Talk:Generation Z/sandbox

Date and age range

Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation typically generally being defined as those born between 1997 and 2012.

The Oxford Dictionaries describes Generation Z as "the generation born in the late 1990s or the early 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the use of digital technology, the internet, and social media from a very young age." The Collins Dictionary define Generation Z as "members of the generation of people born between the mid-1990s and mid-2010s who are seen as confident users of new technology". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as "the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s."

The Pew Research Center has defined 1997 as the starting birth year for Generation Z, basing this on "different formative experiences", such as new technological and socioeconomic developments, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks. Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report. Numerous news outlets use a starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research Center. Various think tanks and analytics companies also have set a 1997 start date. In a 2022 report, the U.S. Census designates Generation Z as "the youngest generation with adult members (born 1997 to 2013)." Statistics Canada used 1997 to 2012, citing Pew Research Center, in a 2022 publication analyzing their 2021 census.

Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z, as do various management and consulting firms. Psychologist Jean Twenge has defined Generation Z as the "iGeneration" using a range of those born between 1995 and 2012. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1996 to 2010 to define Generation Z in a 2021 Census report.

Individuals born in the Millennial and Generation Z cusp years have been sometimes identified as a "microgeneration" with characteristics of both generations. The most common name given for these cuspers is Zillennials.

start

This is what the Date and age range section of the Generation Z article looks like as of 15:46, 23 November 2022, created when BappleBusiness agreed on the talk page that the Sandbox idea is a good one. Discuss any additions or removals to the section here in this centralized discussion page per the hidden disclaimer. Anything that gets consensus on this page gets changed on the main article. Some1 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Consolidation into notes

The birth year range of Generation Z is disputed, but generally, researchers and popular media set starting birth years in the mid-to-late 1990s and ending birth years in the early 2010s.

The Oxford Dictionaries describes Generation Z as "the generation born in the late 1990s or the early 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the use of digital technology, the internet, and social media from a very young age." The Oxford Learner's Dictionaries describes Gen Z as "the group of people who were born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as "the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s."

The Pew Research Center specified 1997 as their starting birth year for Generation Z, choosing this date for "different formative experiences", such as new technological and socioeconomic developments, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks. Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report. Numerous news outlets use a starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research Center. Various think tanks and analytics companies also have set a 1997 start date. A U.S. Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born "after 1996". The United States Library of Congress cited Pew's definition of 1997–2012 in one of their consumer research reports. Statistics Canada also cited Pew Research Center in a 2022 publication.

Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z. Psychologist Jean Twenge has defined Generation Z as the "iGeneration" using a range of those born between 1995 and 2012. The World Economic Forum uses a 1995 start date, as do various management and consulting firms.

Other years have also been used to define Generation Z. The Center for Generational Kinetics defines Generation Z as those born from 1996 to 2015.

Individuals born in the Millennial and Generation Z cusp years have been sometimes identified as a "microgeneration" with characteristics of both generations. The most common name given for these cuspers is Zillennials.

Comments

NOTE: My edits consolidated the sources into notes to give them less prominence, which will hopefully prevent edit warring. I also double-checked the sources here to make sure that they were correct. I didn't add or remove any sources, so questions of sources being out of date, or conflicting sources, still have to be answered. BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

