Talk:Generation Z/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Gen Z Range

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

Pew Research Center’s foundational Gen Z research focuses on the United States, analyzing American demographic change, political views, and technology use in reports like On the Cusp of Adulthood. Their widely cited Gen Z definition therefore reflects U.S. trends.

Since there is already a separate page for Gen Z in America, the rest of the world should not be limited to a fixed birth-year range based only on U.S. data.

There are also many articles discussing American Gen Z starting from 1996. If this page is still being edited despite that, I do not understand what it means. Sivaragam (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Why not apply to other generations as well. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This is what they are doing. It may seem like I am offended, but they are trying to make 1997-2012 a rigid definition for Gen Z.

After the Baby Boomers, which is a fixed generation, the next three generations, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z, have different ranges depending on the source.

So their intentions are clear. They want to claim that people born in 1995 and 1996 cannot be Gen Z, even though many studies and researchers include them.

In the previous chat, a guy named “some1” said they do not have a problem if 2010-2012 are omitted, but they cannot accept including 1995. They bring up articles where 1995 is not included in Gen Z.

This seems more like their personal preference, as if people should not refer to other generational research. By insisting on the 1997-2012 range, they may encourage newer articles to repeat the same definition while ignoring other possibilities, especially when some research considers 2010-2012 as part of Gen Alpha. Sivaragam (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sivaragam Doing the same thing over and over is the very definition of insanity. We have already gone over this ad nauseam. ChicagoGirlD, Some1, and myself have already answered your queries, and we have reached a consensus to maintain the status quo. You are the sole dissenter. You therefore lack the standing to change it.

The Bushranger came here last time to put an end to an edit war. We do not need another one. You should drop it. In the past, people have fought over these ranges here and elsewhere. That is why we specifically require a talk-page consensus. You cannot just come here and demand change. Nerd271 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I warned that if disruption resumed after the protection expired, sanctions would follow. Sivaragam has jumped right back in. They are now pblocked from the article. They are still allowed to use the talk page, but are warned that if they continue attempting to POV-push here further sanctions are not impossible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

By linking to the “Date and range” section of the same Wikipedia page, I intended to encourage readers to consider the various sources listed there, including Pew Research Center, McCrindle, the Japan Bureau of Statistics, iGen, and others.

Since generational boundaries vary across studies, it may be helpful to acknowledge multiple ranges rather than presenting a single rigid definition. @The Bushranger Sivaragam (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Drop the stick and step away from this dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about avoiding disputes. My intention was not to continue an argument but to point readers to the “Date and range” section of the same page, which lists multiple research sources such as the Pew Research Center, McCrindle, the Japan Bureau of Statistics, and others.

Since different studies use different generational ranges, I thought it might be useful for readers to see that there is no single universally agreed definition. The goal was simply to acknowledge the variety of sources rather than promote one fixed range.

If the current wording already reflects that balance adequately, I am fine leaving it as it is. Sivaragam (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia moderators aren’t really authorities; they are more like janitors of knowledge, quietly keeping the information commons clean so the rest of humanity can wander through it.

So if ten people say something wrong is right and one person disagrees, it can still be treated as right.

I have a few points to make:

Generational definitions are not supposed to be ‘updated.’ Until 2019, many sources used 1995 as the starting year. Then the Pew Research Center proposed 1997, and some people adopted that. But that was simply their research, not an objective update.

Even until 2024, McKinsey & Company used 1996.

It also seems that Wikipedia itself became one reason people started using the 1997 definition, because many readers and writers rely on Wikipedia as a reference.

So if, after two years, more and more research papers start using 1999–2005, will the Wikipedia page change accordingly?

As I understand it, Wikipedia does not decide what is true. It summarizes what reliable sources say. If many widely cited sources adopt a new definition, the article may change-not because moderators declare it correct, but because the sources themselves have shifted. @The Bushranger Sivaragam (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sivaragam You've basically proven @Some1 and @Nerd271 100% right in that editors were going to start vandalizing the other generation article pages. You haven't explained yourself to everyone here on why you were sneakily messing with the Gen X and Millennial article leads as well as the general Generation article when you knew you couldn't do that. As I've already told you multiple times, you are not being honest with your discussions and suggestions. For example, McKinsey currently has multiple 2025 articles in which they use the Pew range, yet you keep insisting on outdated articles. Majoirty of the sources use the 1997–2012 range in the body of the article, with most of them citing Pew specifically. They are found in footnotes A,B, and C, HOWEVER you keep insisting that they are not important when that is not true. At first I thought you couldn't read them, but know I know you are just being biased, whether you are a 1995/1996 born or family members/friends to someone. Wikipedia isn't Reddit or TikTok. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z

Who is biased @Nerd271@The Bushranger@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd Sivaragam (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we aren’t talking about the majority citing one source; rather, we’re discussing different researchers and their studies. Offending me by mentioning 1995/96 suggests that you intend to argue that these years should not be considered Gen Z.

