Talk:List of generations

message: I was listening to the Billy Joel song, we didn't start the fire (since there was a fire near where I live) and I noticed this song is related to the baby boomers era. So I started reading about generation and I think there is a general consensus on the baby boomers generation (46-64) and Generation X (70-82), So is it possible that the actual definition of the new generation might be under the widely and popular use of the Myspace generation? (82-92) and if not, why not? I hear all the time that this and that is for the "Myspace generation" (among those terms I have heard expressions such as: "Show for the myspace generation", "Created for the Myspace generation" and the like. If such a definition of Myspace generation is true,then maybe I could star writing an article on such a topic. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MySpace in no way defines any generation. Hell, it's not even that popular any more. In decade, you'll look back and barely remember it, if you do at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Myspace Generation

message: If I'm interpreting this right, most of the generations listed here are listed by date of birth (i.e. Gen X was born between 1970 and 1980 (the dates listed), but weren't referred to as Generation X until the 90s). With that in mind, shouldn't beat generation be moved to something like 1940-something?
--24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This table is very confusing, especially to anyone looking up "Baby Boom" only to find "Beat Generation" coming afterwards. Ghosts&empties 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I reacted too rashly; I think I now realize that there may in fact be at least two distinct definitions of "The Beat Generation": (1) the small group of professional writers/artists known as "The Beats", of various ages but prominent from the late 1940s through the 1950s; and (2) the sub-generation (or cusp?) of young people who were loosely influenced by these artists, those who were teenagers or very young adults during the 1950s/early 1960s, stereotyped as being "Beatniks". I believe Strauss and Howe meant the term in the second sense (sense (2)), and this would thus make them the cusp between the Silent Generation and the Boom generation. My mistake. Shanoman 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beat Generation

message: This needs to be made consistent with the table that pages like Beat Generation shows. There are significant discrepencies between the two.
--24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: I think certain aspects need to be modified, for instant The Greatest Generation is actually a sub-generation of the G.I. Generation and not vice versa... 87.80.126.226 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Transcendentalist Generation, and the Abolitionist Generation? do they fit in somewhere here? Also, do you think the "American Generations" table (found on Generation X etc.) ought to link here instead of Generations (book)? Dev1n 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Generations Table

message: In the chart identifying notable occurrences for Baby Boomers, the civil rights movement is mentioned. I think another importanat occurence would be the feminist movement, which made life dramatically different for female baby boomers than it was for the generations that preceded them.
* This article is so narrowly conceived and so American-centric it needs to be completely overhauled...  Apparently, even in the so-called Modern or global era following WWII, only the United States had a population explosion...  Where are the author/contributors living? In Sarah Palin's basement (right next to her living room)? This article, as others have noted, needs to expanded to include a world-wide perspective... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby boomer influences 

message: The dates given here are inconsistent with the ones on the Gen X and Gen Y pages. Is there any chance you can tidy it up? I'm born in 1980. Am I lower Gen X as stated here or upper Gen Y as stated on the Gen X page? (I would say upper Gen Y, but that's just personal opinion).
It would be great to clear up birth ranges for each generation and would love to see if anyone has names for generations going back before teh lost generation - founding fathers post civil war whatever  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnstony (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: This article presents mostly an advertising perspective for the current/recent generations and then flings it back through history to make some continuous history of generations that isn't demographically accurate. Many of the historic generations were not due to inventions or "pop culture" (which only emerged at the turn of the century, in any case) but wars and their demographic effects. The problems of telling a story about generations is why demographers and sociologists rarely use the word "generation" in favor of "cohort." This article should describe the attempts of advertisers to perceive and shape markets of age-related cohorts separate from such actual, popularly-identifiable generations as "The Greatest Generation" and "Baby Boomers" 
Pshopboy 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Why don't you write such a section and pop it in? Be bold. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An advertising perspective, not an analytical one 