BappleBusiness, this is actually a great layout idea. I don't see any reasons why editors would oppose this. (One thing I can foresee happening though are editors who might try to add random companies/organizations after the Center for Generational Kinetics sentence.) Do you want to make the WP:BOLD edit and replace the current section on Generation Z with your proposed section above and see how it fares? Some1 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I do see that happening too, but I don't think any layout would completely avoid that (we can always add an invisible comment, though we unfortunately know how those work out). Should I replace the section now or wait until people's concerns are addressed first? I'm not exactly sure how sandbox procedures usually work. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This sandbox is basically an unofficial (and a more flexible) place for discussions of the 'Date and age range' section so it doesn't clog up the main talk page (I modeled this idea after seeing Talk:Woman/sandbox). Feel free to create as many sections here with updates to your proposal; there's really no limit or rules, etc. After editors agree and little to no more feedback/ comments are given, then I think it's a good idea to replace the section on the main article with what has achieved consensus here. Some1 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this is fine as a start although I have some remarks. I don’t think it’s ready quite yet. It could be shortened a bit more specifically regarding the publications from the Library of congress and U.S. Census which I think would be better to have confined in the notes. My reasoning for is that it has only appeared sporadically and isn’t an official range set by them and used throughout their work. Some people might be misled into thinking the U.S. Census has defined it as such just because they previously defined Baby Boomers but that’s not the case this time. I think it gives these sources undue weight to have them stated explicitly. I see it as a balance between governmental sources and frequency as well as how much importance they give the range in question. I think an official definition from a government surely should be explicitly stated but appearing sporadically in one article isn’t worth it. Same applies to World Economic forum in the 1995 section, I think it can be kept in the notes. I also want Collins dictionary to be be included. I don’t see any reason why it’s left out. I also think there should be some concluding remarks at the top of the section like the one we have now “The precise start date for Generation Z has been subject of discussion with the Center for Generational Kinetics defining Generation Z as those born from 1996 to 2015[59] while the Pew Research Center has specified 1997 as their starting birth year…” that could encourage the reader to dive deeper. Would love to hear your response BappleBusiness. Wikiboo02 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is misleading: "... like the one we have now, "The precise start date for Generation Z has been subject of discussion with the Center for Generational Kinetics defining Generation Z as those born from 1996 to 2015 while the Pew Research Center has specified 1997 as their starting birth year." That line was added three days ago. The only reason I didn't revert it (I see now that I should have) was because I saw that it would be overwritten by this change. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the placement of the Center of Generational Kinetics range in the first sentence gives it too much weight. But I do think a general introductory sentence would still be good to have. What about something like The birth year range of Generation Z is disputed, but generally, researchers and popular media set starting birth years in the mid-to-late 1990s and ending birth years in the early 2010s. BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, that sounds good. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Dan Bloch and BappleBusiness, I just undid some suspicious edits by a user who joined a few days ago who’s going around canvassing for people to join his cause. Can you tell if there’s something suspicious about it? Wikiboo02 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see though, WaterIguana didn't add any sources in their edits; they just moved the Center for Generational Kinetics down to a more appropriate range, which should be done anyway. But I definitely suspect WaterIguana of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. They joined Wikipedia on November 27, in the midst of the talk page discussion, and immediately got involved in this dispute and nothing else. I've seen their user talk page alerts and it appears that they share the same views as GhostlyOperative; I also find it interesting that WaterIguana has not reached out to GhostlyOperative on their talk page. WaterIguana also started editing only a week after GhostlyOperative seemingly disappeared. Though it looks like a duck to me, I don't want to cry sockpuppet, so I'd like to hear other people's thoughts. BappleBusiness^[talk] 17:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you double check that that was the only change they did? The edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&diff=1126290087&oldid=1126287783 contains more than that. Look at line 101 they removed the range from “According to a 2020 McKinsey & Company analysis, Generation Z (defined as born from 1996 to 2012)” and they put the Center for Generational Kinetics in another place than it used to be. I recall it used to be the last sentence of the section. Is it possible to just revert to status quo as should’ve been done earlier? I didn’t know the page was still being edited but Dan Bloch pointed it out. Wikiboo02 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to how it should’ve been with Center for Generational Kinetics in the right place. WaterIguana sneaked in other edits without reaching consensus which were reverted. WaterIguana has now made 6 reverts in the past 24 hours which constitutes edit warring, no? Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your suspicions are unfounded. Maybe start an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GhostlyOperative to see if WaterIguana and GhostlyOperative are the same person? Some1 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you revert back the change done by Zillennial? He just removed the Center for Generational Kinetics from the article altogether without consensus. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

