Talk:Generation Alpha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Current status

@Sapphire Williams: Since you are the person who created this draft, I'd like your opinion on its current status. I have been updating and expanding it, as you might have noticed. Do you think it is ready to be converted into a regular article? Nerd271 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Seems good to me. Thanks for the help! SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 04:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@McGeddon: You have previously been demonstrated an interest in Generation Alpha. Feel free to join this discussion. Nerd271 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My own thinking is that I want to accept this draft in place of the redirect, but that the discussion should be at the talk page of the existing article (not here, and not via repeated resubmissions). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving

@Rosguill: Thank you for letting me know. I do have enough privileges to simply move this page. But please keep in mind that the page Generation Alpha already exists and currently redirects to the section 'Successors' of Generation Z. That is why I decided to do it by copying and pasting. Simply moving it the traditional way would not work. I suppose I should just request a technical move then. Nerd271 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nerd271, yeah, you need to either request a move or request page-swap permissions. Unfortunately, simply copy pasting would risk Wikipedia getting into a lot of legal trouble due to failing to correctly document editor attribution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks! I did it. Who knew volunteering your work to the world could be so complicated? Ha! Nerd271 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Opening photo

@Paleontologist99: I added that photo to use up the space created because the table of contents is much longer than the Generations tab. Why do you think it does not belong there? Nerd271 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: It belongs in a lower part of the page. Generation sidebar is always on top. Paleontologist99 (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paleontologist99: Is there a style guide I am missing? I am organizing it the way, say, Siméon Denis Poisson is organized. (Yes, I am one of the contributors to that page). Nerd271 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Greek letter alpha

@Danbloch: You believe that $\alpha$ is not used? That might because it is slightly harder to type out using a regular word processor. Regardless, it is the Greek letter alpha, as you no doubt know. Asking for a citation for the name 'Generation $\alpha$' is redundant, don't you think? It's the exact same thing as 'Generation Alpha'. Alpha is the same as $\alpha$. Typography should not matter. You might as well be arguing about fonts, Times News Roman vs. Century Schoolbook, say. As long as people can read it, it should be fine. Nerd271 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For those following at home, the question is whether "also known as Generation $\alpha$" should be in this article.

@Nerd271:I argue that it is *not* also known as Generation $\alpha$, so Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that it is. At some point reliable third party sources may start using "Generation $\alpha$", at which point the article should reflect that, but it isn't Wikipedia's place to be the first. Details matter. Consider this thought experiment. Suppose you went to the article for Delta Force and added "also known as $\Delta$ Force". Would that be a legitimate change? How is this different? Dan Bloch (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Danbloch: I'm afraid your argument is unsound. Wikipedia of course is not a primary source but a secondary or tertiary one. Various sources call this demographic cohort Generation Alpha, so we can call it that. To anyone who knows where the letters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and so on came from, swapping is not a problem. Alpha is the same as $\alpha$. So Generation Alpha is the same as Generation $\alpha$ and Gen Alpha or Gen $\alpha$. Even though the letters appear different, the pronunciation is the same. You just swap Roman for Greek letters. Alpha is no more than a Roman transliteration of $\alpha$. Oh, and the logo of the Delta Force looks a lot like $\Delta$, don't you think? Moreover, why do you think we have the term "delta-wing"? Nerd271 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271:If my argument is unsound, can you share which part you disagree with? Do you believe that "also known as $\Delta$ Force" would be a legitimate change? As a side note, your argument seems to be that it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why are you reverting my change? Dan Bloch (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Danbloch: I have tried to explain that at length. I reverted your change not because it does not matter but because it makes no sense to require a source for something that is common knowledge. Alpha is the same as $\alpha$. Therefore, Generation Alpha is the same as Generation $\alpha$. To someone hearing this read out loud, it sounds like a tautology, which it is. If something is named after a Greek letter, then using that Greek letter should be perfectly acceptable. If something is named after a Roman letter, then using that Roman letter should be perfectly acceptable. The latter sounds a bit odd given that the modern English language uses the Roman alphabet, but it is just as valid. The same applies to any other alphabets or characters that can be typed out. Thus if we one day decide to use the Hebrew alphabet, then Generation Aleph Naught is the same as Generation $\aleph _{0}$. Similarly, Generation Nabla is the same as Generation $\nabla$. Again, try reading this out loud or think about how you pronounce these things and you will see that your edit is not necessary. Nerd271 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: None of that addresses my argument, but rather than continue to argue past one another, let me provide another argument. One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth, which says, "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." This is a case in point. You think the claim is a tautology, but even if it were, it can't go in Wikipedia without a source. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Danbloch: I'm not sure if I can be any clearer. Alpha is the same as $\alpha$. All you said about verifiability is true, but is besides the point. You do not need to cite obviously true information. You don't need to a source when you say the sky is blue. You don't need a citation to say that alpha is the same as $\alpha$; the former is merely a Roman transliteration of the latter's name. Nerd271 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Well, if you can't convince me of it, I'd say that rules out it being obviously true. Let me provide one last reason it isn't true on the off chance that this will convince you. There is an uppercase as well as a lowercase alpha. Since the fist "a" in alpha is capitalized in "Generation Alpha", one might well argue, using your reasoning, that Generation Alpha is also known as Generation A. This is clearly ridiculous, but that's my point, saying something is obvious is not a defense. If that doesn't convince you, we may as well invite other editors to chime in. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that we should not use the Greek character without a source.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Danbloch|} Just because you disagree does not mean it is not true or common knowledge. We use the lower case Greek latter because the capital letter is the same as the Roman A. @Kolya Butternut: Guys! If people name something after the Greek alphabet, don't be surprised if Greek letters are used. What's with people against the use of non-Roman characters anyway? Nerd271 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the Greek character has been used, but probably not often enough to be in the lead.  [2]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That appears to be a consensus. I'm removing the claim. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly researched how often the Greek character occurs, but in addition to the few studies linked to in the Google search Mccrindle itself uses the character on its site.[3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

McCrindle uses the α character as a logo, but I don't see any uses of "Generation α". Dan Bloch (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed nomenclature paragraph

This is the paragraph I've remove twice, followed by the issues which need to be addressed before it's added back.

