Talk:Zillennials

Page Protection Lifted Concern
Some1, Examining, or Scarpy, after the lift of the page protection, the page is getting a lot of questionable edits. For example before it was lifted, the phrasing was for a microgeneration falling between “the early 90s and early 00s” which encompassed the sources that were acceptable for the page. Now the page is getting a lot of edits of putting specific ranges they want or other phrasing that fits their preferences. For example user:117.53.77.84 continues to change the phrasing to some variation of “from early 90s to late 90s to early 2000s” which already fell under the concise “early 90s to early 00s.” Are there thoughts on edits such as this and the protection of the page in general? Centennial357 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * IMO, the IP is correct in this dispute per WP:NPOV. The majority of sources in this article use late-1990s so it should be mentioned in the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Some1 all I’m saying is why is it necessary to say “from early 90s to late 90s to early 00s” over just saying “early 90s to early 00s” that encompasses the late 90s? The late 90s isn’t being ignored in said phrasing. One goes on and see the various ranges cited in its own section. I don’t see how saying “early 90s to early 00s” is a biased point of view - covers all the sources cited - vs “early 90s to late 90s to early 00s” which sounds like their is an ulterior motivation behind it. Centennial357 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The arguments over date ranges are my least favorite parts of these articles and feel the most like people editing for therapeutic reasons. I would strike that entire point from the lead and cover it entirely in it's own section. The lead just needs to say people on the cusp between Millennials and Zs. The "generational identity" point in the Cusper article may be worth incorporating here in to some extent. If you're born in 2003 or something and feel like a Zillennial but aren't one by someone's definition, like... you're okay. You can identify with any microgeneration you want to identify with. This isn't an exact science. The real take away from all of these is that generational distinctions are more dimensional and less categorical than people think. - Scarpy (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Zillennials are now something the mainstream media (CNN, CBS, NewsNation, etc.) are talking about as a microgeneration. The age range they've been using is 1992-2002. While I disagree with this range because I think zillennials should be 90s only, I wonder if that should be what we put in the lead since it apparently seems to be the "official" definition. 108.26.184.191 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re elevating the research on this to something it’s not. All of this is “official” (with extra emphasis on the scarequotes). If you want to go by what the preponderance of WP:RS currently says, and you can demonstrate this with actual sources, be my guest. But we should be clear that’s what we’re doing in the text and that it’s possible it will change. There is no official when it comes to cusper microgeneration date ranges, there is only “official.” - Scarpy (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion by Scarpy. Just remove the whole sentence altogether. "...individuals born on the cusp of the Millennial and Generation Z demographic cohorts" is self-explanatory, and readers can just read the "Terminology and birth year definitions" section if they need more detail. Some1 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)