message: Anyone born between 1990-2004
Why? The release of Toy Story in the early ninties began the emmergence of Pixar which has almost replaced Disney(which owns the intellectual property and now the company of Pixar but has little creative input) as the source of childhood entertainment in the Ninties establishing a new monopoly on children's culture. 
When those who grew up with Pixar begin to turn to new media texts in the early 2000's they needed almost a new medium. What was this medium? Apple computers and Ipods. Apple computers now, as of 2007, is a strong competitor with Microsoft and has supported media on it's computer OS better and seems to own a monopoly on virtual media. With Apple and Pixar in tow the next and last proof for the Title the Steve Jobs Generation for the 1990-2004 generations is the acquistition of Pixar by Disney. This acquisition made Jobs the majority shareholder at Disney, which owns ABC, one of the biggest American networks. 
Therefore because of his de facto control of children's culture through Pixar,his influence in the media via Disney's ABC and his control over the growing Computer giant Apple, Steve Jobs should be the defining feauture and thus the Title of our generation.
Don't get cocky, Steve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Steve Jobs Generation 

message: I just removed a rather derogatory comment that made an very valid point.  Shouldn't this page be titled "American Generations" or "US Generations"? 
- Smedrick 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is there any material for this outside of the US? If there is, I think it should be a separate article unless there are reliable accepted sources to demonstrate a worldwide similarity. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only reasonable person here. 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Generations 

message: This should be renamed because all the generations are American based. 70.55.84.6 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is there any material for this outside of the US? If there is, I think it should be a separate article unless there are reliable accepted sources to demonstrate a worldwide similarity. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only reasonable person here. 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: requested move: List of generations &rarr; List of US generations

message: I removed some material from the Baby Boom section. Since there is a separate article, it should go there, A summary of one or two sentences is enough here. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: details

message: One source that could be used to validate this article is The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It came out in 1997, and charts American generations. It begins in England with the Arthurian Generation (born 1433-1460) but generations take on a more American character as society changes from its English roots. I think this would be an excellent source, but it shouldn't be the ONLY source. If someone can come up with two or three additional sources then maybe this article can get organized. CClio333 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Source

message: Time to merge Silent generation page with List of generations .  SG is nothing more than  a hodgepodge of Strauss and Howe.  It is a pointless list of people born at a given time, without any scientific backing, notability, or decent references.  It could be fit into the LIST of Gens, if people feel so inclined.  But the time has come to get rid of this thing.  
The agreement--Summer 07--was to let the "silent generation" stand if it could have an existence apart from Strauss and Howe.  It has not.  Thus, it's time to merge it away. --Smilo Don (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Have done some research, sourcing and expansion.  I haven't read Strauss/Howe, so I don't know how much the sources I used come from them, but it was very easy to find lots of stuff on these folks. I don't think it appropriate to write off these folks, many of whom are still around today.--Cbradshaw (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is one of the relatively few ones here that might stand. The time cover story is enough documentation for the term. Removing the lists nonsense is however a good idea. As they remian undocumented, I have simply just now removed them. The additional information you have been adding is names of people who have lived durgngthe S&H period in question. Since there is no reason to think this has any general significance outside of their fringe theory, and since silent generation is a much more general term that antedates S&H, the list is irrelevant, and I remove removed it entirely. Please do not re-add it without consensus on the talk page there. Yes, there is plenty of stuff on those folks, but except for fortuitous birth years, not necessarily anything much common about them. We have list of 19XX births already as articles here. and no need to do it by 20 year periods.   DGG (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it again from that article, since it is absolutely not supported by consensus. DGG (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing more than [[Strauss and Howe]] Time to merge 

message: The table on the wiki page is appearing below the References section, despite being declared above it in the wiki markup. This is most distressing. h3h (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Generations Table Placement

