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] dates an utter mess

Some dates refer to the generations' births, others to their (arguably) most influential years, without any indication which is meant. It's a mess! --80.149.16.69 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Template is misleading and confusing. -- Stbalbach 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)

What does 'Period' mean on the table? This should be clarified to specify if those years are birth years or years of coming to age or what. Thomaslikespigs 18:30, 16 January 2007 (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)
I added a new generation in the chart that's been on Wikipedia for a while, but not an official generation; the Echo Boom. This should solve a lot of controversy over the 'Internet Generation'. ie: I was born in 1990, lived 5 years before anyone had the internet, was about 9 when internet service even became available in our area, and was 12 when we got the internet, so I remember 12 years when I didn't even use the internet at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bryantm3 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Problems

This template is a nightmare. The dates for generations change almost daily, both in the template, and in the articles. Stuff is not sourced, no one is really watching for changes being made to the template, it is really unreliable. Unless I hear some voice for support in fixing the problems and coming up with a long-term solution, I may put it up for deletion, as it is propagating original research and mis-information. Templates should not be sources of original research. -- Stbalbach 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The template lists the generations with their appropiate dates, unless of course in the case of Gen X, Gen Y and even Baby Boomers where the dates are still a mess and nobody can agree on a definite time, therefore the template illustrates a rough outline of the dates presented altogether from the different sources presented on each of the article's own page. There is no other way around this, perhaps a small note at the end of the template outlining this detail for users, but I really don't see how "threatening" to put this up for deletion will solve anything Stbalbach, why not try solving the problem rather than eliminating it? Piecraft 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL it is telling you would perceive it as a threat, perhaps an implicit acknowledgment that this template has problems and may not survive a vote? Now, if you go through and actually read the Generation articles, you will find that specific hard dates are often various and not well defined - which is to be expected, since anyone can come up with dates, there is no "authority" on this subject, just different opinions (from published sources of course). So our template here is presenting specific hard dates when the articles themselves don't always agree on those dates. Further, many well meaning users change the dates in the template regardless of what the articles say. My suggestion would be to use rough decades like with Baby Boomers "1940s - 1960s" - I don't think anyone would disagree with that. And then let the specifics be discussed in the article. After-all this template is not meant to be a source, but simply a navigation aid. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Template: American generations? or just Generations?

[After I, Womtelo, changed Generations to American Generations, Piecraft wrote to me:]

