Talk:Millennials/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Article Needs Amending

Gen Y, if we are to accept a graduation year of 2000, begins in 1981, not 1982 (as falsely stated). Here’s the proof that an academic start year begins in September the previous year through to August the following year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

"In most countries, the academic year begins with the start of autumn and ends during the following summer."

So, are any editors going to amend the 1982 error? You know, the one that uses the blanket statement that if you’re born in 1982 you graduate in 2000? It’s false because an academic start year begins in 1981 for a graduation of 2000. And those born after September 1982 would graduate in 2001, not 2000 also.

And can anyone quote Strauss and Howe to see if they account for an academic start year beginning in September 1981 and onwards for a legitimate graduation date of 2000? IF they did not mention 1981 as a legitimate start date, then their 'research' needs to be criticized in the main article.

IF they did mention it, then whoever has been using the blanket statement of 1982 as a start year should simply alter the dates to reflect the facts.

If we are to accept Gen Y begins with the class of 2000, then we must also accept 1981 (after September) is the real beginning, not 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

1) The graduating year is flawed. 1981 is the true year not 1982 for graduates of 2000.

2) Using just graduating years is flawed also. It focuses too much on the USA and not other countries (like the UK) where there is no graduation at 18 from highscool.

The focus should be more on the digital age and when people would have been influenced by growing technology, i.e. the rise of the Internet and social newtworking/forums. This became mainstream around 1996, which would mean anyone born around 1980 would have been teenagers and thus more influenced by modern technology than people older, i.e. Gen X'ers born in the 60s or early 70s.

I propose we start Gen Y as 'roughly in the late 70s or early 80s' and that Gen X basically fades out late 70s or early 80s'.

Who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please get a registered account. I have already mentioned the spoofing program traced to this IP address and you have not responded. Which makes me think you are the person who was previously warned of being banned (several times). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that academics should not be used in determining boundaries of Generations. This is NOT done with the Baby Boom Generation. We do not hear 1979 is the last class of the Baby Boom Generation. Generations should be based on culture and similarities with individuals in relation to that culture. There are too many people who graduated late, dropped out, graduated earlier, etc. to base these generations on academics. Educatedlady (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this needs to be addressed here as well: Considering that the majority of current sources end Generation X in 1981, and Generation Y/Millennials start in 1982, why should such a vague date range be added back in with all reliable sources pointing otherwise? No blogs or youtube videos, or information from DNA professors. The consensus was agreed upon based on the standards used today. Standards being the key word. It's ridiculous that this is even brought up every other week. So, we need a consensus once a month to make everyone happy? The date ranges and sources support the most widely acceptable date ranges. Millennials are those who came of age in 2000. And the Generation X label was already pretty well-defined before the year 2000. 1982, 1983, 1984 or 1985 have never been nor are they Generation X. The consensus decided on the most acceptable date ranges based on reliable and commonly accepted evidence. Only one published book used 1983 as the start of Generation Y, and he is not well-known with his research widely accepted. That source REMAINS on the Generation Y page. That information does not belong on this page. Other editors have already reverted EducatedLady's edits and restated the previous consensus. If blogs, youtube videos, or personal research papers are added again, or Edward Carlson's Generation Y work mentioned on here, they will be removed. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CreativeSoul, you HAVE NOT been able to refute the fact that an ACADEMIC year begins in September, which makes 1981 the actual start date for the class of 2000. You even admitted this was TRUE a few days ago! And yet, you still persist in saying 'it's 1982'.

You say this issue comes up all the time: well, I'm not surprised.

Millions of people are visiting Wikipedia every day, and there will be a portion that are interested in Sociology/Generation Phenomena etc that will come to the same conclusions as I, EducatedLady, and the various others who visit here come to.

YOU are ignoring the facts, yes, I even included a Wikipedia link proving when an ACADEMIC year begins! Yet you won't change the article to reflect this.

Also, NO OTHER generation is defined on graduation dates, and the more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am we should use generics as Gen Y is typically associated with those who grew up with the Internet/social networking/cell phones etc. All these things became mainstream in the mid '90s, more specifically, 1996 if we are mainly focused on the 'net.

People born in the 60s and early 70s would have already been adults by the mid 90s, but those born around 1980 would have been just teenagers when the 'net became popular.

This is why the emphasis should be on shared cultural experiences, NOT just on graduation dates stated by Strauss and Howe (and even that is not right if they don't account for 1981 as an academic start year for graduates of 2000), and certainly NOT just focused on the USA, which is where most of this 'research' seems to be concentrated on.

If you think a website like Wikipedia, with millions of visitors a day, are going to ignore facts (like the one I already explained to you several times now) then you are mistaken. It is common sense that people will dispute these 'studies', because 1982 is NOT an academic start year for 2000 graduates PLUS Gen Y is NOT about graduation dates as a whole. It is a factor, but it is NOT the principle defining factor of what makes a person Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think like with the Generation X page their should be a range of when Generation Y begins. There has not been enough research on this generation at all to determine any dates. If a researcher is going to begin this generation with the class of 2000 then yes they would have to add those born towards the end of 1981. Many studies begin Generation Y around 1976 and ending in the early 1990s. Perhaps adding a range to the page of the mid 1970's to early 1990's until more research has been conducted to make a true determination. However I don't think this will happen anytime in the future. There has to be more studies done.Heavymetal81 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording of this article was decided by a consensus, which is what the current date range is in place (no dashes, etc.). The references included already show possible 1976 start dates by some sources. However, most current sources use 1981 as the last possible date for Generation X. I have made my explanations for the reasoning very clear. The terms Millennial refer to those who come of age in 2000 and after. The term Echo Boom refers to the 1982 boom in live births. It's all there in the article. A couple of posters whose edits were reverted by myself and other editors are trying to get their information in through other means. One such person even said that they would keep trying to get it in, then yelled at me and two other editors. She was asked to calm down, and didn't, and was warned several times. The other anonymous poster was pretty much banned. I can't be hundred percent sure it's the same person, but why else hide behind an IP address that is linked to an IP spoofer site? Is it a coincidence that the person came back on Wikipedia to try his tactics again anonymously? This person also spammed several talk pages with his rants. We are using the standard terminology and widely used date ranges. We are not going by "feeling" or personal research. No blogs, youtube clips, and personal sites created by average people. I think this is clear enough. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of the millennial generation starting with those born in september 1981, technically you can't use that either. There are some people I know who were born in September 1981 who graduated in 1999 because some districts use October as the start date of an academic year. There are even some who use November.70.178.26.108 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Me Generation"

Hell Yeah (Montgomery Gentry song) refers to Generation Y as "the Me Generation" unless I've misidentified what that term means.

