Template talk:Generations of Western society

Inclusion in generational articles
I hate to be negative, but we've been through these generational info boxes several times now. Considering the lack of consensus there is regarding dates, names and succession of generations, they seem to me to give a false sense of reality to the subject. I suggest not including it in generational articles...Peregrine981 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * what if I just put generic decade ranges for all of them, and no concrete dates? Nasa-verve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a fork of a deleted template? If not, please explain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am new to this area, I am completely unaware of any deleted templates. Okay, what I did is take off the dates, and just leave it as a generic navigational template, without the controversial dates.  Nasa-verve (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This template has been nominated for deletion, please see here for the discussion. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed deletion tag per Deletion which states: "Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag." Nasa-verve (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That only applies to the WP:PROD process, not to discussions. Please don't do that again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Honest mistake, I did not realize the difference until now. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Direction
Now that it has been decided not to delete this template we should decide how best to use it. Are we going to keep it restricted to American generations? And if so, where will we place it? I would be opposed to placing it at the front of all the generations articles that currently try to discuss generations from a global perspective, if we maintain it as an American template, which I think we should, as it would get unwieldy if we include all possible global permutations, or too minimalist if we include only those that apply globally. Also, if we are indeed using List of generations as our source, then they currently do not match. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Generations includes some which are controversial, such as recent readdition Generation Jones and perennially questionable MTV Generation. Although I suggested the deletion of this template, as eternal vigilence seems necessary to avoid questionable generations from occuring, we need to be clear as to the requirements.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I think we should make this into a horizontal template to put at the end of articles, to avoid giving it so much prominence, so as to avoid over-legitimizing the names it uses, and because of its US focus.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones
Generation Jones certainly needs to be included on any list of current cultural generations. It is automatically included now in scholarly, political, and pop culture discussions and lists of generations. It was on Wikipedia's list of cultural generations for a long time, as it should be. Unfortunately, one editor erroneously removed it from this list; I am now returning this list to the way it was for so long.TreadingWater (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I voted for deletion previously. Consensus is clearly that GenJones should not be in this template.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to support deleting the template, go ahead, but, per consensus, Generation Jones is not going to be in it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete this template, that's probably OK with me, but if it stays, it will absolutely continue to include GenJones. And you are fully aware that there isn't anything remotely resembling a consensus supporting your view.TreadingWater (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that the template should only contain undisputed generations. Generation Jones is disputed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were knowledgable about generatons, Arthur Rubin, you would know that there is dispute about all generations...their names, their birth dates, their existence, etc. Fortunately, GenJones is not a particularly disputed generation; in fact, you are one of the only editors who disputes it.TreadingWater (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Referring to your first comment in this section; it's true that one editor removed it, but that's because no one restored it after that removal. That seems an indication of consensus that it should not be here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your basis for saying there is a consensus?! Good Lord, Arthur Rubin! Why don't you study the talk pages for these generation pages and you'll see that you are very much in the minority with your obssessive anti-GenJones agenda. You are one of only very few editors who has have ever indicated any issue against GenJones at all. Most editors who have weighed in on this issue have clearly indicated their belief that GenJones is a bona fide generation which deserves equal treatment vis-a-vis the other generations. This reflects the acceptance which GenJones has achieved generally among academics, politicos, demographers, sociologists, etc., etc. Virtually every book about generations released in the last couple of years automatically includes GenJones. Yet you, and a couple of other editors who likewise obviously have very limited knowledge about generations, keep trying to bully your uninformed and biased agenda here on Wikipedia. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why you--Arthur Rubin--are typically the only Wiki user who disputes GenJones? Whether it is in the context of a ridiculous deletion nomination or any other discussion about GenJones, it is usually only you, and maybe another editor or two, who is fighting against the consensus of all the other editors. And then you have the nerve to claim that the consensus is with you?! I bet you couldn't say that with a straight face. I realize that you desperately wish that GenJones hadn't reached the level of acceptance and usage which it has, but it has, Arthur Rubin, and your continued attempts to deceive Wiki readers otherwise is frankly disgusting. And you're an administrator! This is exactly the kind of thing which hurts Wiki's reputation so much. (Again, I remind you that all my comments here are about your edits, not you as a person).TreadingWater (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote above: "You are one of only very few editors who has have ever indicated any issue against GenJones at all." Then why was there no objection to the removal of it from this template and the revision of the Generation Jones article to indicate that it's the responsibility of a single person, during the 3 months you were blocked?  Are there then fewer editors who indicated any issue in favor of GenJones being a "real" generation?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "arguments" are so flimsy that it is difficult to know whether you are actually trying to make a serious point or whether this is just more Arthur Rubin-game playing. This template was basically created by just you and a couple of other editors, none of whom seem to have any particular knowledge about generations. There is no discussion whatsoever about which generations deserve to be included, the merits/notability of the different generations, what experts say about these generations, etc. And you conclude from this that there is a consensus that GenJones shouldn't be on this list??!! I find myself very curious as to whether someone actually could believe this equals anything remotely approaching any kind of consensus whatsoever. You have to be joking. Aren't you? I hope for your sake that you are joking. Hey, let's ignore the consensus of tons of experts, sociologists, pollsters, etc. who argue strenuously for including GenJones on any generation list, let's ignore all the editors on Wikipedia who have made detailed arguments on many talk pages about why GenJones should be included...let's instead just go with the opinion of three Wikipedia users on this one template page who have not shown any knowledge about this topic, and then didn't even really discuss it before making their apparently random choices! Yeah..that's consensus we can believe in!! You are joking, aren't you, Arthur Rubin?
 * And your comment that GenJones is "the responsibility of one person"? What on earth does that even mean? I realize that you only know very little about generations, but do you know even less than I thought? Do you even understand the most basic idea of what a generation is? How can a generation be the "responsibility" of one person? And who is that person? Are you referring to Pontell, the guy who coined the term? So then GenX is the "responsibility of one person"...Doug Coupland, who coined the term? And all the people who agree with and use the terms GenJones and GenX aren't "responsible'? What again does responsible mean here?  Fortunately for you, very few people are paying attentiion to these pages and changes, so false changes often get made on Wiki pages which no one notices for awhile. If you truly want to know what consensus is about these topics, then finally do the research to see what actual experts say, and read through the many comprehensive arguments made on these Wiki talk pages by many editors.TreadingWater (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense again. I had nothing to do with editing this template; I argued for deletion.  I'm now trying to support the apparent concensus from the deletion result:  include only those generations which are unquestionably considered "generations".  Generation Jones is not. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Truly pathetic, Arthur Rubin. I'm guessing you are a big fan of the power of Orwell's "Big Lie". Can you please point to the specific words which constitute this consensus you keep claiming, and the specific discussion of variables which resulted in this alleged consensus?TreadingWater (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name an editor, other than you and your sock puppets, who has argued in favor of including Generation Jones? I don't recall any.
 * And Generation Jones is the creation of Pontell, although whether "inventor" or "discoverer" is more correct is unclear, as in many sciences. I went through all your references at one point, and there was at most one which was not by Pontell, or commenting on Pontell's creation of the term, which gave it any credence.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Please tell me this is some kind of game you are playing. If you actually did go back and read through all these talk pages, you would see a long list of Wiki editors who are supportive of GenJones, and a long list of prominent experts who are supportive of GenJones. Who is your audience for your comment here? You know that I am very aware of what is on these pages, so you know that I know your claims are complete nonsense. Is your audience for these comments other editors who you hope you can bluff into believing you? Wiki editors, if you are interested in this please take the time to go back through the talk pages and you'll see that Arthur Rubin is trying to deceive you. And then look at the references given for GenJones, and you'll see further evidence of his sad attempt at deception. I only see one article by Pontell, while there is a long list of respected analysts who argue strongly for GenJones. I can't even guess how Arthur Rubin even thinks he could possibly support his ridiculous claims. You mean if Jonathan Alter writes a full column in Newsweek about GenJones, and happens to mention Pontell's name once, as the coiner of the term, then that means Alter's column doesn't have "credence"?! Isn't there a part of you that is embarrassed of yourself for behaving this way, Arthur Rubin? I mean, really? (As always, I am only meaning to address Arthur Rubin's edits, not him personally.)TreadingWater (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(<- unindent)
