Talk:Generation/Archive 1

I changed the incorrect years for Boomers/Jonesers/Busters to the years that are most commonly now used. Look at the discussion pages for "Generation Jones" and "Baby Busters" articles for a more detailed analysis about these birth years 21st century Susan 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of generations was not redundant because it doesn't exist anywhere else in wikipedia. And the definition of redundancy is it occurring more than once. If there was a list of generations page, obviously it would be redundant, but there isn't. In order to get to all of the generation pages, you have to go through each individual generations and see where they link. Even the generations book doesn't contain all of the generations, it just contains the generations that are in that book. Unless someone can find somewhere else that already has all the generations in a list, I'm putting it back. Ctachme 22:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * There is now a 'list of generations' page. - IstvanWolf 23:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A Rehash Again
This page is becoming just a rehash of the Generations (book) page again. I am going to dump the content and turn this into a disambig page if there are no objections. --Ctachme 05:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't a generation every 12-13 years? &mdash;Bill Conrad 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

YES---this Strauss and Howe garbage is all over wikipedia. It's junk. One book does not deserve 30 articles! My god. NOBODY takes this stuff seriously! --Dylanfly 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty crap. Candidate for deletion? Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Know what you are right! I just looked at the article you were talking about and this article is indeed a rehash. --Mickey 20:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)