BTW Harry Potter is more Generation Z I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter is more general age range. My parents are early Baby Boomers (almost Silent Generation age really) and they love the Harry Potter movies.

Also known as "Generation Entitled" 174.117.174.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

William Strauss and Neil Howe

This section is poorly written, even if anything it has to say is accurate, which from the discussion is questionable. It reads like a horoscope and has no place in an encyclopedia. If anything, the multi-paragraph inanity should be reduced to a link to the article about the book. There is no need to include a full description of the theory in an article about generation y. Even that might be too much. Honestly, the text relating to this theory should just be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.159 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with the recent edits made to the Strauss and Howe section. These authors are recognized for their generational research and paved the way for other authors and researchers. Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour acknowledges Neil Howe's expertise, and other authors/newspapers have mentioned these authors extensive influence. I don't have all the sources right now, but I have provided two showcasing their importance (even one that is critical).

The article does not read "most influential," but "very inBold textfluential," which is a true statement. Just because one writer for the Boston Globe thinks these authors are silly, does not erase the authors' years of work and the respect given to them. William Strauss has unfortunately passed away, but his parter continues their legacy, and Strauss still gets praised for his contributions today. Howe continues to publish almost every year, and is frequently consulted by newspaper journalists, TV journalists, universities, etc. I would say that is "very influential." Even the few who may disagree with some of their research have obviously been influenced, as they are making money criticizing their research in their own works. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You found articles that validate that their work has been very influential so I am not disputing that at all. I made the edit because no source backed up that claim, so therefore it was more opinionated. I have no problem with the article stating they are influential as long as a source supports this statement. While I respect their efforts, their work is inaccurate on so many levels. And there is not a few that disagree with them, there are many sources that are no longer use their somewhat biased and promotional research (just my opinion). Reason being Strauss and Howe started their research when we persons born in 1982 and those born in 1981 were kids. Its hard to coin a generation before a person becomes an adult and its expressed what influenced a person during childhood and adolesence. Their work is almost borderline fiction. Other researchers are not necessarily criticizing Strauss and Howe, they are just pointing out facts. How can these two men know anything about persons born in 1982 when they have not lived our lives or walked in our shoes? There are basing an entire generation on ONE graduating class, based upon interviews at 4 schools in Virginia. In their book Millennials Rising? It clearly states that their research was done on the class of 2000, it does not specifically state if they surveyed persons specifically born in 1982. Therefore more than likely their faulty research consists of persons probably born in 1981 as well due to Kindergarten cutoffs and students flunking grades. As Wikipedia states majority and minority views can be included here, not just the popular sources. I want to help improve this article, and I think we can work together but we need to realize that Generations X and Y do not begin or end with the work of Strauss and Howe. Other researchers deserve respect too. Happy Holidays. Educatedlady (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have their books. It does in fact mention the Millennials and 1982, both. In fact, one chapter in Generations is devoted entirely to the new generation, Millennials, and the authors use 1982 as the starting point. Several places throughout their books, they use 1982. Every book I have read by these authors (and I have read several), as well as research papers, newspaper articles, and other interviews (on television), mentions 1982 as the starting point. They are very clear. You say, "How can these two men know anything about persons born in 1982 when they have not lived our lives or walked in our shoes?" Well, you can say that about every single book written about every other generation. Strauss and Howe are generational theorists and considered experts. They are also very educated and have experience researching many generations, not just the Millennials. No matter your opinion, or the few who criticize them, Strauss and Howe are considered the most well-known researchers. Their work influenced other writers and researchers, including those who disagree with them, and effectively launched the "Millennium" business. Moreover, Neil Howe wrote more books after Millennium Rising; one was just published in 2010 on Millennials and the workplace. Some of the critics base their criticism on just Millennium Rising. Howe continues to publish his research, and he is consistently asked to consult on Millennials (and other generations)- not just by universities; but by journalists, companies, etc. around the worldStrauss and Howe are highlighted on Wikipedia, because they are the most notable regarding generational research. More than another other author or researcher (though again, most authors on the subject use 1982 in reference to Millennials/Generation Y), their work is consistently referenced by other media. You don't have to agree with their assessments, but even today, they are held in high regard.
Strauss and Howe are not the only authors using 1982 as the official birth year of the Millennials. I already mentioned the authors of The M Factor and Millennial Makeover, but a recent published work by a well-known British psychologist (as mentioned before) on Generation Y and religion also uses 1982 as the starting birth year. This source is used throughout the UK, Australia, and North America by churches in their articles on Millennials. Currently, Millennial conferences in both the U.S. and Canada (I know Canada's conference included researchers, marketers, CEOs, and others from various backgrounds and countries around the world) use 1982 as the starting year for the Millennials, as well. They may or may not reference Strauss and Howe, but the itinerary from one of Canada's conferences included sources from around the world - I saw statistics from Canada, U.S., UK, and Australia. Sources may use different date ranges, but the majority of well-known sources use 1982, whether they cite Strauss and Howe, or not.
I'm glad you placed the Elwood Carlson information between the Strauss and Howe paragraph and the content on Australia. It didn't make a lot of sense for it to come after the Canada reference, since he is an American author. I had to remove the italics because it was not a title of a book, but a quoted term from the author's book. I had to look it up in the google book search to see if the phrase was used as the author's own terminology - which it was. Could you open the link to this book? I just checked, and it's working for me now. It was probably a glitch earlier. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I tried the link on this page for the Carlson's book and its working for me too.

