Jump to content

Talk:Twitter/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Requested move 17 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Simply, there is no consensus that "X" is the [[WP:COMMONNAME{{!}|}most commonly used name]] for the social network, neither in this discussion, nor, I may hazard a guess, outside Wikipedia either. The onus is on those wishing to move an article after a [[WP:NAMECHANGES{{!}|}name change]] to demonstrate that the new title is the commonly used one, and uptake of "X" has been demonstrably slower than usual for entities that change their name. In the absence of such a consensus or demonstration, then the status quo ante prevails.

On the subject of Masem's proposal: it's an interesting one, but it's not one that can be, or should be, solved within a RM. I would suggest further discussion regarding an article split take place after this closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter → X (social network) – The arguments presented in the talk page notice are not sufficient; such a supposition must be stated before I may present my arguments. Likewise, the previous discussions referenced do not adequately express the necessity of a move request. I believe this qualifies as both a "substantial new development", as references to "Twitter" now appear officially absent, and an objection to a previously and overwhelmingly considered argument.

The argument that Twitter is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic of this article is not well-supported, and the referenced articles above are not comparable. For instance, Kanye West is the name Ye chooses to perform under. The Washington Post lists several companies that have changed their name after becoming established. Though these examples often predate Wikipedia or occurred before the pages for these companies were made, it is not uncommon for a company to change its name or the name of its service; despite the strange decision, the usage of "Twitter" does not reflect self-references to Twitter or X by the company and an increasing acceptance towards "X". Though not infallible, Google Trend data suggests an acceptability towards X.

Though there remains a significant usage of the term, I believe sufficient time has passed to support the claim that X may be used to a degree wide enough that—with consideration for official usage—this move request is supported. The term "X" has largely replaced "Twitter" in news articles where the service is not being referred to in the past, though "formerly known as Twitter" remains a common descriptor. This appears to be associated with a change in the AP Stylebook. help.x.com refers to "X Rules" and "X accounts", and twitter.com is now x.com, the reason why I have suggested this move; The Verge wrote "it's not Twitter anymore". In a personal account, many articles I edit where a person is quoted on the topic have increasingly referred to X, not Twitter.