I am a baby boomer, but I have read on this talk page itself that someone said 1997–2009 can be classified as Gen Z. So it seems your only concern is with the years cited by researchers like Jean Twenge in iGen (1995) and McCrindle (1995). According to you, all of those should be dismissed, and only Pew should prevail so that your ideas appear correct. If that is the case, it suggests

@ChicagoGirlD @Nerd271 @Some1@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd @Danbloch Sivaragam (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2026

Change the thing of it being ended in 2012 and being started in 1997 its not true it was 1995 to 2013 PizzaG0dd22 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

95 as an age is also a common reference, but here the advantage is only given to Pew.

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-z/gen-z-and-gen-alpha-infographic-update/ Sivaragam (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Attribution needed for Generation Z date range

The current phrasing (“typically defined as 1997-2012”) implicitly privileges the Pew Research Center’s definition of Generation Z without attribution, thereby creating a misleading impression of scholarly consensus. Reliable sources demonstrate that generational boundaries are inherently contested and vary across institutions.

When you write:

“…typically being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012”

That exact range (1997-2012) is most strongly associated with the Pew Research Center. By placing it as the default or “typical” definition, the sentence:

• implicitly treats Pew as authoritative

• downplays alternative scholarly definitions (some start as early as 1995 or as late as 2000)

So yes, structurally it anchors the reader toward Pew without naming it.

This may violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as it presents Pew’s definition without attribution (see also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).

For example, the Pew Research Center defines Generation Z as those born from 1997 onward, but this is only one among several competing frameworks. McCrindle Research defines Generation Z as 1995-2009, while McKinsey & Company uses approximately 1996-2010. Encyclopaedia Britannica explicitly notes that generational boundaries are debated and lack universally agreed cut-offs.

Given this variation, Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) requires that no single definition be presented as “typical” without attribution. The sentence should therefore be revised to reflect multiple definitions and explicitly cite their sources rather than implying consensus.

Sivaragam (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Drop the stick. All of us are already done with this dispute and are tired of it. You have created this same discussion over and over again here as well as the Generation X and Millennial talk pages. Please stop trying to cause ruckus and flame wars, at this point I'm going to assume that this is flamebait. Forcing this dispute over and over again is going to get you further bans on your account. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

And once again, I have to keep reminding you to READ THE FOOTNOTES. In footnote C, McKinsey has published two articles that utilizes 1997–2012. Once again, McKinsey has TWO articles which they define Gen Z as 1997–2012, and both of these articles are their most recent, both published last year in 2025. At this point, you are being manipulative, purposely using outdated articles to force a change that does not fit with WP:Due, which is based on the main body, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOOTNOTES. If any other Wikipedia user is reading this, I highly recommend reporting Sivaragam to a moderator because this is getting ridiculous. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

We are not referring to the footnotes section.

I am not attempting to start an edit war, but some contributors appear to be supporting Pew while undervaluing other research centres. I am not referring to the consensus around the widely used range. If this edit request had arisen in 2025, when McKinsey used 1996-2010 for Gen Z, what would your response have been? McKinsey has widely used 1996-2010 and may continue to do so.

There seems to be a bias toward a single definition. The years should either be rearranged in the introduction section, or this should be presented as a range rather than promoting the Pew Research Center’s definition. Sivaragam (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @The Bushranger: I apologize for bothering you, however @Sivaragam is just going at it again and again. Sivaragam keeps POV pushing and attempting to start new flame wars, not only here on the Gen Z talk page, but even with the Gen X and Millennial talk pages. Other editors have already told him no on all the generation talk pages, but Sivaragam just keeps on forcing the same dispute over and over again. I even caught an IP user making disruptive edits over on the Simple Wikipedia project involving the same generations (Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z), and I highly suspect that it's Sivaragam. All of us are already done with the dispute and are tired of Sivaragam's antics. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sivaragam has been pblocked from the talk page (as well as several other related pages) until they pledge to improve. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2026

CHANGE ON: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z#Use_of_social_media_networks