message: When we discuss about Generation Z, i.e., people who born after 1990's, certainly we will think that they are the "Internet Generation", because they are born on or after "the Internet" become mainstream technology.  
Actually, in addition to Internet, I also want to mention that they are also "Genetically modified" Generation, since they are properly eat many GM food since they born (as GM technology become mainstream on 1990's).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.118.174 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Generation Z

message: This article is completely bereft of reliable sources, and is likely full of original research and unproven theses. Additionally, posting an entire table based on Strauss and Howe is completely lopsided, as in the 20 years since the book was published there has been a great deal of research published that expands on their work and disproves it. This article needs sources that prove out both of those issues; leave the tags until that's resolved. • Freechild'sup? 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Doesn't this generation consist of those born from the 80's and the early-mid 90's? Since all the children born during this period had similar experiences and stuff. 
And what is the difference between Generetion Y and Generation Z since both experienced the Internet going mainstream when they were young. --Esoj Oirgela (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation Y? 

message: Why not include the actual date ranges given by Strauss & Howe?  Given they are the most respected experts on said subject.  The author of this page has given a table loosely based on Strauss & Howe.  The author attempts to take all the dates from all these different sources gathered and "squeeze" them into Strauss & Howe's date ranges.  Which results in a contradictory table the has sub generations within the Strauss & Howe generations, but the dates don't match.  The subgenerations do not exist datewise within the actually generation.  This article should be deleted as one already exists on Strauss & Howe's generatinal theories.  The article would be appropriate and non-duplicating, if it focused on the differences between Strauss & Howe's theories and the many less-researched theories that have popped up from news media, social commentary and other less academic based theories.  THis article confuses the idea of a generational "system" proposed by S & H.  Perhaps the author(s) are on the right track, but have just kind of "vommitted"  the information at us.  All this information projected at us without any direction towards an opposing argument to Strauss & Howe, or an explanation of what all this information is supposed to lead us to think.  The author(s) sound as if they are the pre-eminent authorities on the subject.  When actually what we have here is a collection of all information one can obtain by goggling "Generations".  Furthermore this collection of information is presented in a way that almost every detail given contradicts another detail given.  Perhaps if some time was taken to set up the information.  For example why not explain that theories exist outside of S & H, and these are some, etc.  THen instead of generically throwing them all out at once, say "one theory believes this...another believes this...etc...etc."  Then perhaps the author(s) could have summarized their own opinion based on their research for the article.  Good concept, but poorly conceived & executed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.210.98 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The S&H, though the fullest and most internally consistent list, is aimed at illustrating a specific theory. This is intended to be more general, listing generations proposed by others, as well as the few by them that have come into general use. I agree on reorganizing, but w certainly cannot have authors summarizing based on their own opinions-- see WP:OR. As for consistency between the different generations, suggested by everyone, I don't see how that can be expected. DGG (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strauss & Howe 

message: This article is an example of a topic which is absolutely shameful in its Americentricism!  I also agree that it seems to be limited to one or two material sources which were seemingly written not as responsible history, but basically as nostalgic commentary.  As a US citizen myself, I am always horrified by material that presents itself as a valid reference of human sociology, yet is written by someone(s) who is totally ignorant of the fact that there's a whole WORLD out there that is NOT ruled exclusively by shallow American Pop Culture.   
Anyway, as you can see, I'm very opinionated on the topic, so I did not edit the article, only tagged it.  I noticed a prior proposal of deletion was put forward but ended without conclusion; I hope someone who understands my reasoning for objecting to this article will go further and either 1, figure out a better way to present this material, or 2. request another deletion discussion.  itinerant_tuna (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly room for improvement, but the very first example given talks about a group of people who were primarily differentiated by their international travel.  That is, these are American generations listed with various strong influences from the rest of the globe.  Many examples are specifically cited in terms of what happened to a group of people when young, arguably making this an extension of the Youth movement concept.  Given the amount of cultural information exhibited here it would make more sense to refine than to delete because of a lack of appropriate qualifications. -- M0llusk (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of Topic Is Limited to USA Pop Culture 

message: Of anything we're the true Yers. We grew up with everything in the 90s 80s babies did, we just don't remember it as well. 1993 at the EARLIEST is when Z starts, not 1990, 91 or 92.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to be able to say that with the same certainty you do, but where does this information come from?--Father Goose (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early 90s = NOT Gen Z!!!!!

