Talk:Millennial pause

undue template
, in case you weren't aware, the appropriateness of the section has been discussed before, in the dyk nomination (transcluded above) as well as on wt:dyk[]. is there anything else you'd like to mention? dying (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I echo 's concerns about WP:COATRACKING. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , have you examined the cited sources? virtually all of the reliable sources that discussed the millennial pause in depth also included a number of other online behaviours associated with millennials, so i thought it would be remiss of me not to mention them in the article.i recognize that, without having studied the cited sources, a reader of the article may find the section undue.  in fact, i had initially only briefly mentioned the pause's association with other millennial behaviours in my .  however, after going through a lot more sources, i had found my draft lacking, which is why i had expanded on that aspect of the pause.during the dyk review, a suggestion was made to make clear in each sentence of that section that the connection to the millennial pause was made in the cited source, but this was eventually not implemented because it would make the section sound too repetitive.  would implementing this suggestion resolve your concerns?  dying (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because not all the sources are primarily about the millennial pause, some only mention them trivially. And the two attributions are bizarre, quoting a non-notable journalist by their first name without mentioning the news organization they're with, as well as an email from a random tik-toker. Honestly I think the whole section needs to go, none of it belongs in this article. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , i recognize that not all the cited sources discuss the pause in depth; my use of "in depth" in my previous comment was meant as a qualifier, not a descriptor. by the way, i assume you meant "two of the attributions" rather than "the two attributions", as i mention a number of other sources in that section.  which journalist is being quoted by their first name without mentioning the news organization that they work for?  also, the quote from the e-mail you mentioned was reproduced in a number of sources, including the article in the atlantic that may have popularized the term "millennial pause", so i thought it was appropriate to include.  the "random tik-toker" you mentioned, michael stevens, has received millions of views on tiktok for his imitations of millennial behaviour, the topic of that section, so i imagine that his opinion carries some weight there.  (his words were also quoted on tiktok, but i admittedly did not keep track of when it was mentioned on the platform, since i was not planning on citing those videos anyway.)  dying (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see now it was using the journalist's last name, Lindsay, as she was already named earlier in the article. She doesn't really need to be named at all though since she is not notable. The attribution can just be to The Atlantic.
 * Multiple WP:SYNDICATED versions of the same source does not make the content more due.
 * Having views on TikTok does not make one an authority on millennial behavior. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  08:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , multiple reliable sources mentioned lindsay by name when discussing the millennial pause, which is why i chose to do the same in this article. (as i mentioned near the start of the discussion in the dyk nomination transcluded above, she appears to have popularized the term.)  i had also noticed that lindsay was mentioned by name in other wikipedia articles, so had not considered this to be unusual.  mentioning lindsay by name also makes it easier to note that lindsay herself is a millennial, which seems relevant to this article.  in any case, considering that this article has received more scrutiny than most during the dyk review process, i find it surprising that you chose to raise this specific point, since i don't recall anyone else finding it an issue.my decision on including the quote was not based on the quote being reproduced in syndicated sources.  it was based on the quote being repeated in multiple independent sources that discussed the millennial pause, including the article in the atlantic that likely popularized the term.michael stevens does not derive his authority on millennial behaviour specifically from having views on tiktok.  it is derived from the fact that many people appear to have found his interpretation of millennial behaviour accurate, and that a reliable source has quoted stevens on the subject.  dying (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit tedious. I don't care about the naming of Lindsay, that is a minor issue.
 * The main problem is that the section is undue and outside the scope of the topic. Unless you want to change the article to be about the online behavior of millennials, I don't think it should have this excess detail.
 * And please provide an RS that mentions the quote and is not a syndication of The Atlantic article, because I do not see any. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  12:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

english variety
, i admittedly don't understand why you changed the spelling used in the article, in violation of mos:retain. as the pause is a phenomenon apparently based on the advancement of technology, and people worldwide record videos, i don't think the subject necessarily has strong ties to the united states. (in fact, i think quite a few of the earlier sources i had found discussing the phenomenon were based in australia.) the article also mentions how people outside of the anglosphere have been observing the millennial pause. dying (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles cited aren’t good sources
A large number of the articles cited only vaguely mention the “Millennial Pause”, and some of them don’t mention it at all. 2A02:C7F:5091:C600:E93B:C9EC:CFBA:114C (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree TypowyLaman (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think this article should be considered for deletion. The sources are mostly opinion columns, dictionary definitions, and social media posts. None of these seem particularly high quality. Pauliexcluded (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * and : I have nominated the article for deletion.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

why wasn't it deleted?
it's not even a proven phenomenon, this is the sort of trivial, niche social media term that has a place on Know Your Meme, not Wikipedia 100.43.113.16 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)