Rather than go into a senseless revert war I would rather explain to you how you are incorrect with your judgement, YES they are more commonly associated to American culture, however how do you explain the exact same phenomenons occurring in countries of the Western World such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada who each experienced in one form or another the same attributed listed by those generations, i.e. when the Beats were going on in the U.S. it had a drastic impact on other countries who followed suit in their own Beat movement worldwide - this has even been documented by Ginsberg in several articles of his relating to the phenomenon. Also the Boomers are a distinct catalyst to all of the above mentioned countries who possessed the same trademarks, being the children of WW2. Therefore it is wrong to simply state these generations are only shared by the American when in fact they are shared by the majority of the Western World, albeit perhaps more so the Ango-American side, but even now other countries are looking back and noticing several paralells with the notable generations listed. I think the best thing to do is allow it to remain as "Generations" simply, and not try to brand it to any particular country or culture so as to refrain causing further aggro. Thanks. Piecraft 06:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Piecraft. Sorry to say I strongly disagree with you. Of course you're stating the obvious when you mention that World War Two affected other countries in the world than just the US! and the generation known as "Babyboomers" is also mentioned for Europe. And arguably post-WW2 generations become more and more universal as globalization goes forward (but even that is not always true: I live in Europe and I've never seen MTV in my life). BUT I find it totally senseless to speak of any worldwide "Generation" before WW2! Most articles (e.g. Republican Generation, Abolitionist Generation…) as well as the article on the book itself Generations_(book), make it clear that we are dealing exclusively with the history of the USA (not even Canada, let alone the Western World). So this must be made explicit in the template title. Remember that an Encyclopedia has a universal scope, encompassing the whole history and geography of this planet; it's ridiculous to come across a box called "Generations" when all what is meant is American Generations. This is called ethnocentrism, a form of narrow-mindedness. Remember that Northern America (USA+Canada) only represent 5% of the world population! What about the remaining 95%?!! People from India, China, Africa, Latin America, or even Australia Europe, have no such thing in their history as a G.I. Generation, nor actually any other in the list. Therefore the title of this box MUST be "Generations in the History of the United States" (or any similar title), otherwise the template is just ethnocentric and false. Thanks, Womtelo 10:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, 4th Turning takes the generations cycle all the way back to the 14th century, and they call it "Anglo-American Generations" - but then, this template is more than just Strauss and Howe. I really do think we should just call it "Generations" and drop any personal favorite authors or visions and let the articles speak for themselves. This is a nav template it should be as general as possible. Anything that is remotely controversial should not be in a template. -- Stbalbach 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Womtelo not to be an arse to you but China, Latin America and India are not truly considered to be Western Civilization. Even the generations prior to the G.I. Generation which interestingly enough also occurred in Europe and Australia due to WW1, have occurred in Europe. As Stbalbacj has pointed out these generations depicted in Strauss and Howe date back to the "Arthurian Generation" which if I am not inccorect in thinking is a direct reference to the age of King Arthur and Arthurian Times who happens to be a British King who had a lot of influence not only in the Matter of Britian, but also in the other Celtic lands i.e. Matter of France and Rome as well. Anyway as I said it would probably be best to keep the nav igational template as a general thing rather than pinpoint them. I understand you never saw MTV yourself living in Europe, but you are considerably a minority compared to the majoir influence channels like MTV, CNN and even the British Sky Network had in the oncoming MTV Generation. So of course there will always be a small narrow of individuals who do not fit into the overall description but I can just as easily say my dad who is Portuguese and fought in the Mozambique/Angolan colony wars pertains as much to the times of the Vietnam war - because they dealt with similar events and also with the changing culture in the Western World that effected society at the time. Piecraft 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you reduce Europe to Great Britain, and the world to the USA. This is definitely called ethnocentrism. 95% of the world's population live outside the USA, and do not even watch CNN or MTV on a regular basis, most countries don't even receive it and actually they don't care. And of course MTV is just an example, most "generations" in the list are also relevant only to the history of the (non-Hispanic, non-African American) population of the US, which is less than 5% of the world. 5 percent! can you realize?! How can one speak of "Generations" in general, meaning worldwide generations, when they actually concern only a ridiculously tiny portion of the world? That's really shortsighted. (Unfortunately it sounds like a recurring problem with (some) Americans, that they think they are the only nation in the world, when they are in fact just one among two hundred nations; end of bracket). Maybe it's just not you Piecraft, maybe the ethnocentrism is already in Strauss and Howe's book, which apparently is not a serious historical study, just some kind of (interesting but) simplistic essay. OK, I won't go ahead with this endless discussion; all that is needed is to entitle this box with a proper title, whether "Anglo-American Generations" or "Generations in American history" or "Generations in the history of the United States"… Calling it just "Generations" would be un-encyclopedic. For further reflection, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Best, and Merry Christmas -- Womtelo 11:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa dude, not to burst your bubble but I never said Europe was GB or USA was the world, for your information I have lived my entire childhood and adolescence in Europe from Belgium, France, Portugal, England and Spain and guess what? I even attended European schools, and everyone there was on the same wavelength in regards to the trends and culture. Even now living in London I meet individuals from my generation now in their 20-somethings who also agree to the extant that the culture of the U.S. has had external influence over the western world, specifically here in Europe. For crying out loud they made a big deal when the first McDonalds was opened in Ireland and Portugal back in the 90s, so don't try to tell me that the U.S. pop culture has had no effect over here, just as European culture has had clearly an effect on the U.S. inadvertently as well. Have a good Christmas too and a Happy New Year. You're porbably right about the Strauss and Howe thing though, as it's all very up in the air anyway. Piecraft 11:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Piecraft, of course you're right when you mention the mutual influences between Europe and the US; it's obvious and well-known. My perspective is in fact more global than that: for even if you add the populations of the USA and Europe, you come up with about 18% of the world; that's far from being the whole world, despite most Americans and Europeans believe, that's the most famous case of ethnocentrism going on around, which we Wikipedians should help counter. And even for Europe, nobody can seriously say that the generational cultures of Spain or Slovenia or Poland are parallel with Anglo-American generations before say 1910. So my recommendation is that the list of Generations, as a whole, must be explicitly labeled as referring specifically to the US history; on the other hand, some individual articles, e.g. on Babyboomers, may perfectly include comments about a wider geographical scope, sometimes Western Europe, sometimes Japan, etc; but that will have to be done on an individual basis (Generation after Generation), not as a whole, as if the whole list were supposed to be universal. That would probably be a much more accurate way of presenting facts. Do you get me? -- Womtelo 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I get you, still though, I believe it should be less indicative towards simply the U.S. without further analysis. Piecraft 07:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have come here by way of Generation Y, where I was shocked to see "American Generations" as the sidebar, and then dismayed that this discussion has been dropped. How would people feel about moving this to {{American Generations}} and then using both it and a new template I have created, {{Generational cohorts}}, on articles that it is appropriate for. My preference would be for the more global scientific template to be placed first on those articles, but I wont object to it being relegated to second place. John Vandenberg 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{Generational cohorts}} and placed it on Generation X, Generation Y and Demographics. The template is regularly being altered to reflect American specific generations, so I would like some feedback on how to improve it in order to avoid this routine well meaning vandalism. John Vandenberg 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
What source(s) are being used to create this template? In terms of choosing the template name, names of generations and dates of generations. -- Stbalbach 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deferred to Demographics#Generational_cohorts for the template name, names and years of the generations, and repeatedly linked to it from the template. The definition of "generation cohorts" doesn't vary much, but the listings of names and years are not always the same (e.g. [1] lists a slightly different set of generations), but they do resonate as an internationally important set of generational cohorts. Im starting to think that perhaps international generational cohorts should have decades rather than years attached to them. John Vandenberg 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem there is the Wikipedia article is poorly or not cited - the dates are set to whatever random person last edited the article, thus making the Cohorts template problematic as original research. The American Generations template has the same problem but even worse (since the dates don't even match up with the corresponding articles). The only solution I see is have a template based around a source - such as Strauss and Howe - and have everything tightly referenced back to the source. There is very little agreement about names or dates of these generations - even Strauss and Howe have changed their dates and names over time. So these templates are reflecting a POV, an un-sourced POV at best, original research at worse. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The American Generations template has listed the dates as an average due to the disagreement from major articles, specifically X, Y, Boomer. Other than that the dates listed rely on the articles and the sources of the article, predominantly Strauss/Howe. Piecraft 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in theory. I don't think anyone has gone through and vetted everything to make sure that is the case (I checked a couple like baby boomers). But your right if we stuck by that rule it would be better. It's just very difficult to maintain, as you have to watch this template and all the articles, since they keep changing often. -- Stbalbach 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up for deletion!