message: This article has no or not many clear citions and is need of major work.  Also it seems to be on or a few peoples own point of view.  For example stating that Generation X starts in 1964 and ends in 1978 is clearly wrong, however I do see what the writer is trying to express. He is trying to say that born between those years and being a teen in the 1980;'s and an adult in the 1990's you related more with the trends of the late 60's and early 70's.  The Sum generations I also understand, but found no research on them. Some generation names are actully sub names within another generation.  For example Generation Jones is a period within the (baby) Boom generation.  I will start and edit in a week if no one conters my POV.--Mickey 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Maybe there should be some discussion first to define what a generation is before you try to ascertain or measure the range of when one occurs... Generations are not just modern phenomena.  If you want to characterize what one is or what purpose it provides, that may help the contributors ability to denote its existence.  There is no standard for inclusion or delineation here, so that is why this article is so disjointed and conflicted. Even the "generations" that have some agreement are full of conflicting and contrary dates... First establish a definition for a generation... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define a Generation First 

message: Regardless of disagreements on the content of the table, the FORM needs work.  Blank lines, overlapping year intervals, WP:DASH violations, etc.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form of table 

message: This entire debate about Generation Jones is based on flawed analysis and relies too much on non-expert opinions (reporters/journalists who have cited the Joneser designation). By far, the majority of experts and expert media identify the BABY BOOM GENERATION as those born between 1946 and 1964. While GenJones enthusiasts can cite media references to GenJones, expert proponents of the traditional demographic description outnumber GenJones proponents 100 to one. Wikipedia doesn't have enough server space to cover all the traditional demographic citations for this "generation." The majority of members of this generation have never heard of GenJones, and the media who have become acquainted with the construct have almost always received the information directly or indirectly from Pontell or his proxies. The latter half of the baby boom has also -- more typically -- been referred to as Late Boomers, Trailing-Edge Boomers, Young Boomers, and even Cuspers. There are many more media sources that can be cited where the younger half of the Boomer generation is referred to in some other way than GenJones or a derivative. There are many other authors -- other than Strauss & Howe -- who have had better selling, more influential books than S&H, and who also consider younger Boomers as being part of the same generation. At best, GenJoners are a subset of the Baby Boomer Generation, or, as the most influential generational theorist would have it (Karl Mannheim et. al.), Jonesers are a "generational unit" of the Boomer Generation. Most of the major values that experts associate with early Boomers (leading-edge) are also shared by the younger half of the cohort -- such as gender equality, distrust of institutional authority, self-empowerment, and racial equality. The cultural similarities between early Leading-Edge Boomers and Trailing-Edge Boomers (Jonesers) are far more extensive than the differences.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonda Wharton (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Jonesers are not boomers, but, as cultural generations, they overlap; boomers running from 1946 or so to 1960, and Jonesers from 1953 to 1965 or so.  "Cultural generations" are not a matter of years; or, to be precise, the years differ in different subcultures existing at the same time.  If the articles were corrected to reflect that reality, I wouldn't object to the characterization.  (For that matter, I'm probably culturally closer to GenX than GenJones, even though I was born in what I still consider to be in the Baby Boom Generation, in spite of GenJones moving in to it.  But individuals and subcultures may have different "generations".)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It does, and it doesn't, paint an inaccurate picture to single out Generation Jones.  It does, in that there is overlap and readjustments of all "generations" between researchers.  It doesn't in that all the previous ones, and GenX are recognized by almost all researchers.  GenY/Z or Millennials or ... is even less consistent in recognition.  For what it's worth, GenJones is not recognized by our stated primary source for the table.  That's another reason for the  tag I added to the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, the correct way to run the list is probably to include multiple overlapping "generations", including those which have a significant degree of coverage.  This includes the Baby Boomers extending to 1960, as well as the overlapping GenJones.  And the table probably needs to be killed entirely.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article gives far too much weight to Straus & Howe's definitions and bracketing.  It'll take a lot more work to present all the different scholarly views on the subject, although it is work that sooner or later must be done.  Maybe the easiest way to approach it is to break the article into sections sorted by scholar, and to present their analyses separately.--Father Goose (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Generation Jones]] 