I know Strauss and Howe are not the only authors using the 1982 start date. However many are referencing to them, and not doing their own research. Also if you google the dates for Gen X 1965-1982 there is an emergence of reseachers that are using this date range. For some reason other demographers are pulling away from the S&W concept. What makes their research questionable in Millennials Rising is while they are citing 1982 throughout the text they specifically stated that they surveyed 600 persons in the class of 2000 at 4 high schools in Fairfax county, Virginia. However no where they indicate how old these persons are. They must have known that not everyone in the Class of 2000 was born in 1982. Out of 600 people someone was bound to have been born in 1981 because Virginia has a kindergarten cutoff of September 15 and again its a reality people flunk grades. The reseachers do not specifically state that all 600 persons were born in 1982. I am really suprised that these notable authors are so off the mark with their research. While I believe they deserve respect, they certainly should not be the spokepersons (or person now that Strauss is no longer with us) for a generatioin. I really don't think they understand the mind of a person born in 1982 or 1981 for that matter. Educatedlady (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is your proof that many are referencing them and not doing their own research. That is your opinion and there is no evidence for that. Considering that Australia and Canada have their own sociologists/demographers/marketers and demographers, there is no indication that they are doing something illegal and not citing Strauss and Howe. Neil Howe has written other books besides Millennials Rising, so please stop referring to this book. He is constantly consulted on a regular basis regarding his generational theories. You read the quote I provided by Judy Woodruff regarding his expertise. Most people who graduated in 2000 were born in 1982 - that is a fact. What you say about Generation Y/Millennials, you can say about all generations. It is not up to you if Strauss and Howe are spokespeople for generational theory and especially the Millennials. That has been decided years ago by the media. They are also the first to make generational theory so popular. It is out of your hands. And I don't see any move from referencing Strauss and Howe. As I mentioned before, new authors Lynne C . Lancaster and David Stillman have written The M-Factor about Millennials in the workplace and are making a name for themselves. And two other authors, one who worked under former Vice President Al Gore, are very popular today, having recently spoken at Harvard University. They also run a Millennial Conference here in the United States. They are also constantly quoted by newspapers, especially regarding the politics of Millennials. All four of these authors use 1982 as the start of the Millennial Generation. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what to stop referencing to. I will reference to what I please I SAID some authors are not doing their own research by referencing to Strauss and Howe. I have read countless articles that continue to reference to them. I am NOT saying other authors are not doing their own research, but you have stated yourself that Strauss and Howe lead the path in generational research so it is common for other researchers and reporters to reference to them, especially for articles. This issue is NOT out of my hands as I have the right and ability to conduct research as well. You cannot tell me what is "out of my hands" because it is not. Strauss and Howe do not have the patent on research no one else can stop another researcher from examining this topic. I am slowly (but surely) making a name for myself with my own research and recently spoke at RICE University about this same topic, and I have been invited to a few other engagements as well, to dispute the theories made by these authors. I am not trying to disrespect them, but you don't coin a generation for marketing purposes. You don't know my credentials nor my connections. I have made contact with several media outlets and they are recognizing that my research is indeed valid. The only reason why I am not promoting my research fully is because it is no where near complete. I would like to work with people like yourself who support the Strauss and Howe theory, as I respect your position Creative. I am not trying to get you to change your mind. But I would appreciate if you respect my position as well. And just for your information, I do not refer to myself as a member of Generation X or Generation Y, but rather the XY Cusp. Educatedlady (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and furthermore you don't see a move????? The move is the number of sources that I posted which you ignored that use Generation X dates 1965-1982. These are sources that I did not make up.Educatedlady (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To Educatedlady, many who use 1982 as the start year are using Strauss and Howe as a reference, no one else. I personally don't agree with Strauss and Howe at all. Not only do they use 1982 as the start year, but they act like there is a significant difference between those born in 1981 and those born in 1982, instead of the one year difference it is. Heck, I become the same age as those born in 1982 for a time(I was born april 1981). William Strauss has been dead for three years now, and both Strauss and Howe were both older men who came from a previous generation. They don't really understand us as much as they think they do..or in Strauss' case-did. Why they may have had some expertise on generations, they are dead wrong on quite a bit of stuff. I don't expect the guy you are arguing with to agree, but the doesn't change the facts.Bjoh249 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing with Strauss and Howe is that they are trying to reconstruct the memories and experiences of a person born in 1982 to validate their almost fictional argument about persons born in 1982 being part of a different generation. Have you read their work? In one text they claim that persons born in 1982 have no memory of the Challenger explosion, even though we were 4 (or turning 4) when this happened. Of course a 4 year old can have memories, and pretty vivid ones at that. I do. While I think the boundaries have to be drawn at a certain point Generation Y should begin around 1984. I am pleased other researchers are using different dates now. My goal is to get these sources and mine to become even more mainstream. Educatedlady (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gen X,Y,Z dates in perspective

Gen X is 1965-1981 (5-year Cusp, 1977-1981)

Gen Y is 1982-2000 (5-year Cusp, 1995-2000)

Gen Z is 2001-2020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.32.126 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2000 is a little too much for Generation Y. I was born in 1985 and I don't look at kids born in 2000 (or 2001, as some put the stop year) as my peers but in terms of "that could be my kid". I like the different generational subdivisions myself. Here are how I divide up Boomers, X, Y, Z (this is just me, so don't quote me on this). Baby Boomers (Early Baby Boomers actually but let's just simplify things) were born in 1945-1957, Generation Jones (the late Baby Boomers) were born in 1958-1967, I pick those dates because they can call themselves either without sounding silly. Early Generation X is 1968-1974, the XY Cusp is its own generation, birth years of 1975-1985, also known as Generation MTV. I just do that because there's so much dispute over the end date of Generation X (I'll go along with 1977-1980 as the end), and I could call myself Generation X or Y without sounding silly (I was born in 1985), Generation Y starts sometime around 1980, but the non cusp part is 1986-1996 or 1997. Generation Z starts in 1998, they were too young to remember a world before 9/11 and may not even remember 9/11.

User this is personal research, not cited articles you are posting. Wikipedia only allows reliable sources from a majority and minority point of view. Sources have ended Generation Y in various years including 2000 so therefore that is why the intro is the way it is. In regards to persons born in 1998 they were 3 years old when 9/11 occurred, old enough to have vague memories. I was born in 1982 and I was 3 when the Challenger explosion happened in 1986 and I have vague memories of that. We do not have the ability or even the right to determine what each and every person can remember, that is case by case. If you look up psychological reseach in terms of memory you will see our formative years are during the first 6 years of our lives. Educatedlady (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation Jones ending in 1967? I don't buy that at all! People born in 1967 were not even teens in the 70's and didn't start high school till Reagan's second autumn in office. They are among the first true "Gen X'ers" if anything. Generation Jones should end in 1964, not 1967. 1964 was the actual end year of the postwar baby boom and people born then would have spent a considerable portion of their high school years in a 70's-esque Carter environment. You could also call it a swing year, with people born then identifying either as X'ers or late boomers/Joneser's (depending on the individual) but based on their ages during the critical period (late 1970's), a case can be made for putting them outside of the X'er range. I also think you begin Jones at a late date. I don't see people born in 56 and 57 as core boomers. They are the first Jonesers, coming of age after Vietnam. Afghan Historian (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Economic reasons for leaving parents later