CHANGE "So popular is TikTok among people under the age of 30 in Europe and North America that they typically ignore their own governments' concerns over issues of user privacy and national security." TO "TikTok is so popular among people under the age of 30 in Europe and North America that they typically ignore their own governments' concerns over issues of user privacy and national security." Sinappirööki (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given for the proposed change, and the existing wording seems fine. Day Creature (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thought the reason was clear enough; the first sentence is badly written english with word order being wrong and it is quite clearly copy pasted from somewhere that left a word out of it. People do not write like that. So popular I am → I am so popular. This isn't a page about poetry. Sinappirööki (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The word order is not wrong and there is nothing badly written about the sentence. See Subject-auxiliary inversion. Day Creature (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Funny how the whole page has been edited so much after my 1st change that I couldn't even find the paragraph anymore cuz it was moved, cut, edited and deleted into pieces haha. Never really paid attention before I made this account and visited a page multiple times, atleast on the english articles. Sinappirööki (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion to include 1998 as a possible start date

Hello, I would like to suggest adding 1998 as a possible starting point for Generation Z. Some sources indicate that generational boundaries vary and are not universally agreed upon. It may be helpful to include 1998 as one of several interpretations rather than a fixed date.

Thank you. ~2026-29744-64 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources supporting this claim? Nerd271 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Generation Z date is incorrect

This is the standard date of Genz

"with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1996 to 2010."

Ref = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

Brahmana2 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References

The most commonly used part should be changed.

I have been a frequent visitor of generation pages. I have seen many people fighting over that definition, as many researchers find 1995 onwards to be the starting year of Gen Z. Does this page have any leaning towards Pew? The whole generations are based only on Pew’s data. ~2026-32588-08 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2026

from 1997 to 2012

to

from 1995 to 2010 Kolex06 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 21 May 2026

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012

+

with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1996 to 2010.

• Why it should be changed:

Multiple recent sources define Generation Z as people born from 1996 to 2010 rather than 1997 to 2012. The proposed wording reflects these published sources more accurately.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Brahmana2 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References

How are these sources better quality than or more authoritative than the current ones (Merrian Webster, Pew Research Center, Collins Dictionary)? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I sense a sockpuppet of Sivaragam SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: It's summer time, so naturally, some people have a lot of free time. Scroll down for more. Nerd271 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We get it already SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Removal of "most commonly defined" sentence from the lead

Whether or not this text was added disruptively, it is better off removed. A better approach would be to point readers toward the section discussing the various ranges. Leaving it as-is violates WP:NPOV, as it asserts one disputed range over others.Kapartem (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it was added there by consensus. It merely reflects the body, as the introduction should do. Nerd271 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing I think is getting lost here is that nobody is claiming 1997 is some permanent, official, or scientifically proven start date that can never change. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If the sourcing landscape changes in the future and a different start year becomes the most widely used definition among major reliable sources, then the article can be updated to reflect that.

The reason the article currently gives prominence to 1997–2012 is because that's where the balance of sourcing has been for years and because multiple discussions reached the same conclusion after reviewing those sources. That's not editors imposing a personal preference. It's editors summarizing what the sources currently say.

I also don't think it's accurate to suggest this was created through a "manufactured consensus." The discussions have been public, have taken place over many months, and have involved multiple editors. More importantly, consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by reaching some minimum number of participants. It's determined by the quality of the arguments and how well they align with policy and sourcing.

If someone believes the balance of sources has shifted, the best approach would be to demonstrate that with reliable secondary sources and discuss how the article body should be updated. Once the body changes, the lead can change too. That's how Wikipedia normally handles these situations. Zillennial (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Collapsing per WP:HATGPT, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PA.

I disagree with the proposed date range changes, as the current consensus appears to be formed by too few participants to represent a true community-wide agreement. Furthermore, I have strong concerns regarding the legitimacy of the discussion.

There is a distinct pattern of behavior that suggests potential sockpuppetry. Specifically, the accounts ChicagoGirlD (talk · contribs) and Zillennial (talk · contribs) exhibit highly coordinated editing patterns. Given that the account Zillennials (talk · contribs) has already been blocked for sockpuppetry, there is a clear precedent for this disruptive behavior.

A handful of potentially linked accounts cannot manufacture a valid local consensus to override broader community standards, and doing so creates a highly misleading article history. I will be opening a formal investigation to look into these accounts. In the meantime, the content should remain stable until a wider, legitimate community consensus is established. Kapartem (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless a new consensus is reached, the status quo shall remain. Nerd271 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There appear to be significant ownership issues on this page, specifically regarding the consensus surrounding the date range. A review of the revision history suggests highly interconnected editing patterns between @Zillennial: and @ChicagoGirlD:, raising concerns about potential evaluation as a single operator. Furthermore, the editing coordination among @Nerd271:, @Some1:, and the aforementioned accounts warrants closer scrutiny.

