This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 5 November 2015 (→Statistics Canada quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:22, 5 November 2015 by NeilN (talk | contribs) (→Statistics Canada quote)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Generation 9/11 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Generation Z. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| The contents of the Pluralist Generation page were merged into Generation Z on 11 January 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
,
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation Z article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Generation C introduction
I believe perhaps in USA Generation Z is a global adoption, but please have a look into: , we do use a lot also the Generation C. I don't want to argue, just add a missing additionnal world, was absolutly not told the previous version. I beg your pardon if not correctly writed, I add a few references into 'further reading'. Best regards --PaKo (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- PaKo, you've got the wrong article. This article defines Generation Z as "...one name used for the cohort of people born after the Millennial Generation." One of your sources describes Generation C as "...a term coined by Nielsen and Booz Allen Consulting in 20101 to describe millennials." --NeilN 15:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting Google NGram posted by PaKo above but it shows discussion in books about the terms "Gen Z" and "Gen C" back in 1980? I don't think that could be right. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you dig deeper, you'll see that books were using A, B, C... as variables. Example. --NeilN 03:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ha ha, okay, the book is about physics though.....104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you dig deeper, you'll see that books were using A, B, C... as variables. Example. --NeilN 03:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting Google NGram posted by PaKo above but it shows discussion in books about the terms "Gen Z" and "Gen C" back in 1980? I don't think that could be right. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional of Centennials to the Generation Z page
Hi, I saw that you deleted my entry to the Generation Z page - this was actually my first contribution so I am not sure what I did wrong... I added the term Centennials as another popular name referring to Gen Z, which seemed to be in line with the rest of the content on the page and I thought it was an important addition. Below are some links to recent articles that reference this. Can you explain what I did or didn't do? Thanks
This has been widely used in the media: below are some links to recent articles that reference this:
Emsparenti (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)emsparenti
References
- Stung by Millennial Misses, Brands Retool for Gen Z: Marketers Make Small Bets to Catch Constantly Changing 'Centennials' http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/informed-millennial-misses-brands-retool-gen-z/298641/ We're so over you, millennials http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/were-so-over-you-millennials Magic Mirror vs. the Human Experience: Using Technology to Woo Millennials, Centennials (Part 1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanpearson/2015/06/30/magic-mirror-vs-the-human-experience-using-technology-to-woo-millennials-centennials-part-1/ Here Come the 'Centennials!' And, Guess What? They're Not Mostly White http://www.builderonline.com/newsletter/a-changing-nation-babies-are-no-longer-mostly-non-hispanic-white_c What Does It Mean to Be a Good Brand Ambassador? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-mean-good-brand-ambassador-170000408.html Havas Worldwide Chicago is exhibiting a new saucy side it hopes will interest Millennials http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/06/23/havas-worldwide-chicago-is-exhibiting-a-new-saucy.html Sir Martin Sorrell told us why he just created a new agency with Snapchat http://www.businessinsider.com/sir-martin-sorrell-on-snapchat-and-daily-mail-deal-to-launch-truffle-pig-2015-6 Move over millennials; Gen Z entering marketing fray http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2015/06/08/move-millennials-gen-entering-marketing-fray/28553305/
- Emsparenti, I have copied your post to my talk page here, so other interested editors can participate in the discussion. The change you made requires sources that show that Centennials is a more popular alternative name for Generation Z than the other alternates listed in the Terminology section. --NeilN 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
New info box added
This info box makes the range of dates very confusing. Why add another layer to what the lede already says. The lede was debated over a long period of time. Please see the talk page. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. The year info adds nothing. --NeilN 12:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- So, we have two editors who think it does add value, and two who think it doesn't. Such is Misplaced Pages. Scr★pIron 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you are THAT IP....