message: Where did generation jones come from? This is where history always gets things turned around. You've got baby boomers starting in 1942?????????? The bomb was dropped on december 7 1941??????? You've got baby boomers being born during the war????? Baby boomers were born AFTER WWII. Which means 1946 not 1942. WOW.!!! I almost fell off my chair when i saw this. Barack Obama is part of the SECOND TIER BABY BOOMERS!!!! History is nearly impossible to follow because of inaccuracy and intrepretation & control by others. WOW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.60.34 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation jones 

message: this isn't really a complete generation - i suggest mentioning the cohort in Boomers, but not making it a full gen between Boomers and X - boomer is quite clearly 1946-1963/64  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnieDicko (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree.  Unfortunately, there is a serial single-purpose-account (he only uses one account at a time) which insists otherwise.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gen Jones should be a part of Boomers

message: this might be the hippie generation, but boomers are generally considered to be starting in 1946 and ending somewhere between 1959 and 1964.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergeekfreak (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: boomer 1942-1953 is wrong

message: I think it is not appropriate to put a bunch of cites on this simple list of generations, but an editor has requested cites, so I’ll provide some. It is certainly not appropriate to single out Generation Jones only for citations, so I’ve included the other generations as well with this requirement for citations. It is the nature of generations that each has controversial boundaries; this is social science, not physical science. Also, it’s entirely natural for someone writing about a generation to mention the name of the person who identified or named that generation; that doesn’t change the fact that the writer of the article also believes in the existence of that generation. I’ve added a few cites of Generation Jones from this month which don’t mention the guy who coined the term, but again, there is nothing less credible about an article which does mention the coiner of a generational moniker.TreadingWater (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: cites for each generation on list

message: I have a real beef with these so-called generations, they are not standalone generations but possible subsets within others (sorry, Jones are Boomers on the younger end of the spectrum, MTV Generation was a fad term that has outlasted its usefulness and does not seem to fit well in either X or Y).  The heading states a generation lasts roughly 15-20 years, which I definitely agree with.  Neither Jones nor MTV fit this definition.  Also, Gen X generally runs 1965 to about 1980, I've heard it can go as late as 1982.  I was born Jan 2, 1980, and frankly have little if anything in common with someone born in 1995.  Regarding the small window attributed to the Boomers: Silent Generation must end in about 1945, Boomers must follow in about 1946, marking the start of the explosion of births following the end of the war, one of the generation's defining features.  This is a huge, robust generation spanning the longest amount of time in the 20th century, oh yes, all the way through to 1964.  Whoever is positing the end of the Boomers in 1954 just so they can shoehorn in "Generation Jones" is sorely mistaken.  Obama's a younger boomer, I wish people would stop inventing new generations for him.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelamp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation Jones and MTV Generation are subsets at best, Boomer dates are TOTALLY WRONG 

