Talk:Cusper

Meditations on Enstarz

A while back Some1 removed the reference that included Enstarz.com for the Zillennial date range. I want to be clear that I'm 95% certain this was the right thing to do. That being said, I saw Zillennial's edit back in June and considered reverting it immediately, but didn't because I hadn't taken time to investigate Enstarz or the author of the article.

I'm thinking back a bit to the previous discussion around WGSN and fashion forecasting. Where when I considered a kind of WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning, it made sense to include it, not because it was published in scholarly literature, but because it was cited in scholarly literature as having a good reputation. (Some what similar to a previous discussion had on RSN]).

My reasoning on Enstarz as a source: (1) If we use a backlink checker, Enstarz is cited in reliable sources sometimes, but not terribly often (compare the articles it's cited in to RSN perennial sources). (2) Enstarz's content targets Zillennials specifically as a demographic, and there's an argument to be made that they could have domain knowledge. (3) taken together, (1) and (2) gave me a faint scent of reliability for this topic, but the specific article is more of an opinion piece and it's reasoning for the date range is unfortunate Glamour Magazine identified the Zillennial age group as starting in 1993 and ending in 1998, but I am going to stretch that to 1999. (Let's be real, if you were born in a year that did not start with a 2, you deserve to be with the rest of us.)[1]

I would say, if Enstarz published some thing that was like "hey, what we do is make content for Zillennials and here's how we identify them as a group and why this date range makes sense" (especially if there was collaboration with other people who study this kind of thing) I could get behind using an article like that as a source to augment the currently listed date ranges. But if the reasoning is like "let's be real..." then that's what WP:RSEDITORIAL would call opinion or junk food news or soft news or to use a term that's fashionable lately, a thought-terminating cliché.

I also made an effort in the article to cite sources that point out that these date ranges aren't an exact science, which is why there's so many of them and they vary so much. If you're reading this, and you're born in 1999, and you'd like to call yourself a Zillennial, you have my endorsement as the (so far) largest contributor to the content within this article. I will sign and notarize a letter to this effect should you want one. But, as a larger point, don't let Wikipedia content dictate your identity. This is all written by fallible humans, and you are the foremost expert in yourself. - Scarpy (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

But if the reasoning is like "let's be real..." then that's what WP:RSEDITORIAL would call opinion or junk food news or soft news or to use a term that's fashionable lately, a thought-terminating cliché. Agreed. I also googled Enstarz and (at the time I'm writing this) their Instagram page has 98 followers and their YouTube channel only has 368 subscribers; their opinions aren't exactly noteworthy. Some1 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan

Scarpy wanted you to check on this source from a recent article: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a41299314/2022-midterms-guide/

Wanted to make sure if Cosmopolitan was a reliable source, and if this article discussing Zillennials and their voting patterns in 2020 and 2022 was a worthwhile article to include, getting a look at the groups’s political views/nature/etc.

Centennial357 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Some1 wouldn’t mind your opinion about the above article as well

Centennial357 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Centennial357: I'm good with using Cosmopolitan as a source here, so long as it's given due weight. WP:RSP says It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified. (Spud's experience notwithstanding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarpy (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Scarpy Some1 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a bit the line, because it the author of the Cosmopolitan article does not give an explicit set of years for the Y/Z cusp unlike in all the other sources. Instead, they seem to be referring broadly to the 18-29 voters as Zillennials. In 2020, that was anyone from late 1990 to 2002. However their article is about the 2022 midterms, which is anyone from late 1992 to 2004. I didn't want to remove this, but without explicit years this source seems somewhat vague compared to all the rest which state their range directly. From the article:

"Now, with the 2022 midterm elections approaching on November 8, the hope is that this generational wave gains even more momentum. Over eight million (!) 18- and 19-year-olds have joined the ranks of eligible voters since the last general election." Fbronco (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fbronco: The article is about the 2022 election, but the author specifically states at the beginning "Back in 2020, Gen Zers and young millennials—aka zillennials, folks between the ages of 18 and 29—mobilized en masse across America." It does not directly reference voters ages 18 and 19 in 2022 being part of the cohort she initially identifies, but that they "have joined the ranks of eligible voters since the last general election". The edit you just made and your explanation do make sense though. Examining (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Fbronco, I am on the same page with Examining, the writer states the cohort was the 18-29yo voters of the 2020 election. The new voters of 2022 midterms were talked about separately. The 18-29yo in November 2020 would have been approx. 1991-2002 Centennial357 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Examining also agreed with previous edit of including 1990, due to the article not providing an exact range, which the other sources do. Fbronco (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fbronco, I do not think it makes sense to include 1990 for less than 2 months worth of 1990 borns that would have yet to turn 30. The clear super-majority of 1990 borns would have no longer been 29. A precedent to look at would be Pew’s popular “1981-1996 Millennial” and “1997-2012 Gen Z” ranges. Pew says Millennials were 5yo (Kindergarten) to 20yo for 9/11. Yet they just say 1981-1996, not including the 1980 borns who were still 20 on Sep 11th nor specifying that millennials exclude the last 3.5 months of 1996 borns who were yet to turn 5. These ranges are rough estimates. If one were to generalize 1990 borns they would do so on the 10 months (and 1 week) that were already 30, not generalize based on the cohort that was less than 2 months of the birth year. Centennial357 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