New Silent Generation is being deleted. Looks like most people want it deleted, send in your vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Silent Generation. -- Stbalbach 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notes

I changed the Beat Generation birth years to their accurate ones. The birth years given )before I just changed it) were 1948-1962!! Absolutely ridiculous! Please do even the most basic of research and you will find that the Beat Generation members were born primarily in the 1920's, and came to influence in primarily the 1950's. Almost all its best-known members (Ginsburg, Kerouac, Cassady, etc.) were born in the mid-1920's (although William Burroughs was born in 1914). Here are some citations: http://www.litkicks.com/BeatPages/page.jsp?what=BeatGen

http://home.clara.net/heureka/art/beat-generation.htm

http://ezone.org/ez/e2/articles/digaman.html

http://wild-bohemian.com/beats.htm

21st century Susan 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


This template is ridiculously inaccurate. Those of us that care about Wikipedia's credibility need to clean this one up. I just made a couple obvious changes, but more need to be made; it's confusing and filled with errors. For example, I just changed the Baby Buster years to their correct ones. Baby Busters is a term that has long been used interchangably with Generation X--those birth years are approzimately 1965-1980, although they vary a bit. Baby Busters certainly doesn't describe the birth years 1958-1968; if you google the term, you'll see that almost all the articles written about Busters use the same years as Generation X (which are not 1958-1968!). 21st century Susan 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation from Time Magazine using the typical birth years for Baby Busters (ie. 1965-1980): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,146033,00.html Google is filled with similar citations with the same birth years for Baby Busters 21st century Susan 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The template is still inaccurate because it doesn't reflect that there are multiple POV's on the dates. Just citing one or two sources doesn't take into account that there are other sources that say differently. Further, templates are not articles, they should not need or contain citations. This is why I have wanted to have this template deleted out-right, the dates are impossibly difficult to keep straight since so many people use different dates. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boing Boing

Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow featured this template in a post [2] calling it "a fascinating table of the names ascribed to different generations going back to 1588". -- Stbalbach 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Generations template