An IP from a previous investigation on GhostlyOperative namely 68.62.155.13 has reached out to Centennial357 about protecting WaterIguanas edit. Could be worth including this in a report. Wikiboo02 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you revert back the change done by Zillennial? He just removed the Center for Generational Kinetics from the article altogether without consensus. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to how it should’ve been with Center for Generational Kinetics in the right place. WaterIguana sneaked in other edits without reaching consensus and disclosing them which were reverted. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I personally think the sources from government censuses bureau (U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada) are important enough to be stated outright, even if they are single publications. But we definitely should outright state the official definition vs publication distinction. Ex: Although the U.S. Census does not identify for Gen Z like it does the baby boomers, a U.S. Census Bureau publication in 2020 described Generation Z as those born "after 1996". I am torn about the Library of Congress source though, since I feel like it's significant enough to be in the article but perhaps not outright, but a note for one source would be strange. Though not ideal, I think the best option would be to combine the Library of Congress and Statistics Canada sources into one sentence since they both cite Pew, which the U.S. census source does not. What do you think?

As for the dictionaries, I feel like we need to limit it somehow so it doesn't get out of hand. I'm not opposed to adding Collins, but is there a measure of prominence to which we can limit dictionaries so that their paragraph doesn't get out of hand? I included World Economic Forum outright (albeit, briefly) because that seemed to be a source type unlike the rest, but we could add it to a note if that's what people want. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to add Collins. We have one US dictionary and one UK dictionary. More dictionaries with roughly the same definition don't add anything. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

But more importantly, it doesn't belong in this edit. We have a consensus on the restructuring, we shouldn't be holding it up to add changes which could be done separately. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That is true, let's focus on the structure right now. BappleBusiness^[talk] 16:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean we do have Oxford and Oxford Learners which are the same so I don’t see the issue if Collins was used instead as it actually supports a mid 1990s start to complement the late 1990s ones. Wikiboo02 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I forgot that we had two Oxfords. That would probably encourage me to get rid of one rather than add Collins, but at the end of the day I don't care as long as they're all in the same paragraph. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If possible, any number of publications that use the same source, in this case Pew, should be summarized into one sentence or just be in the notes so I agree. I agree that there should be a distinction between official and publication but I’m not sure how that could be done. Wikiboo02 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Updates/another proposal

Using BappleBusiness's notes layout idea, and incorporating some of the feedback given so far, what are your thoughts and comments on the proposal below? Some1 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Although the exact birth years of Generation Z are not specifically defined, researchers and popular media typically use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years. The Oxford Dictionaries describes Generation Z as "the generation born in the late 1990s or the early 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the use of digital technology, the internet, and social media from a very young age." The Collins Dictionary define Generation Z as "members of the generation of people born between the mid-1990s and mid-2010s who are seen as confident users of new technology". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as "the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s."

The Pew Research Center specified 1997 as their starting birth year for Generation Z, choosing this date for "different formative experiences", such as new technological and socioeconomic developments, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks. Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report. Numerous news outlets use a starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research Center. Various think tanks and analytics companies also have set a 1997 start date. Although the U.S. Census does not identify Gen Z like it does the baby boomers, a U.S. Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born "after 1996". Statistics Canada used 1997 to 2012, citing Pew Research Center, to define Generation Z in their 2021 Census.

Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z, as do various management and consulting firms. Psychologist Jean Twenge has defined Generation Z as the "iGeneration" using a range of those born between 1995 and 2012.

Individuals born in the Millennial and Generation Z cusp years have been sometimes identified as a "microgeneration" with characteristics of both generations. The most common name given for these cuspers is Zillennials.