"Unless something dramatic and significant happens later in the twenty-first century, this proposed generational label and nomenclature will likely stick because they are highly flexible. Sociologist Dan Woodman of the University of Melbourne told The Atlantic that changes in generational attitudes tend to be gradual rather than abrupt; dramatic differences between one generation to the next is highly unlikely. Successors of Generation Alpha will be known as Generations Beta, Gamma, Delta, and so on. Previously, the name 'Generation X' for successors of the Baby Boomers was supposed to be a placeholder, rather like the variable $x$ in a mathematical expression, and while alternate names such as the 'Baby Busters', or the 'MTV Generation' were proposed, none became as widespread as 'Generation X'. Although Generation Y, better known as Millennials, seemed to have buckled the trend, the same applies for Generation Z."

and the source is Pinsker, Joe (February 21, 2020). "Oh No, They've Come Up With Another Generation Label". Family. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 22, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

• The first sentence greatly misrepresents the source, where continuing this progression is mentioned offhand as a possibility, a humorous note to end the article on. Additionally it's said by Pinsker, a science writer, and not by a scientist, let alone a consensus of them.
• The second sentence, while true, is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph or to nomenclature in general.
• The third sentence, like the first, is presented with a certainty which isn't in the source.
• The fourth sentence doesn't have any problems by itself, but its placement disrupts the connection between the third and fifth sentences, so it isn't established that the fifth sentence is still talking about the generic "Generation [Letter]" format. This results in "bucked the trend" being awkward, and "the same applies for Generation Z", referring back to "'Gen X' was supposed to be a placeholder", which presumably isn't what it's meant to say about Gen Z.

Dan Bloch (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark McCrindle vs McCrindle Research inspired by hurricane names

Danbloch, why do you feel it is original research to infer "we" refers to McCrindle Research? "We" does not refer to Mark McCrindle alone, and it is used in the context of discussion of McCrindle Research's surveys for the new name.... There is no consensus on whether HuffPo is a reliable source, so we should use sources we agree are reliable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Kolya Butternut- Good question. My thought was that the book had a co-author, and "we" could have referred to McCrindle and she. Looking at the book though, she gets virtually no mention, not even on the cover or title page by the third edition, so I have to withdraw this argument. But my basic issue is that unlike running a survey, which is done by a team, having an inspiration is done by one person, and I'm morally certain that the Huffington Post is right (it's a lot harder to mistake "we" for "I" than it is to mistake "9" for "5") and the person was McCrindle. I also see, now that I've looked at the book, that this isn't attributed in the book at all, just presented as fact: "In the USA during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the alphabetical list of names was exhausted,..." On the other hand, once one person has had an inspiration, I suppose everyone else can be inspired too. At this point I just don't care. Say whatever you want. Though I do have to point out that "McCrindle" could be considered a compromise, since it could refer either to Mark McCrindle or to McCrindle Research.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Generation Beta" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generation Beta. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential Correction

It says in the lead "Most members of Generation Alpha are the children of the Millennials". I checked the sources, but aren't most member pf Gen Alpha the children of Gen X? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jam ai qe ju shikoni: Typically, the children of Generation X are Generation Z. Please see that page. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Generation Coronavirus?

The Millennial Generation was originally called the Y Generation, before it was usurped by the title Millennial, there's some articles in Major publications that are already speculating this generation will be called Generation C.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/how-coronavirus-will-change-young-peoples-lives/609862/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.189.99 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Millennials have that name because the first wave came of age at the turn of the Third Millenium AD. They are also known as Generation Y because they came after Generation X (and before Generation Z). Going back to C could be confusing. Moreover, the word 'coronavirus' denotes an entire classification of viruses (and more might be coming). But we'll have to wait and see whether or not the name catches on. Regardless, it is true that this global pandemic has had a great impact upon the world. I have seen some speculations that there might be a baby boom after this. Only time will tell. Nerd271 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It is more likely that Pew and others will use the years of the coronavirus to define when Generation Z ends; for instance, they may say that any children too young to remember the coronavirus are Generation Alpha. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Good one! That would put the date at around 2015-16. But we'll have to wait and see. Nerd271 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an idea among people who speculate about generations that X Y Z where Latin place holders because there was no consenus among writers what the generation after Baby Boomers would be called. Y was eventually replaced for Millennial as you correctly pointed out Millennials came of age during the 21st century and those among them generally remembered a pre-internet age. Whereas members of Generation Z ,generally speaking, are totally immersed in the internet thus leading to be speculatively called Zoomers or Generation "Net". Neither of these are used because it's more reflective of technology than the occurrence of a worldwide event. In the case of the Silent Generation or the Baby Boomers, both of these are reflective of worldwide events, that likely shaped the lives of members of those generations. An event like 9/11 on the other hand, impacted only a handful of countries, and outside of TSA screening and those directly involved in the war, probably didn't have as much of an impact on the entirety of the Millennial Generation, (In a similar vein to Baby Boomers and Vietnam). Although there's generally a consensus among writers during any period of time on who decides to name the generation, I think Generation Coronavirus makes more sense than Generation Alpha, (And they intend on naming the next ones Beta, Gamma,Delta Epilson, which seems trite) which in all likelhood is just a Greek placeholder in the way XYZ where Latin placeholders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.189.99 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your name with four tildes (~~~~). OK? I think naming demographic cohorts after letters of an alphabet, or by an alphanumeric code as they do in large libraries, makes more sense since it is systematic and neutral. Regardless, this is for now only a matter of opinions. Since this page is not intended to be a forum, you are welcome to continue the discussion on my talk page, if you wish to continue. Nerd271 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Why so much demographic data?

