is due to the thumbnail renderer. It looks right in my browser. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cmglee! One final thing, could "Generation Y" and "Zoomers" be removed from lang=simple too, so it can simply say 'Millennials' and 'Generation Z' in the sidebar? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- The text looks a little distorted; is it possible to type it in at the size as it appears in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, the text is rendered by the thumbnail generator librsvg. We don't have much control over how it draws it. Even if we could, being an image, it will likely not match what each person has set as their default font size. Sadly, HTML is not PDF. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 10:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. Additionally, modern operating systems use subpixel rendering to smooth text but it depends on the layout of the subpixels of the user's screen. The thumbnail cannot make this consistent for all users.
- The text looks a little distorted; is it possible to type it in at the size as it appears in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cmglee! One final thing, could "Generation Y" and "Zoomers" be removed from lang=simple too, so it can simply say 'Millennials' and 'Generation Z' in the sidebar? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some1
- cmglee Yes, definitely; it looks really simple and neat. Is it possible to make the names of the generations larger in size in lang=simple mode? Also, could "G.I." be removed from "Greatest/G.I. Generation" (so it can simply say 'Greatest Generation')? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Some1, Danbloch I added the simple language so that adding lang=simple hides the legend and event overlays as in above thumbnail. Is that better? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cmglee, since you created the image, is it possible if you could somehow design it so the image is fully legible from the sidebar without having users click on the image? Maybe this might involve removing the top left white box from the image to make the image size smaller. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- This sidebar is abusing the purpose of images in sidebars in general by presenting a lot of information in what's intended to be a decorative image (as it is in the examples you gave). It's also the only sidebar I've seen with an image this large, which is necessary because it wouldn't be legible at a standard size. This divergence from normal sidebar practice opens up the possibility of further nonstandard changes to compensate. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Asterisks in image
Where is the asterisk explained? -- Steve -- (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- An asterisk is a genealogical symbol representing birth. According to Dagger_(typography)#Modern_usage, "The asterisk and the dagger, when placed beside years, indicate year of birth and year of death respectively." Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I meant on the chart. There are asterisks. e.g. [Lost Generation *1883-1900].
- Studying it, I figured out that _on the chart_ the years shown are the range of birth years. Therefore, there should be a note at the bottom of the chart with: "* Birth year range". -- Steve -- (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- That would just add more clutter to the image, and the goal is to keep this simple. If the asterisks are a problem a better alternatives would be to replace them with "b.", which is the standard Wikipedia abbreviation for "born". Or maybe just to remove the asterisks. I think the date ranges are self-explanatory, but I may be too close to the subject. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- At best, the reader knows that the asterick represents birth; at worst, the reader thinks it's just decoration. The problem, at least IMO, doesn't warrant further cluttering of the picture with the addition of a legend. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits by User:Historiador1993
Please explain the reasons for your change to the sidebar's image here, on this discussion page, instead of WP:EDIT WARRING. This isn't the first time you've edit-warred to get your preferred image in. Please discuss before reverting. Some1 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an official chart made by the british think tank Resolution Foundation, dated October 2021, and includes all generations, even Generation Alpha, this is a more recent chart than Pew's, which seems to be your favorite, this should be unbiased definitions, not your favorite one, made by recent research, which it is why i think you should not delete it. I noticed you have a strong preference with Pew's range considering the amount of times you repeatedly posted it on this article. Information should be updated, and Resolution's data is, unlike Pew's which made their range in 2018. Historiador1993 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I should repeat what I said on your talk page since you apparently didn't seem to hear it the first time. The information/date ranges on the current image of the sidebar comes from the leads (which is based on the Date and age ranges sections) of the individual generation articles. These are the typically/widely/generally/commonly used date ranges for the particular generations per WP:Reliable sources. Using the Resolution Foundation (or Strauss-Howe, since that's what you've tried to change it to before) violates WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) since UNDUE weight is given to them when the majority of reliable secondary sources don't cite their date ranges. I understand you have problems with Pew's date ranges for whatever reasons, but Wikipedia is based on WP:NPOV and WP:RS, not personal beliefs. Some1 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's funny you claim to not being personal beliefs and say "when the majority of reliable secondary sources don't cite their date ranges", when most of the "reliable" sources cited in the article are from media, most from newspapers and magazines articles (The Economist, Reuters, Time, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, CNN!!!)