Comments

It's looking good; I like how you incorporated the feedback. A couple things: Firstly, the World Economic Forum isn't a management/consulting firm (which is why I originally didn't include it in the note), so if we are including the WEF in the note, we would need to classify it (and to be frank I don't know how to describe it). Also, I could be wrong but I believe Statistics Canada only used generational labels in a publication analyzing the 2021 census, rather than in the census itself. And I think it would be good to have the first sentence as a separate paragraph from the dictionaries, but that's not super important. Other than that, I think this section is ready to be on the actual page (then we can tackle the adding/removing sources bit). BappleBusiness^[talk] 04:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not bad but I think we still could include the Center for Generational Kinetics. Their expertise on generations is referenced by some well known places: [1]https://guides.loc.gov/consumer-research/market-segments/generations, [2]https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/06/24/nfts-are-the-new-roses/?sh=5bfb02cc33ef and [3]https://www.businessinsider.com/what-gen-z-wants-workplace-expecations-salary-benefits-perks-2022-5?r=US&IR=T#because-gen-z-is-less-motivated-by-financial-success-many-are-driven-by-an-entrepreneurial-side-to-make-a-difference-in-the-world-7 to name a few. With them still using their definition as of 2022: [4]https://genhq.com/generation-z-workforce-research-2021-2022/. I think keeping it in one single sentence as in BappleBusiness’s proposal gives it correct weight and therefore it shouldn’t be removed. What do you think Some1?

Wikiboo02 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See below for another update. I've removed the World Economic Forum source since it seems to be a primary source anyway (and not too noteworthy), sectioned off the dictionary definitions, and clarified the Statistics Canada sentence. I'm still unsure about the Center for Generational Kinetics source. It might need a separate discussion of its own. Some1 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I replied to your comment about the Center for Generational Kinetics in the section below. I’m wondering whether we will include the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Census 2021) too? As we have Canada and it’s supposed to be about Western generations? Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, citation for the Australian Bureau of Statistics? I'm assuming it's this one: https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2021-census-shows-millennials-overtaking-boomers I've added it to the proposal below, though I'm unsure of where to place it exactly. Some1 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Although the exact birth years of Generation Z are not specifically defined, researchers and popular media typically use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years.

The Oxford Dictionaries describes Generation Z as "the generation born in the late 1990s or the early 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the use of digital technology, the internet, and social media from a very young age." The Collins Dictionary define Generation Z as "members of the generation of people born between the mid-1990s and mid-2010s who are seen as confident users of new technology". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as "the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s."

The Pew Research Center specified 1997 as their starting birth year for Generation Z, choosing this date for "different formative experiences", such as new technological and socioeconomic developments, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks. Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report. Numerous news outlets use a starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research Center. Various think tanks and analytics companies also have set a 1997 start date. Although the U.S. Census does not identify Gen Z like it does the baby boomers, a U.S. Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born "after 1996". Statistics Canada used 1997 to 2012, citing Pew Research Center, in a 2022 publication analyzing their 2021 census.

Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z, as do various management and consulting firms. Psychologist Jean Twenge has defined Generation Z as the "iGeneration" using a range of those born between 1995 and 2012. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1996 to 2010 to define Generation Z in a 2021 Census report.

Individuals born in the Millennial and Generation Z cusp years have been sometimes identified as a "microgeneration" with characteristics of both generations. The most common name given for these cuspers is Zillennials.

Date range sources don't seem right.

Moved from Talk:Generation_Z#Date_range_sources_don't_seem_right.

 – Some1 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that many of the sources that are included in the date range section should be removed. I don't think that Forbes magazine, Inc., CBS News, etc. should even be on there in the first place (the CBS article is even from 2015). As previous people have mentioned from the talks page discussion, outdated sources need to be removed according to today's date. WaterIguana (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is WikiBoo2 moving the 1996-2015 citation into the Pew Research section at the very top? There is no consensus to do this.

Moved from Talk:Generation_Z#Why_is_WikiBoo2_moving_the_1996-2015_citation_into_the_Pew_Research_section_at_the_very_top?_There_is_no_consensus_to_do_this.