Is all the demographic information really relevant to this article? Most of it seems rather broad and not about this 'generation' in particular - and to the extent that it is, it's necessarily somewhat speculative. It seems to be that the numbers of 'Generation Alpha' is not really what most people reading this information would be looking for; but rather information (or in this case predictions) on what they are/will be like. The same goes for the other generational articles in this series, but it seems particularly excessive and unnecessary here. Robofish (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a demographic cohort, discussing demographics makes sense. The demographic data in this page mostly concerns people born in the 2010s and their immediate surroundings. People of course do not exist in a vacuum, so some context will be enlightening. Moreover, given that these people are still in school or are not even born yet, the most certain information we have about them is their demographics. Demographics is not destiny, but it is a major contributing factor. Given a society's age structure – its population pyramid especially – one can tell a lot about its past and present and catch a glimpse of its future.

I do not know where you got your information about what the readers want, but remember that this is a Wikipedia page, meaning it should be encyclopedic in nature. Different readers will of course be interested in different aspects of this cohort. So it is important to have broad coverage. Nerd271 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, these demographics are important, and they should be left the way they are. In the future, we will see. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jam ai qe ju shikoni: Our information on demographics is fairly up-to-date. We can, and should, update it in the upcoming years, of course. Nerd271 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Agreed! 👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Great Article... about a bunch of other things.

This is a terrible article about Generation Alpha, it does have extensive information about the world during Gen A's time that's only loosley tied to the subject at hand which is Gen A.

As mentioned above, this article which is supposed to give information about Gen A is jam-packed with what a user above calls "context". The majority of the information is "context" leaving readers to have to scour for what little information there is directly about Gen A. I know this, as I'm a reader, who came here looking for information about Gen A and not information about the world that exists around Gen A. "Someone" seems to have been in a rush to get this article up and going and has dumped tons of indirect information on here and is going through great pains to make sure it stays that way by they've helicoptered it (see edit history).

If there isn't that much information due to Gen A not being that old then so be it, a small paragraph stating as such with some quick information would be much better than this awful mess that's up now.

On a final note, "someone" needs to understand how this is all supposed to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.77.180 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

People do not exist in a vacuum. In order to understand Generation Alpha, people need to understand the world they live in, not that the article should be entirely about that. Nor is it what we are trying to turn this article into. Moreover, there is little that is known for sure about this demographic cohort besides demographics. A lot of what you see on the Internet amount to nothing more than stereotyping and aspirational thinking, not factual reporting. Like the other articles about cultural generations, this will continue to be updated and modified in the years and decades ahead. Nerd271 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no "we", it's you, just you. I found good information elsewhere which I'll not bother linking to in the article because you are hellbent to exert maximum control over this page (one of many I assume). Not wasting any more time on this prime example of Wikipedia's failings to curtail the zealots which plague it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.77.180 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you could not be bothered to discuss in good faith, there is no reason to continue. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. Nerd271 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is all over the place

Why so much effort made to support the 2 billion headcount? Is it because there is only one source used to corroborate it? Wikipedia is not an essay. And the more you try to validate that inflated estimate, the more this article sounds like a research paper. Ripleysnow (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. But that estimate was mentioned only once and is not a major theme of the article. It was only one piece of information concerning the demographics of this cohort. Nerd271 (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I do think that there is quite a lot of prose that is either nonsense or poorly summarized. For example: "families with just one or no children have become a lot more common, meaning the future proponents of counterculture would likely find that their companions will have never existed." I can't make any sense of it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

They will not exist because their potential parents do not have children. Any further questions? Nerd271 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying that their "companions" will have never existed is completely meaningless. In this case, it would be better to say somehow that less people in this particular time period are expected to be proponents of counterculture. I might as well lament all the current Scandinavian pagans who "do not exist" because their ancestors converted to Christianity.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how things were back then. But today, demographic projections typically take conversion into account. However, the effects of conversion are small. A quote from the page Generation Z: In general, the growth or decline of a given religion is due more to age and fertility rather than conversion.

References

Better, more neutral wording of South Korea's low fertility rate, rather than using the word 'abysmal'.

"Possible reasons for Korea's abysmal fertility rate include..." The word 'abysmal' seems very much a word with negative connotations and doesn't at all seem fit for an encyclopedia. There is no dispute that the Republic of Korea has one of the lowest, if not the lowest fertility rate in the world. But there are many ways to express this without it coming across as a positive or negative. It is a neutral fact, it is not 'good' or 'bad' and does not need to be expressed as such.

It is true that 'Abysmal' has two meanings, the more common 'negative' meaning: "His grades were abysmal", and the less common meaning to express something (eg. a lake) being "very deep". Whilst this latter meaning could technically be used in this situation, it is a rare usage and the common usage is the way the sentence will be read by most or all visitors.

Wikipedia's own guidelines (on the 'Dispute resolution' page) states "For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral". This is the perfect example of such a situation. Not to mention the many alternatives we have. 'Very low' and 'historically low' have been used in my previous edits, the latter of which I believe is a more appropriate wording, even if it does not express the fact they are the 'world record' holders (anyway, neither does 'abysmal'). Quick searches on the subject of the country's fertility returned many credible articles, some from CNN and BBC News. None of them used a word like 'abysmal' in any of their articles, preferring such descriptions as 'lowest fertility rate in the world', 'record low' and 'lowest since records began'.

If there is anyone unhappy with the use of 'historically low' or 'ultra low' (an accepted term), perhaps something like this: "Possible reasons for Korea having the world's lowest fertility rate include the high cost of raising a child, high youth unemployment, ..."

--Knowledgemaster2000 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree that abysmal is subjective and non-neutral (some may consider very high birth rates abysmal, and low birth rates desirable, for example). Perhaps "relatively low" or Knowledgemaster2000's suggestion of describing it as the lowest. –xeno^talk 11:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: Ha! People with that particular opinion forget had their ancestors not had what they consider "abysmal" birth rates, they would probably have not existed. So we may safely consider that one to be maladaptive.

@Knowledgemaster2000 and Xeno: After checking with the dictionary, I came across the word 'bottom' as a possible replacement. Depending on the situation, it can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective. In the case of it being an adjective, it means exactly what one thinks it means. Nerd271 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "very low" or "historically low" or what Xeno said are perfectly fine.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One useful think one learns in English class is to avoid writing '[very] adjective'. Instead of 'very sad', say 'tragic', 'morose', 'melancholy' and so on, depending on context. Nerd271 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Bottom" would convey that (South?) Korea has the lowest fertility rate in the world, which may or may not be true, but since it isn't previously stated you can't use "bottom" here. "Very low" is fine. "Very" isn't prohibited, regardless of what your English teacher said. But if you don't like very, note that your English teacher probably also said that the first thing to try is just removing it, before looking for synonyms. "Low" is also fine here. "Historically low", as suggested by others, is fine too. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Frowned upon rather than prohibited. No, the first thing he said was to replace the whole thing with a suitable word, rather than to remove 'very'. In other words, he assumed people were using 'very' seriously rather than meaninglessly. In the latter case, he would invoke one of George Orwell's rules for writing, which is to cut out whatever can be cut out. 'Low' is also suitable, since the context makes it clear it is one of the lowest today. Nerd271 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 section

I created a section on Covid-19 which has since been absorbed into the "Communicable diseases and vaccinations" section I can understand the logic behind this decision but feel that as this is one of the first major events in the lives in much of this generation I feel it may make sense to put it under it's own heading. Llewee (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It remains to be seen how significant this is going to be. Nerd271 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please No

Why is one person who doesn't understand the meaning of things dictating an entire generation's title?

" I settled on that for the title of the chapter Beyond Z: Meet Generation Alpha. It just made sense as it is in keeping with scientific nomenclature of using the Greek alphabet in lieu of the Latin and it didn’t make sense to go back to A"

See here's the thing. There never was an A. There never was a B. There was never a C-Y. Until Z, there was no generation named after an arbitrary alphabetic order.

Generation X wasn't named after the letter. That's not what happened. It was named after the "unknown" X quality. Not a letter. Not alphabetic. People who didn't understand this tried to make the next one Y. This thankfully failed and we continued on the unbroken course of never having such a stupid naming convention. But after Millennials, nobody bothered to do any thinking. And that subtle nagging of laziness crept up and we got Generation Z. A term that is absolutely meaningless. This should have been the end of it. Out of meaningless letters to tack onto X because we don't know what X means. And then you pull this. Citing one human on Earth who took a survey of people who didn't know anything and hadn't ever thought about it, just went, A follows Z! That's my ABCs!! Only with this utterly inexplicable twist of going by tropical storm rules so it's "Alpha". Which is just A's slightly exotic cousin.

You actually have an image of the Greek alphabet on here. As if that has absolutely anything to do with anything, and then a bunch of charts trying to give legitimacy to one random person who clearly doesn't know what words mean.

Please no.

Let's not do this. Wikipedia is taken seriously. Let's not usher in another meaningless alphabet generation. Take a stand for reason, meaning, and purpose. Break the cycle now or we'll go into an endless loop of meaningless alphabetic names. If we get to Beta, there's no turning back. J1DW (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Excessive detail

I find this article to be overwhelming: it is much too long and too detailed, and it seems to me that "it happened during this generation" is not a good enough reason to include an enormous amount of demographic information from all over the world, when much of that information is already found in other articles. The article is pretty much unreadable because of its size and detail. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this article's a hot mess but good luck trying to get it fixed as there's someone squatting on it prohibiting any effort to clean it up. 97.64.77.180 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The name of it

I believe it's been referred to as Gen C recently. Named after the coronavirus BostonStrong57 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Gen C seems to be used to refer to people who won't remeber life before Covid, thus children born around 2017 and forward, maybe Gen Alpha wil end up being considered a short "middle" generation. We'll see how the future judges.★Trekker (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I added a note and citations to represent this debate. I think it's important to show the social demography is subject to continuing cultural evolution. Brownbear52403 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lolz. They were removed. I feel like there's a group who is ardently protecting the name, and removing any dissenting content, despite citation. Brownbear52403 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 section

Nerd271 believes that this article should not have a section about COVID-19. Should this section exist or not? This is not a condemnation but I think we should get a clear answer, so I'm notifying contributors in last six months: @Danbloch, Llewee, Kolya Butternut, Brownbear52403, KanekisGhoul, Devonian Wombat, Matt2378, Frostypocky, Skingo12, Nsnandan2635, Eichy815, M.Bitton, Maproom, EvergreenFir, Serols, St3095, LucasX321, Joseph165, Robwingfield, Me, Myself, and I are Here, Dan100, Dicayes, Materialscientist, J ansari, Mwalle, Crammed174, Drmies, Johnterickson, Xeno, and Adam9007: Thank you. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we have a list of sources with quotes, and a proposal please? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The current issue is that Nerd271 does not think the COVID-19 information should be separated off into a separate section. If the section was separated, then other editors would be more likely to improve it. In their words, it should not be done because "Its long-term impact remains to be seen." —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a valid argument per WP:RECENTISM. We would have to examine the existing sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that "there will be longterm effects of COVID" is already a true statement. Either way, whatever content goes in should be done economically. Everything has a tendency to get out of hand here. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Generation C" name proposal may fall under RECENTISM. The article already discusses the impacts of the virus on the generation.

The sources for that proposal in the article right now are USA Today and The Atlantic. If we mention the "Generation C" proposed name we should consider if there were other proposed names that should be mentioned too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a valid point actually. Other possible names should also be consider before any long term change happens but as far as I can see it's too early to discuss what changes the pandemic will bring when the pandemic itself has not ended yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsnandan2635 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My view is that regardless of whether it is an important milestone in the lives of this cohort in years to come right now it clearly is the most important global event in the lives of children born since the early 2010s and should therefore have a subheading within the health section instead of being lumped in with stuff about vaccinations for some reason. Llewee (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It can easily be removed again if it's not needed in the future. Llewee (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271, did you object to a subsection about COVID generally, or just about the COVID-related generation name proposals? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271 has reverted mine and others attempts to create a subsection. Llewee (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut and Llewee: I do not necessarily have problems with proposals for alternative names. I only object presenting names as commonly used and accepted without solid evidence. Wikipedia is a widely used resource. We therefore must be careful what we say, or risk creating self-fulfilling prophecies or circular citations. That means we put something here without strong evidence. People and journalists doing their research then start picking up on the same trend, after which people come here with additional citations, as if it was true all along. As for a section about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on this generation, it seems reasonable to take the standard position of historians, or what Butternut previously referred to as 'recentism', namely, it is too recent to say whether or not it has a strong impact on the lives of these people, all of whom are young and many are not even born. This goes back to my previous point about making self-fulfilling prophecies. Nerd271 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nerd271: But this article isn't about this generation when there older or after there gone it's about them now as children or due to be born in the next few years and at the moment the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly on of the most important global events they have experienced. Wikipedia changes all the time, if that isn't the case in thirty years time there wouldn't need to be a subheading on it then. Llewee (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Llewee: Short-term trends need not concern us. This is not an article about popular culture or fads, but about people. As an analogy, think of the 2004 tsunamis and earthquakes in the Indian Ocean. It was a catastrophe that killed around 200,000 people. But people hardly talk about it anymore. It is not mentioned in the pages for the Millennials or Generation Z. SARS-CoV-2 poses only a limited threat to children to begin with. Why bother giving it its own subsection in a section about their health? Nerd271 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of this article is already about things whose impact is not yet known. This is inevitable, since much of the generation hasn't even been born yet. So you could say the whole article is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Given this, pretty much everyone is saying that COVID-19 will be one of the biggest impacts on the generation. The impact isn't because they are dying or getting sick, but because of the cultural changes, and in particular the childhood experiences that they will lack. For example, these articles talk about it: . —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And you think we could improve it by adding even more "crystal-ball" information? That NBC article has a sensationalist title. Nerd271 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271 I don't think that a episode of extreme weather however unpleasant for the communities it effects is comparable to a pandemic which has badly disrupted the lives and education of children all over the world for almost a year. It was you who initially chose to move the information on COVID to the section on health, there isn't really any where else to put it. Llewee (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oy, mate! The 2004 earthquakes and tsunamis in the Indian Ocean killed something like 200,000 people, and those natural disasters were not related to the weather. As for the bits of information pertaining to the naming system inspired by the nomenclature of major storms, someone else added it. I initially merely mentioned the scientific convention of moving to the Greek alphabet once the Roman one is exhausted. Information about COVID can be broken up further into bits related to mental and physical health. Nerd271 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271 Sorry my wording did come across a bit dismissive which wasn't my intention. My point is that it isn't a global event in the same way as the pandemic. To put it another way, COVID is an event which we pretty much know for certain will be a major childhood memory for almost everyone in the older half of generation alpha which for a cohort which only started arriving in the world during roughly the last decade does seem somewhat noteworthy. Llewee (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Llewee: Perhaps that might be the case. It is still too soon to say anything. Moreover, it is not for us as Wikipedia editors to decide the fate of this generation whether or not it is or will be considered a significant event in the life experiences of people from this cohort. Perhaps history shall return something else might fill that role. We do not know yet. Let's leave it as that. Nerd271 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

More elderly people in the world than young children

The cited BBC article "Why the world now has more grandparents than grandchildren" in the section Global Trends has a somewhat misleading headline - its actual statistic in the article is that "the number of over-65s surpassed that of under-fives." The wording of classifying all people over 65 as grandparents is misleading, and redefining grandchildren to mean anyone under the age of 5 is confusing. Surely a child aged 5 could still be a grandchild, just as someone age might not be a grandparent. In addition, the range of 0-4 is much smaller than 65+, so the comparison is not entirely fair. I don't disagree that it is important to note how the intersection of longer lifespan and fewer births will affect this generation, but I do think we should be careful not to generalize. Epicheese (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason wikipedia should be using somebody else's text if it doesn't make sense. I think Nerd271 is the only one who thinks this can be included. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No, we are talking about general trends, not individual cases. People aged 65 and over are in the generation of grandparents in the broader view of society even if there may be many who are not grandparents themselves. Outliers do not disprove statistical trends. Nerd271 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't really that, it's the 'grandchildren'. The word isn't limited to young children. Besides, I don't see why you feel the need to include the title of that article in the text of this page. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, everybody's is somebody grandchild. If you look at a population pyramid, the people at the very top are in the generation of grandparents or even great grandparents of the people at the very bottom. Individual cases do not negate statistical trends. Nerd271 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's true, and that makes it useless to say that in the article. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is just another way of looking at things. That's why I put, "In other words" at the start of that sentence. Nerd271 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Polls and views

@Llewee: Note I never said anything about the sources. I only question the value of including such a section about children, who are too young to have their own sociopolitical views. Nerd271 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nerd271: The section doesn't cover capital P politics. Attitudes to social issues and similar, especially if they are changing in comparison to previous generations do have relevance. Llewee (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Things like gender roles and equality count as sociopolitical topics. Better to leave them aside for another ten years or so. These people need to grow up first. It does not make any sense to talk about their opinions on the big topics at this point in their lives. They are just too young. What do they really know? May I remind you that very young children have the reasonable tendency to try to please the adults around them. (Under harsh Darwinian conditions which existed for most of human history on Earth, this meant the difference between life and death.) Nerd271 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nerd271. It seems to me that Wikipedia is meant to include only relevant information. And information about the sociopolitical opinions of children who haven't even reached puberty yet sounds irrelevant to the topic. We will only know these children's true opinions when they grow up and learn to think for themselves, and we are not to guess about such results when that happens. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271 and LongLivePortugal To be honest, I think both your objections are based far more on your personal opinions than any encyclopedic principals but if you object to the section that strongly then I'm hardly going to be able to stop you getting rid of it. I will note down the two links below in case anybody wants to use them at some stage. Llewee (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191209005093/en/Generation-Alpha-New-Study-Shows-How-Being-the-Most-Diverse-Generation-Yet-Impacts-Their-Behaviors-Now-In-the-Future Llewee (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/19/march-of-the-under-10s-generation-growing-up-as-protesters Llewee (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not talk about children's political opinions for the same reason we do not let them vote (if their society is democratic) and we educate them (one way or the other, regardless of historical epoch): they are just too young. It is better to wait till the first wave of them reach adulthood then start logging their opinions as reported by reliable sources than track them over time, as we have done with the Baby Boomers. These articles sound like aspirational rather than factual reporting to me. A lot of the articles about these social generations have been rather lacking in substance in the sense of concrete information. Nerd271 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nerd271 In regards to your latter remarks, the statistics in the articles are based upon polling and therefore 'factual' not 'aspirational' in nature. Many of your other comments appear somewhat hyperbolic, it seems almost as if you are implying that a short section of a wikipedia page is somehow corrupted the innocence of children. Maybe if their was a poll in the section asking which political party they'd support I'd understand your argument but statistics discussing this cohorts attitudes to topics that are relevant to children (e.g the difference between boys and girls or the internet) seem perfectly within the remit of this page. Llewee (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with discussing the the growth and development of children today, say differences between boys and girls as they grow up in the contemporary era or early puberty. We already have an entire section on puberty for Generation Z. (Baby Boomers reaching puberty earlier than their predecessors was briefly mentioned.) As for their opinions on sociopolitical topics, what do they know? They are still too young. Nerd271 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Are generation lengths getting shorter?