This move request is largely without precedent, but there exist instances where object within the real world have changed names, creating an inconsistency with colloquial references to said object. Willis Tower in Chicago is commonly referred to as Sears Tower because the tower had been known as that for 35 years. Similarly, Comiskey Park is known as Guaranteed Rate Field and formerly U.S. Cellular Field, but Chicago residents continue to refer to the field as "Comiskey". Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is Washington National Airport to many. Name rights moves may be comparable in this circumstance, as they present a shift in colloquial terminology and official terminology that is reflected within Wikipedia to adhere to the present name of the field or building. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose move per everybody else, weak oppose Masem's proposal – unconvinced that we need two articles just because the product evolved (slightly!). We don't keep separate articles for Google Apps for Business, GSuite and Google Workspace, or for all the various incarnations of Gmail or Facebook. — kashmīrī TALK 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
    Because the different incarnations aren't notable in their distinctions. We have separate articles for every incarnation of countries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: It's finally time. Most media outlets just call it X now. The transition from Twitter branding is pretty much complete by now and only certain stubborn factions, and the otherwise ignorant with little-to-no interest in X remain. And frankly, a lot of people insisting on still calling it Twitter have their own WP:NPOV-violating reasons. In the spirit of our guidelines, we have to embrace the new name; it's been like two years now. The domain change was the final straw; NOT changing the title by now raises suspicion.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know about other people's regions, but https://twitter.com and https://x.com both work separately for me. We haven't even had the new name for a year. The fact they've taken almost a year to fully rebrand it doesn't mean it's now automatically the common name. --Ferien (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
    twitter.com is just a redirect for me now. I see no vestiges of Twitter on the Support or even more technical pages or dev forums, like it was for a while. Everything has been swept up now. It's like Bell becoming AT&T, or [insert better brand analogy here]. It's over. The common name is sufficient in the lede, not the title. (Edit: excuse me, it seems "Twitter API" has yet to be updated in toto, but I imagine there's hurdles to that considering its critical functions. The exception that proves the rule? "X API" is being used sometimes though too.).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: The URL change does it for me now, also per above. Efe Önem (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Makes much more sense to maintain this as a historical article and focus future updates on X (social network), given the Viacom precedent and the significant change in leadership, policies, and coverage post-Musk. Jordan117 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all. Twitter's history extends much further back than the last 1.5 years. It's better known as twitter. Also, it currently has the nice url of wiki/Twitter, rather then renaming it to something like "x (social network)" or "x (formerly twitter)" (To the inevitable person who is going to insist that this social network is more relevant than the letter x, and deserves wiki/x, please come to my talk page, where i will thoroughly enjoy that argument). Your google trends data is worthless, because it compares searching for a literal letter (which could be done for other things--Google X, Project X, SpaceX, US Steel, X.org, pretty much anything with an X) with twitter. There hasn't been enough use of "X" to just ignore the 15 full years of Twitter. Tantomile (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Those who oppose changing the name of the article do so out of a sense of nostalgia and a grudge against Elon Musk. Twitter was beautiful but it's gone, you have to accept that, you may still use the old name yourself but you can't change anything by force just by thinking that's how it is. Wikipedia should not be guided by your personal feelings, it is an encyclopedia and it should write what something is officially called.
Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and avoid making unfounded assumptions about editors' behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The URL change and the year long time span since Musk has begun his rebrand makes it rather evident that X is the new title and some arguments for retaining the title "Twitter" aren't that convincing. I will say however that there is potential in creating a new article dedicated to the history pre-Musk. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support It's time. The last few months of the company before Musk takeover were gone. Please embrace the new brand. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment – The current platform needs to be discussed at X (social network). The transition in branding has now reached a point where sources no longer refer to it as Twitter and are dropping the "(formerly Twitter)" qualifier when they refer to it. Renaming should be entirely uncontroversial, what we should be discussing is whether or not to split the article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Much like the ship of Theseus, I do not regard X as the same social networking site that Twitter was due to the substantial changes in management and interface. For legacy purposes, they should be separate articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    That actually is a good thing: Twitter would be the former social media platform & X would be the current social media site. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I know, they're both the same social network. Splitting an article doesn't mean treating them as two separate companies. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    They are the same social network. Musk bought the site for a large sum of money in a highly publicised deal, and all the users and main operations remain the same. But it seems we're now guided by original research such as "I do not regard X as the same social networking site that Twitter was" rather than actual verifiable citations, so all bets are off.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    X inherited the format and posts from Twitter, but it's clear that the company intended to create a new social media site by renaming it. Musk has mentioned the desire to make an "everything app" and the site has seen radical changes in business model, features, and moderation policy. It would be intuitive and beneficial to cover the history of the site in two distinct articles, much like Meta Platforms and Facebook. Flameoguy (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: For all reasons above. 120.21.19.229 (talk) 120.21.19.229 (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The vast majority of people still call it Twitter not X even regardless of the URL change. Maybe in another year or two X might start to overtake twitter as the more common name, but we are certainly not at that point yet. Jasp7676 10:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Masem's proposal - By far the most reasonable as X seems to be becoming a different type of social network to what old Twitter was. Enough sources use X as well now that I think it can be justified. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    What's so different as to be called a different social network? — kashmīrī TALK 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    Besides branding, there have been changes in business model, moderation policy, and implementation of new features. Anyone who has used twitter since before the merger can tell you it is a different website now. Flameoguy (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 12:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. Twitter is still a common enough name so we should avoid the parenthetical disambiguator, at least for now. Whether Twitter under Elon Musk and Twitter pre Elon Musk are one and the same or separate entities that need different articles should be decided by WP:RS, not any editor's preference. Nickps (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support move, since X is now the dominant name by which the network is referred in reliable sources (particularly the AP Stylebook), and the old Twitter domain now redirects to X, signalling the rebranding is complete. I'll restate, based on my reasoning above, that I think Masem's proposal is deeply flawed; the Twitter under Elon Musk article would be fine if kept where it is, and indeed much of that coverage of Twitter/X's controversies was news precisely because of its relation to Musk, his leadership, and his impact on society, so it constitutes a proper topic, and an important one. But that article would not be fine if it became the primary article on X, since it would create pervasive due weight issues, problems which don't currently exist if that article is left alone. An article covering X mainly through the prism of problematic actions and employment disputes (as the other one does) would fail to cover its features, its technological aspects, its structure, and its societal impact in a proper and birds-eye way, as an article on any social network should. DFlhb (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think a new edition is coming out in a few weeks. Probably not possible, but perhaps we should wait until then? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It's the best time to do it now, after the domain change ALMRWIKI94 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the reasons given above—blindlynx 14:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment — Parenthetical disambiguation is unavoidable in this circumstance. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that Musk has chosen to name his social media service after a letter in the alphabet. See Margaret (singer), Red (Taylor Swift album), Persona (series), Thriller (album), and Telephone (song) for articles that have parentheses in their titles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    How is it "unavoidable"? WP:NATURAL explicitly states that the naturally disambiguated alternate name may not be the most commonly used name, and it doesn't have to be as long as it meets the five CRITERIA (which includes recognizability). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Based on my personal observations of other Twitter users, a significant majority of them seem to still use the name Twitter. Many people that don't use social media might also not recognize the name X. In my opinion, the article title "X (social media)" doesn't match the criteria of Naturalness.
Hxnc (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I had previously supported splitting the page but I'm now wondering what will happen to articles like List of Twitter features. Article titles like List of X features may not meet WP:Article titles. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
"List of Twitter features" appears wholly redundant to what's already in the Twitter article. That should all be material covered in the main article, not broken out. Masem (t) 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Some articles like TweetDeck should probably be kept as is since that's another topic and X Pro won't follow WP:Article titles even if this page is moved or split. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 18:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. If we do end up splitting the Twitter/X articles, "List of Twitter Features" should be merged into the main Twitter article. Even now, that article seems a bit redundant. I do agree with keeping the "TweetDeck" article separated from the main "Twitter" article, since TweetDeck was originally developed as a separate Twitter client that was later acquired by Twitter Inc. Hxnc (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment What happened after the long-winded Survey that occurred not that long ago? I didn't see any formal result from this, it just got archived as if nothing had happened. As a result we have History of Twitter that is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK of Twitter#History, given there is no link to the main article or summary of the child in this article. That whole situation remains a complete mess, apart from converting Twitter#Post-acquisition to an excerpted summary, that ironically was the original simplistic proposal following basic WP:SUMMARY guidelines. Personally I'm in support for the original idea, that appeared to have consensus previously, to rename Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social media), partially because Musk is no longer the CEO, so that article's title is flawed. Rant over.
CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Would it be okay if I tag everyone that participated in past move requests? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Obviously it would, as it concerns them. Thanks in advance. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and sent notifications to 29 users that had previously participated in similar move requests but haven't in this one. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. When did twitter cease to exist and X was born? The date Elon completed the purchase or the date he announced the rebrand? (I believe it is the former.)
  2. Which page should be moved to X (social network)? (I believe that Twitter under Elon Musk should be moved to History of X (social network) or something similar (I am not happy with the word "history" in my proposed title though). There are too many details in the Twitter under Elon Musk page that are notable, but I do not think they deserve to be included in the main X page. Also, I believe X (social network) should be a brand new page, explaining X from scratch)
  3. What should be included and covered in the X (social network) article? There is a huge overlap between features of Twitter and X. (I believe everything from the Twitter page that is still applicable and relevant to X should be included in the new page.)
Please help me if there is a better place to discuss these questions. فره ور تیش (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It's only here. There's no other place we can discuss the move. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
To answer your first question, you're conflating the company (Twitter, Inc. → X Corp.) with the service (Twitter → X). Facebook the company also changed its name to Meta, but the service is still called Facebook. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually I was talking about the service itself, not the company. No confusion about Twitter, Inc. vs X Corp. To my understanding, a lot of the contributors to this discussion believe that there should be two distinct pages, one for a defunct service called Twitter, and one for X, the current service. Some here believe that the changes made to to Twitter are substantial enough that it can be considered a new service called X. That's why I asked when was Twitter discontinued and was replaced by X. فره ور تیش (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is still known as Twitter most of the time and even when the media feels required to acknowledge the new name it is as "X formerly known as Twitter" almost like "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince" and we didn't rename that article. Obviously that argument weakens as a few more people gradually start to call it "X" but we are quite a way off the tipping point there. Also, it is clear that what we see now is not X as Elon Musk intends it but a transitional form that is essentially just Twitter but with more monetisation and Nazis. X is meant to be "the everything app" and that will definitely be worth an article, whether it succeeds or fails in notable and interesting ways. We don't know what this "everything app" will be. It might even be that describing it as a "social network" isn't a good description. If it were to become primarily financial then that would suggest a different title. So, I think Masem is on the right track here. Twitter was/is Twitter. X is something else, yet to be seen. Maybe it is going to be three articles eventually? 1:Twitter, 2:Twitter after Musk, 3: X (Everything App)? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose any split. Twitter and X are clearly the same thing, one's a continuation of the other and the operation and model of the site is largely unchanged, give or take the rename and a few other Musk quirks. The idea that we should split it just because someone has taken over and shaken things up a bit is absurd. I'm actually gobsmacked that this is being seriously considered. As for the move request, let's just follow NAMECHANGES and assess what sources do. It may already be time to rename, but equally the name Twitter is still used so we could wait a bit longer. Neutral on that really.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    A decision would still need to be made on whether to move this article or not. Five criteria that WP:Article titles assesses are:
    • Recognisability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognise. This is more difficult to assess due to a lack of reliable source material but worldwide Google Trends data (as opposed to the US-specific data posted in the move request) suggests that while use of "Twitter" has declined slightly, the decrease is in proportion with changes in active users commonly presented in the media. The use of "X" in the past five years have remained the same. Even in the US-specific data presented above, the total use of "Twitter" is also still significantly higher than the increased use of "X" alone. Based on this, it could be assumed that "X (social network)" does not yet meet the recognisability criteria. However, both waiting for "X" to reach recognisability levels previously enjoyed by "Twitter", or assuming that it ever will, is WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. In addition, recent media using "X" still has clarification in some form, obvious or not. The conversation here is extremely skewed by particular demographic groups that may be significantly more knowledgeable on the topic than the wider population. Wikipedia doesn't always use the article titles that an entity identifies as, based on a large subset of precedent. While there has been a somewhat increased use of "X" in the media recently, Twitter has significantly higher historical usage, brand recognition, consistency with related articles (e.g. X suspensions anyone?) and current search trends. This move request was created far too soon after the URL was changed for many of the factors that could be used to assess recognisability to be properly assessed.
    • Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. This again brings forth the issue of whether the people in this discussion are reflective of the wider population, the answer to which is obviously not. "Twitter" has played a significant cultural factor in recent modern history. Almost everyone regardless of demographic factors has heard of Twitter, even those who don't know what it is. This is not the same case with "X (social network)". While the Wikipedians here may disagree, the wider population is a completely different demographic to most Wikipedians (especially here) and - supported by global Google Trends data - "X (social network)" lacks the simplicity, common use and natural disambiguation that WP:Article titles expects. Recent increased use of the term in the media alone cannot account for naturalness and this is yet another example where "X (social network)" fails the test.
    • Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "X (social network)" already fails this check because it uses parenthesis for clarification, which is not the case for "Twitter". Without the use of clarification, "X" is an extremely ambiguous subject. It is literally not precise and cannot be easily distinguished from other subjects without it where "Twitter" does with ease. Facebook and Instagram are precise, "X (social network)" avoids natural disambiguation while being the same topic as "Twitter". "Twitter" is precise, a term that is unique and extremely specific compared to "X (social network)". Twitter doesn't need disambiguation and when compared to "X", is always about the social network. Explanatory parenthesis is the opposite of precision and this is another criteria where "X (social network)" doesn't meet WP:Article titles. Moving the page is giving a company special treatment due to its size and notability rather than following the same guidelines that ever other article title has to follow. "Twitter" describes the entire platform, past and present, and "X" doesn't have the precision needed for the article to move without being split. It is not consistent. Based on the same special treatment given to "X", "Bed, Bath & Beyond" should be moved to "Beyond", yet there isn't a sizeable proportion of Wikipedians advocating for it. Perhaps because we have stronger feelings towards the social network than for "Beyond"? That's bias.
    • Concision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. My thoughts on this matter are going to be in addition to what I have discussed so far because unambiguity is literally in the description. Twitter is a single word. Everyone already knows what it is. Aside from significant changes in management, X hasn't changed enough from Twitter and having an article about what is still Twitter with a non-concise title is more marketing consistency than about encyclopedic tone. "Twitter" as an article title is easy to search for, read and refer to. "X (social network)" is not a more concise title, where "Twitter" is still an acceptable article title. X is not yet the "everything app" that perhaps may justify a move in the future, though then it may end up splitting anyway, but X is currently still colloquially Twitter just with a new logo. Aside from significant change in management, employees and company policies, they are both the same social network platform and based on the Google Trends data, almost everyone still refer to it as such. The clarification "(social network)" is redundant when the article title is "Twitter" so it is more concise and has better natural flow. This is another area "X (social network)" as a title totally misses the mark.