 – Some1 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have also put a cuspers citation that Some1 has approved for Centennial357 to add to the cuspers page. I suspected that WikiBoo2/Argsro have multiple accounts and has been editing without discussing it. Why are they attempting to move the Centers for Generational Kinetics citation into the Pew Research section without discussing it first? There is no consensus for this! I have made aware to both Some1 and Dan Bloch about their behavior. So this is why there are so many outdated citations as well as citation articles that violate the date range edit guidelines. That 2015 CBS News citation and outdated United Press International are the many examples. WaterIguana (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have already notified to both Some1 and Dan Bloch about WikiBoo2 the past couple of weeks. I find it suspicious that WikiBoo2 had allowed the 1996-2015 citation to be moved and didn't edited it back. There is no consensus to do this. I have added the recent Cosmos citation that was approved by Some1 themself to be added to the cusper page. As I have said, I suspected WikiBoo2 to have been the same individual who has been adding outdated citations that shouldn't be on the Generation Z article page at all. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the CBS News, and many others were added by WikiBoo2 this past May. They are outdated. Argso had also done the same. Who had added the INC. magazine, for example? That shouldn't even be there. WaterIguana (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently lots of vandalism going on these pages. I will ping @Danbloch @Some1 and @BappleBusiness about @Wikiboo2's vandalism. Center for Generational Kinetics is nothing more than a marketing agency. It has no WIkipedia article on it, and there are rarely articles that cite the date ranges used in their research. Their website that defines "Gen Z" has not been updated since 2018, quoting "every industry will see an increase in Gen Z employees over the next three years as the oldest members of this generation are already 22." and even the Facebook group only has 600 likes. I back up @WaterIguana and agree that CGK has no reason to be in this article as it is outdated information and not widely known. Zillennial (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading your reasoning, I agree we should remove the Center for Generational Kinetics reference. Can we make those edits in the sandbox (in a new section, since "Consolidation for Notes" explicitly doesn't add or remove sources) and not on the actual article until we gather consensus? Otherwise it will just result in endless edit warring, like what is happening now. As for the edits by @Wikiboo02, I don't think it's intentional enough to be vandalism, but it is certainly at least approaching disruptive editing. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Which edits are we talking about? The only thing I did was reverting some changes from today that went against consensus. If you want you can show me the edits that were wrong. The edit that this user is talking about was made by AusLondonder. The Center for Generational Kinetics are definitely using their range still in 2022 with new publications from 2021-2022 being released. It says “Gen Z employees are here. Now up to age 26…” and last year they surveyed “ages 13-25”. Just because they defined it a while back doesn’t mean they aren’t using it anymore. Same thing could be said about Pew so let’s discard the idea that it’s outdated. I think on here they’re given due weight as demographers. I think the intention of this user is to eradicate any range that isn’t Pew as is evident by him sneaking in a removal of the 1996-2012 range that McKinsey used in one of their reports in the Asia section. Wikiboo02 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As stated above: Center For Generational Kinetics is nothing more than a marketing agency. There is little to no evidence that this is a valid addition to the Date and Age Range section because it is rarely (if ever) referenced or used in major media articles that gain traction. A minority opinion (see: Strauss--Howe generational-theory) does not need to be referenced in a general article. Also- not sure why you said Pew Research is "outdated" when nearly every source listed under the "1997-2012" birth year range follows the criteria that us who have been contributing to this article agreed on and the invisible comment beneath the section: avoid marketing/consulting companies, non-notable media sources, and institutions not related to studying generations. Instead, focus on demographers and experts, generation-research firms, government sources/censuses, and notable dictionaries. Notable media/newspapers may be used in a limited fashion in tandem with another appropriate source as listed above.

To address the last point you've made: accusing me of "sneaking in a removal" (to part of an article that does not need to reference a birth year range as it is an unnecessary run-on) with the idea that "eradicating any range that isn't Pew" is my motive goes against Wikipedia guidelines see:Assume good faith. I have been contributing to the Generation Z page for 2+ years now and am a trusted editor. I am pinging @BappleBusiness and @Some1 once again, as @Wikiboo02 has brought Disruptive editing to this page with @WaterIguana (looks like they've been on a block now). If accusatory behavior/disruptive editing continues on their part I will be reporting them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Zillennial (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also @Wikiboo02 is now accusing me of sockpuppetry (based on their reply above). Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser. Zillennial (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The Center For Generational Kinetics addition seems a bit promotional, especially when the source used is linked to their own website. Just from googling them, their main website appears, then the owner's website, then their LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple Podcasts... As of now, I don't see many major media outlets citing their research, so I don't think they should be included in the article; adding them will just give their company free advertisement. Some1 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t that to be expected when one Googles a company? Googling Pew, not saying they’re anywhere near them, also gives their website along with Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube. The source for Pew is also linked to their own website, again not comparing the relevancy of both. I’m not sure about the original reasoning behind including it but given that it’s a primary definition, from demographers like Pew, the only thing that sets it apart is that it’s not as widely known which is why I reason that it should remain in one single sentence far below Pew so as to not give it undue weight. Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning them in a single sentence like that ("The Center for Generational Kinetics define Generation Z..."), when they're not well-known and are barely cited by reliable secondary sources is giving them undue weight in general. Some1 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. There's no reason to include a random market agency that does not hold a majority view point when defining generations. Zillennial (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