In the case of this source, not including 1990 is still leaving out a portion of those voters described in the article, thus not fully representing the given age range described in the article. Furthermore, as the author mentions near the top of the article, it wasn't just the vote itself that she is writing about, but also the activism before the actual vote such as marches and rallies where many to most of them would have been 29 during those events. Again, unlike the other sources, this article does not give a set of birthyears, but instead a wide set of ages. Because of this, 1990 should be included if this is a source that's going to be used here. The Pew example is separate topic that can be discussed on the Millennials talk page. One difference to note however, is that Pew, whether one agrees or disagrees with them, provides a set of birthyears. This Cosmopolitan article does not, which sets it apart. It would not be a question, if the article provided a range of birth years as the other sources do. Fbronco (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fbronco, Pew has stated 5-20yo of 9/11 for their millennial range that doesn’t equal 1981-1996 borns on the nose either. Or are you saying that they use both 5-20yo of 9/11 and 1981-1996 simultaneously instead of 1981-1996 being a rough estimate? Regardless, we could just put in “approximate” at the beginning of the range and that would clear it up. Because people reading “1990-2002” is also as inaccurate as “1991-2002” following your logic since you’d now be including 10 months who wouldn’t be included vs excluding only 2 months. “Approximately” may be the best way to show that it’s a rough estimate, and the readers can check out the article for themselves Centennial357 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As I stated in my previous comment, the article also describes activism during the year prior to the vote as well. During this, many to most born in 1990 would be 29. Another aspect of this source that makes it different from the others given, and possibly a weak source for the purpose of the Cusper page, is the fact that rather than describing the defining features or background of who the author names "Zillennials" at the top, it delves straight into political information about the 2022 midterm elections with several state-by-state guides. It doesn't seem to provide more meaningful information on Zillennials themselves, such as describing their position between Millennials and Generation Z - any differences and similarities. Fbronco (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

But the section of the page that's in question is the date ranges. Other articles do discuss characteristics but those are included in the characteristics section. The section that is the topic of discussion is the date ranges. Examining (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

While that is true, this article being a sole source for a range still stands out for not giving more information about Zillennials as a cusp, particularly for a range of years that's noticeably larger than the others below it. Fbronco (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fbronco: There are other cusper groups that have only one source for longer ranges found under Silent/Boomer (13yrs) and Boomer/X (also 12yrs), so the precedent has been set even if each cusper category also has sources for shorter ranges. Additionally the article does get at the Zillennial cusper groups voting habits/history, political engagement & alignment, etc. All valuable info looking at another aspect of Zillennials. It provides as much info as other cusper sources talking about cusper groups’ fashion senses, technology use, nostalgia, etc. Any other thoughts on this Examining? Centennial357 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Centennial357 Nope. This pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. Examining (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fbronco: For clarity, my agreement was more so with the reasoning behind your edit, because I don't know if it's a necessary nitpick. Objectively, you have a point though. Example, American singer-songwriter JoJo was born December 20th 1990. Technically speaking she, and people with similar birthdays, was a voter under 30 because on Election Day 2020 she was age 29. However, the most recent edit Centennial357 made (using the "approximate" symbol) seems to bridge the gap. Examining (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We have just posted at about the same time. What is your opinion on my above reply? Fbronco (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article states ”this 2022 midterms guide is zeroing in on states where zillennials have major political muscle right now, along with who’s running and what’s at stake.” And the article goes onto other specifics about the 2020 vote in addition to the 2022 midterm. The article is covering both elections, the Zillennials vote in 2020 and 2022, as well as the next young post-Zillennial voters joining for the 2022 midterms. It wasn’t just a one off comment of the 2020 election. You also haven’t replied regarding the approximate designation before the range. Centennial357 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for not commenting on the tilde before. Can we agree to use the circa "c." instead of the tilde? Fbronco (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Minor: Please change the "-" character in the "1990-2002" range under the "Millennials/Generation Z" section to the slightly larger "–", so that it matches the others. Fbronco (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fullscreen Cusper Study

Scarpy, Some1, Examining, what do you all think of this study explicitly discussing cuspers of Millennials and Gen Z for this page and the new Zillennial page:

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190617005597/en/Cuspers-Creative-Stressed-Impulsive-----Fullscreen-Generational-Study-Shines-Light-on-the-Unique-Life-Stage-Between-Millennials-and-Gen-Z

As always, I’m on the lookout for articles/studies/etc that can be used Centennial357 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Greatest extent birth years of each generation

Wouldn't it make sense to say the greater Baby boomers birth years would be 1933 to 1969, while the greater Gen X birth years would be 1954 to 1985, and the greater Millennial birth years would be from 1975 until 2000? Onion1981 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothin about "Zalphas"?

Like me? (2010) 108.255.197.210 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Plagarism in the Gen Z/Alpha section

Can someone rewrite the Gen Z/Alpha section so that it's not just a direct plagarism of the sources? Programmeruser (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

US warning template removal

I removed this for two reasons (1) this article focuses on the anglosphere, not just the United States. It's true that's not the whole world, but that makes the particular template inaccurate. (2) Posting a template should never been entirely proscriptive, if there's nothing prescriptive suggested when it's added, then what's the point? It's like saying "this article has a problem that can't be fixed." - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Generation Z/Generation Alpha

I can't find in the reference to the Casper Generation Z/Generation Alpha cusper that the oldest was born in 2009 but here's another article that proves this in the article titled "Marketing To Gen Alpha:How To Get An A+ 05/04/2023. Evope (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)