Jump to content

Talk:Twitter/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Spiltting post-acquisition

I'm proposing moving the Post-acquisition section to become first section under Twitter under Elon Musk (after lede), where relevant information can also be moved to other sections where appropriate. I realise this is probably controversial but thought I'd say it anyway:

  • The history effectively "ends" at the Aquisition, which appropriately only has two paragraphs and a link to the main article.
  • Then it "continues" despite there being another article on Twitter after Elon's takeover, which makes no sense.
  • All the relevant information related to Twiiter's new management is predominantly based on the other page.

As a reminder, the article is too long, and this section is unnecessarily on the Twitter main page. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at this point to move Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). That page would cover everything post-acquisition, while this page (Twitter) would cover everything pre-acquisition. After all, we do have Yahoo! Inc. (1995–2017) and Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not exactly what I was proposing, but sure, it's not a bad idea. Especially given there will never be consensus to change this article to "that name", so it's a convenient work around / compromise.. Needs proposing in the Talk over there though, as it wouldn't just be the X (social network) redirect that you'd be hijacking. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I was hoping other people would chime in first on which of the two proposals they think would work better. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I think new topic clarifying an option A and option B, maybe even C & D as well, based on how to split post-acquisition as well as history, would make most sense here. Ideally after you clarify your proposal as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Are we on the same page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, with this option as well though:
Option D: Split Twitter § History into History of Twitter. Twitter under Elon Musk is unaffected. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue I have with moving Twitter under Elon Musk is that the article isn't just history. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

With a readable prose size of 115 KB, this article is too large. The Twitter of the past is also highly distinct from the "X" of the present. Should we:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Option A would be awkward, as the main article on the topic would not describe the current platform, except a short portion.
Options C and D create titles that seem awkward to me; it makes more sense to use names that refer to the changes rather than the years IMO. Luke10.27 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B seems the most intuitive and fits with popular understanding of the platform. Twitter has a long and venerable history prior to its acquisition, but it's clear that Musk wants to make the website into something quite different, which has increasingly little to do with the old Twitter.
Flameoguy (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Weakly Option B - Seems to be the best option here. I would strongly suggest that the article left at Twitter have a hatnote to X (social network), or just hatnotes both ways. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak option B as a middle ground settlement between the disputants. Someone could reasonably say that X is just Twitter under a new name but I additionally observe that there is a growing sentiment that the existing page is becoming large and unmanagable. It makes rational sense to manage them as separate concepts because there is a clear break in history both internally with its operations and externally with its branding. The history of the break can be explained at the end of one page and at the beginning of the other for X (social network) or another similar title. I guess my weak support is because twitter is still the WP:COMMONNAME but under any article title the reorganization into two different services probably makes some sense Jorahm (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B That appears to be the safest option and is the middle ground. Considering the fact that many news outlets or platforms are now using X (Spotify and YouTube now have the X icon instead of Twitter when linking to the website), I think it makes sense to have an article covering the social network in its current form and another covering what it used to be. That also solves the issue of article length. Keivan.fTalk 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Option B as per above. Wiki6995 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Option B with hatnotes between Twitter and X (social network). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm on board with Option B. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
got it 60.115.209.88 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B Since the request opened, more websites are referring to the website as X. These are articles from this week: [1][2][3][4] And this makes sense because X is building its own identity away from Twitter before it. Splitting just the History section is a bad idea because other sections in the article (Finances, Features, Society) are also "history" and is largely dependent on the distinction of pre- vs. post-acquisition. The differences will become more profound as time goes on as Musk changes X to fit more of his vision. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option B sounds the best in my opinion. -Gluonz (talk | contribs) 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Split out content and reduce. The notion that the Twitter of the past and the Twitter (X) of the Elon Musk era are significantly different seems flawed to me. Fundamentally the platform is the same one, and used in much the same way as before. Therefore if the article is too long, we should adopt traditional methods of splitting, namely split out into certain sub-articles while retaining the whole content here in reduced-length summary-style form. Whatever else happens, there should still be a single main article covering this whole topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Option D or C with modification I propose the title of History of Twitter (2006-2022), with parentheses rather than a colon for disambiguation, in line with History of the Philippines (1898-1946) and related articles, for example. The title of the newer history article can be adjusted later. The discussion here seems to have stalled, so it may be time to look for near-term common ground. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Update

