Talk:Generation Z in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Submission

@Llewee: Thank for for submitting this article for review. But please note the following comment by the previous reviewer. When this draft was last submitted, User:RoySmith stated that it was a content fork. It still appears to be a content fork. Therefore the primary question is whether the existing article should be split. The discussion of whether to split the existing parent article should be at Talk:Generation Z, and if necessary can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Discuss on the talk page of the existing article. Therefore, if you think this article is ready for prime time, please initiate a discussion on the talk page of Generation Z. Nerd271 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Operational definitions & Alternate names

Since this information is kind of touched on in the parent Generation Z article, perhaps we should remove these sections and merge the material into there. The naming of the generation isn't a uniquely American issue in this case, so it doesn't make sense to repeat the information in both articles. BappleBusiness (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Nerd271, please see above. For concision, we should remove these sections from this article, as we already have this information in the parent article. BappleBusiness (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I broke it off because the article got way too long. Nerd271 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm saying that we don't need the information from the two sections in this article, which is about the generation in the United States, because the categorization of the generation is not US-exclusive or US-unique. We can just keep the information in the parent article; there is no need for duplication. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah, these are independent articles. You can read one but not the other. As such, they ought to be self-contained. Nerd271 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. This article should act as a supplementary article to the main Generation Z article. Information in the US-specific article can be summarized in the general Generation Z article (along with a link to the corresponding section in this article), which makes sense because the global article shouldn't exclude the US. But if we put global definitions and traits that aren't unique to the United States into the US-specific article, there will be way too much overlap and redundant information -- defeating this article's purpose. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Neither articles are supplements of each other. Nerd271 (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Come on. This article is literally called Generation Z in the United States. This means that this article is taking the subject described in Generation Z and focusing on a specific country. Therefore, this is a supplement to the Generation Z article, and we don't need to repeat information that isn't unique or exclusive to the United States here. You're acting like these articles are completely independent when they just aren't. BappleBusiness (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the changes made here. We wouldn't want the terminology/nomenclature and date and age range sections of this article to be basically a repeat of the current sections in the main Generation Z article. Some1 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 Hi, just alerting you to the talk page once again. You didn't address my June 10 comments, and I saw you were editing other pages, so after a week, I thought it would be okay to readdress the issue. Instead of competely reverting back to my edits, I decided we needed a compromise for some sort of resolution. So what I did was provide summarizing information for the nomenclature and date ranges, and then linked to the original article. I combined the two sections because that makes sense for the small amount of prose needed for this purpose. This compromise would allow the article to address these subjects in this article, which you find important, while also cutting down on unnecessary and repeated information, which I find important. Let me know what you think. BappleBusiness (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271: alerting your attention to this talk page once again. If you don't respond, I'll take it that you agree with the proposed changes. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have restored your version (plus made some tweaks and kept the Pew part since 9/11 is US-centric) since we don't want these two sections to basically become a repeat of the main Generation Z article. Some1 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Generation timeline.svg

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

Request for putting 1997 to 2012 in the description.

The United States Library of Congress cites Pew Research Center to define the generations, including Generation Z. The United States Census also has chosen a specific definition, starting with 1997 births. This Wikipedia article is different from the others since it is specifically about the United States. The latter two mentioned sources are from the government, not just any random think tanks or pop culture irrelevant articles. The United States Legislative and Executive branches are fully aware of the chosen 1997 start date rather than 1995, evidence with the fact that Maxwell Frost (born in 1997) is being classified as the first official Gen Z member of the United States Congress rather than Madison Crawthorn (1995). The 1997 to 2012 date range is seen as the most consistent date range within the United States media. Wikipedia editors aren’t self-aware in that by just throwing a large number of random articles that begin with 1995 or 1996 together isn’t helping their case, but actually detrimental due to the lack of consistency (for example: 1995-2009, 1995-2010, 1995-2012, 1996-2009, 1996-2010, 1996-2015, and even 1996-2006). Jean Twenge has written articles and made comments in interviews about the possibility that she might move her start date to that of Pew’s in the future (this can be read on her official website, as she clarifies that her 1995-2012 range isn’t final; rather subjective to change). What I want to bring awareness, most importantly, is the fact that editors had attempted to delete the mentioned 2022 United States Census source in its entirety, attempting to fully replace it with irrelevant pop culture articles (the Mexican Vogue magazine article written in Spanish), and the suggestion of the inclusion of other dubious articles. For example, Deloitte has cited the 1997-2012 date range as of the 2023 year, not the 1995 one. The complete removal of the United States 2022 Census article was not reverted for several months, suggesting that Wikipedia editors are editing out of pettiness rather than actually helping the website. 2601:940:C180:3DB0:E857:A613:7BF6:3CE (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Very long

Hi @Nerd271, I added the very long template because the readable prose size is 119 kB. WP:SIZERULE states that articles over 100 kB of prose size "almost certainly should be divided". Why do you think this article is an exception? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about an entire demographic cohort. People are complex creatures. Nerd271 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Readability suffers when the article is too long. 119 kB is too long. I agree that there is a lot of information about demographic cohorts. But when an article becomes unreadable, we have to reevaluate how the information is organized, what information needs to be included, etc.

You of all people should know this, as you said in the Operational definitions & Alternate names discussion that you broke it [Gen Z in US] off because the article [Gen Z] got way too long. But in fact, Generation Z's article at the time of this article's creation (May 4, 2019) was only 27 kB. If a 27 kB article was too long back then, why isn't this 119 kB article too long now? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You're comparing one section with one article. Nerd271 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm comparing two articles: the Gen Z article on May 4, 2019, and the Gen Z in the US article today. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 04:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nerd271, bringing your attention to this again. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@BappleBusiness: this article is extremely long and Nerd271 is showing signs of WP:OWN behavior in their resistance to changing it. I think the article needs TNT. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"from left to right"

as a picture description DOES NOT WORK, not even in desktop-view !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3035:605:9A1F:17D3:4CE0:4A4F:110C (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Pew

Pew reference isn’t valid anymore they retired generations saying it’s arbitrary and not everyone agrees on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.235.180.87 (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't rely on sources unless they specifically categorize by 'Generation Z', otherwise I worry it would be WP:Synth Superb Owl (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Atrocious writing, bad sourcing

They read books less often than their predecessors and spend more time in front of a screen.[30][31] They tend to become familiar with the Internet and portable digital devices at a young age,[4] but are not necessarily digitally literate.[32] Spending so much time on social media can distort their view of the world,[33] hamper their social development,[34] and harm their mental health.[35][36][37][38][39]

This ought to be an example of how not to write a lead paragraph. Gen Z spends more time in front of what screens? "Spending so much time on social media"... but how much time do they spend on it?

The sourcing here is also iffy. Citation 33 is a Psychology Today blog post from Jena Pincott. Yet there seems to be a general opinion at RSN that Psychology Today is not reliable.[1][2]

...and yet the source itself doesn't even mention Generation Z, teenagers, young people, etc, at all. It's literally just an article about the broader impact of social media on society.

If you look at the other sources in this article, you'll see this pattern repeated over and over again: some over-reaching editor has synthed together a lot of sources that don't explicitly support what's being said in the Wiki. This is especially problematic given the sheer size of the article. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article has a lot of similar issues around WP:OR and WP:Synth (and lack of reliable secondary sources) - have started flagging these but it could be a big effort to clean-up Superb Owl (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)