Talk:Generation Jones

Other names for Generation Jones

After seeing this edit, I searched for "Trailing-Edge Boomers" on Google, and a few other search engines. It has very little usage; much less than "Generation Jones". So I removed it for accuracy sake. -- 23:48, 11 June 2021 69.3.119.202

This an encyclopedia article, and for terms to be appropriately included, there needs to be a basic level of notability. The terms Baby X's, Tweeners and Boomerex are used by virtually nobody. Google them and you will quickly see that these names have not caught on in even the tiniest way. Tweeners is a term usually used to describe young people between childhood and adolescence. It is ocassionally used for cusp generations but not specifically for Gen Jones. The Stone article referenced is from 30 years ago (!) and the term never caught on for Gen Jones at all. The other two terms have no actual usage other than a small handful of people, if that. Sure, you can always find a term used by a couple people, but to be appropriate for a Wiki article, the usage needs to be much more than that (like Generation Jones, a term used by millions of people worldwide). Please check the notability rules for Wiki. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.152.247.170 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you, and Special:Contributions/72.104.125.35 further down the page, and Special:Contributions/172.251.58.0, and Special:Contributions/199.36.244.156, and Special:Contributions/75.223.191.26 all seem to be the same person. You post on the same days exclusively about the subject of this article, using the same language. Are you Jonathan Pontell? What kind of cultural commentator is so insignificant that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page? Why would a man with a full-time job spend his days tinkering with Wikipedia? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey now. It's fair to ask whether all those IP edits are by the same person, but calling the person "insignificant" is rude and pointless, and why shouldn't someone with a full-time job edit Wikipedia? AlsoWukai (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This chart should not be on this page

A similar chart was on this page awhile ago, and the consensus was that it should be removed. It doesn't include Generation Jones on the main chart which creates immediate confusion. Further, it reduces Gen Jones to a mini or cusp generation, which most experts disagree with. Most actual generation experts (sociologists, et al) clearly see Generation Jones as a full bona fide generation. If you research this, you'll quickly see it's true. This chart is flawed and should be changed to include Generation Jones. In the meantime, this flawed chart should not be on this page. This is why it was removed before. I think it makes sense to remove it now (given the controversy, and the fact that most experts don't agree with it) and then there should be a discussion about the chart itself, which will likely result in updating the chart to reflect current expert opinion in including Generation Jones. GlassLadyBug (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

For example, see above section titled "Gen Jones is definitely NOT a cusp generation" for many examples of reliable sources emphatically saying that Gen Jones is not a cusp or mini generation, but rather a full generation, like Boomers or Xers. GlassLadyBug (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The "chart" you removed isn't a chart; it's a sidebar for the series of articles about social generations. The graphic for that sidebar doesn't show any of the cusp generations.

Should you ever get consensus here that Generation Jones is now considered a main generation rather than a cusp or micro-generation, you can suggest changes to the sidebar at Template talk:Generations sidebar. (I think you're more likely to gain that consensus by providing academic sources that have reached that conclusion. Popular use (especially social media) won't be enough.) Or you could suggest on that sidebar talk page that the graphic be modified to include the cusp generations. Schazjmd (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You've made a good argument and I'm inclined to agree that Gen Jones is a full generation, but I don't see any consensus here about removing the chart much less the entire sidebar which I believe provides useful context. The best course of action is to get the graphic modified or produced in an alternate version containing Gen Jones, and you are best equipped to lead that discussion at Template talk:Generations sidebar. Otherwise you'll be forever playing Whack-A-Mole trying to keep the current chart off this page. Meanwhile I think we should at least restore the sidebar with only the generations wikilinks list, adding the name of Gen Jones in the appropriate spot. Jōkepedia (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think your approach here is generally appropriate, Jokepedia. I just started a discussion about this here: Template talk:Generations sidebar. Hopefully, this can be resolved soon. I tried but couldn't figure out how to add Gen Jones to the generations wikilinks list. In the meantime, it seems clear to me, and the few people I discussed this with, that this sidebar shouldn't be on the Generation Jones page until this gets fixed. I respectfully ask any editor to not get into a Whack-A-Mole with this sidebar on this page, deleting it/adding it/ etc. Let's get the sidebar fixed per a consensus. In the meantime, let's not have a sidebar on this page that is inaccurate and confusing. Thanks. 72.104.125.35 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It will keep coming back, and most of the editors doing that won't even join this discussion. And honestly, although I suggested manually recreating the sidebar with a custom list, someone will always replace that with the official sidebar too. Thanks for starting the discussion on the template page. Since Gen Jones is listed there under Cusp Groups, you'll have an uphill battle but there is plenty of ammunition in the article and in the long list of links in the previous Talk topic here. Jōkepedia (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that the discussion on the template talk page will progress. Its heading talks about "omission", when it isn't omitted. Any editor seeing that discussion without being aware of the previous discussions on this talk page will simply see an editor saying Jones should be listed and someone else pointing out it's listed in the cusp generations. It looks asked-and-answered.