The statements in the article about the reasons young people live with parents longer (no-one can afford to pay rent) do not make sense. It would follow that life is harder now than it was a hundred years ago or before the war. That is obviously untrue. Huge advances in technology and medicine mean that life is much easier now than even in the 1950's. Real economic reasons might involve facts like modern young people wanting to live in the big cities and near commercial centers, where the rent is obviously very high - but even in New York you could find a cheap place to stay easily if your standard of comfort was the same as for an immigrant in the 1920's. It seems, after all, more a mentality thing, a certain addiction to comfort that young people find it ever more harder to give up. One has always had to give up a certain amount of comfort at the point of leaving one's parents, but with the aforementioned advances in technology, the comforts have become ever more appealing.212.93.97.136 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Any sources? This is a dangerous topic because there are a lot assumptions being made on all sides, so you are probably right to say that it is over simplifying to say that people are staying at home later because of simple economic reasons. However, I'm not sure that "addiction to comfort" is a completely satisfying explanation, though it may play a part. I could equally argue that it is an increasing attachment to family and sociability that causes it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No sources, just saying :) You're right, it is also true that people now are less individualistic than they were, but in a certain way that is also due to technology - TV, one of the comforts I mentioned, has also addicted us to constant company, albeit virtual. And it's strange how the new social technologies, which are made with the specific purpose of allowing you to socialize with your friends from anywhere, actually contribute to a lack of mobility. People become scared just to be by themselves, while the idea of circumstances of actual NEED is like a horror beyond all horrors. A hundred years ago at least in literature you could make poverty SOUND romantic and a starting point for a rags to riches story - these days if the author would say that the hero of the story is poor, the reader would think "What, doesn't he have any FRIENDS?" - with growing horror. Really, I don't think this article even begins to capture the complex psychology of this whole matter. Or the complex sociology - 90% of Americans and Western Europeans, judging by the actual circumstances in which they live, would've been considered the upper class in the 19th century. Again, going by actual circumstances, rather than relative social position. As such, it would actually make more sense to compare them to upper class people of 1880's or 1920's, and in that case unwillingness to suffer hardship becomes easy to understand (as well as the increased sociability you mentioned - just read any Maupassant or Fitzgerald novel :) 212.93.100.153 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Request from Admins about standards of behaviour

It is extremely unhelpful if people delete each others comments. Please would no one delete anyone else's comment whatsoever. If a comment is so bad as to be a personal attack then please let an admin or uninvolved experienced editor remove the attack (but not the whole comment). Thanks. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Off topic

The user has been harrasing me on my talk page after making edits. I have reported the user to administrators. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

Just ignore him. He is very arrogant and full of it.Bjoh249 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have put a notice of "Off topic" because this discussion is not appropriate for this talk page.
Excuse me. First of all, I'm not a HE. And I have not harassed anyone. I have been cleared of such charges. No administrator has said anything to me. Anonymous person's complaints have been erased from the boards. He was warned for removing sourced material. I did not harass this person. Such utter nonsense. I was not aware that anonymous users could erase talk pages. I responded that I wasn't going to stop this person from blanking his talk page. However, other editors have the right to read previous warnings in order to apply the next level warning. I am now aware that editors should assume that anonymous editors have read warnings, but that Wikipedia allows linking to such warnings, so other editors can apply the next appropriate level warning. That is not harassment. If it was, an administrator would have said something to me.
Going to different talk pages complaining about another editor is harassment and against Wikipedia policy. Also, Bjoh249, you are the one who flooded several talk pages with your rants. I have already discussed with administrators and editors about the generation articles, and the issues have been cleared up. I am working with a seasoned editor/administrator about an article's wording and will get the approval of a committee/group of administrators first. Stop trying to incite needless arguments on these boards. If you continue to write disparaging remarks about my character, you will be the one who will need to answer to administrators. But, I won't be the one complaining. I have put a notice of Off topic because this discussion is not appropriate for this talk page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. I was never warned about removing material. I dont know what you are talking about. You are obsessed with keeping the page with only your opinions. You then continue to harass me on my talk page. This is not off topic. You harass people who make changes you do not like. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

::Funny, but you have just been warned TWICE by another editor for vandalizing both this Talk page and Educatedlady's Talk page. And you are harassing me on the administrators' board. I'm not harassing anyone. I have made legitimate edits with valid and reliable sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators have cleared me of your accusations. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought others should know that you have been warned yet again for deleting comments/a discussion thread here and also on Peregrine981's Talk page. This matter will now be left to administrators. I am researching material and hope to improve this page and other generation articles - especially the sparse ones. Current discussions here are celebrity lists, and the religion section. A special thanks to the administrators who supported me on the administrators' board today. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I never vandalized pages. I removed comments I made on the talk page and your replies on here because they looked like attacks which I thought I could do. I removed a post I recently made on the user page to avoid more arguments. I was never warned about vandalism by editors. Im done talking to you creativesoul. Im also done working on the article. It's not worth the argument. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

Ties to the Information Era?

I have recently noticed that the definitions for the Millinneals era mirror those of the Information Era in their starting dates. Both have a vague range between 1970 and 1990. Are there any articles that would back up the idea of Millinneals being born after the start of the Information Era but early enough to remember having seen 9/11? Both were huge events, and it seems like someone would have put the two together already. Just food for thought, since it might clean up the definition some. BlinksTale (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Technology should be higher on the page than Economy, Peter Pan, and Religion considering Millennials are the first generation to live with tech they're entire lives. Donald Tapscott wrote how Boomers were the television generation and Millennials are the 'net generation'. The Impact of Computers on Schools provides and interesting overview of the impact of tech on the Net Gen in the education system. As far as the impact of 9/11, I can't say for certain. It appears that the economic events of the dot-com bust, 9/11, and the housing crisis may have been more substantial to the cohort. If you go by the date of 1983 to 2001 then the latest Millennials would have been less than one-year-old during that period. Even if a person was born in 1991, a 10-year-old would struggle to actualize a mass act of terrorism.Teachers Help Children Understand 9/11 Noisavni (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
the order of the page doesn't necessarily reflect importance, but if you feel like reorganizing I wouldn't necessarily object. Overall I think that you are right that economic events will have much more importance for this generation than 9/11, especially when talking from a global perspective (which this article should). It's hard to say with certainty, since the generation is still quite young, but in the long run I suspect the econimc probs are much more important as far as development goes. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Accuracy About Millennials Religious View Is Very Questionable

It has also been argued in the past that a sizable chunk of the hippies where skeptical of religion too. The 1966 Time Magazine article Is God Dead? created a new sensation and resulted in the spread of debates on whether or not people where still strong to their faith. The character Michael Stivic on All In The Family was a representation of this trend. Jacques Berlinerblau, Director of Georgetown's Program for Jewish Civilization, also noted in a 2012 Huffington Post article that since this time, the media has often twisted the definition of secularism to make it seem like another word for atheism.[1] In reality, secularism is another word for "separation of church and state" and doesn't describe one's personal religious views.