If Generation X ends in the early 1980s (as the article states), and Generation Alpha starts late 2010s, about 35 years later, how can there be two generation-lengths in between (Gen Y/Millenials, GenZ?) unless all women are having babies at an average of age 17 or 18? Previous generations were some 25 years long, the average age of childbirth (bearing in mind its all their children, too, not just the first). This smacks of made-up media nonsense rather than encyclopaedic truth. 2.28.151.178 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@2.28.151.178: It seems only the Greatest Generation was 25 years long, and all the rest were less than 20 years. I don't think it's really assumed that the children of one "generation" will all be in the next: it seems that this is the breakdown that sources generally use. If you see any sources that disagree, then please share them. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So they're not actually generations? It seems a misnomer then. Average length of a woman's fertility and the period of time when she can experience childbirth is certainly NOT limited to her teenage years. And why did the inven tor of "Generation Alpha" feel the need to invent a name anyway? It's hardly necessary. What were the names of the generations before "The Lost Generation"? We just called periods / eras but rulers or events. The Restoration, the Interregnum, the Regency, Georgians, Victorians, Edwardians, Elizabethans Fin de Siecle. No-one is dizzy with confusion over those terms, they worked.2.28.151.178 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@2.28.151.178: I think the other generations up to the end of the Millenials are pretty much defined, but as for Generation Z and Generation alpha, I think they are still undecided. We don't know what the names will be and we don't know when they start and end. I think this article is probably too detailed. I have a suspicion that COVID will be used for the boundary between Gen Z and Gen Alpha, but it's far too hard to know. We shouldn't be defining characteristics to kids when they're 10 years old. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that these are social rather than biological generations. (There are three to four biological generations per century.) Thus, the Baby Boomers tend to be the parents of the Millennials rather than Generation X, who are mostly the parents of Generation Z. In other words, each social generation is about half a biological generation. Researchers and advertisers define demographic cohorts in order to better study them. Nerd271 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation timeline.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

About the parents of Generation Alpha.

In this page says that the most of the Generation Alpha is children of the Millennials, but Millennials was born between the time the After the end of Cold War to 2002 and the year of start of the birth of Generation Alpha is 2013 and until 2023 and the period of birth of the Generation Alpha the Average age of having the first child where very high for Most of Generation Alpha be children of Millennials - 201.92.134.175 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC).

@201.92.134.175: That may or may not be true, but Wikipedia content relies on its sources, and the sources all say that Gen Alphas are the children of Millennials. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Millennials were born in the 80s. The term was literally coined to describe people who would be the first coming into adulthood (18) by the new millennium (2000ish). The cold war ended when the oldest Millennials were about 12. J1DW (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The real problem with this article is that it exists at all Gen. X wasn't alphabetical. It has to stop. A line has to be drawn. Let Zoomers die on Alphabet Hill. Go back to naming generations after they've earned a title. J1DW (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Other Potential Names

Gen Delta (covid variant), ... 50.93.222.28 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That's three cohorts down the road. Nerd271 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are there multiple citations repeated so many times?

For example the Shaw Brown and Perano Ursula ones? They are repeated more than two times in a row. It's very redundant/repetitive and it appears that someone is forcing 2010/ 2011 as the start of Gen Alpha when there hasn't been an official consensus yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:C180:3DB0:0:0:0:FCB (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed two occurrences of Shaw/Perano that were grossly wrong. I didn't care enough to look at the rest. They may or may not be suitable. Feel free to check them if you're interested. I don't think this is a conspiracy, just inexperienced editors. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm personally against the introduction of specific start years, and any end years. These mostly come from pop culture writers of online articles; I don't think many academics have defined the generation yet. Many of these people may even be copying from this very article to get their dates. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Generation Z and 21st century

But most members of Generation Z born into the 21st century (mostly born in 2001, 2002, and 2004) as a result Generation Z born into the new century so why you discussed this generation born entirely in the 21st century and Generation Z born in the 21st century too. Generation Alpha and Generation Z both born into the 21st century but Generation Z is the first not Generation Alpha. 112.200.24.15 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

correct succession of generations

It is well accepted that a generation is 15 years, and that the boomer generation starts in 1945 and ends in 1960, succeded by gen X until 1975, succeded by gen Y until 1990, succeded by millennial until 2015, succeded by gen Z until 2020, to be finally succeded by Alpha until 2035. Millennials are so named because their generation straddles the millenium. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the generation named for the millenium ends before the millenium even begins. Millenials are the first generation born in the new millenium, as their name suggests, and also based on the fact that every generation is always 15 years, not an arbitrary number decided decades later. People born in the 80s would not have even heard the term 'millennial' until they were adults, having always previously been known as gen Y. Thank you. 80.44.204.66 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Generation Jones separate from Boomers

This really should be throughout wikipedia, not just occasionally or as a separate article. Society was very different for those in this generation as compared to Boomers. 2600:1700:755C:7DB0:DD6:4C01:A213:2A85 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

too much about fertility

there is too much about population unrelated to gen alpha. is this normal or should there be less? i am new to editing wikipedia.103.28.246.32 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the continent subsections of demographics

There is clearly way too much information on fertility in the article. The first few paragraphs of the demographics section before the "Africa" subheading provide a perfectly adequate overview of demographic trends for an article of this type. We don't need all these statistics, graphs and slightly opinionated analysis from all over the world.

