Talk:Twentysomething (term)

Culture

This is very cliched, and culturally specific. Secretlondon 19:55, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

You could add something about that to the article. KyleGarvey 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty something

This article discusses the origin of the term "Thirty something." Meanwhile, Thirty something metions "Twenty somethings." Anyone wish to do something about the duplication? -Sewing - talk 18:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and move

Isn't it twentysomething (one word)? Also, the article, to me, seems really short on culturally significant, anthropological, and/or geographic focus. Can anyone else help with any of that? KyleGarvey 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's one word, and it's not much of an article 67.168.216.176 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. There appear to be about the same google hits for "Twenty something" and "Twentysomething". Same with "Thirty something" and "Thirtysomething". Whatever is done here, should it be consistent with the Thirty something article? HGB 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm opposed to doing this move since Thirty something seems to be the companion article. We need to be consistent. I also question the location of a dab article. Given there are three uses already identified, are any of them clearly the most common? Not making a formal vote for now. Vegaswikian 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at this and cleaned up the dab. Given the fact that Thirty something is two words, it would seem that this should remain that way. If one needs to be changed then both should be changed. Given no consensus to support and several questions, I'm going to drop this from WP:RM's discusion. I'm also going to move the dab artilce to Twentysomething since that would address the concerns in the short term. Vegaswikian 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the somethings

Looking at the various "-something (term)" pages, it strikes me that, individually, they don't really warrant article status, but if merged they would likely make a decent short article. I think it would also be more useful to the reader to compare the "-enarian" forms in a table. Comments? Objections? · The one thing I'm not sure about is what to use for the target article name. Age decades is my current working title, but it feels inelegant to me. Suggestions welcome! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your proposed name, but I'm not saying that there's necessarily a better title. Perhaps these could all be redirected to Ageing? That was the result, by the way, of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinquagenarian. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these pages should all be merged together, and the idea of using Ageing is sound, since there's already a section on the "somethings" there. Vicenarian (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ageing

Unless there is objection, I will begin the process of moving and redirecting these pages into Ageing. Vicenarian (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]