message: "... many credible sources believe that the Boomer GENERATION ends around 1953."
"... take the time to actually research what experts these days say about the correct generational delineations ..."
[italics added]
Experts in what? Believe what? This discussion is being couched in terms applicable to external, objective phenomena, such as whether the universe is in 4 or 22 or 26 dimensions or whether childhood inoculations cause Asperger's syndrome. These "generations" are purely subjective conventions meant to encapsulate some set of objective phenomona for the purpose of facilitating sociological analyses. They cannot be right or wrong, but they make sense only insofar as they are defined in a way that is consistent with their intended use and that is consistently understood by all parties. "Experts" are not discovering these generations, they are coining these terms for convenience, and it is up to them to recognize that they cannot be defined precisely if the meaning they are intended to encapsulate varies every time the next "expert" adopts them to make a different point.
Many generalizations have been made about baby boomers over the years since the mid-1960s. What percentage of them have since then been found to be completely right for people born before 1953 and completely wrong for people born after 1953? How did it take so long for this to be discovered? Are the consequences of the demographic boom truly beside the point? Does it mean nothing that the entire demographic boom is characterized by a retired generation before them who benefited from the unusually large size of the working population to support them through Social Security taxes and so forth, while faced the whole time with the prospect of the reverse situation once their turn to retire comes (and, indeed, for some has come) up? Is it insignificant that the cohort that grew up with television but without cell phones and desktop computers runs largely from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s?
Doesn't the definition of a "generation" really depend so finely on exactly what it is you're trying to encapsulate at the moment that it's absurd to declare in an encyclopedia, "These Are The Delimiting Years For This Generation And It Shall Not Overlap Any Other 'Generation'"? I believe it would be more helpful to list them in chronological order without explicit boundaries and summarize for each one the contemporary conditions that sociologists most commonly use to characterize them, and perhaps the traits that characterize the generation's members and that are most commonly ascribed to those conditions. At the end of each summary, it would be useful to give a realistic range for both the beginning and the end of the period involved.
—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a way the article could be salvaged.  If there is a reasonable chronological order which can be applied to all generations, subgenerations, cohorts, and other cultural time-oriented groupings, then a list of such, without dates, with claimed characteristics (more-or-less universal among those who refer to that term) might be appropriate.  No comments about overlap, no specific dates, and no comments about whether the group is a generation or a cohort within a generation.  Those comments would have to be left to the individual articles.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The terms in which this discussion is couched 

message: As pointed to by Crikey.com.au the ABS has a new Generations essay:  Mark Hurd (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Cite 

message: The sentence "the Generation Y, or the Millennials, are said to be dependent on digital technology" is a textbook use of weasel words.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.192.59 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree here. It'd be awesome if someone found the time to rewrite the MTV generation and Gen-Y sections with some references. I know this is anecdotal (but it's also a counter-example), but I'm classified as Gen-Y and can most certainly compare hard-wired and analog technologies to wireless and digital ones based on personal experiences (whereas that's supposed to be a 'feature' of the MTV generation... and I *hate* MTV). On an unrelated note I can also sing Joyride from memory. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: As it presently stands this article should really be titled List of Generations (United States of America). Although the Baby Boom was a widely observed international phenomenon, some of the other generations, fx. Interbellum, and greatest generations are more or less American (although perhaps not uniquely). Even the baby boom, is not truly a global phenomenon. I suggest that we attempt to give this article more international scope, but I'm not exactly sure how is best. Should we simply list all identified "generations" in countries/regions around the world in one huge list? I'm not sure how many generations there are around the world that are identified and treated as such separate entities, as is now the vogue in the west, but they could be numerous. Or should we simply put caveats in the article stating that it deals exclusively with the US?Peregrine981 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Generations 

message: There's been quite a bit of new content added recently, largely by Peregrine981.  While it's good to see expanded information on generations, I'm not sure this article is the right place for it.  By definition, a "List of generations" article should be just that - a list.  We can certainly keep some of the definitional information here, but I propose moving much of it to Generation#Cultural generation.  --Zach425 talk/contribs 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the whole article is merged to Generation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.197.50 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should merge in all into Generation. As the list is relatively small and manageable, I think it is best to keep it all centralized on one page, rather than risk duplication of effort. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving new content to [[Generations]]