A localized consensus involving only four highly active, interconnected accounts cannot dictate the direction of this article against standard Wikipedia policies. This topic is of broad interest, and the page should be open to diverse contributions rather than being dominated by repeated reversions that imply ownership. We need broader community input—ideally from 20 to 30 independent, established editors—to establish a true, policy-compliant consensus. Kapartem (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Further to the point of consensus, treating the 1997-2012 cohort as an absolute, definitive range violates WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Generational boundaries are social constructs, not fixed scientific boundaries.

While the 1997-2012 range is a frequently cited shorthand, it is heavily contested. Crucially, the Pew Research Center issued a core shift in policy, clarifying that they are moving away from standard generational definitions to avoid oversimplifying complex data.

Other authoritative demographic and statistical bodies use completely different ranges, such as 1995-2009 or 1995-2010. By continually reverting alternative, well-sourced demographic definitions, these editors are forcing a single, outdated framework onto the page, which directly breaches Wikipedia's requirements for balanced, multi-perspective reporting.

The current short description, short description|Cohort born from 1997 to 2012, should be updated to short description|Demographic cohort from the mid-to-late 1990s to early 2010s. Per WP:SDCRITERIA, short descriptions are meant to define the scope universally and neutrally. Hardcoding a single, disputed micro-range ignores global demographic variance and conflicts with the actual text of the article lead, which uses the broader "mid-to-late 1990s" phrasing.

Regarding the introduction, using the phrase "typically defined" to force the Pew Research timeline creates an NPOV issue. Major global publications like TIME Magazine, alongside various international statistical agencies, explicitly utilize alternative parameters, such as 1995-2012.

Rather than letting the lead paragraph get bogged down in edit-warring over a single "typical" definition, we should adhere to WP:LEAD standards. The opening sentence should establish the general macro-range (mid-to-late 90s to early 2010s) and explicitly redirect readers to the "Date and age range definitions" section, where all major competing definitions (including Pew, TIME, and international metrics) can be thoroughly and neutrally examined.Kapartem (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What administrator action are you seeking here? 331dot (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

331dot, GPTZero says there's a 100% chance that User:Kapartem's two blocks of text above are AI-generated. (Note: The {{Admin help}} template was added by Kapartem for those wondering.) Some1 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets:

• Zillennial (talk · contribs) (Suspected Master)
• ChicagoGirlD (talk · contribs) (Suspected Puppet)
• Nerd271 (talk · contribs) (Suspected Coordinated Account / Puppet)
• Some1 (talk · contribs) (Suspected Coordinated Account / Puppet)
• Article involved: Generation Z

Evidence:

I am requesting a behavioral review (and potential CheckUser investigation) regarding a severe case of sockpuppetry, tag-team editing, and article ownership on the article Generation Z.

There is a clear, coordinated effort by these accounts to compromise Neutral Point of View and manufacture a false local consensus to prevent other editors from modifying the page.

• ChicagoGirlD and Zillennial: These two accounts exhibit highly overlapping editing timelines, identical behavioral patterns, and immediately mirror each other's stances in talk page discussions to shut out opposing viewpoints.
• Nerd271 and Some1: These accounts act in lockstep with the above users, swooping into the article to revert external edits, reinstate biased wording, and form an artificial "majority" on the talk page.

Connection to Blocked Accounts (Possible Block Evasion):

Crucially, there appears to be a strong connection between the active account Zillennial (talk · contribs) and the user User:Zillennials (note the plural "s").

• User:Zillennials has already been blocked as an confirmed alternate account/sockpuppet of banned master User:RichardHornsby.

Evidence of Ownership and Sockpuppetry (Diffs):

To show the administration the exact pattern of disruption, here are the key diffs demonstrating how they collaborate to push a non-neutral point of view:

• Diff 1: - User ChicagoGirlD and User Nerd271 tag teaming to revert a constructive edit.
• Talk page link: - Talk page discussion where they quickly establish a fake consensus between themselves.
• Diff 2: - Another example of coordinated reversion to protect their preferred version.