  • I think it's important to identify the following here for the above Split Survey:
[*]This is something that should have already happened as per section summary/excerpt of main article,WP:SS.
Currently we have support for Option B predominantly, followed by A and D, with no objections. (@Horse Eye's Back initially objected to any changes, but later came around to the idea of Option D in some format: "Huh, in that case I can more or less agree with option D").
Thus so far, famous last words, there is consensus for merging: Option A.
(This is an update for anyone not reading the wall of text above.) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
As much as I am in favor of Option B, that's not how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Consensus is determined not by the number of raw !votes, but by the strength of the arguments presented. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of that and made an effort not to imply that either. My emphasis was that there is currently consensus for Option A. Further analysis does indicate consensus for Option B as well, given that there is currently no opposition to that WP:CONACHIEVE.
Unfortunately the survey lacked requesting what contributors are also opposed to as well as in support of, even if that was implied (I'd assume it was). The only opposition I noted in discussion so far was only to Option C (from myself).
Likewise I didn't notice any opposition to Option D, it simply lacks notable support, but would otherwise probably pass a "sniff test" for WP:SILENCE unless someone raises objections in the near future. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats just not how this works... Also you might want to reexamine some of those points, you appear to have accuracy issues (besides for the obvious issue of putting words in the mouth of editors who said no such thing, you can't make things mean something which they don't). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You said "Huh, in that case I can more or less agree with option D". If that's not lack of opposition then I don't know what is. I can modify what I wrote if you like, if you're clarifying that you do in fact still are opposed to Option D. And no, before you go there, having "reservations" or "doubts" is not the same as an objection. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Would it surprise you to know that "Support for Options A-D is support for merging Twitter#Post-acquisition to Twitter under Elon Musk[*]" is untruthful? Your description of reality doesn't match reality, thats a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
That's literally what it says in the poll. Care to elaborate?? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought you said the poll didn't actually mean merge? That was why I said it was malformed, none of these options result in a WP:MERGE. Yet you're still saying merge despite that not being accurate, why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
First it's not a poll, it's a survey.
To clarify I initially called it a WP:SPLIT, because technically that's what would be performed, but InfiniteNexux is correct in that it would be more of a merge of content (even if not a "page merge" as per WP:MERGE), it still falls under the category of WP:OVERLAP regarding the content. It would also be misleading to describe it solely as a split.
Is this you clarifying that you're not opposed to Option D then, since I showed that I didn't put words in your month, given you moved on from that point very quickly onto semantics after I quoted you? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Why would it be misleading to describe it as solely a split? To me you just described a split. Something gets split, but nothing gets merged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Because it implies the content will be kept, which is how a split usually works. Most of it won't be kept imo as it's a duplicate of the main article. The re-branding of X is probably the only part that will definitively be kept.
It's a split/merge. Let's just a agree it's both or neither. Or agree to disagree. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats not what it implies, its a given that a summary of the split content will be kept here. Why would it be both or neither? Its a split, but its not a merge. Nothing in there is a WP:MERGE and we can't agree to disagree about that basic fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I have undone the attempt to break off the history of Twitter to a separate article that was done by @Horse Eye's Back:, as it was premature given this discussion is still ongoing. I don't recommend a split like this, as long as we find a way to split the content related to Twitter between pre- and post-Musk periods (regardless of naming). The history should be split between these two articles appropriately. --Masem (t) 16:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
It passes GNG, so no consensus is needed to create however you do need consensus to delete or redirect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
It is disruptive to perform a split while there is discussion (this one) to determine how to work the state of multiple related articles. That's where consensus is needed. Masem (t) 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
There is unique content on that page which is not part of the discussion here. It is a new page. It has unique content. It would have more unique content if you didn't keep deleting it in the middle of edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
It is content where its home after the above proposed merge/split/reorganization is completed is currently unclear. Also, the History section as a whole needs to be reviewed , as it mixes up a lot of corporate, feature sets, and controversies, and as such, should be trimmed first before moving to a separate article. You are purposely disrupting this ongoing discussion with the page creation before consensus is reached. Masem (t) 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No... Content like the stuff in the article not content like with a hot chocolate and a dog at home. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree this wasn't the best timing, even if the right idea. I also think post-acquisition should be moved to Twitter under Elon first (where it should be and given current consensus), in order to reduce complications. Then creating a History of Twitter can be re-proposed, with a lot more clarity over what the history entails, also given the lack of support this at present, based on the current survey feedback.
I was never a fan of the over-complicated nature of this survey, even if it is logicial, as it ultimately should have been three different proposals all independent of each other. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"I also think post-acquisition should be moved to Twitter under Elon first" you can do that right now but it looks like almost everything is already there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, but was going to wait for @InfiniteNexus to do it as may have a better idea how to manage the content duplication... it's also not something I personally want to be dealing with directly if I'm honest, as will involve lots of boring cross-referencing.