I will link every account who's contributed significantly to the article to try and get a consensus: @Frenchmalawi, @Nerd271, @Sapphire Williams, @Danbloch, @Kolya Butternut, @LoreMaster22, @Jaydavidmartin, @RichardMcKee, @McGeddon, @Robofish, @Knowledgemaster2000, @Drmies Llewee (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That content is about half of the article, which makes it hard to read anything after it and is clearly not in accord with WP:BALASP. It could be broken out into a separate article if people think it's worthwhile, but it shouldn't be part of this one. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've created Draft:Demographics_of_Generation_Alpha as a potential split off article. Llewee (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For an article that is so loaded, so weighed down by so much information, it's actually pretty interesting--I mean, I've seen worse. I do think it's hard to see the forest for the trees, and I think pruning would help. I do believe that there's WAY too much demographics too early in the article, and it doesn't invite readers to read on and scroll down, so I fully support what Llewee and Danbloch suggest. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of most of the section and split it into its own article. Llewee (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"Generation Alpha (version 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Generation Alpha (version 2) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Generation Alpha (version 2) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Llewee (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"Generation AA" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Generation AA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 6#Generation AA until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Overlap with Gen Z

If Gen Z is said in the image and referenced in article as ending in 2012, why does Gen Alpha start in 'early 2010s' and not 2013? Ceaceacea (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources differ. See Generation Alpha#Date and age range definitions. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Is "children are a burden" a fact now? Because I do not believe that is a fact. (WP:WIKIVOICE issue)

I have attempted to take issue with these sentences in the Demographics section: In rural areas, children can be considered an asset; that is, children are additional labor. In the cities, however, children are a burden. This is obviously an opinion, and as WP:WIKIVOICE says, we should not be presenting it in wikivoice. Avoid stating opinions as facts. One would think this would be uncontroversial, but one would be mistaken.
The text was put back in because it's "in the source" and "presented by a reliable source as fact". WP:RSOPINION is very clear on this: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. And that's just what the source ([4]) is - an opinion piece in a mainstream newspaper. One can easily tell that it is an opinion piece because it ends: Population decline is not a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a big thing. It’s time to look it in the eye. Regular news articles, the kind we can actually use as sources for facts, don't end with calls to action like "It’s time to look it in the eye", but opinion pieces sure do. And that is what the source is, an opinion piece, which means it cannot be used to support stating something as fact in wikivoice, like the text in question does, which means the text needs to go.
You might ask if this couldn't be attributed as the opinion of the writers, but since the writers are, respectively, the CEO of a polling company and a "writer-at-large" for a different newspaper, and not, for example, a couple of sociology professors, I would question why their opinions would be worth attributing when writing about demographics. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's labeled as news and not opinion, but those are reasonable points. Okay, carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Beginning dates for generation Alpha !

I have GenZ Adult kids and younger GenZ & Gen Alpha Grand kids ! I would definitely say GenZ ends with not being Of compulsory school age when the Pandemics shut down started , if you weren't at least in 5 yr old Kindergarten and have no memory of experiencing school before the pandemic You are Generation Alpha. Deathlands82 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Gen Alpha start year !

Gen Alpha start year should be 2014 If you weren't in school already when the pandemic started your Gen Alpha If you have no conscious memory of life before the pandemic and face masks and going to school and no plexi glass things around your desk, then you're GenZ . I Believe that we have a very clear demarcation line between GenZ and Gen Alpha with the Covid 19 panademic. Deathlands82 (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Misleading claims in Health section

Can someone please fix the following claims in the health section? My account is too new to make edits on this page.

The Obesity and malnutrition section reads:

"Only two-fifths of infants are exclusively breastfed, as recommended by pediatricians and nutritionists, while the sale of formula milk jumped 40% globally. In middle-income countries such as Brazil, China, and Turkey, that number is 75%"

"Even though obesity was virtually non-existent in poor countries three decades ago, today, at least ten percent of children in them suffer from this condition."

These claims are misleading and not true to the source, which states:

"And yet, only two-in-five infants under six months are exclusively breastfed, as recommended. Sales of milk-based formula have risen worldwide by 40 percent, and in upper middle-income countries such as Brazil, China and Turkey by nearly three-quarters."

"The problem was virtually non-existent in poor countries 30 years ago, but today at least 10 percent of under five year olds are overweight or obese in three-quarters of low-income nations."

There may be other issues in this paragraph, but these are the two claims that I checked.

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so am unsure whether this is the appropriate place to bring this up or whether there might be greater concerns surrounding this contributor's edits given these misquoted claims that should be checked. Tmar196 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tmar196: You have 10 edits now so you can modify this article yourself.

Since you're new to Wikipedia, note that this text is very much not an example of how Wikipedia content should be written. Sources should be summarized in your own words. This section uses close paraphrasing, which may be a copyright violation depending on how extensive the use is. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Generation Covid

i believe that a reference should be made at the top of the page, In the main description, to the fact that a lot of people call this generation 'Covid Generation'. A simple Google search will show that there are countless sources to back up this claim. Will2911 (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated Graphic on Total Fertility

@Korakys: You say that the graphics is updated annually. But the description page clearly says the data comes from the 2020 World Population Data Sheet. Please verify and modify as appropriate. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering I both created the map and wrote the original caption I should know what is accurate here. The information was in the file history descriptions but I guess that is not enough. Changed! —Korakys (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

iPad babies

There is a reliable source that applies the term "iPad babies" but it's unclear if it's referring to all of Gen Alpha or a portion of it. Mapsax (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Vaccination section

This section includes an un-sourced claim: "In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that mass vaccination campaigns be suspended in order to ensure social distancing."