The discussion on the template talk page needs to explicitly suggest moving Jones from cusp to full generation, AND provide sufficient academic sources supporting that classification to convince other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. A new topic should be started there, and a serious reference-laden argument needs to be made. But for the record I do not object to leaving the existing sidebar on this page in the meantime, and as I've said removing it now is not productive because it will be back within a week or two at most. Jōkepedia (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that generations sidebar should include Gen Jones, but until it does, that sidebar should not be on the Generation Jones page. 12.55.184.238 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well that this sidebar does not belong on the Generation Jones page in its current iteration. I'm not particularly concerned about a wack-a-mole situation evolving in which it keeps going up and down, because when I just reviewed the history of this page, it looks like there have not been many attempts to put that sidebar on this page. Ideally, we can get Generation Jones added to that sidebar where it belongs. I just poked around a bit trying to figure out where the talk page is for that sidebar, but I haven't found it and need to deal with other stuff right now. I'll look another time for that and hopefully, I, along with others, can fix that sidebar so it includes Generation Jones. When you review the current state of thinking among the top generational experts, it is obvious that Generation Jones has become accepted widely enough at this point that it should, for accuracy, be included on this sidebar. 172.251.58.0 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The talk page for the sidebar is Template talk:Generations sidebar. Jōkepedia (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

That sidebar is ridiculous. Anyone who is knowledgeable about generations knows that Generation Jones is now widely accepted by experts as a distinct generation. That sidebar needs to be changed to include Generation Jones. Without Generation Jones, that sidebar can't be taken seriously. And further... that sidebar should definitely not be included in this Generation Jones article until it includes Generation Jones. 199.36.244.156 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, a serious reference-laden argument must be made on the template's talk page. It doesn't matter how many editors "vote" by posting their own opinions there. You need to cite supporting sources while making a formal proposal for this change. Jōkepedia (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it called Jones? HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That's the first thing that struck me about the article. Apart from the fact that I've never heard of the term, and it's too clumsy to have any kind of organic life. Why did Jonathan Pontell call it Generation Jones? The article doesn't say. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Generation Jones Differences

Both me and parents boomers? So wrong!! The description fall far short of reality.

Technology - mainstream color TV - pc's so now anyone could learn computer programming for $1k (eg Gates). Video games were in infancy but fun like playing cards with dream to code your own. - TV dinner to microwave oven changed everything for Teens/college students and the food we ate - mentions Disco but as Beatles/Cat Stevens faded a rapid search for a top 40 replacement went from Manilow, Parsons Project to punk to heavy metal, Acid and/or numerous other new music niches raced onto the scene in an explosive way during Jones' gen formative years.

I attribute this to fact that silent gens were now marketing to huge boomer gen and boomers were now mature enough to influence the Jones' change in culture. Subliminal messaging, Star Trek tech, and probably the most rapid change in culture not to mention resource shortages ever seen. Jobs, house finances/inflation. ~2025-33375-12 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for individual opinions. They are for discussing how to improve their associated pages. You can start by citing cite reliable sources for your statements, and explaining how you would use them to change the article. Jōkepedia (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant sources

One thing that strikes me, reading the article, is that an awful lot of sources are like this piece in the New Yorker. They talk about cusp generations, but they don't mention Generation Jones at all. In fact that piece, which is used as a prominent source, uses a completely different term - "I have a proposal: let’s split the baby boom in half and dub those of us born between 1956 and 1964 the “Dazed and Confused” generation". The wording suggests that the New Yorker has never heard of "Generation Jones". Overall this article feels as if someone is trying to make the term "a thing", which is never going to happen, because it's too clumsy, too meaningless, to develop an organic following. It's going to go the way of sousveillance and anti-pattern, similarly awful invented neologisms. In contrast enshittification has taken off, because it's snappy and instinctively meaningful. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)