Some polls on various issues also tend to resemble the horse-race journalism that is commonly used during elections. The media often focuses more on attracting viewers by making issues competitive and doesn't always report with the intent of being honest. Yellow journalism is still a very common practice.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. I don't see how the sources you have cited have anything to do with this article's section on religion. Whether hippies were religious or not does not affect whether members of Generation Y are religious or not. Furthermore, people can become religious or irreligious over time. It is quite possible that hippies in the 60s who were irreligious later became religious.
In addition, I've checked each source cited in this section and none of them mention the word "secular". Moreover, arguing that this article's section is biased because of yellow journalism is a strawman argument. Without proof, your allegation that the media (or these articles in particular) is biased is baseless. You are more than welcome, of course, to add sources suggesting that members of Generation Y are actually as religious as previous generations. Talu42 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, my argument is not biased at all. The Is God Dead? article is mentioned here on Wikipedia. You also seem to have misunderstood what I was describing when I mentioned Berlinerblau's article. He made it clear that the media has often twisted the definition of secularism to make it seem like those who are secular also lean towards atheism. One such example of this sensationalistic interpretation of secularism is a 2012 poll conducted by Pew Research Center that suggests that "in terms of their religious beliefs and practices, the unaffiliated are a diverse group, and far from uniformly secular."[2] Look up the term media feeding frenzy.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


Media67, You Need To Keep It Neutral

I would like to maintain a neutral point of view in this article. Media67, you recently added information that was backed by at least one bad resource and erased statement concerning millennials and religion and wrote in the edit summary that the statements did not concern millennials. My focus of the article has always been around the present-day view of secularism and how Berlinerblau noted that the term "secularism" has often been twisted since around the time the "Is God Dead?" hype was spreading. A neutral analysis will show that Berlinerblau, himself a skeptic, was clearly discussing about the present day in his Huffington Post article Secularism Is Not Atheism. I even added a second reference to show that Berlinerblau's assertion is backed by more resources as well.

Blogs are also not regarded as a factual resource by Wikipedia standards. However, it is okay to say what people discussed in blogs when it relates to arguments. That is why I mentioned that Berlinerblau "argued," rather than "revealed," his assertion when he discussed it on the Huffington Post's religion blog. However, I do agree with some of the recent edits you about the demographics of millennials and that is why I will revise them so they are more properly typed.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I'm sure they're in good faith. But seriously, what part of your post discusses the Millennial generation? Your edits probably belong on the secularism or religion page. You can only quote what other reliable sources say about the topic of this page -- which is Gen Y. If you have sources who discuss your point in connection with the Millennials then it might be appropriate to add here. Media67 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Source

--Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian Gen Y start dates 1982 vs 1983 - reflecting sources inaccurately?

Hi! I'm wondering about the following line and why the 1983 birth date is being used as it does not reflect its cited sources' dates:

"In Australia, there is debate over Millennial birth dates. It is generally accepted, however, that the first Millennials were born in 1983. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, use 1983–2000."

In previous edits, the year "1982" was used up until this July 9, 2012 version of the page but was changed to 1983 in this revision dated July 10, 2012.

I checked the sources cited (#17-20) in these lines of text and they correlate with a 1982 birth year, not 1983 (source 18 states, "Generation Y: born 1982 onwards, aged 23 or younger" [1], source 19[2] says Generation Y is "aged 13 to 24" in October 2006, also indicating a 1982 start date while source 20 states, "Generation Y 1982-2000" and puts them at ages "12-26").

The pdf cited in the article's source 17[3] no longer exists at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/efpa/super/subs/sub002.pdf while this source's author, McCrindle, places Generation Y's start date at 1980 in his 2009 book, The ABC of XYZ.[4]

These citations all have quotes claiming that these aforementioned sources place Generation Y as starting in 1983 when the sources, themselves, say 1982. Was there a reason why this was changed from 1982 to 1983? Courtlea (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Upon reading the discussion below, there was at least one other possibility on where to move this title, if not the proposed title (though the proposed title was where the title just moved from in a discussion above: Generation Y). However, there were also quite a few mentions on how "Millenials" is currently the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. At this point, the discussion has seemed to have moved in several directions, some opposing this move, and some suggesting other moves; I could have relisted this move request, but it does not seem at this point, even with more input, a clear consensus in this discussion could be formed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Millennials → Millennial Generation – Request to move the name of the page from "Millennials" to "Millennial Generation" for the following reasons:

(1) The word "Millennial" has other meaning(s) besides the name of a generation. The word is an adjective for "millennium": adj. (1.) of or pertaining to a millennium or the millennium. (2.) worthy or suggestive of the millennium. It's more descriptive to use "Millennial Generation" as the title of this page.

(2) Only using "Millennials" without "Generation" doesn't support 3 out of 5 Wikipedia's page title goals of (a) Precision (b) Conciseness (c) Consistency

(3) Using the phrase Millennial Generation describes what the page is talking about. Millennial Generation is used on many other Wikipedia pages. "Millennials" can be confused with other meanings and it is not descriptive.

(4) There was no real consensus about the change to "Millennials". In fact, the first sentence of the Requested Move (above) says "Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that "Millennial Generation" has currently more notability".

(5) Out of seven (7) current generation articles on Wikipedia (see below) -- all of them except the Baby Boomers (and that could be debated too) -- have the word "generation" in the title. Why would the Millennials page be an exception?

(6) The word "Millennials" means INDIVIDUAL members of a generation. But the words "Millennial Generation" mean the group -- which is what this article is about.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as Nominator You still haven't answered the consensus problem. I agree with Peregrine981 (above) that "Millennial Generation" is preferable. As Peregrine said "Millennials is pretty slangy, and indeed could refer to other things". "Millennials" is not a descriptive title. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a "urban dictionary". 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like The Guardian, Forbes, USA Today, and The Washington Post, just to sample a few, have also fallen victim to what you consider to be Urban Dictionary terminology. Drat! --BDD (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
n.b. The USA Today headline appears to distinguish between Millennials and Generation Y, but it's clear from the content of the article that the headline is actually referring to Generation X. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an urban dictionary. It's an encyclopedia! 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Straightforward application of WP:COMMONNAME. Looking through Google results of "Millennials" shows newspaper/magazine articles are indeed referring to this article's topic. It is not slangy or less descriptive any more than "Generation X" or "Baby Boomers" are. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you are employing reliable sources you have two options: 1) Millennials, referring to the individuals or 2) Generation Y, referring to the generation. The generation is most commonly known as Generation Y and the individuals of that generation are commonly known as Millennials. Millennial Generation is not the common name for the generation and thus not appropriate. Here is the associated search data:
Google News:
  • "Millennials" 36,000 hits [3]
  • "gen y" 11,000 hits [4],
  • "generation y" 8,000 hits [5]
  • "millennial generation" only 1,700 hits[6].
Google books is the same story:
  • 107,000 google book hits for "gen y" [7]
  • 53,000 hits for "generation y" [8]
  • Only 18,000 Google book hits for "millennial generation"[9].--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This shows more support for "Millennials" or "Millennial Generation" than for "Gen Y". -- "Millennials" 36,000 hits [10]