Direct quotes are not required; a reasonable rewording of the source data supports the contribution that you reverted with this diff. But, as I have had to deal with you before, I will bow out of this "discussion" and let you have your little playground before you go running to an admin over it. It's just not worth it. Oh, wait - you already did. Scr★pIron 18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, direct quotes are required. Misplaced Pages does not want any Original Research on its site. In fact, they want it removed "immediately". 2606:6000:610A:9000:1489:7F5B:75CB:18D5 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is this why you and I were having to discuss whether to say that Generation Z was "2001+" or "2001 onwards"? Direct quotes are not required, it is fine to WP:PARAPHRASE. --McGeddon (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Beginning birth dates
Below is a discussion about birth dates back in 2013 that is useful: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:35, 14 September 2015 (talk • contribs) 2606:6000:610a:9000:89d9:b47b:2ee4:5cbd
(The editor had copypasted the whole of Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_2#Beginning_birth_dates here; I've cut it. Editors can click that link if they wish to read the old discussion.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Start Date(s) of Generation Z
Since generation z has a debated beginning point, I would like to discuss why you think it starts when you think it does. For example, I have found sources that state that generation z started 1993 (i.e. Statistics Canada, Aging and Society 7e, news articles)-->links below. I mean if you think about it, they were starting 1st grade in 2000 and in 2nd when 9/11 happened, therefore some might remember the event happening (but might not know the reasons behind it) and some might not. Generally speaking since generation z is the internet generation, these kids were 2 years old when the internet went public. I mean can we honestly consider children of 93 or even 94 not part of generation z. Additionally, I did further readings of generation y and it seems as though generation z is a subset of generation y; like a generation within a generation because they are not grossly different in life experiences.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm
http://www.imagination.com/who-are-generation-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Read the previous discussion about start dates (above). And people have written well researched books and academic articles that extensively discuss all the generational birth dates, check out those sources first. 2606:6000:610A:9000:CD39:EE6:43E6:601E (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I read the previous posts and it reiterated what I was thinking and have read before hand. It seems like that starts date(s) are a very subjective. For example, I can't imagine 93-96 children relating too much with late 80's children where as for 90-92 it is possible. All in all, I guess it is too subjective to give an exact start date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Statistics Canada quote
User:2606:6000:610a:9000:6879:44d5:db6d:a53a seems to think that a slightly inelegant quote from Statistics Canada should not be summarised, but gives no reason. Is there any harm in summarising it? --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- It may be as you say "slightly inelegant" but we can't add our original research to a direct quote that will twist the meaning of the direct quote. Isn't that the definition of what Misplaced Pages calls Original Research? And why would you want to do that anyway? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- As I said to (presumably) you in the "Oh, you are THAT IP...." section above - no, paraphrasing a quote is not considered original research, so long as the paraphrasing is accurate. This is how 99% of Misplaced Pages is written. --McGeddon (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but paraphrasing isn't needed if a direct quote is more truthful to what the source actually says. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- A direct quote is always going to be "more truthful to what the source actually says", but Misplaced Pages articles aren't long bulleted lists of what different sources said exactly, they're rewritten as prose with an appropriate tone. WP:PARAPHRASE explains, with its own italics: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're definitely wrong when you change the intent and meaning of a direct quote (with your own words). Misplaced Pages wants Original Research removed immediately. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bad paraphrasing is certainly a problem and should be discussed and fixed when it arises. But paraphrasing by itself is not automatically original research. Paraphrasing sources is a fundamental aspect of how Misplaced Pages is written - do you disagree with this? --McGeddon (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- In general, we do not want to be a quote farm and prefer paraphrasing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is a case of WP:IDHT - I gave up on trying to reason with this IP. Explain a few more times that we are required to paraphrase and summarize; try to be nice, but it will all come back again with direct appeals to an admin. Some articles just aren't worth the headache. Scr★pIron 21:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- In general, we do not want to be a quote farm and prefer paraphrasing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bad paraphrasing is certainly a problem and should be discussed and fixed when it arises. But paraphrasing by itself is not automatically original research. Paraphrasing sources is a fundamental aspect of how Misplaced Pages is written - do you disagree with this? --McGeddon (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my fellow Wikipedians but changing words of a direct quote to suit your own meaning IS the definition of Original Research. Otherwise, anybody could use your argument to change any direct quote on Misplaced Pages. So tell me what Original Research means to you?
- I'm proposing to say exactly what Stats Canada said on their website and NOT what Globe and Mail said that they said. Go direct to the source instead of using the Globe and Mail's incorrect version. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If we actually had two sources contradicting one another, that would be a problem. (Although it wouldn't be original research, because original research is defined by Misplaced Pages as material "for which no reliable, published sources exist", not "which is sourced but is contradicted by other sources".)
But this doesn't seem to be the case: the 2015 article from the Globe and Mail says "Statistics Canada says Gen Z starts with people born in 1993" and the 2011 article on the Statistics Canada site says "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet" at the end of a section listing the generations, and includes a table that ends with "Generation Z (1993 to 2011)". --McGeddon (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why would we use a source that misquotes the original source? We should quote the original source with their exact words from their website otherwise you would be leaving information out that does change it's meaning -- even if slightly. I'm pretty sure that editors have the right to add exact quotes and other editors cannot stop it -- if the quote is highly relevant to the Misplaced Pages article. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- You have failed to establish that there is any misquoting and as per the multiple policies and guidelines linked above NO WE SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZING DIRECT QUOTATIONS WHEN WE CAN SUITABLY SUMMARIZE AND PARAPHRASE. Please drop your stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why would we use a source that misquotes the original source? We should quote the original source with their exact words from their website otherwise you would be leaving information out that does change it's meaning -- even if slightly. I'm pretty sure that editors have the right to add exact quotes and other editors cannot stop it -- if the quote is highly relevant to the Misplaced Pages article. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can't see how the Globe and Mail is misquoting the original source. The Globe and Mail says "Statistics Canada says Gen Z starts with people born in 1993", and the original Statistics Canada source says that Generation Z spans the years "(1993 to 2011)". --McGeddon (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- The misquote is as follows:
- "Statistics Canada defines Generation Z as starting in 1993"
- What they actually say on their website:
- "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet"
- I propose we do not misrepresent what StatsCanada said and just use a direct quote.
- What's wrong with this quote from Statistics Canada from the same document: "Generation Z (1993 to 2011)"? —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
On page 6 it says the same thing "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet". So those words should be included on our page. This source has a confusing explaination of cultural generations with a bunch of overlapping dates. They even catagorize a generation by a five year period of time --- that is really odd. I propose to just leave them out completely. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Articles mainly consist of paraphrased material. This article has an abnormal ratio of quotes, probably because of an undesired singular focus on terminology. Quotes should be used if they're particularly notable or if they convey subtle meanings which cannot be captured by good paraphrasing. --NeilN 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Categories: