User talk:Corenabh

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Corenabh! Thank you for adding a link to the Strauss and Howe theory on the Generation Y page. I wasn't aware this page existed. Do you know if it's fairly new? I have most of the books written by the authors and am reading through them. Fascinating research. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome! The Strauss-Howe generational theory page is a pretty new. I recently started reading some of the newer books by Strauss and Howe. It is a very interesting area of study and application. Corenabh (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I am right now dealing with a lot of disruptive edits on the Generation X page due to people ignoring the excessive amounts of support I provided supporting the previously established consensus, regarding date ranges. It is a never ending battle on the generation pages. Anyway, which Strauss and Howe books are you currently reading? I am in the middle of two right now. I find myself re-reading Generations because there is so much information packed into that book. Have you read the recent book by Neil Howe on Millennials and the workplace? I ordered a copy, but it's a bit expensive. There is also a great book, published October 2009, about the culture wars between different generations. It's a lengthy book, but really interesting. While I enjoy reading books by Strauss and Howe, I have found other studies on generations that are equally fascinating. What do you think about the next generation possibly being called Generation Alpha? I think I've only heard of this term once. I'm not even sure if this is the term for the generation coming after Generation Z (or iGeneration - whatever it's called today) Can't they come up with anything better than that?


 * Keep up the good work. I look forward to checking out your edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Generation X
I wanted to let you know that the Generation X page is under protection again, if you already didn't know. This time, I did not ask for semi-protection, but it is under administrative protection until October 20, 2010. Scythian77 has decided to help me edit this page (he offered on his own after commenting on one of my edits on another article), but I know that you are also reading up on generational theories. You can read my previous posts an see the evidence provided and decide for yourself who is right about the wording of the article. The other editors' talk pages are also available (such as [User talk:Educatedlady]]), so you can see how they have interacted with other editors. In my opinion, a new consensus of people, including disgruntled editors, who disagreed with Strauss and Howe based on their own feelings (while providing unreliable sources), have tried to overhaul an article that was carefully worded and backed by numerous sources. I stated that while Generation X generally either starts at 1961 or 1965, and sources use various end dates such as 1975 or 1977 for instance, 1981 has been the latest widely accepted year used, with those in 1982 considered to be the oldest Millennials/members of Generation Y. The newest "consensus" is arguing the the vague term of "early 1980s" is satisfactory, when that phrase implies that 1982-1984 birth years are also acceptable for Generation X. We are not using 1961-1981 (a hyphen) because although 1961 is the earliest date used, it is more likely now that 1965-1981 will be the more common birth range. However, the article will always mention 1961 as an early date range, because many sources, not just Strauss and Howe, still use 1961. Also, sources use various date ranges, so a hyphen would not be a good way to reflect the date ranges right now. The sources included already show various ranges for this generation. As always, your contribution is appreciated. I am just letting you know what my part has been in editing this page (for about 2 years now), and opening up my comments and contributions for scrutiny by other editors. You can check the edits and read the posts for yourself, and decide whether you want to contribute to the discussion or not. The discussion is continuing on the Generation X Talk Page.''' You can review all my sources on the talk page, some which are now archived. Thank you for your contribution to the generation pages on Wikipedia. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion
Hi, I would like to request your input on the Generation X end date. Peregrine981 and I are still in discussion, but I would like to know what you think about 1981 being the usual end date (not definite) for this generation. I have posted a comment on Peregrine981 (talk) and Talk:Generation X. I am working things out with Peregrine981, but I would appreciate your input on the wording that was recently changed. I came to a compromise on the wording of the article. Originally, the recent "consensus" had the phrase "usually no later than 1981" (which is backed by the majority of sources provided from around the world). However, Educatedlady decided on her own to change the wording to read "usually no later than 1982," even though FEW sources use 1982 for the end of Generation X, and instead use it for the start of the Millennials. The article already reads that there are no definitive time frames, but Educatedlady's own source by Ronald L. Jackson reveals that despite there not being exact time frames, most sources use 1961 as the earliest and 1981 as the latest for Generation X. So after the "consensus" was reached, she went and changed the wording again. Please see my recent posts on the Generation Talk Page, my sources, as well as the discussion on my own talk page. I think the articles on generations, despite there not being exact time frames, be consistent with other generational pages and with what is commonly found in current media. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe
Hi, looks like you have been doing a lot of work to improve the various Strauss and Howe related pages. However, I would suggest that we merge the "Strauss and Howe" page with Strauss-Howe generational theory and the two bios. It seems to me that the content is almost entirely duplicated. Neither do I really see a necessity to have an entirely separate page for the partnership. Why not put this on the generational theory page? IMO it is better to centralize information so as to better keep track of it and reduce duplication of effort. Any thoughts? Peregrine981 (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to cover the history of their partnership under the generational theory page. The history of their collaboration is entirely relevant to that page. I would limit the amount we talk about it on the bio pages, but some copy and paste to both articles is not out of line IMO. I am not super concerned about this, but I am pretty sure that sooner or later someone will challenge the existence of the page, so there should be a very clear rationale for its existence separate from the other pages. Just a heads up. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think separate bios is a good idea, but I do not see why there should not be links on the Generation pages to the Strauss and Howe page (authors' works). After some issues are resolved, I was planning on some edits, where more information from these authors could be added to the generation pages, and both authors' names could link back to their individual pages. I have done that on other pages myself. Also, I have more of Neil Howe's works on order, so an individual page with information about his current work, consulting, etc. would be beneficial. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't really see the "added value" of a separate page for Strauss and Howe, Strauss, Howe, and Strauss+Howe Generational theory. As far as I can tell there's not a whole tonne of information on their partnership as such. I don't see why it can't be a section of the page on Generational theory, as they are the authors of that theory. Surely their partnership, background and so on is relevant to someone reading about their theory? if the page were to become far too long or unwiedly, sure split it up, but at this point I don't think that is the case. Are we not going to list their works on the generation theory page? Surely we must. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)