"gen y" 11,000 hits [11], 172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This would show more hits for Millennials than the Gen Y term: "Millennials" 36,000 hits [12] "gen y" 11,000 hits [13] 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it does. As stated before, and I do feel like a broken record here, The common term for individuals is Millennials. As soon as you throw the word "generation" into the title it's no longer the common term with the proposed title being the least common of all the search options presented.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. An encyclopedia should use the most descriptive titles to describe precisely what is being discussed in the text. It's more acceptable to use slang words in the text BUT not the title.

Many companies use descriptions of the product on the packaging itself, for example Peet's ""Coffee"" or look at all of Proctor and Gamble's packaging here http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/all_brands.shtml

Specifically look at: Olay http://www.olay.com/skin-care-products/anti-aging-products/micro-sculpting-cream?pid=075609019326 OralB http://www.oralb.com/products/electric-toothbrush/ Covergirl http://www.covergirl.com/beauty-products/face-makeup

P.S. There are tons of reliable sources who use "Millennial Generation" as well.172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

confusion over use of talk page, not relevant discussion NE Ent 20:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't vote more than once. Your support is implied as the requester unless you specify otherwise. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Please DO NOT change my vote like it appears you did from Wikipedia's "history" of edits.172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't change your vote, I simply struck it. You're not allowed to vote more than once. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In my book, that is still a change made to my vote.172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem above was that there was no consensus yet the move was made to change the name. So please be consistent about consensus.

Here are Wikipedia's policies for article titles: Millennial Generation fits at least three (3) of these below:

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

(1) Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.

(2) Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

(3) Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

(4) Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

(5) Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose per COMMONNAME arguments above, and it looks like the most common forms don't need to repeat the word "generation" in each case, except for "generation-X" where it is part of the nickname, so the articles for the three generations are located at "Baby Boomers" "Generation X" and "Millennials", not "Baby Boomer Generation", "Generation X" and "Millennial Generation". Of course "Millennial Generation" is fine for the lead as a secondary term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect please see:

172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bypass redirects and that becomes:

Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of seven (7) current generation articles on Wikipedia (see below) -- all of them except the Baby Boomers (and that could be debated too) -- have the word "generation" in the title. Why would the Millennials page be an exception?

172.250.31.151 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not even close to the most common name. It's in fact the least common of all the search results. If the discussion ultimately believe that the word generation is necessary than the article should not be located at Millenial Generation but rather Generation Y, which is the common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, do you call them Gen Yers -- personally? There is clearly a change going on in the media. Also, your research is limited to Google. TIME magazine published a recent COVER story with Millennials (not Gen Y) in the title. See Read more: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00.html#ixzz2iaFL6wQE 172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Millenials" refers to individuals of the "Millenial Generation" that may or may not compose only a part of the generation. "The Millenials" is synonymous with "Millenial Generation", so the only titles that carry the meaning of this article (besides Generation Y) are "The Millenials" and "Millenial Generation". "Millenial Generation" is a better title in that regard. Ryan Vesey 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: What we are talking about here is "The Millennial Generation". "Millennials" to me is something different. A "Canadian" is different from "Canada". A "comedian" is different than comedy. We should be precise about this. We are discussing the demographic cohort, as a social/economic/cultural phenomenon, not just the people that make it up. It's a bit of a technicality, but it is a real difference. IMO Baby boomer should also be moved to baby boom generation, as ALL other generations are. As you can see above, the rest are all listed as "XYZ Generation (or inverse)", why make a change for this one? Why use the adjective rather than the noun to describe the phenomenon? We're supposed to use the most common name, Millennials (plural) is a different thing than what is being discussed in this article IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If you employ this approach than the article should in fact be moved back to Generation Y as that is the common generational name, far outpacing Millenial Generation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. Many articles will use Gen Y in the title but Millennials or Millennial Generation in the text. For ex. see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-dalton/gen-y-youre-not-entitled-_b_4067343.html
Labattblueboy, So would you call the page "Y" and drop the word "generation"? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Your article demonstrates the situation very clearly. Generation Y is the generation name and Millennials are their subject. I'm suggesting you have two options, one you call it Millennials to name after the individuals or Generation Y. "Millennial Generation" simply doesn't name the reliable source usage to justify it being the name, plain and simple.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm talking about this article from TIME magazine. TIME published a May 20, 2013 COVER story with Millennials (not Gen Y) in the title. See Read more: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00.html#ixzz2iaFL6wQE It was widely covered by many important media outlets. There is clearly a change going on in the media. Also, your research is limited to Google. You need to come up with something more than that. Also could you tell us what you mean when you write "Generation Y is the generation name and Millennials are their subject". 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I used the best systematic approach available. I might agree that something more would be required if the mixture of news, for newer reliable source hits, and book, for longer term trends, weren't demonstrating the exact same thing. So I am happy with the search results as they exist so far and think they are rather accurate, but if you have alternates you are free to present them. by way of explanation, the common name for the generation is Generation Y and people in that generation are most commonly known as Millennials.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
As I've said already, I think this move was largely unnecessary, as Generation Y is still in quite common usage (I can find hundreds of recent uses of the term in the popular press), and WP naming policy says " If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." It may be best simply to revert to the long-standing article title.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not opposed to Generation Y, but it certainly shouldn't be Millenials. Ryan Vesey 01:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • We seem to have a bit of an inconsistency here. We have "aaa Generation" or "Generation aaa" titles but we also have Baby boomer which refers to individuals of that generation. I was patterning Millennials after that. --NeilN talk to me 02:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Neil, If you want to follow a "pattern" then based on the last seven (7) generation articles -- the pattern is -- to use the word "Generation" in the title. Am I right? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikiepedia requires titles to be:

  • Concise – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistant – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.
  • Precise – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