 * Can you name one editor supportive of your Generation Jones claims which was found not to be one of your sock puppets? I don't recall any, and it would be an effort to run through the full list of editors.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of getting assaulted by Arthur Rubin, I definately think that Gen Jones is a legitimate generation. Read this article and follow the link on the bottom of the page.  Jones is def notable enough to be included in this template.  And remember, I was the one who brought this template back to life -- and it survived a deletion nomination. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of the deletion request was actually that it should correspond to the list (merged into) Generation. If this is to be reconficgured to include generations and notable cohorts (Cold Y generation?), then Generation Jones probably should be included.  Otherwise, probably not.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That reference is not a great reference, as it doesn't actual take a stand as to whether Generation Jones is a "generation" or a cohort of the Baby Boomers, but sane edits to Generations would probably be the way to go forward with this. It would probably still lead to edit wars as to whether GenJones is a generation or a notable cohort there, but that would support inclusion here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming to Western Society
The generations listed in the template are typical of western society in general not just of amaerican society. I propose we change the title of the template to "Cultural generations of Western Society". Klomphy (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, these generational experience exist outside the US. I'd also like to add my support for a more inclusive approach. List all the generations even if they're controversial and let the reader make their own mind up. 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronmurtagh (talk • contribs)


 * Well, some of these generations are exclusively American and while renaming the template to "Cultural generations of Western Society" might sound good, but the problem remains that we are on the English Wikipedia, so people here are mostly English. --Monterey Bay (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Interbellum Generation? Modern in the title?
I think we should add Interbellum Generation, an orphaned article (other articles haven't linked to it much; see Wikipedia:Glossary), after the Lost Generation link. Also, this list doesn't go back terribly far and I think the header (currently "Social generations of Western society") should reflect that.

So, do you agree or disagree with the following?
 * 1) Adding Interbellum Generation or not
 * 2) Changing the title to "Modern social generations of Western society," "Social generations of modern Western society," finding a better word than "modern" or leaving the title alone
 * 3) Linking "modern," if added, to Late modern history, a better article, or none

Due to my real-life limitations often getting in the way of finishing things myself, it might turn out that all I can do is make this post or mmmaybe also request help from some of the people who worked on this before, but I'll see how far I can take this. If I can't make it back here, I apologize, and hopefully someone else will build on my suggested modifications. Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"...of Western society"
Any reason why we're limiting this template to Western generations, when Category:Cultural generations has plenty of articles on generational cohorts from other cultures which could be linked? The template could still be broken down by country. --McGeddon (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as they are properly sourced. One could argue that the Baby Boomer generation for ex. is not a Western idea as the population increased all over the world after WW2 and that war had a major cultural impact for decades. 2606:6000:610A:9000:C136:4CA8:C25B:6D27 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this template should be moved to U.S. generations (or moved to cover all countries), several of these names are not used in Europe or Latin America so "Western" is a little odd of a name.★Trekker (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Missionary Generation
Shouldn't it be added? Or is the template supposed to list extant generations only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.47.110.171 (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should limit the template to living generations. Otherwise it could get very large. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Missionary generation is listed on other pages like Strauss and Howe's and has its own Wikipedia page. If readers want more information they can click through. We don't have to spell out everything for them.2606:6000:6111:8E00:C90:9EE9:82E0:48D3 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion to include minor generations
Currently, the template only has the list of main generations, which is covered on Template:Generations sidebar, and makes this template very limited (only one main category). What would make this template useful is the inclusion of more minor generations, any generation name currently not listed that has an article, in another heading. I'm also unsure if this amount of information, even with the inclusion of minor generations, would justify a navbox. The benefit of navboxes, as opposed to sidebars, is the ability to include lots of links, horizontally, in a small space (see WP:Navigation template). It might be more useful to merge this into Template:Generation, which is also suffering from a lack of links, and is the more general template. BappleBusiness (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I didn't know that a Template:Generation existed. I think that's a really good idea, merging this template into Template:Generation and making the latter one more comprehensive. Some1 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)