- I can do that too and find many news articles citing Resolution Foundation's range for both Millennials and Gen Z'ers, and call them "reliable sources", and you must know that there are many sources using the 1981-2000 range, but you or whoever did this, purposely only searched the Pew's range 1981-1996, and those are the articles you or other admins "coincidentally" posted or let others post them. And i'm sorry, but citing Media articles repeatedly is not the best way of confirming anything, as Media tend to copy paste on each other, The New York Times can post something and some columnist from the Washington Post can use that article as reference and do their own article with the same data, without doing any real research, that's how much "reliable" media is nowadays. You can cite Pew Research using their own original articles from their website, but citing newspapers is lame research, if we stick only to the true sources then we should just use Pew Research's website, Resolution Foundation website, Strauss and Howe's books, or any other source that do actual population research, so please erase all that media bullsh*t articles and stick to the true sources, even if we just keep a small amount of sources but at least we are sure of using original information about the topic. Historiador1993 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Organizations/people/authors can use whatever date ranges they'd like, of course, but when little to no reliable secondary sources pick up on or cite their usage, then it's not notable. So being cited by the "media, most[ly] from newspapers and magazines articles" and other reliable secondary sources is important and gives a certain view WP:DUE WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- But remember this is an encyclopedia, not social media, it's not about using "notable" sources, media can do whatever they want, but im talking about YOU wiki admins using media articles and calling them "reliable", come on! get serious here...this is part of the problem, this is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation of not being a serious source, not even for school homeworks, we need to stick to the original sources, citing like i said, books, or the websites of certain organizations that do actual generational research, not just grabbing a bunch of media articles with the same copied-pasted data all over again and pretend it's a reliable source, and i really dont see the problem of using Resolution Foundation's range, it's newer and fresher than Pew's, and remember this generational cohorts are in constant changes, even in the same organizations, so i think it's perfectly fine using a 2021 range made by the british counterpart of Pew, even if its not that "viewed" as you said, or just because is british is less important than the american version? if you really are impartial and not moved by personal beliefs then delete the bunch of media sources and just stick to the original sources please, because the only thing they do is create an imbalance and reveal a clear preference towards a certain range. Like i said before, this is not about popularity, this is not Tik Tok or Youtube, this is about being impartial and set a balance in the information. Historiador1993 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Additional problems with this image is that the text is too small to read easily, and it doesn't convey information of interest. (Births per year and generational averages UK is not interesting.) Dan Bloch (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's xenophobic, its only interesting when its american?? Historiador1993 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, births per year and generational averages in uninteresting regardless, but it's even less interesting when it's only for one country. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- And whether or not it's interesting aside, the image in a sidebar is just supposed to be easily recognized and have a strong connection with the topic, which the old one was and this one isn't. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, births per year and generational averages in uninteresting regardless, but it's even less interesting when it's only for one country. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's xenophobic, its only interesting when its american?? Historiador1993 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Additional problems with this image is that the text is too small to read easily, and it doesn't convey information of interest. (Births per year and generational averages UK is not interesting.) Dan Bloch (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- But remember this is an encyclopedia, not social media, it's not about using "notable" sources, media can do whatever they want, but im talking about YOU wiki admins using media articles and calling them "reliable", come on! get serious here...this is part of the problem, this is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation of not being a serious source, not even for school homeworks, we need to stick to the original sources, citing like i said, books, or the websites of certain organizations that do actual generational research, not just grabbing a bunch of media articles with the same copied-pasted data all over again and pretend it's a reliable source, and i really dont see the problem of using Resolution Foundation's range, it's newer and fresher than Pew's, and remember this generational cohorts are in constant changes, even in the same organizations, so i think it's perfectly fine using a 2021 range made by the british counterpart of Pew, even if its not that "viewed" as you said, or just because is british is less important than the american version? if you really are impartial and not moved by personal beliefs then delete the bunch of media sources and just stick to the original sources please, because the only thing they do is create an imbalance and reveal a clear preference towards a certain range. Like i said before, this is not about popularity, this is not Tik Tok or Youtube, this is about being impartial and set a balance in the information. Historiador1993 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Organizations/people/authors can use whatever date ranges they'd like, of course, but when little to no reliable secondary sources pick up on or cite their usage, then it's not notable. So being cited by the "media, most[ly] from newspapers and magazines articles" and other reliable secondary sources is important and gives a certain view WP:DUE WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I should repeat what I said on your talk page since you apparently didn't seem to hear it the first time. The information/date ranges on the current image of the sidebar comes from the leads (which is based on the Date and age ranges sections) of the individual generation articles. These are the typically/widely/generally/commonly used date ranges for the particular generations per WP:Reliable sources. Using the Resolution Foundation (or Strauss-Howe, since that's what you've tried to change it to before) violates WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) since UNDUE weight is given to them when the majority of reliable secondary sources don't cite their date ranges. I understand you have problems with Pew's date ranges for whatever reasons, but Wikipedia is based on WP:NPOV and WP:RS, not personal beliefs. Some1 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
graph legend? missing or hidden?
legend for the triangular/diagonal bar chat missing maybe, the old image in the Discord link, or a forgotten graph legend on the Wikipedia page? someone linked this article, and the thumbnail in Discord shows what appears to be a legend for the diagonal bars parts in the top left of the graph, which is missing on the actual Wikipedia page graph, is that legend hiding somewhere? Just asking as the text in the thumbnail is a bit small to read. ZarconDeeGrissom (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking. This chart, and Wikipedia in general, has no connection with Discord. But if you click on the chart, you should see a much larger image, with additional text. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Generation_timeline.svg ? The sidebar uses the simplified version of that graphic. Some1 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