The "Millennials" page title isn't consistent with the other Wikipedia articles on generations. Out of seven (7) current generation articles on Wikipedia all of them except the Baby Boomers (and that could be debated too as Peregrine981 suggested above) have the word "generation" in the title. Why would the Millennials page be an exception? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That "requires" is your own phrasing. Here's what the policy actually says: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." Further on: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis mine) --NeilN talk to me 17:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, these are goals of the site -- they are not "rules". So let's help the site achieve it's goals. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
As pointed out above by others -- the word "Millennials" means INDIVIDUAL members of a generation. But the words "Millennial Generation" mean the group -- which is what this article is about. It's more precise. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sources don't use it that way: [14], [15], [16] --NeilN talk to me 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure they do, look at the Time magazine article http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00.html and the Strauss and Howe book http://books.google.com/books?id=To_Eu9HCNqIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=millennials+rising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b3BhUs78MIquigKdvID4Dw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=millennials%20rising&f=false --- both of them use the word "Generation" in the titles and on the covers. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
"Millennials" in all of those articles is used to discuss the members of the generation in the plural. It's like an article about penguins, saying "penguins are birds". That doesn't mean that the actual name is "penguins"... it is "penguin", but in english we add an "s" to a noun to modify it to indicate more than one... I don't see why that is such a difficult concept. A "Millennial" is a member of the "Millennial Generation" and two or more of them are "Millennials"... that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be called "Millennial Generation". They all redirect to each other anyway, so why all the fuss? Should we start renaming articles about nouns that are most often referred to in the plural? It just doesn't make sense if you look at it in a broader perspective. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Peregrine, the title of this article is plural, because it refers to the group, and this is how they are commonly referred to. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is so clear. On what evidence is that based? "Millennials" is clearly used to refere to members of the generation in the plural. But it is hard to sort that out from uses of "millennials" as the name of the generation itself. Almost impossible to tell based on a simple google search. So, considering that all previous generations are referred to as "aaa generation" I think the guideline to maintain consistency with other articles is paramount here. "Millennial Generation" appears to be quite commonly used as well, and often in conjunction with uses of Millennials. Considering that Generation Y is also often used interchangeably with "Millennials" I think that "Millennial generation" is clearly the go to name of the generation as a group. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Peregrine's argument seems to be that there in some meaningful difference between the significance of "Millennial Generation" (the group) and "Millennials" (the plural individuals). This seems like a false distinction and a pseudo argument because the "group" means the same thing as "plural individuals", we're talking about both terms describing the exact same set with the same constituent members. Because they are not different concepts at all, no one would suggest separate articles for separate topics (one for the "group" and one for the "plural individuals"). "Millennials" is therefore just as precise as "Millennial Generation" (as well as far more common in current English). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unnecessary. No other article by this name. This is also the WP:COMMONNAME. This refers to the group because it's plural. By the way, the first sentence of the article should read "Milliennials, or the Millennial Generation ...." Millennial Generation already redirects to this, the WP:COMMONNAME. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you read that the pattern for Wikipedia articles is to use the word "generation":
Out of seven (7) current generation articles on Wikipedia (see below) -- all of them except the Baby Boomers (and that could be debated too) -- have the word "generation" in the title. Why would the Millennials page be an exception?
  • Oppose the lit calls my generation the millennials and rarely uses the term "millennial generation" --Guerillero | My Talk 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
As usual it's not about you or "your" generation. It's about what the pattern is on Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia on the main page calls itself "Wikipedia -- The Free Encyclopedia" because it's more descriptive.172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Do we really have to get out the hundreds of thousands of examples of the "Millennial Generation" being used? I count more than 830,000 on google. Read through the sources we use on this page and you will see that "Millennials" is a reference to multiple members of "the Millennial Generation", ie... quoting the coiner of the term, Neil Howe "Naming the Millennial Generation back in 1989 has been a boon for his own business, though he downplays it. It's made him relatively famous. His best-selling book, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, was published in 2000, and he is now a must-book speaker in demographic circles. He also runs a publishing and consulting company, and his client list includes Viacom and Time Warner." [17] (emphasis mine). You can see that the originator of the term uses Millennial as an adjective to decribe members of the millennial generation. You have not proven anything other than the fact that "Millennial" is used to describe members of the generation, not the generation itself. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you really want to use unfiltered Google hits as there are 5.1 million of them for "Millennials". It's used in the same way as "Baby Boomers" is used for the "Baby Boom Generation". --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I just said that Millennial is being used as the adjective, and plural of members of The Millennial Generation, so a crude google "count" isn't very revelatory in this case. My point is that Millennial Generation, is widely used, contrary to the assertions of Guerillero, who said it is "rarely used". It is in fact the term that is used, and Millennial is used as a descriptor. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the pattern policy -- using the word "generation" in all the other Wikipedia generation articles (except Boomers) trump your Google searches? If it doesn't, then we should change all the other articles about generations to; "Xers", Zers", "Losts", "Silents", "Greatests", etc.172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
As usual, you invoke policy where none exists (there is no "pattern policy") and ignore the ones that do. WP:COMMONNAME dictates the names of those other erticles. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:CRITERIA. It clearly states that one of the "good characteristics" of an article title is "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles." Clearly not the case here. Neither is it clear that "Millennials" is in fact the most common name used to refer to the generation itself, rather than as an adjective describing it, or its members. You've simply asserted that it is the case without proving it.Peregrine981 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
From the WashPo link above: "They belong to the ill-defined cohort known variously as millennials, echo boomers or Generation Y." Note they are saying the cohort (generation) is known as millennials. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still don't think that at all proves that the generation itself is broadly known as Millennials (which if adopted is an even more asinine name than Generation Y, but I digress). I haven't really got a lot of time for this, so if you as an experienced editor insist on sticking to it, fine. I won't object further. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Millenials is precise, natural, concise, and recognizable. Four out of five. Consistency is no match for the other four combined. Red Slash 03:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Peregrine: You said to NeilN "I just said that Millennial is being used as the adjective, and plural of members of The Millennial Generation, so a crude google 'count' isn't very revelatory in this case." That's not true: Millennials is being used as a noun, and in the plural. A Google count is indeed revelatory unless you don't know how to use Google, because we are contrasting "Millennials" (plural, not singular), the WP:COMMONNAME by far, with "Millennial Generation". Your attempt to split hairs between "members of the generation whether plural or singular" doesn't really wash. Every generation is a group of individuals; no exceptions to that, and the WP:COMMONNAME for each generation as a group is used in a backformation form to refer to an individual. The undeniable fact is, this generation is nearly always referred to en masse as Millennials, and as a group or in plural as Millennials. Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Following a complaint I made at ANI, the IP has been blocked "for the duration of the move request" (though this may not be the case if it's relisted). He or she will likely not be able to respond until the 31st. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record I think banning the anon was a rather over-litigious and heavy handed approach. The anon was an inexperienced editor, and their double voting was very minor IMO, and was frankly more of a slight annoyance than truly "disruptive" editing. A calmer, more collaborative approach could have been used, unless there is something I am unaware of. However, the record of the ban discussion seems to have been suppressed. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Peregrine981 The IP did far more than double vote. Please see Wikipedia:ANI#IP_insists_on_double_voting (or look at the latest archive as the closed discussion will be moved soon). A couple of notes: The IP was temporarily blocked, not banned and the discussion was affected when a post in a completely different topic was oversighted, affecting about a hundred unrelated diffs. --NeilN talk to me 15:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the instruction box at the top of this move request it clearly says that we must "Remember to base arguments on article title policy". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

The requirements are that titles must be:

  • Recognizable – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
  • Natural – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precise – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Concise – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistant – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

So far, no editor has given good reasons for all five criteria. Using "Millennials" without "Generation" does not follow number 5 for sure -- as most other articles on the generations topic use the word "Generations" in the title. The pattern is established.

