Talk:2000s

Looking for people's thoughts on generations Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z appearing in the See also section. The relationship between generations and decades is rather loose, and the description used to associate them are peculiar and rather depend on the vague and variable terms "maturity" and "adulthood". And even then, older generations also lived the decade, why list just these three? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

People from those generations were adults/became adults during the decade, it isn't controversial or vague.

Those generations were relatively young during those decades and were dominant during those decades.

Listing generations seem to be a thing these decades articles do. 2601:C4:CB02:7EE0:C95C:68D0:DBF8:A854 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@2601:C4:CB02:7EE0:C95C:68D0:DBF8:A854 In what way "dominant"? Other generations were adults too. Practically every political leader mentioned in the article is a Baby boomer. The first person named in the article is a member of Silent Generation. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Other generations were adults too in other decades like the 90s but it still list the generations that entered adulthood or were young adults. The 2000s should not be an exception. 2601:C4:CB02:7EE0:F938:7DE3:78DF:C30B (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I can just about follow why you've added Millennials and Generation Z, but the rational for Generation X is bizarre. What does "entirely adults" mean? At what age are you defining "adult"? What significance is there to them becoming adult? There's not even a solid definition to say that Millennials include 2000, and Generation Z starts at 2000. If the overlap of generations to decades was significant, why is it left to the "See also" section to define it? I'm removing again what you have added. Do not edit war to put it in until some consensus is reached. Thank you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Picking up on this again after recent additions. My above concerns remain. Generations are vague and there is no agreement on their definition. The generations themselves tend to be bound to certain countries and the events in them. They are not global ideas. All generations alive at the time played a part in the decade, so do we just list them all? The association also uses imprecise terms such as "maturity" and "adulthood", which also differ from culture to culture. The fact that the "see also"s need extensive explaining, using these imprecise terms, equally suggests that if they are to be included, they should be part of the article, with the same requirements as other content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Title. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Explosion following the plane impact into the South Tower (WTC 2) - B6019~11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling that 2009 doesn't really fit in this decade when it comes to popular culture from the 2000s. If anything, it has a lot more fads/trends that would become popular in the 2010s than it had trends/fads from this decade lingered into. Even a photo of a Brazilian band from 2009 is in the "2010s in fashion" page (Go to Gallery section). Is this topic allowed to discuss? Thank you. ~2025-40694-49 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If we follow the logic set by 1990s and 1980s, we should include 2009 to 2000s. 1999 and 1989 were big part 90s and 80s culture identity.~2026-33867-2 (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)