When you frame it that way I agree. I tried looking for older consensus that approved it but couldn’t find any, do you Some1 know why it was added in the first place? I can’t think of anything that would refute your reasoning. If things change in the future and I find better reason to include it I will make a talk page discussion. Wikiboo02 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I beg of you, can someone check in a version? Either version. We're in reasonably close agreement. What I'm seeing now is that we're talking about details and holding up the big changes. If we don't get it absolutely right the first time the remaining issues can be settled on their merits, but after the reformatting is live. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The closest we are to an agreement is Some1’s latest proposal. I’m awaiting his approval and maybe he can publish it? Wikiboo02 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm publishing the most recent proposal onto the actual page. We can further discuss changes, but at least we'll have a better version for the time being. BappleBusiness^[talk] 06:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should try to update some of the sources to use articles published in 2023. Especially if they are a few years old. Zillennial (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox Edit #2 // Date and Age Range

Defining "generations" is not an exact science. The breakdowns are subjective and the traits of each cohort are generalized. However researchers and popular media typically define Generation Z as those born with a year starting around 1997 and ending around 2012.[5]

The Oxford Dictionaries describes Generation Z as "the generation born in the late 1990s or the early 21st century, perceived as being familiar with the use of digital technology, the internet, and social media from a very young age." The Collins Dictionary define Generation Z as "members of the generation of people born between the mid-1990s and mid-2010s who are seen as confident users of new technology". The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Generation Z as "the generation of people born in the late 1990s and early 2000s."

The Pew Research Center has defined 1997 as the starting birth year for Generation Z, basing this on "different formative experiences", such as new technological and socioeconomic developments, as well as growing up in a world after the September 11 attacks. Pew has not specified an endpoint for Generation Z, but used 2012 as a tentative endpoint for their 2019 report. Numerous news outlets use a starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research Center. Various think tanks and analytics companies also have set a 1997 start date. In a 2022 report, the U.S. Census designates Generation Z as "the youngest generation with adult members (born 1997 to 2013)." Statistics Canada used 1997 to 2012, citing Pew Research Center, in a 2022 publication analyzing their 2021 census.

Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z, as do various management and consulting firms. Psychologist Jean Twenge has defined Generation Z as the "iGeneration" using a range of those born between 1995 and 2012. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1996 to 2010 to define Generation Z in a 2021 Census report.

Individuals born in the Millennial and Generation Z cusp years have been sometimes identified as a "microgeneration" with characteristics of both generations. The most common name given for these cuspers is Zillennials. Zillennial (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Header Idea

Idea #1:

Generation Z (or more commonly Gen Z for short), colloquially known as zoomers, is the demographic cohort succeeding Millennials and preceding Generation Alpha. Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as those born between 1997 and 2012.[6] Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.

Idea #2:

Generation Z (or more commonly Gen Z for short), colloquially known as zoomers, is the demographic cohort succeeding Millennials and preceding Generation Alpha. Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, generally defined as those born loosely from 1997 and 2012.[7] Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.

Idea #3:

Generation Z (or more commonly Gen Z for short), colloquially known as zoomers, is the demographic cohort succeeding Millennials and preceding Generation Alpha. Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the birth years loosely defined from about 1997 to 2012.[8] Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X. Zillennial (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)