Hi, re: reverting my changes to Template:Generations without giving an explanation. I think the template is pretty misleading without some reference to Generations (book), since the vast majority of those generational terms were coined by that book and have not received any wide acceptance outside of it, certainly not among historians. Hypnosifl 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The template is for navigation purposes it links to all (most?) of Wikipedia's generations articles. Within each article you can find multiple points of view about the dates and characteristics of the generations, even for those generations that S&H may have initially coined, other people have since weighed in. In other words, this is not a S&H navigation template, it is for the entire set on Wikipedia, it encompasses all points of view. -- Stbalbach 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This may be true of the 20th century generations, but virtually every generation prior to the "Lost generation" is indicated at the start of its wiki article to be a term coined by Strauss and Howe. Do you think there are "multiple points of view about the dates and characteristics" of these earlier "generations" among anyone except aficionados of Strauss & Howe's theories? If not then I don't think the template should include all these prior generations without some indication that they are specific to S&H, since S&Hs theories have gained little acceptance in mainstream academia, and I don't know of any academics who even talk in terms of well-defined "generations" prior to the 20th century. Hypnosifl 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This template is not specific to S&H there is no mention them in the limited space of the header, the template is too bloated as it is. If you want to delete all the S&H entries than please establish consensus. -- Stbalbach 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, my point is that if the template is not meant to be specific to S&H, it seems misleading that something like 75% of the terms are specific to S&H's theory. I don't want to delete all those entries, as S&H's theory is certainly notable, but it's just your opinion that it shouldn't be added because "the template is too bloated as it is", adding a single line that said something like "italics = terms from Generations" (which would require changing the existing italics, but they don't have a clearly-identified purpose anyway) would not change it much IMO. Can you establish consensus that benefits of clarifying the template in this way would be outweighed by the problem of the template being too bloated? If not, then please don't make a unilateral decision to delete such a line if it's added. Hypnosifl 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, there is nothing "misleading" about the template - how were you "mislead"? Please do a straw poll or something for your proposed change, we obviously don't agree and are just tossing around opinions. -- Stbalbach 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's misleading in the sense that if you have a template devoted to a general topic like "US generations", you wouldn't expect that virtually all the names are unique to one recently-written book, you'd be more likely to think they were taken from a variety of historical sources. I'm thinking specifically of the comment from the boingboing blog mentioned immediately above, where Cory Doctorow referred to it as "a fascinating table of the names ascribed to different generations going back to 1588". Do you think Doctorow understood that virtually none of these names were actually ascribed to the generations by people in the eras when those generations were alive, as with modern generational terms like "baby boomers" or "generation X", but that instead they almost all originate from the theories of two authors who came up with their own terms about 20 years ago in order to flesh out their cyclic theory of American history?
I can do a straw poll, but I'm afraid there aren't enough people reading the talk page for this template to see it. But how about it: would people object to my putting in the line italics = terms from Generations, and then putting the terms originated by S&H in italics, and removing italics from other terms? For those who object, can you explain why?
I'll leave this question up for a little while, but if there aren't many responses I'll just go ahead and add the line, and then hopefully people who want to comment on the change will see this section of the talk page. Hypnosifl 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To do a straw poll create a new sub-section called "Straw Poll" (with an edit note of "Straw poll"), consider that no one has read our discussion here, so explain clearly, but briefly, what you propose to do and why. Then announce the poll at WP:RfC (numerous places there), and announce it anywhere else it seems appropriate (WikiProjects, other generation article talk pages, etc..) - it is the next step in conflict resolution, I do them all the time and they generally work to bring in additional comments, 2 weeks or so, but usually its clear sooner. -- Stbalbach 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I made a compromise with a "^" symbol to mark which generations were coined by S&H. It could go either at the start of the Generation name, or in the date field. I suggest at the start of the generation name since the name is what is being flagged, and it won't cause both a "*" and "^" to be in the same place which will be hard to read. -- Stbalbach 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems good to me, and putting the ^ before the name is fine. Hypnosifl 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know which ones were coined by S&H? -- Stbalbach 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
All the ones prior to the "Lost Generation" except for the italicized Transcendentalist Generation I think--at least, if you look at the articles for those earlier generations, the first sentence always includes something like "the name given by Strauss & Howe..." Also, the "New Silent Generation" is based specifically on S&H's theories. Hypnosifl 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Another issue is that in some cases the terms are not unique to S&H but the dates are, like the precise dates given for the "Lost Generation". Would it make things too cluttered to put a "^" in front of dates that come specifically from their books? I don't think there would actually be any conflict with the "*" dates since those are only on dates that S&H have not weighed in on. Hypnosifl 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parent & Child Both Baby Boomers

I believe my daughter and I are unique in that we are both classified (by date) as baby boomers. I was born in March 1947 (definitely a product of a WWII reunion) and my daughter was born in December 1964 ( the producct of unbridled hormones). The significance - probably none - but an interesting situation. 76.2.229.134 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You would be a Boomer and your daughter is clearly an X'er only people on the bloody Gen X page don't want to recognize that Gen X started back in the 60s with the civil rights movement, rather than the late 70s and 80s when they were already entering their adulthood. Piecraft 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Template_talk%7EGenerations_7fa5.html"