Please check the page history and user interaction logs. The behavior strongly mimics a single person using multiple accounts, or a highly coordinated group operating against core Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your time. Kapartem (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Danbloch and @331dot, I'm very frustrated with the behavior of Kapartem. He is accusing all of us, including @Some1 and @Nerd271 as being sockpuppet accounts. I have nothing to do with @Zillennial and am not that user if that is what Kapartem is suggesting. I feel that Kapartem is intimidating us to force his edits. As Some1 previously said, Kapartem barely has a history of contributing at all to the project, and he himself has had gotten in trouble with an admin last year, which can be seen on his talk page history. He is even using an outdated Talk Page Link 4, in that there was later a consensus to keep the lead, which Some1 and Nerd271 can back me up. We just had a new discussion about this, but Kapartem is ignoring the consensus. I'm very upset about this and at him. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Danbloch, @331dot, and @Some1: the name of the admin was @Nil Einne which I'm reading from Kapartem's talk page history. Nil Einne already warned Kapartem about his edit warring. I'm not a sockpuppet of Zillennial, Kapartem is lying and trying to intimate to get his way.ChicagoGirlD (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kapartem, if you believe accounts are socks, you should complete a WP:SPI so that editors specialising in account shenanigans can look into the situation. Making sockpuppetry assertions on article talk pages is just going to end up with you in trouble for making personal attacks. Meadowlark (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kapartem: Watch your spelling. Zillennial (no s) is not blocked. Nerd271 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Danbloch, wanted to ask again if you are still ok with how the current lead sentence is? Last October I asked, and you suggested the word "typically" rather than "generally" . This past March, both @Some1 and @Nerd271 and myself agreed with the current consensus based on the citations found in footnotes A,B,and C, as well because other editors were attempting to change the lead sentences for all the generations, such as Gen X and Millennials. I just wanted to ask here and now to see what the general consensus is in 2026, because @Kapartem is just bringing in full drama and b.s. To Kapartem, no I have nothing to do with @Zillennial, you are just mad because you disagree with the 1997–2012 range and just want to use and force the McCrindle range despite the main body saying otherwise (read footnotes A,B,and C in the date and age sections). ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still okay with it. I still think this is the most commonly used range and it's reasonable to include it in the lead paragraph. Maybe "frequently" would be a better word than "typically", since that would describe something observable rather than whether a given use is or isn't typical (which could be debated). But this is nuance. Danbloch (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

To summarize: As of May 2026, @Danbloch and I are ok with the lead sentence. @Nerd271 and @Some1, you guys are still ok with this?

As for @Kapartem, your accusations are very serious and hurtful. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I am. I'm not familiar with Kapartem but looking through their (very short) contribution history on this project, seems like they tried the same arguments a year ago, but failed to gain consensus. And now they're back a year later attempting the same thing. Some1 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChicagoGirlD: Yes, I support the status quo.

@Some1: You're not the only one with deja vu. Nerd271 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nerd271 is right. This was a consensus that was reached by Some1, Dan Bloch, Nerd271, @Zillennial, myself, and one other person that I can't remember. This happened multiple times these past 8 months since October and had led to a certain edit war in March, with the consensus being the same. Editors were taking advantage of changing the lead for the Gen Z article for the sole purpose of completely changing all of the generations, such as Gen X and the Millennial, despite the fact that the majority of updated citations in 2026 specifically cite the 1997–2012 range. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I got pinged here, I don't think I'm interested in being involved in this discussion again except to note a few quick things. One I'm not an admin. Two Kapartem, of you have evidence of sockpuppetry please bring it up at WP:SPI not here. If you do not have sufficient evidence to bring a case, then do not bring it up as it's WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS and a personal attack and likely to lead to you being blocked. Generally speaking you should not be bringing up behavioural issues here at all. I only do so because of your lengthy inappropriate post above which I feel needs to be nipped in the bud. Three, as I'm fairly sure I said before, what ultimately matters is what reliable secondary sources say as discussed in reflected in the article. Not editors personal opinions. It seems to me that our current lead is a reasonable reflection of what the article says. Others may disagree but my point is that perhaps there should be less focus on the lead and more focus on the body. If editors are unwilling to fix the body by finding more sources and rewording it etc, then they shouldn't worry about what it's the lead. There's no two ways about it since the lead reflects the body. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

And a minor point but since I noticed this in the archives, by any reasonable normal definition, the date range 2010-2024 means from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2024. (I made a mistake of saying 2014 last time, sorry although I'd note that would b4 5 years not 4 years.) This is a 15 year period. As I said last time, any source which calls it 14 years should be avoided since while off by one errors are common, they shouldn't be in RS especially when it's a fairly fundamental part of what's being discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)