Not everything is already there either, the re-branding to X sub-section can more or less be kept as far as I can tell, given there is only a couple of paragraphs on the TUEM page. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If consensus agrees to a split, the main Twitter article is going need to be carefully edited to move some elements to the post-Musk article (whatever that is), make sure everything is described in past tense, and other trims. If consensus doesn't agree to a split, then this type of editing will not be helpful, as its not like moving one section (eg the Community Notes article) in whole without touching other parts. Hence, waiting on consensus is pretty much required to avoid disruption. We know some action should be done, but no one should be boldly taking action while discussion is ongoing. Masem (t) 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a discussion about "spiltting post-acquisition," I did not split post-acquisition I split *history.* There is nothing in this discussion which would result in the sort of changes you just described. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
There's a huge chuck of the history section that is devoted to post-Musk acquisition, so yes the History section is not isolated from this, and is part of the content under discussion. Exactly how we end up splitting/merging/moving content will affect how the History section should be presented (among the rest of the article content), and that's before looking at other possible trimming to that section. It's not that hard to see that. Masem (t) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in this discussion has any bearing at all on whether History of Twitter is a notable topic. No matter what happens in the discussion here that topic will continue to have a stand-alone page. If you think otherwise be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The history of many online services may be notable, but splitting the history away into a separate article just because a notability threshold is reached is not necessarily a good approach if that weakens the comprehensiveness of the article about the service. And in the case of Twitter and the likely distinct X service, a lot of the elements about the service are tied to understanding its history, so relocating that away from discussion about the service harms this understanding. Masem (t) 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
In order to contextualise the above, the current History section of twitter would require a full summarised version of history, before even considering referencing a main article. At the moment, History of Twitter lead is two lines, making it completely useless to use as an excerpt - the ideal scenario here imo given consensus to use as such.
@Horse Eye's Back; instead of focusing on "notability", which is an irrelevant argument here as no one is arguing about that, why not do something productive like creating a good quality lead that can be used as an excerpt? Since you've already split the article and are now ignoring any concerns and issues regarding that.
For example if you take a look at Community Notes section on main page, it's a two paragraph excerpt, that doesn't weaken the comprehensiveness of the article. If anything it strengths it, as it's more relevant than the previous summary, without the excess information that's only relevant to CN, not diretly to Twitter. The Acquisition section is another good example, as the excerpt is also a comprehensive summary, without excess information.
My point is, if not obvious, ideally the History section here would be a full 4-5 paragraph excerpt of the History of Twitter lead. So there's actually something useful you could be doing rather than pointless arguments. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If you think thats useful I suggest you do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting hypothetical, but this didn't weaken the comprehensiveness of the article about the service. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
With the intent that the History section of Twitter would be replaced with a short summary once you had "completed" History of Twitter, I would strongly argue that the comprehensive of the main Twitter article, if also not the History article would be far less effective than having them in one single article, because several of the feature changes and criticism are tied to history changes. Masem (t) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
History of Twitter will never be completed and I doubt the summary will be a short one. Note that History of Twitter is broader than just the history of the service which is what is on that page... Its the history of Twitter, all of it (corporate, software, user experience, users, social, criminal, everything) in the same vein as History of Facebook and History of Youtube. Only part of History of Twitter will be summated here. Almost everything which was taken from this page is also at Twitter, Inc. Are you really saying that none of this would be an issue if it was primarily Twitter, Inc I had pulled the original content from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
History of Youtube is a terrible example as that is nearly all WP:PROSELINE and just a dumping ground for indicating some event happened that involved YouTube. the Facebook one is a bit better but still suffers the same problem. Neither articles are helpful to the reader. The YouTube one would be a bit more difficult to split apart as there's no current corporate article like there is for Facebook (Meta Platforms) or Twitter/X.
And yes, we also need to look at the History at Twitter, Inc. and separate corporate matters from the history of the service. All this content is excessively duplicative and should be considered as part of this ongoing reorganization of content. The history at Twitter, Inc. should be strictly focused on the corporate side. Surprisingly X, Inc. is a good example of what I would expect in the history section of a social media company, briefly only touching on aspects of the service as it tied to corporate matters. Masem (t) 13:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
There's so much duplicate content on Twitter it givers me a headache. No wonder this page is so unnecessarily bloated. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
What ongoing reorganization of content? This here is a discussion about Spiltting post-acquisition, we don't have an open discussion about a general reorganization of content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been away for a few days and haven't read the above discussion, but I agree with Masem that History of Twitter should not have been "created" when this discussion is still ongoing. This is both disruptive and confusing. Please work on a mockup in the draftspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Now that this has been reverts back to a redirect by two people, and issues raised by a third, its recreation is now edit warring. Masem (t) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:REDIRECT says "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." So why not restore the article and nominate it for deletion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of the existing redirect makes no sense (its a reasonable search term), and now that you've made additions which can be put into Twitter#History, those could be merged into this article with attribution without losing the history. Masem (t) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The plan of action laid out by REDIRECT is restoring the article and then nominating it for deletion. Arguing that it can't be nominated for deletion because it has not yet been restored doesn't seem logical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Please centralize this sub-discussion to Talk:History of Twitter#Redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate: "Praised for taking a differing approach to content moderation"

The intro states: "The platform has been praised for taking a differing approach to content moderation" but the Reuters article referenced does not strictly mention 'praise for taking a differing approach to content moderation'.

The only section in that article I can think might have generated the above claim is:

"Carolina Christofoletti, a threat intelligence researcher at TRM Labs who specializes in child sexual abuse material, said she has noticed Twitter recently taking down some content as fast as 30 seconds after she reports it, without acknowledging receipt of her report or confirmation of its decision."

Calling that 'praise for a differing approach to content moderation' seems like too liberal an interpretation, or PR spin. It'd be accurate instead to say something like: The platform has shifted towards automated moderation, automatically taking down tweets reported by trusted figures as quickly as 30 seconds after they are flagged.

I'd suggest rewriting the intro accordingly (or finding a different article that supports the claim). 82.111.231.2 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As the original author of this edit I agree with your assertion however do not agree to its removal. I tried to be liberal on both ends of the politics regarding this, and it’s important we remain in the middle on this topic. Coronaverification (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The removal was because the claim wasn't sourced. It looks like this text went through a lot of changes so maybe there's some other version that was sourced, but if not the removal isn't negotiable. Verifiability of claims is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principals. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Monthly users

The infobox currently lists monthly active users at 550 million as of September 2023. A Business Insider article from that same month puts the number at 393 million. I understand there is no single way to count this metric, but even still that seems like a pretty wide discrepancy and may be worth noting in the article. - OdinintheNorth (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Both estimates should be included, similar to what Russian invasion of Ukraine does used to do with the casualty count. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it, hopefully formatted correctly. - OdinintheNorth (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page renaming