Can this be clarified and updated now that we're three years on? It is potentially misleading. I don't believe I have permission to make a change but in any case, I lack the expertise. Catkinsan (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The source is given at the end of the paragraph. Nerd271 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024

I would like to edit the dates of gen alpha as i beleive they are innacurate and conflict with other sources Virtualhelper (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

I understand what you generally wish to change, but the standard for edit requests states users should display verbatim what they want to be removed and what they want to be added. You should also include any sources that contend with current citations on the page. I'd be happy to format those sources for you; otherwise, you must include exactly what you want changed. (Edit requests)
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 13:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024

The dates for the years of gen alpha are incorrect numerous sources say that gen alpha starts from 2013/end of 2012 https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-generation-alpha https://libguides.usc.edu/busdem/age Virtualhelper (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Already done according to section Date and age range definitions:

"There is no consensus on the birth years of Generation Alpha yet. For years, media sources focused specifically on Generation Alpha have used starting birth years such as 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013; 'the early 2010s'. In the 2023 book Generation Alpha by Mark McCrindle, Generation Alpha is defined as 'covering those born between 2010 and 2024.'"

It seems the change you want made isn't contradicting the page as it is now.

Am I misunderstanding? If so, feel free to reply and provide more context.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 13:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Parents of generation Alpha

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-alpha-explained-technology-views-mental-health-2023-10 Article does state that generation alpha are the children of Millennials and older Generation Z. This link is Already provided by another poster on Gen Alpha page . Deathlands82 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Greek alphabet graphic

What is the virtue of including a graphic box of the Greek alphabet? Other than terminology, it seems irrelevant to the subject at hand. 38.42.123.140 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Gen X excluded?...

According to the article, "Members of Generation Alpha are usually the children of millennials and some of older members of Generation Z." It seems odd though that Gen Xers - at least the younger ones - wouldn't be included though.

If Gen X includes everything up to and including 1980, then the youngest Gen Xers would have been just 30 years old when Gen Alpha started back in 2010. Gen Z, otoh, started in 1997, so the oldest Gen Zers would have been just 13 in 2010. So I think it's safe to say that there were actually significantly more babies born to Gen X parents than to Gen Z parents in 2010, 2011, 2012, and such. -2003:CA:8717:D28E:A720:4793:1A10:1382 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing.

Many Gen Alphas have Gen X as parents. 2A04:4A43:56BF:D667:0:0:AA6:832A (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 16:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

its known that generation alpha is from the year 2013-2025 and in this page its said that its 2010-2025. please edit it. (SOURCE: https://guides.loc.gov/consumer-research/market-segments/generations#:~:text=Generation%20Z%2C%20also%20sometimes%20known,born%20between%201997%20and%202012. , https://www.beresfordresearch.com/age-range-by-generation/ , https://www.britannica.com/topic/Generation-Z ) 1abq (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

some sources say it is 2010-2025 and some sources say its 2013-2025. We just go with the earlier option. Toketaa^talk 13:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done according to section Date and age range definitions:

"There is no consensus on the birth years of Generation Alpha yet. For years, media sources focused specifically on Generation Alpha have used starting birth years such as 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013; 'the early 2010s'. In the 2023 book Generation Alpha by Mark McCrindle, Generation Alpha is defined as 'covering those born between 2010 and 2024.'"

It seems the change you want made isn't contradicting the page as it is now.

Am I misunderstanding? If so, feel free to reply and provide more context.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 13:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

honestly as a gen z i know the page on gen alpha should NOT have 2010-2012 as gen alpha, people argue about this DAILY, so then, i'd like to change it please. Blackpink4everere (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We should not list an age range right now, instead a range of middle early 2010s to early 2020s. I don't see where it says that 2010 to 2012 is alpha on this page. User73663828 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Gen Beta Soon

So I seen a lot of sources saying the next one, Generation Beta, will start next year (2025!). Someone should prepare for this soon, if not add an article already...

https://generationalpha.com/articles/who-comes-after/

https://yr.media/identity/generation-gen-beta-alpha-z-noumaan-faiz/ Orastor (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

This page already exists, so please improve that one. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 01:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know... But I mean, when does someone add it to the navigation chart? Orastor (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

Those aren't WP:reliable sources. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Generation Beta is not an accepted name yet. It will take years for the media to settle on one. Note WP:CRYSTAL.

There is also virtually no chance that there will be general agreement that it starts in 2025. This usage is idiosyncratic to McCrindle Research, which invented the "Generation Alpha" name and is now pushing Generation Beta. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I had no idea... Kind of out of my league, I guess, but it was interesting while it lasted. Orastor (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

In addition the world is still debating the age ranges for Gen Z, so "Gen Beta" should not be considered the name of the generation after Alpha, instead "the generation after Alpha has been called by some "Generation Beta"" Although it is way too early for Generation "Beta" to have it's own article. Anyways, in a few years this will be looked at again and there will be an article eventually about it. User73663828 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely mabye 2025 or 2028. Generations change every 15 years most of the time. TheMisterMooseMan (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI. The Generation Beta article has been deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Generation Beta. The consensus was that it's too soon. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it's too early to define the generation who'll directly succeed the Alphas, given how no members of that generation have even been born yet. I'd also like to point out that "Beta" has an inherently negative connotation, so it will probably be many years before we even know anything solid about that generation's trends or trajectory. In conversations, I usually refer to them as "Gen AB" for short, for no other reason than they directly follow "Gen AA." But, again, "Gen AB" hasn't been born yet, and it will most likely be another decade before there's any broad consensus on where Gen AA ends and where Gen AB begins. ~ Eichy815 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Aoomer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Aoomer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Aoomer until a consensus is reached. HaeB (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Description

It says early 2011s but would not be correct to say 2010s? 80.233.73.27 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Nerd271 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Generation Z is more commonly known to go to 2011 with generation alpha starting in 2012. 2601:540:C700:F640:3CD1:709E:2223:5964 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)