Talk:Cusper
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cusper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Cusper be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites. |
Greatest extent birth years of each generation
[edit]Wouldn't it make sense to say the greater Baby boomers birth years would be 1933 to 1969, while the greater Gen X birth years would be 1954 to 1985, and the greater Millennial birth years would be from 1975 until 2000? Onion1981 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure someone born in 1969 could be considered a Boomer, even a Greater Boomer. Such a person would not come of age until the late 1980s, and would have no memory of the early 70s let alone the 60s. Could one consider the likes of Kurt Cobain or Noel Gallagher, for example (to give two famous examples of people born in the late 60s) Boomers? 2A02:85F:9AF6:400:698A:7579:3E02:512F (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Silent/Boomer cuspers too old to enjoy the 1960s?
[edit]I recognise that a referenced source claimed this, but I would argue that this is not the case from the quoted birth years. Someone born in 1945 for instance would be just 14 at the start of the 60s and 24 at the end - thus their youth would in fact coincide almost exactly with the 60s. While I am not of this generation myself, I feel this claim could be argued against in the article. 78.87.109.135 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The lede is too damn long now
[edit]See MOS:LEAD. Should be a summary of the article, not a psychologist defending the concept. We should especially avoid overquoting in the lede, see WP:OVERQUOTE: The lead section of an article should be limited to a summary about the topic, rather than a collection of long quotations. The guideline WP:LEAD explains the suggested style of the lead section, as being just an overview as introductory lead paragraphs. However, special care should be taken to avoid long direct quotes in the lead, from specific sources. Instead, write concise, plain text which could be adjusted, or extended, also by other editors, to better reflect current ideas about the article's topic. A major problem with quotes in the lead is the concern about giving WP:UNDUE weight to one or a few sources within the limited space of the lead section. The general goal is to allow the lead to contain free-form text which can be altered, easily, to reflect both old and new issues, which might not be covered by quoting from an older source which lacks the new perspectives.
- Scarpy (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)