Hello. Let me ask you something. Why this page does not renamed into X (social network) and it is still called Twitter? I don't understand. For whatever question that anyone has, you can ask me. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See several, several sections above on this page. Short answer: most sources still call it Twitter, not X. Masem (t) 21:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
twitter.com would be a good compromise since it is technically correct. The best kind of correct. --116.240.236.234 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Twitter is still the domain Cwater1 (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Both x.com and twitter.com work. Page title should be 𝕏 Tytygh55 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
How you you separate the Article X and 𝕏. How do you even get 𝕏? Where is that letter on any keyboard? LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
X is a letter of the alphabet. 𝕏 currently redirects to Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols but is being discussed. A non-Unicode symbol that looks a bit like 𝕏 is a stylisation of a branding of Twitter. Certes (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if 𝕏 were the real name of the service, we wouldn't use that as an article title. MOS:TMRULES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus 120.29.110.236 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Most sources refer to it as X (formerly Twitter) so maybe that could be the name. BasedGigachad (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support eventually renaming the page (if the name X sticks long run, and the domain is changed, etc.). But, the name of the company is absolutely not 𝕏. It is X. X's logo is based on the Unicode character 𝕏. See below for more of an explanation. RoyLeban (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I was actually considering the same, it seems odd to have a wiki page named after a company that has been renamed officially to X. Would also support the change. Bob (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
See the many discussions listed on the /FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The URL is still twitter. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The URL is planned to stay the same. Cwater1 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on the fact that the share button now generates links to x.com, Elon might decide to change it in the future. (Who knows? His moves have been pretty unpredictable thus far.) Not that the URL of the website matters though — the only thing relevant to Wikipedia's determination of the article title is WP:COMMONNAME and the rest of WP:AT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
What about X (Twitter) Space772 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Space772 I like that idea. I suppose that could work. My thoughts too though. Cwater1 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No. There's a general assumption against qualifiers being synonyms. If we rename the page to X (something) – and it's not clear whether the time for that has yet come – then it should be something like X (social network), with the qualifier indicating what sort of thing X is rather than being a synonym or former name for it. Certes (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Though it would show in the search results if someone searched x or twitter. One day in the future the platform will more than likely be called x granted it doesn't change again. Space772 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming

The page seems to randomly flip between X and Twitter when referring to the service:

"By December 2023, loss of advertising revenue had become so extreme that public media speculation suggested that Twitter would become bankrupt." This is clearly after the name change, and yet it says Twitter. Is there a consensus on which should be used in the article?

Wopura (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it say Twitter is called X?

The registered domain name for “X” is still Twitter.com. Go to “X” right now and tell me what’s in the url. Which means for taxes and any other legal reasons, it would be called Twitter. If “X” still uses Twitter.com as the main registered domain, then its not “X”, it still called Twitter. Microsoft and other companies already own “X.com”. 136.50.184.247 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been plentiful discussion on phrasing and naming for this article. Please refer to older threads, including the summary at the top of this very page. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, this is a first, someone trying to argue that it's not called "X"! But the text above is full of factual inaccuracies: the legal name is actually "X Corp.", as seen on legal documents and filings, and the X.com domain is actually owned by Elon Musk (and has been for many years). InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
X.com currently redirects to Twitter.com, though that may change sometime in the future. They have rebranded, though I don't think the rebrand has totally completed because the main domain is still Twitter.com, not X.com, and there are still some old Twitter logos in some of the emails I received. Unknown0124 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"Website previously known as Twitter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Website previously known as Twitter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 5 § Website previously known as Twitter until a consensus is reached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

Allegations of Algorithmic Bias and India

Twitter's algorithms face allegations of bias, with users claiming that posts containing hate speech or negative stereotypes related to India receive greater visibility. This concern gained traction alongside a social media trend in March 2024, "#WhatsWrongWithIndia," which highlighted perceptions of anti-India bias on Twitter's platform. Some users suggest a connection between these allegations and the limited Indian participation in the Community Notes feature as major Indian telecomm operators are flagged as untrusted , potentially skewing the platform's information landscape.

These concerns about algorithmic bias on Twitter have received attention from the Indian government (NDTV, February 2024) (https://www.ndtv.com/feature/whats-wrong-with-india-indian-government-joins-viral-online-trend-5230143). (https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/confused-about-whats-wrong-with-india-posts-on-x-here-is-what-it-is-all-about-101710309444538.html) (https://www.news18.com/viral/whats-wrong-with-india-indian-government-has-this-take-on-viral-trend-8814161.html) Dogeshji (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thickynugnug (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"RainbowTwtr" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect RainbowTwtr has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 19 § RainbowTwtr until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Just something I saw

I know that because of WP:COMMONAME, we currently can't change the title to X. One of the main arguments I've seen is that most reliable news outlets still use "formerly Twitter" in them. But I was scrolling through CNN today, and strangely enough, in some articles, they dropped the the use of Twitter, and now fully use X. Two examples:

  • [5] A public farewell to Navalny is expected at the end of this working week, spokesperson Kira Yarmish said in a post on social network X on Monday.
  • [6] “Today is a historic day,” Kristersson said on X shortly after the vote.

Just a thought, for now. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 02:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, but of course, CNN is not the only source we look at when determining the COMMONNAME. There are also other considerations like WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
If that were the case then the "Willis Tower" article would still be named as the Sears Tower. Absolutely nobody calls it that, same situation as what's going on with X, really. 2601:243:CE7F:B0A0:DDEC:5AEB:9270:27E4 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't even think their rebrand to X is finished. Why, you may ask? I got an email from X/Twitter Support, but instead of X Support, it said Twitter Support, so beyond the domain name, they still have some work to do. Unknown0124 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Fidelity

I suggest we internally link the word "Fidelity" in the lead to Fidelity Investments. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"X (far-right website)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect X (far-right website) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7 § X (far-right website) until a consensus is reached. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead wording

The lead currently begins X, commonly referred to by its former name Twitter, though it is edited frequently and may well change again during this discussion. Other versions appearing this week include Twitter, officially known as X since July 2023, and simply X. Can we agree on a stable version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 05:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought I put a hidden note the other day asking editors not to change the established wording. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
You did. They changed it anyway. Certes (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing primary URL.

Twitter officially known as X since July 2023. Is changing their primary domain from Twitter.com to x.com, and it’s already happening on the app. X.com will be the primary, we don’t know if Twitter.com will be a secondary domain or not even exist. And t.co most likely stay. So x.com is the new primary url. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not. Tested. — kashmīrī TALK 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's slowly rolling out, here in the states it still takes me to Twitter.com and asks me to migrate from a "Legacy Twitter.com account to an X.com account" but after closing that it lets me in. See here: https://twitter.com/d1mden/status/1790332811141865575 TechnoKittyCat (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Can confirm users in NZ are experiencing this. Keep getting redirected to x.com instead of twitter.com. I hate it. 115.188.25.183 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Not happening at least in the U.S., but regardless, we would need a (reliable) source to support that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Not confirmed by Probely[7]. — kashmīrī TALK 22:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
VPNing into NZ redirects to X.com for me. In the states it goes to Twitter.com for me, and my profile is still copied as Twitter.com/[myusername] TechnoKittyCat (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
+1 as an Australian, redirects to x.com if I go to twitter.com. Seems like they're rolling it out in some jurisdictions, probably as a test. I've updated the article to say that as of today , in some jurisdictions twitter.com redirects to x.com with a citation. If anyone has any issue then go at it I guess haha Luminism (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It is still Twitter.com here in Britain. Possibly there are some experiments, but X.com is still nowhere near being the official domain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
+1 another Australian. It's redirecting to x.com for me but showing the following error message on desktop: "Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot." My best guess is that they're phasing it in. It's working for me on mobile view though. It's not letting me archive but it's showing the following message: "Welcome to x.com! We are letting you know that we are changing our URL" Since it says that they're changing it, it means that they haven't completely changed it for everyone and there's no need to update the primary URL until it's transitioned. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 13:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In the US, site redirects to X.com now. My profile link still copies as twitter.com TechnoKittyCat (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The same in the Philippines too. Ahri.boy (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

X.com

It appears that x.com is now the official URL and no longer re-directs to Twitter. Georgia guy (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See previous two sections. We have RS confirmation its changed, so we're discussion renaming and/or splitting. Masem (t) 18:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Domain name changed

