Template talk:Generations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Generations page.

Contents

[edit] old talk

This is a large, ugly intrusive template. The function of navigating the Generations is already handled more tastefully and less intrusively and more flexibly with the succession boxes, which have unlimited expandability and do not intrude on article text and pictures. Articles are about the article content, not when navigation buttons take up as much space as the actual content, and give a poor aesthetic appearance. In particular navigation templates should never be in the lead section. --Stbalbach 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I rather like this template - it's much more concise and clear - however it requires a little more work in terms of the generations, for instance it has added the "era" of the Consciousness Revolution but lacks those of the American High, Culture Wars and Missionary Awakening. Piecraft 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah well, I'm sure it could be twice as large with some creative effort. Who needs silly "article text" when you have nav templates to fill up space. --Stbalbach 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point Stbalbach, therefore I have modified it to be more clear and organised. I think however this template is more useful than the others seeing as it has an appropiate listing which enables the reader/viewer to navigate with a much more fluid and easier understanding of the entire "generations" time period without getting confused or lost. Anyway just my two cents, however I do understand your main point just thought I would help out. Piecraft 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for clarifying the template. I knew something was off... User:Carie 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the layout, if you think it is too large or whatever, by all means change it ({{sofixit}}), as long as the list remains intact. User:Carie 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The function of navigating the Generations is already handled more tastefully and less intrusively and more flexibly with the succession boxes. This template is redundant. The only "fix" would be a TfD. However I want to see how it evolves and reaction if/before putting up for a delete vote. --Stbalbach 17:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
However, the succession boxes are in a disarray in themselves and are not easily located on the page, nor do they organise the generations in an ordered timeline with mention of the "era" to which they are in. I think this template is much more useful than the succession boxes. Piecraft 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt this template does not contribute to "easier understanding" of anything, but any significant cleanup would require major and presumably controversial revision. The reason I'm visiting is to point out that Generation Jones seems to be a product being sold by a single person, and might therefore not belong in the list. 64.105.253.69 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Y cusps

What period do 1976 and 1999 fall under? I think 1975-2000 is more reasonable. The last 25 years of the 20th century. The XY Cusp even redirects to the MTV Generation. It's only natural that these last 25 years are the Generation Y period. Think of these generations as time periods, not social identities. User:Carie 15:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to a possible YZ Cusp? If so this is perhaps an inevitable which is in the process. However because there is so little detail on it it has not been defined. I think that the iGeneration constitute as the new YZ Cusp. Also as for the period of 1976-1999 I corrected a few date mistakes between Gen X and Gen Y. I know there is a HUGE battle according to the dates, therefore I have added the dates according to Strauss and Howe along with the general "accredited" dates put forward by most of the media. Piecraft 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Why are some of the items bold, some italics, and some plain text? Why are some separated by horizontal lines and some not? Is there some deep reason for all this that I'm not seeing?--JW1805 (Talk) 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Items in italics represent the era thus the reason they have also been separated by a line as well, below them are the "generations" that were prevalent during that era. The items in bold are considered the major Generations that have been listed and discussed by Strauss and Howe, whereas the others are sub-generations. Piecraft 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical generations

I already said this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis of 2020, but I'll say it here too. Putting a generation that's currently just a theory on this template seems confusing to me. Since it appears all of the other generations on this template are "real", I think a reader might assume that the Crisis of 2020 generation is something that will definitely occur, and that's not really the case. If this template's still around in 20 years and we can say this generation occurred, then it should be placed on it. Until then, it's just advocating a theory that may or may not come true. BryanG 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Generation and Boomerang Generation

I lumped the 1985 - 1987ers in the Boomerang Generation. It doesn't make sense for the Internet Generation to be 1985 - 1999, because 1985 - 1987ers still remember (brief, but they do) life without the internet. It's 1988 and beyond that doesn't remember life without the internet. Why sigh, cutie pie? 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Boomerang Generation says 77-86, why would the template be different from the article? -- Stbalbach 03:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Template_talk%7EGenerations_7fa5.html"