    • Consistency: There is a very large number of article titles that, under the same conditions, still have the article title be the most commonly used name because it is WP:COMMONNAME. There's also the issue with consistency with other articles. If "X" is so much more WP:COMMONNAME, why not move "Twitter suspensions" to "X suspensions"? If they are the same topic, why not move "Twitter controversies" to "X controversies"? If "X (social network)" meets the above criteria, why not move "List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter" to "List of mergers and acquisitions by X"? Based on everything I have said so far, splitting the article is the only effective compromise because there is a very real possibility that there may never be an article called "X (social network)" as we go round and round about whether the title will ever meet WP:Article titles better than "Twitter". The title "X (social network)" lacks historical consistency and requires a separate article (or an excessively large subsection) about "Twitter" for the "X (social network)" article title to be consistent. That's literally the only reason I've been supporting separate articles so far. X is very notable, I'm not denying that, but Twitter is more so. If there has to be a page move today as things currently are, not splitting the articles won't make sense, because "X (social network)" doesn't meet WP:Article titles and any support for moving this page is already against precedence.
    Splitting is more a compromise than anything. If Google changes its name tomorrow, should there still be an article called "Google" or should an encyclopedia erase the brand, which has significant historical notability, in favour for whatever is next? Preserve or demolish? What is Wikipedia? For me, based on everything I have said so far, its either keep the page as is or split the article. Split by my definition is not writing two separate articles about the same social network, but what content each page will have is not something that I would like to determine myself. I have no interest in the subject matter other than to not have a loud minority dictate whether Wikipedia's guidelines should or shouldn't be followed. Splitting is nothing more than a compromise for which I have no interest in working on myself. I'm sure someone with more interest can write an effective essay on what it should include, as clearly there are many, and I'm sure it would be less about a former company but more about a period of time as per Masem's comparisons with Viacom.
    This is a long and opinionated rant so I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes and just because I'm opposing the move or favouring a split right now, it doesn't mean a lack of willingness to support moving the page in the future under different circumstances. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 17:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Correction: I meant Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) should be moved to Beyond (online retailer) under the same special treatment. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 17:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, I’m still in support of Masem’s proposal to split the article as per above or oppose the move for now. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    I support that too. It seems some accounts tried doing that. Editior23 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per others. RPC7778 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is still obviously Twitter. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, since many are still referring to it as Twitter, also per above. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I think the rebrand is now complete as their domain is not x.com. And Twitter is a thing of the past even though they are still called Twitter by many, the official records still states that Twitter is now X.The Man Without Fear 🦇17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    But articles are named things that most people call them, which doesn't necessarily reflect official records. --Ferien (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move; weak support Masem's proposal. It's only been a year of "X" — less than a year, actually — but nearly two decades of "Twitter". The first bullet point of WP:CRITERIA is "recognizability", and Twitter is the clear winner here. A quick, extremely unscientific survey on Musk's own platform confirms "Twitter" remains far more common outside of perhaps his circle of strongest allies and supporters, regardless of the official preference. In the infamous Don Lemon interview a month ago, Musk himself said the X platform, formerly Twitter (2:57), and Lemon at one point asks him, How long are we going to have to call it 'the formerly known as Twitter'? (6:44). The second bullet point of CRITERIA is "naturalness", which WP:NATURAL elaborates on (emphasis added): Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. But here, "Twitter" is arguably still more the common name. Masem's alternate proposal is basically what was proposed last time, which seems to have reached rough consensus but was never executed. I think it's a good idea and a reasonable compromise, but at the same time, two articles about the same service could lead to confusion and concerns of unnecessariness (is that a word?). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think this whole vote tally is a case of people struggling with the is/ought distinction. What is "arguably...common" and "natural" in this case? ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Twitter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Calling the Netherlands as Holland is also more common and natural then especially amongst Boomers, to where still some don't even know exactly what the Netherlands refers to. Yet Wiki still does an "um actually 🤓" when you search Holland. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    No, it's not. Most people call the Netherlands, the Netherlands. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly needed now that the domain name has changed Isla🏳️‍⚧ 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Most media calls the company and website X now. So does Encyclopedia Britannica. Hence, this is the common name. Oppose the proposal to make a chronological split of the article around the time of the purchase by Musk. It's not like Twitter ceased to exist and X emerged instead. The changes are gradual. It took two years to complete the rebranding. Since there is too much to write to combine it all one page, we have sub-articles for History of Twitter and X under Elon Musk, much like we have many separate articles for the various incarnations of many nation states. The idea that X is distinct from Twitter is not supported by reliable sources (hence WP:OR) -- after all many of them still write "X (formerly Twitter)". Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    [1], [2], [3], [4], and numerous others. Even Musk considers Twitter to be dead. Masem (t) 23:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Some issues:
    • X being used more commonly in the media, including EB, is undermined by the constant use of clarification
    • X has seen negligible impact on global search trends and Twitter remains the dominant search term
    • The slight reduction of search trends for Twitter is proportion to the change in active users as in the media
    • Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica and has its own guidelines for determining a common name
    • A split doesn't need to be chronological and X's article can retain most of Twitter's history
    • Historical precedence of Viacom 1952-2005, Viacom (2005-2019), Bed Bath & Beyond and various others
    • The redundancy of History of Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk without an article about Twitter itself
    • The overall notability, cultural and sociopolitical impact of the Twitter brand and its historical significance
    • What if Google changes its name? Should Wikipedia not have an article about something that notable?
    • The two articles not needing to imply distinction or lack of linearity between the two topics
    • I'm not convinced of the idea that something shouldn't be changed because there is too much to write
    • X (social network) is notable and deserves its own article outside of Twitter's large shadow
    • X (social network) not yet surpassing Twitter in all five WP:Article titles criteria as per my other post
    • Assumption of X (social network) to ever reach or surpass the recognisability of Twitter is WP:CRYSTALBALL
    • An ongoing cycle of the last two points having the potential for a repetitive cycle of move requests
    However:
    • The Viacom precedent above used parenthetical disambiguation. Perhaps something similar is needed?
    𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose This can cause SEO issues if the article name is changed to "X". It's one of those reasons why I dislike the Twitter to X rebranding as the benefit is only the CEO himself, but it actually made SEO much worse. If I were to take over X (formerly Twitter), I'll change the name back to Twitter Civic Nexus (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't care about SEO issues at all. Masem (t) 23:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    +1 Feelings towards a rebranding and considerations about who benefits is also of no concern, only WP:Article titles. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I finally got over it. For the last 10 months, I was acting like a crybaby. And wanted X to change back to Twitter. But like most media sites. I’ve gotten over it. Elon Musk has completed his rebrand of Twitter to X.I think it’s time to make a change. Also Elon Musk has changed the URL from Twitter.com to X.com. In a post (not tweet or “x-press, even though that’s kinda a good name.) that “all core systems were on x.com” And it looks like a lot of people selected oppose, I mean I get it it. It’s not an easy thing to get over with, erasing one of the most recognizable brands in the world. But I got over it, after 10 months. And I never thought I would get over it. So I think it’s time for a change to, X (social network). Editior23 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Alternate: X (social network) is the article about the current platform (the rebranding of Twitter.) & Twitter is the article is about the social media platform before the rebrand to X. (I think it was Masem’s idea so credit to them.) Editior23 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose that, like other people said. It’s the same thing. Misterunknown24 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    Even if it's the same thing ( a debatable point), there is clearly a size issue that everything dealing with Twitter and X cannot fit into one article and a split is necessary. The most natural split is on Musk's takeover, thus strong rationale to have "Twitter" be the old historical service and "X (social network)" as the current existing one. — Masem (t) 13:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    The Viacom (1952–2005) and Viacom (2005–2019) precedents uses parenthetical disambiguation. Perhaps something similar could be added to "Twitter" to make it not appear as separate? The infobox currently uses "Twitter (2006–2023)", which would match the two examples. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 14:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    There is never so much to write about a single entity that the most important points can't be summarized in one article (i.e. this one for Twitter/X). Christianity has a single main article although Christians don't even agree who is counted as Christian. Austria has a single main article even though it turned from a multi-ethnic empire into a small democratic nation state and later even ceased to exist for seven years. To bring a business example, the Hudson's Bay Company also has one main article although it changed from a fur trading company with its own army and navy to just another department store chain. On all three of these topics and many others there is a lot more content than there is on Twitter, yet we have one article about the entire entity and centuries of history. This is great for readers who don't care about every minute detail. We already have articles for Twitter, Inc., History of Twitter, X under Elon Musk and more -- any extra details can go into those. Second, I have yet to see reliable sources state that X is entirely distinct from Twitter. This is pure WP:OR. The only sources Masem brought for this claim quote Musk himself who is everything but neutral. Finally, introducing this an artificial hard split between old Twitter and X would lead to duplication of content (especially if also applied to other pages about Twitter/X) because contrary to Masem's claim, much of the features and community are still the same. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    While features may be similar there are still enough differences like what blue checkmarks mean or the addition of live chat and video services that they really can't be summarized easily as one entity.
    However a bigger factor is related to the controversies and legal actions taken by Twitter and by X. What affected Twitter in the past is not what X is facing, and much of the criticism of X (that it, allowing it to swing to the right) doesn't reflect on the original Twitter. And this is a significant part of both articles. Hence the split is still very natural.
    Mind you, all of the Twitter and X related articles are poorly organized to start, and need a significant edit tobteadjystbthem to meet more encyclopedic standards if writing. In my mind I think that with that organization the split between Twitter and X would become even more obvious. — Masem (t) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    Twitter, Inc. is a separate topic but having articles called History of Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk (among others) may imply to readers that they are about Twitter, Inc. since there would be no article called "Twitter" or Twitter (2006-2023). The article is also not called "X under Elon Musk" as you mentioned, and moving it would make no sense because Twitter under X has always been under Elon Musk. History of Twitter is not a good standalone article title. It may lead to multiple large articles (such as above) to be merged into this one because they won't meet WP:Article titles guidelines on precision and consistency. This article is already longer by word count compared to the Hudson's Bay Company example provided.
    I don't see how Christianity being a single main article because "Christians don't even agree who is counted as Christian" has any relevance here. The article title itself meets WP:Article titles and its name is not dictated by Christians, or particular denominations, but by everyone. If all the Churches on earth decided to change the name of the religion, it won't change the article title on Wikipedia until or unless it meets WP:Article titles. The Austria example given also supports having multiple articles. There is no one Austria article as mentioned. There's Margraviate of Austria, Duchy of Austria, Archduchy of Austria, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Republic of German-Austria, First Austrian Republic, Federal State of Austria, Anschluss, Austria and History of Austria. While it could in theory be combined into one article, it isn't because of WP:Article size.
    The argument that big things should be summarised into smaller things is not supported the examples provided. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    I fail to see the relevance of any of the ideas discussed in your first comment here to WP:Article titles. In addition, it appears that a majority of those opposed to the page move are in support of Masem's proposal of soft splitting the article, which in effect creates an article for X. None of them are being a "crybaby" about it. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    In my opinion, gradually we should rename articles from “Twitter.” to “X.” by its official name. But I’m not sure if people would like names such as “X features, X trends, Timeline of X.” Would you agree? I would like to have your opinion on my opinion. Editior23 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    My feelings towards marketing decisions made by the company is of no bearing. This is an encyclopedia. An article about X would be ideal as I have said before. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 00:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    In the first comment, I was saying that I got over the fact that Twitter was X. And in my opinion (Don’t judge me if you think I’m wrong) people don’t want to accept the fact that Twitter is X. I’m very sorry if you didn’t understand by message there. Editior23 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
    Stop creating more fake accounts, its so obvious it's you Thegreat6336836853- it's a bit weird that you care so much about this that you are willing to create 4+ accounts. Also if you are going to do it then at least don't make it so obvious with your writing style... Jasp7676 05:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support renaming articles referencing "Twitter" to X, with the exception of specific entities that no longer exist such as Twitter, Inc. I've definitely heard Charles III referred to as "Prince Charles" at least a couple of times in conversation since he became king, including by me - it can take time to catch up and that's okay, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia should lag behind. Oppose split as it's clearly the same website (and app, etc) with the same posts and accounts from before 2022. The only real difference is that it's now run by a controversial figure with Wikipedia:ECP on his article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose- WP:COMMONNAME still lends credence to the "Twitter" name, given the constant need for clarification that "X" is "formerly known as Twitter". I also disagree on the notion that "Wikipedia shouldn't lag behind", given that as an encyclopedia our job is to "lag behind", not predict the future. Until I see solid evidence that "X" is indisputably the common name, I will oppose the name change.
Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 02:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The article on SkyDrive was updated within a month when that service changed its name and the same has been true for MindGeek more recently. X has been called as such since last July and reliable sources are moving away from the old name, including The Guardian. NPR refers to it as "formerly Twitter" once at the start of an article before using X throughout for the remainder and Al Jazeera uses the names in a similar way, only referring to "Twitter" a couple of times when talking about events from before the rebranding. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
None of that is a valid argument against WP:COMMONNAME . When you search on bing, "SkyDrive" has 211k hits and "OneDrive" has 7M hits. "MindGeek" has 36k hits and 66k hits. Hence the current article names comply with WP:COMMONNAME . Even if they didn't, it still doesn't mean WP:COMMONNAME should therefore be ignored. 𐩘 Datapass talk ⌇ contribs 07:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The latter example wasn't moved via a discussion but instead by one user.
I also laughed at the fact that 'Ethical Capital' owns a pornography conglomerate Traumnovelle (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I addressed this elsewhere in this discussion. Moving away from "Twitter" requires a higher bar than normal because this is a widely recognized and established household name that has been in use for two decades, and our policy on NATURAL further complicates things. Every scenario is different, and we look at things on a case-by-case basis. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention that the current name is a natural disambiguation. The fact that the official name has changed I think has no impact on this discussion, since we have never cared about what the official name is, but what the common name is. Melmann 07:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, support Masem's proposal. It seems clear to me that soft-splitting these articles is the best course of action, as Twitter/X post-Musk acquisition represents a radical break in both management practices and approaches to development, even if it's for the same service.
Fiendpie (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above arguments and Wikipedia:CommonName as the vast majority of people still call the site Twitter despite all traces of that name on the site itself being removed. 2A02:C7C:D02E:1C00:657C:BB82:7C72:876F (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course the article for the existing website & social app should exist at the X (social network) title or similar appropriate title. "X" has been the name of the company, and "the service" (the URL-based site & the phone-based app) for a while (10 months ostensibly?). It seems to me that the site not being migrated to the new domain was a legit enough reason to wait to move the wikip article to the new title location. I don't know why that took so long, but the company has now completed that domain migration.

Others here have expressed personal feelings about the name change. These don't matter lol. I don't love the name "X", but I can still recognize that that's what the name is haha.

As for treating the pre-Elon-Musk-owned corporation like a separate entity with it's own article, I don't see this as controversial. But my gut says that any content describing the company (called which was called "Twitter") during that period can probably be moved over to the Twitter, Inc article. Modify the first few lede sentences there to reflect that "Twitter" ... "was a company & a social networking service". No big deal.

Interestingly, the purpose of the X Corp article may become dubious, as it doesn't seem to do much but hold the ownership of the social networking service. But cleaning up that potential redundancy would be the final task in this project. Merging the X Corp article with the new X (social network) article would make sense. I think that merge makes sense especially if (as I described above), all relevant wikip article content about the "Twitter era" (2006-2018 is a decent chunk of history) is moved carefully & responsibly to the the Twitter Inc article.

skakEL 15:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment The majority of "support" !votes are invoking WP:COMMONNAME. It is important to remember that COMMONNAME is merely one of the things we consider when deciding on an article's title; it is not the only one. WP:NATURAL is another, and it states (with emphasis added):

    Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred.

    WP:NCDAB further adds:

    Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation.

    WP:COMMONNAME clarifies (with emphasis added):

    Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

    Even if "X" has become the most COMMONNAME, a claim that is subject to debate, "X" is ambiguous (or rather, the primary topic is taken) and necessitates the use of parenthetical disambiguation. The whole point of using "commonly recognizable names", as described at WP:CRITERIA, is to ensure someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize it. Does "Twitter" not fit this description? If so, NATURAL and other article titling policies should take precedent and be the deciding factor, and we shouldn't simply focus on whether more sources use "Twitter" or "X". Recentism comes to mind when people bring up new sources about an old product; is it likely that that the average reader will immediately recognize "X (social network)" as the platform that was known as Twitter for nearly two decades and literally invented a word that was added to the dictionary? This is why WP:NAMECHANGES sets a high bar for renaming topics that have been known by a prior name for a very long time. It's not our fault that Elon Musk chose to throw away a highly valuable brand name with two decades worth of brand value and recognition; we're not their marketing team and it is not our responsibility to help promote their rebranding. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate the effort in your emphases, but here's some of my own in your last part:

    "It's not our fault that Elon Musk chose to throw away a highly valuable brand name with two decades worth of brand value and recognition; we're not their marketing team and it is not our responsibility to help promote their rebranding.

    I take issue with this presumably polemical tone, as it reinforces my hunch that again, people are opposing the move for semi-implied (or even once or twice explicit) petty reasons that infringe WP:NPOV. People just don't like it and want to keep the old name as a micro-protest that makes Wikipedia look, again, petty (to put it nicely; I'm not saying it is, but it seems that way to outsiders). Any apparent eccentricity with the name change (and name itself) is irrelevant; to cite WP:NATURAL in this case, I believe also warrants citing WP:SPADE. It is no longer "plainly" Twitter - it is plainly X, because X is X and you see X everywhere now. The old vestiges are almost 100% swept away (scroll above to e.g. dev pages). Do we really want to imply an old name is more valid simply because we believe it is so? The ambiguity of not using Twitter would apply only if Twitter were still a valid name, whereas Twitter as a corporate entity literally doesn't exist anymore. The haecceity of X is fully X-ish because it has fully replaced what Twitter was, as the latter is mere history. Twitterness ipso facto is X-ness.
    As I cited before, if we're still going to call X as Twitter because the latter is now a conventional, informal, semi-unlearned name, then we better have the Netherlands titled as Holland (in fact, we can take a tip from the former's lede and have it say: "X, informally Twitter"). ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I take issue with the "old vestiges are almost 100% swept away" argument because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are a lot of articles about things of which the "old vestiges are almost 100% swept away". It doesn't change what an overwhelming majority of people still call X (based on the lack of difference in Google Trends data in the past five years) and that extremely popular colloquial term meeting WP:Article titles significantly better than X (social network). A bad decision such as not having an article called X (social network) may look "petty" in your words, and I somewhat agree with that description, but Wikipedia doesn't care about looking "petty".
    The fact that there are a significant number of articles that rely on an article about Twitter is why the main articles about the topic should be re-synthesised to X (social network) and Twitter (with or without parenthetical disambiguation). It is the best compromise to allow for an article called X (social network) while meeting all of the WP:Article titles criteria. There are too many articles relying on an article called Twitter (see other reply to this thread) and a re-synthesise will maintain consistency across all of those articles. These articles exist because of the significant historical, cultural and sociopolitical impact of the Twitter brand and not necessarily Twitter itself. This unrelated article mentions Twitter and re-tweeting a lot, would does that even mean to future readers?
    The whole Holland comparison is more of an American colloquial than a global one by a significant margin so that argument only supports keeping the title as is. The Netherlands also can't be moved to Holland because the Netherlands is NOT Holland, it is not what most people call the country and moving it will cause a lot of confusion. The whole comparison makes no sense. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 20:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I was not insinuating that I like or dislike the name, or that we shouldn't move the page because of my personal taste. My personal opinion on which name I like more, my thoughts on Twitter, or whether I'm a fan of Musk are irrelevant. That would be a classic WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument, which I have avoided. Wikipedia does not care about what individual editors think; we care about what title is best for our readers by consulting our article titling policy (WP:AT). I was merely pointing out that many editors seem to be saying, "They changed their name and URL to X, so we should follow suit." This argument isn't logical to me because Wikipedia also doesn't care what is "official". As the nom noted, we are still using Kanye West. The Ohio State University insists on being referred to as "The Ohio State University", with a capitalized "the"; Wikipedia (and the Chicago Manual of Style) does not care.
    If, in a few years, "X" becomes a household name comparable to Twitter, meaning a majority of readers will be able to instantly recognize "X" just as they do with "Twitter", and usage of "Twitter" in sources falls to an extreme low, then perhaps I would buy the argument that COMMONNAME trumps other policies. I set such a high bar because Twitter hasn't just been around for a few years; say Mark Zuckerberg decides to rename Threads to Y (social network). Since the service is so new, it is unlikely either name will be any more recognizable to the average reader than the other, so I would be more sympathetic to a move (but would still have to consider NATURAL and what sources are doing).
    As for the Netherlands/Holland example that you keep bringing up, all evidence suggests that "Netherlands" is the COMMONNAME (it's admittedly closer than I had expected, but the ngram results are not entirely accurate because it throws in other uses of "Holland"). It's not even an American thing. "Commonness" is not the same as "colloquial/popular usage" (e.g. look up any medical- or bathroom-related terminology), and "Twitter" is not "informal". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    cc @The Education Auditor ultimately you both are missing the forest for the trees, at least it seems so although I know where you two come from. The spirit of Wikipedia is to be mindful of and serve the average reader. Let's take an example: When you search "X" on Google (and Bing; DuckDuckGo is a bit more complicated, and Yandex is lost), the sidebar result leads you to an infobox that leads you to the Twitter, Inc article (with the old bird logo!). To get to the article on X (Twitter), the first thing you (the average(!) reader btw) have to notice is the hatnote that is just called Twitter, then press it and see that Twitter is X now. Yes, this is probably a problem on the end of the search engines, but we are NOT making anything easier. How many people outside of our bubble are helped by this status quo? If the title was simply X and Twitter was a redirect, virtually everyone who isn't in-the-know will just say, "oh, huh, Twitter is X now, riiight/I didn't know that". As opposed to what I'm sure is many scenarios of Average Reader getting confused and then dismissing the site. The current state of things is awkward and doesn't further what already is a sorry general state of readership. The man on the Clapham omnibus would obviously want things to be consistent so he can suck up basic info and get on with his say. The spirit and not the letter of the law of e.g. WP: CONSISTENT (see 2nd bullet) and WP:COMMONNAME both advocate for renaming at this time. I do think there is a compromise here, and perhaps some patience is needed too and I apologize if it seemed like I'm opposed to anything else, but I just think consistency in current branding is best.~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 03:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't like the outsized concern we are having in regards to SEO. It might just be where I live but a number of Google knowledge panels in search results have been switching to AI-generated text rather than Wikipedia's lead sections. I don't know if it's a limited test, but it's really ultimately up to search engines to determine how and which knowledge panels to present. If we rely on them, they may let us down. I believe that having two articles, which I would prefer to be X (social network) and Twitter (2006-2023), may actually help deal with the confusion by presenting the correct article when users search for Twitter instead of Twitter, Inc. It's also ultimately up to X to ensure that users are aware that Twitter is now called X, not Wikipedia, and I don't believe that pages should be moved based on that. Regardless, the lead paragraphs on all articles will likely make it clear that X is the new name for Twitter as both Twitter and Twitter, Inc. do currently. This is presented on Google's knowledge panels and Google should find a way to direct those looking for the correct article, not us. I'm sure as X catches on, the knowledge panels would adjust accordingly. What is to say that after moving Twitter to X (social network), Google would not continue showing Twitter, Inc. instead of X (social network) whenever people search for Twitter? Our effort would've been for vain. I'm definitely for having an article for X (social network), but I believe it is a good compromise to have both articles. Worst case scenario, the articles could be merged if the Twitter (2006-2023) article doesn't work out. Whatever is decided, I respect your viewpoint and won't be disgruntled if I don't have my way. I initially supported the proposal as I viewed it as a good compromise. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    If we wait for what sources are doing, another option is to move the page but after a delay? It seems that newer sources are only just starting to call the platform X, though with clarification. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Google Search and Knowledge Graphs are irrelevant here. Wikipedia does not control what third parties do, and we certainly do not care for search engine optimization. We are a nonprofit encyclopedia, not a clickbait content farm. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm concerned about whether the article title will ever meet all of the the criteria for change. While the splitting proposal may have some consensus, there are still a number of flaws such as the fact that they're the same company and a lack of discussion on what splitting will look like. I'm assuming that it would likely result in a synthesis rather than a full split, similar to how Yale University has a summary of Yale College. The same company argument could possibly be solved by either having the Twitter article be called Twitter (2006-2023) (as in the infobox), similar to the aforementioned Viacom articles, or broadening the Twitter, Inc. article. Even if X (social network) ever meets criteria, a lot of other articles rely on the existence of a Twitter article. For example, Ban of Twitter in Nigeria without a Twitter article relies on common knowledge of what Twitter is. There is also the issue about vocabulary where a lot of articles on Wikipedia that use the word "retweet", but this term may not make sense to future readers as the platform has already stopped using the term. This entire article is just one example. A separate Twitter article seems like an inevitability and X (social network) may always have a hard time meeting criteria without it. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether this article is moved, other articles should be moved on a case-by-case basis, and as always, we do not retcon text within articles that discuss past events. For example, History of Twitter would not move because it covers events from 2006 to present day, and the platform was called Twitter for most of its lifetime. Similarly, Black Twitter would not move because that term is specific to that community. In contrast, Twitter suspensions would have to move to X suspensions, as will Censorship of Twitter. Whether to move Tweet (social media) and TweetDeck would be a separate conversation beyond the scope of this RM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    That makes sense but it's also about body text. The concept of re-tweeting, in one example, to a future reader may not make sense. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    RMs only dictate what happens to article titles. Editors are free to choose whether to follow them when linking to articles, and it's certainly not possible (nor advisable) to try to police this. With that being said, I'm not sure why you think a term like "retweet" would not make sense to the average reader. Maybe if they have been living under a rock for the past 20 years and have never heard of Twitter before its rebrand. I still understand that "Holland" means the Netherlands. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I meant readers in the far future. I think there might be a generational gap here. For example, it might've been more common to call the Netherlands Holland in previous generations similar to how I know what re-tweeting is but it will lose context for future generations. It may have made sense to call the Netherlands Holland if Wikipedia existed when the term was more common but it doesn't now. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 07:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Holland is a place in the Netherlands which is a term previous generations may have confused with the country itself, possibility due to the region being the dominant part of the country during its colonial history and most Dutch migrants to the United States possibly originating from there. I can see how this would support moving the article since the Netherlands is the politically correct term for the country as X is the politically correct term for Twitter. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    As an aside, "Holland" apparently has been used to refer to the Netherlands since the Late Middle Ages. If I remember right, that region was a focal point for the famous Anglo-Dutch trade dynamics (edit: I'm right, as OED said Dordrecht is a "nucleus" at the confluence of several rivers important for trade). At least where I'm from, Holland has a sort of folksy, Boomerish tone, while "Netherlands" is more bourgeois. Think of your grandma vs. a young businessman. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Huh, I learn new things every day. You'd be right about the colonial trade dynamics, which is still the case due to Amsterdam (largest city), The Hague (capital) and Rotterdam (major port city) all being co-located there. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think you're overthinking this. Wikipedia changes over time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Fair point. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 09:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, I started to work on a split "Twitter before Elon Musk" last year and finished like, the lead section? Maybe we can continue to work on it. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would highly recommend waiting because the latest edits may not have been applied and there is still no concrete consensus. More people will be able to work on the articles together once a decision is made on where to go with it. There is WP:NORUSH. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 21:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    That draft was forked from October 2022 when the acquisition happen and the most things I've done is changing verbs to their past tense. Of course no rush :)  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    If my split idea gains consensus ( which will likely require a second RFC type request to verify), we want to keep whatever content there us in this present article to leave for the historical Twitter article for attribution purposes, and move content to the X article (Twitter undrr Elon Musk). So let's not rush on any edits just yet. Masem (t) 21:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The platform has been called X by outlets for a while now. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support There's no reason not to. We might as well just get it done. Clearfrienda 💬 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I also see no reason not to change the name. with the X.com shift, it is now time to move on. Even if you don't like the name doesn't mean we can really do anything about it. We should stay unbiased on the issue when it comes to educating the readers of this page. User:Hurtcopain (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone is discussing not having a page called X (social network) or anyone showing any obvious bias against it. The conversation seems to have gravitated towards whether there should be a separate article for Twitter. Possibilities discussed have included having an article called Twitter or Twitter (2006-2023) with the content being summarised on X (social network), expanding the Twitter, Inc. article that is currently separate from Twitter or not having one at all. Though, those opposing the move seem to be more supportive towards having the separate article than to move it without having one. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and Support Masem's suggestion for a seperate article on "X (social network)". Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Further: I think its reasonable to have a seperate page on the current website because it has its own issues, controversies, and ways of being run (buying blue checks, for example) from how it was run when it was called Twitter. Also majority of users still call it "Twitter" including myself. I think a split article is a fair compromise. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    An article already exists that covers the things you mentioned, Twitter under Elon Musk. If nothing happens after this RM, that article will still exist. Masem's proposal is merely to rename that article and upgrade it to a full-fledged article about the product. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Masem's proposal: We absolutely need an article to cover the platform that is now known as X, but Masem makes a valid point, in so far that the newer brand is different enough that it should be separate. To that end, I agree that this article should remain as Twitter, while Twitter under Elon Musk should be refactored as an overview of X. It appears that consensus amongst the votes indicates this is the projected outcome in any case. BOTTO (T•C) 13:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The official domain even is now x.com. Félix An (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is still Twitter, and we shouldn't use WP:OFFICIALNAMES when considering a rename. The WP:NATDIS name is Twitter. Parentheses are to be avoided. It may change in the future that X becomes the common name, and the balance may tip toward renaming, but we'll have plenty of time to consider that if/when that happens. TheSavageNorwegian 15:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, support Masem's proposal. Twitter basically no longer exists, and while Twitter and X are basically the same thing, a split/renaming of Twitter under Elon Musk is warranted due to everything that has happened. λ NegativeMP1 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, support Masem's proposal. Panam2014 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATDIS, arguments about it being official are not in line with Wikipedia's established policies and guidelines on article names, also 'Twitter' flows much better than 'X' in prose. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose split, weak oppose move. The split seems wrong; it's not clear to me that Twitter (the website) pre-acquisition and Twitter/X (the website) post-acquisition are logically distinct things. I don't think the rename alone turned them into separate things, almost all contemporary sources I could find still treat pre-acquisition and post-acquisition Twitter as the same site (e.g. no one differentiates between "a post on X" and "a tweet on Twitter" based on the time it was made), and I think a split would be more confusing than helpful for readers.
As for the move itself, there's a lot of charged opinions here related more to the acquisition instead of Wikipedia naming policy, so it's hard to sort through for proper evidence. I don't personally see a preponderance of evidence that "X" is the more commonly used name. Pageviews are imperfect here, since the page is already at Twitter, but it doesn't seem that people are regularly landing on X or X.com ([5]). I see a bit more evidence this might be the case on Google Trends ([6]), but "X" was a pretty widely searched term prior to the rename as well, so it's hard to interpret. A quick news search under "X" shows articles that still tend to use the term Twitter in the text, albeit often interchangeably with X or as an "X, formerly known as Twitter" ([7], [8], [9]). It's pretty unclear, so I weakly tilt towards keeping the former common name until better evidence emerges it's not the current one.
Note that I'm coming from a talk page post from The Education Auditor which I assume from above comment was sent to a agreed upon neutral set; if it's found that those messages were canvassed from a subset of people, please feel free to disregard this comment entirely. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Re the split idea: I do think it is fair to say that a post on Twitter or X before or after is generally considered the same thing. What has significantly changed are the number of features (both added, subtracted and changes), policies, and controversies and criticism. It would be rather unfair to character old Twitter with the same type of labeling that has been made of X in terms of things like misinformation (where Twitter fought poorly to prevent it while X revels in it). Those are the aspects that sources clearly have made to consider Twitter dead and only X remains. Masem (t) 20:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's true that there's a lot of differentiation between how people view pre-acquisition Twitter and post-acquisition X (as plenty of the less policy-grounded !votes above make clear), but I don't think that rises to them being different things. If there's a separate article on Twitter and X, does that make Twitter a defunct social media platform? If so, when did it shut down: when the acquisition happened, when the rebrand was announced, when the rebrand actually happened? The split might logically work for sections that are mostly chronological, like history and finances, but it would work extremely awkwardly for others, like technology or appearance and features. There's a lot here, and I think it's reasonable to have size splits like History of Twitter or Twitter under Elon Musk. I just don't see any evidence that treating "Twitter" and "X" as wholly distinct websites is commonplace (and the amount of sources that use both names interchangeably or refer to it as "X, formerly known as Twitter" seem to support the view that they're seen as the same entity). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the sources in the last few days that have acknowledged that the domain has switched to x.com are treating Twitter as dead and buried with that move. I agree that from a technology side, Twitter shifting to X has been continuous, but it is what is happening outside of the technology - Musk's approach and plans to make it like an everything-app and the new criticism towards Musk's policies - that make the split far clearer.
Yes, there are some features that carry over, but this is why we have things like {{main}} or {{seealso}}. Eg in an article on X, we can say "X contains many of the same features as Twitter, including posting text, images, and video, replying to and sharing these posts, direct, private messages with other users, and marking posts as "likes"." The X article would not need a full breakdown of these, but instead should focus on what is new or changed or removed from Twitter. There are ways to do this without it being overly awkward. Masem (t) 12:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
For transparency, I had compiled a list of 28 users who had previously engaged in move requests according to the archives and I couldn't CTRL-F them in this one. Their views, for or against, weren't taken into account and everyone received the same message. This is the list used if anyone needs to cross-check with the archives and their respective user talk pages:
三葉草, BaldiBasicsFan, BarrelProof, BD2412, BilledMammal, Certes, Crouch, Swale, DanielRigal, Dylnuge, Einsof, Esolo5002, Estar8806, Freedom4U, GnocchiFan, InfiniteNexus, Interstellarity, L'Mainerque, LilianaUwU, MSincccc, NegativeMP1, OdinintheNorth, Pyraminxsolver, RodRabelo7, Roman Spinner, Strugglehouse, The Man Without Fear, WellThisIsTheReaper, ZimZalaBim and Zzyzx11.
I haven't linked the accounts to prevent spam and the previous count of 29 was incorrect as it appears I also sent a notification to CommunityNotesContributer who had already engaged in the conversation. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 22:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Though, it is entirely possible that I may have unintentionally missed some. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Upon double-checking, I have noticed that I hadn't sent notifications to those who participated in this survey in Archive 9 that CommunityNotesContributer had previously mentioned. I'm sending them now them now. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and also sent notifications to the following users:
Coronaverification, Estar8806, Flameoguy, Gluonz, Hansen Sebastian, Horse Eye's Back, JohnCWiesenthal, Keivan.f, Luke10.27, Parham wiki, Peter L Griffin, WeyerStudentOfAgrippa and Wiki6995.
I think I missed them as it was not a move request. In hindsight, it would've been smarter to publish the list in advance. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel really bad about this as this move request is likely going to close within 24 hours. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results from that informal survey for those users specifically. I only skimmed through it.
Please note this may not represent their current views, which may be different or the same.
Option B: Coronaverification, Estar8806, Flameoguy, Gluonz, JohnCWiesentha, Luke10.27, Parham wiki, Wiki6995
Option D: Hansen Sebastian
Other: Horse Eye's Back (Option D?) and WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (Option C and D with modification)
I don't speak for these people. I'm only adding this here to rectify my mistake. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Upon further reading, I've noticed there are a large number of additional informal surveys in addition to those move requests. Considering the fact that there's (presumably) an hour before this move request closes, I believe that I've done enough by notifying the initial list of users who directly engaged in the formal move requests. It should be noted that most of the users who started the topics were in favour of the move and I'm guessing that they still would be. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 00:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't make a list for this as the circumstances have changed significantly and while those who supported the move may still support it, the list for those who previously opposed would be extremely unreliable. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate the effort, there's no need to notify every single person who participated in previous discussions. Also, it is highly doubtful this RM will be closed within 24 hours; it will most likely be relisted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was just worried about seeming biased. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 01:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Which I am, I meant like a conflict of interest. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 01:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support either initial or alternative proposal; oppose status quo: As the time clearly has come to move an article to X (social network), I believe that moving either Twitter or Twitter under Elon Musk to that title would be reasonable in comparison to the status quo. My preference of one option over the other would be minimal.
–Gluonz talk contribs 00:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Either the page should remain called Twitter per the continuing WP:COMMONNAME, or two separate articles be created, with the Twitter article only being in past-tense. Twitter has immense notability as a pre-X product. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @ElijahPepe: what is the substantial new development since the last time we had this discussion? There isn't one in your original comment and unless I'm missing something you don't name any new developments in the discussion substantial or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    The domain name is now x.com, an objection that was raised by several users in the past. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    The domain name was x.com at the time of the last discussion meaning it isn't a new development, you apparently are aware of that because you are aware that it was raised back then. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Prior to this week, the domain configuration for x.com still redirected to twitter.com. With the change, as that catches up with DNS servers, x.com no longer redirects, and the site is configured to serve content via x.com, twitter.com now being a redirect back to x.com. Musk affirmed that all of X is now based on x.com [10] and the site is telling users about these changes (which affect things like privacy blockers, etc.) [11] Masem (t) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Both domain names were active then and went the same place... Both domain names are active now and go the same place... No substantial change has occurred. One can barely say that a change has occurred at all beyond a minor technical level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while the bare minimum requirement of a domain name change has occurred, use by reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME still overwhelmingly either use the FKA Twitter to avoid confusion or sometimes just use the former name. Given Elon's choice of name, the new name also fails several of the article naming criteria. There is also no plan for how child articles are to be dealt with, which raises consistency issues. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, as the vast majority of people and outlets still refer to it as Twitter 85sl (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, While I bring more anecdotal evidence, I have not seen a news article in the past few months not refer to it as X. The only time I see it still referred to as exclusively Twitter is on petty social media post. The rebranding is so deep that even on Slither.io you can see it referred to as X (though there is still a share on Twitter button). ✶Quxyz✶ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter/Archive_10&oldid=1251098161"