Twitter.com is now x.com, and you have no excuse not to change the article name. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It is x.com for me in Britain now and has changed in the last 24 hours. Still looking for secondary sourcing on this but it looks like the change is in progress.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Previous consensus: I don't have an opinion on this matter but there have been six move requests in five months, the previous one as recently as five months ago, and the general consensus has been that unless the new article title meets WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:NATURAL and/or WP:CRITERIA, it is unlikely to be moved. The name an entity chooses to identify as is not always the article title. For example, if Kanye West identifies as Ye, it doesn't mean that Ye is more recognisable. It is extremely unlikely the article would be moved to X so if it is ever moved, it may be to X (social network). 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Confirmation via the Verge. That said, while renaming is now likely an option, I still suggest that we should keep anything dealing with Twitter prior to Musk's buyout as a separate, historical article. --Masem (t) 11:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There is, as of writing, a strong consensus for this option among those opposing the move and I'm predicting this is the most likely outcome. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep the article name unchanged per WP:COMMONNAME. It's already X.com here in the Philippines. Ahri.boy (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Twitter could be a separate article, similar to how Twentieth Century Pictures and Fox Film have separate articles despite being merged to form no prizes for guessing. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
"You have no excuse" is not how discussion happens here. Maybe things work differently on the Turkish Wikipedia, but we operate by consensus.  — Scott • talk 15:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk following up from original: Requested move 17 May 2024.

DEBATING SOCKPUPPETS
Thegreat6336836853 is a sockpuppet of TheMasterMind321 . There is also no reason this discussion is separate from the Requested move section, apart from sockpuppets attempting to manipulate the discussion. Respectfully, closing this discussion to avoid feeding puppets. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Ok. I get all of you want to make it redirect to X (social network). But Wikipedia won’t like it and some other people won’t like it and move it. What I suggest is a move to: X (formerly known as Twitter). It’s straight forward, it’s on point, it includes “Twitter.” & most media outlets even call it “X (formerly known as Twitter). I think it’s better than X (social network). Give me your opinions in the comments as: “Yay” or “Nay” & / or: “Agree.” or “Disagree.” Please give me a response, I’ll check the talk page in a couple hours after this post. Thegreat6336836853 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


I think Twitter site now redirects to X.com because I think Twitter is fully X and is finish now is little bit pending only the Wikipedia article I think you should wait one week then it will show. 18:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I would be mad that it would be “X (social network).” I mean it’s not bad but I think X (formerly known as Twitter) is better. Since it has Twitter in it. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why this is a separate section. The proposed title implicitly violates WP:NCDAB. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Too long, as cool as the implicit Prince reference is. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
As stated above, X (formerly known as Twitter) doesn't follow guidelines and the title X (social media) is one of the few things that both supporters and opposers of the move can agree on. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 00:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed the typo, I meant X (social network). 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Not a good compromise. Deiadameian (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
No. And definitely not "all of you". — kashmīrī TALK 10:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheMasterMind321: Removing sections from a talk page that have been commented on by other people is almost always a bad idea, unless it's being archived. I have restored the section as such. WP:TPO may be of note. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 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.

Twitter

UNHELPFUL DISCUSSION
Not sure whether to categorise this under WP:SOAPBOX or otherwise. There is an ongoing discussion regarding moving the page, please stick to that discussion if you are able to. Respectfully, closing this discussion. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

We do not want the name changed! LanningNicolas (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not how discussions are had. If you oppose the name change, please do so in the appropriate section: Talk:Twitter#Requested move 17 May 2024. GSK (talk • edits) 13:59, 20 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.

This has gone on a little too long

UNHELPFUL DISCUSSION
There is an ongoing move request and any related discussions should be made there. I'm archiving this section to prevent misdirection. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 21:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

While you were still arguing, Wikipedias in other languages moved or split this page.

For some reason I can't add it as a list because it doesn't show up.

Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is substantially larger and more sophisticated than Wikipedias in other languages. Consensus takes time to form, and there is WP:NORUSH. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 22 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.

Okay, is there any clear guidance on which name should be used in other articles? Should it still be referred to universally as Twitter? "X (formerly Twitter)"? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this has happened before. What's with Facebook, Inc becoming Meta, and Google, Inc becoming Alphabet? Dunkin', Editor8778 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
As stated below, we don't retroactively change historical details. "In 2018, Twitter did this" will not be changed to "X", but "Twitter is not available in this country" will be changed to "X". Whether to change casual mentions of Twitter like "in 2024, this person created an account on Twitter" will be left to editors' discretion. Rebrandings aren't that uncommon on Wikipedia, so this wouldn't be unprecedented. (I will note that Google Inc. did not "become" Alphabet; it created a subsidiary and reverse-merged itself into the new parent company.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter/Archive_9&oldid=1235867175"