If you want to argue your points on the other four criteria then please give well thought out reasons for each one. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References to WP:COMMONNAME are mentioned frequently above. This takes care of Recognizable, Natural, Precise, and Concise. The same criteria was applied to Baby Boomer. But I doubt this will satisfy you, given the WP:IDHT attitude so prevalent on your talk page. That's fine. The closing admin can look at the arguments currently presented here and make a decision. --NeilN talk to me 16:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: on basis of consistency and precision. Also (and this may be too subjective to be meaningful), despite its common usage, "Millennials" sounds like an informal shorthand to me, too slangy to be an encyclopedia title. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME can be discussed too. However, it doesn't override all the other criteria of page title policy. Since there is more discussion today then the admin should not close this move request prematurely. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, WP:COMMONNAME has been discussed above. Some editors argue that Generation Y is still the common name. Others argue that "Millennials" is the common name based on Google searches vs. the term "Millennial Generation". Still, others argue that "Millennials" is not the common name and I quote Peregrine981: (1) "Neither is it clear that "Millennials" is in fact the most common name used to refer to the generation itself, rather than as an adjective describing it, or its members". And (2) "Millennial Generation" appears to be quite commonly used as well, and often in conjunction with uses of Millennials. Considering that Generation Y is also often used interchangeably with "Millennials" I think that "Millennial generation" is clearly the go to name of the generation as a group".
In addition, I argued that the major sources including Time magazine and Strauss and Howe who actually coined the term use the word "Generation".
For example, the recent Time magazine article http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2143001,00.html and the Strauss and Howe book that introduced the term into the popular culture http://books.google.com/books?id=To_Eu9HCNqIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=millennials+rising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b3BhUs78MIquigKdvID4Dw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=millennials%20rising&f=false --- both of them use the word "Generation" in the titles and on the covers. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Any major source or expert can come up with neologisms - doesn't mean that they will stick (remember the "Oughts"?). Please refer to this Google Books Ngram [18]. While "Millennials" and "Millennial generation" started off close together, it is clear Millennials has taken off (and is used to describe the group as I wrote above) over the years. "Generation Y" is even more popular - I would support that over "Millennial generation". --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of Strauss and Howe - [19]. Millennials used to describe a group. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the exact title of the Strauss and Howe book is Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Oppose. Millennials is the term used by the majority of the media for the past few years, not using the word 'generation'. It is not up to the editors to name the generation, but rather use the most common term. Frmorrison (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect title of this page

The name of this page should be "Millennial Generation" -- not "Millennials". For example, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers". How do we get it changed to Millennial Generation? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The title was arrived at by consensus in the section right above this one. Sources refer to the "Millennials", not "Millennial Generation". --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual title was not arrived at with a consensus. Could you point out the discussion about that? Again, the name of Generation X's page isn't "Xers" and the name of the Baby Boomers page isn't "Boomers".
P.S. The consensus you quote above misspells the name with one letter "n". So then by your logic then we should change it to Millenials (with one "n" instead of two).
P.S.S. Also read the first line of the above "Requested Move" discussion, it says : "Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability" 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
"Millenials" was obviously a typo - you won't get anywhere with such ridiculous nitpicking. If you want the title changed again, please initiate another Requested Move discussion. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not nitpicking, it's logic. And I quote from the above paragraph "Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability" Nitpicking is not admitting that the title is not descriptive. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Basing an argument over a missed n is nitpicking. And sources don't refer to "Xers" and "Baby Boomers" is probably more used than "Boomers". It's been shown above that "Millennials" is more used than "Millennial Generation" so that seems to be the common name. --NeilN talk to me 16:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but now you're changing your argument from "consensus" to "probably more used". Just be consistent. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk about taking things out of context. "Baby Boomers" is probably more used than "Boomers". How did you manage to think that phrase was applied to describe the discussion above? --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Please document the "consensus" you are relying on. Could you show us what you're talking about? Also "probably" is not proof of your argument. Where do you find evidence that "Millennials" is more common than "Millennial Generation"? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, obviously you're not hearing me so I'll wait for other editors to chime in (evidence: read the section above (Labattblueboy's posts). --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The word "Millennial" has other meaning(s) besides the name of a generation. The word is an adjective for "millennium": adj. (1.) of or pertaining to a millennium or the millennium. (2.) worthy or suggestive of the millennium. It's more descriptive to use "Millennial Generation" as the title of this page.172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Start another Requested Move discussion (Favonian has given you the same advice). --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Millennial Generation is preferable IMO. Millennials is pretty slangy, and indeed could refer to other things. PS, I'm not sure that the move was really correct, as Generation Y is still pretty widely used, and wikipedia discourages moves once a name has been established. Nonetheless, I don't feel like fighting about it, so I'll leave it at that. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record the original move request (number one) reads as follows: Generation Y → Millennial Generation – Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability. A plethora of media articles over the recent years use the word Millenials to talk about this generation. Generation Y can stay as a redirect". (Vexorian) Then, the closing admin, Fuhghettaboutit, changed the name of the page to "Millennials" and did not follow the move request instructions to name the page "Millennial Generation".172.250.31.151 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a proposal not instructions. Just as posts at WP:AFD are proposals to delete and could result in delete, keep, merge, redirect, rename, stubify, etc. --NeilN talk to me 05:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kershaw, Pam. "Managing Generation X and Y". Retrieved 1 October 2013.
  2. ^ Shoebridge, Neil. "Generation Y: Catch Them If You Can". Retrieved 1 October 2013.
  3. ^ McCrindle, Mark. "MccRindle Research: Superannuation and the Under 40s: Summary Report: The Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation". Retrieved 1 October 2013.
  4. ^ McCrindle, Mark (2009). The ABC of XYZ (PDF). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press. p. 11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millennials/Archive_8&oldid=1137012488"