Talk:Twitter/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Stylized as 𝕏

I saw some edit warring going on about this so I’d like to start a discussion. Should we include this (stylized as 𝕏)? or not? The Man Without Fear 🦇 19:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that current logo is only a placeholder, so we cannot take it as canonical. Masem (t) 20:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You sure? It seems like this is the final design. SWinxy (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There were tweets that appeared to suggest this was a temporary placeholder until a final design was made. Masem (t) 12:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't include it - the "stylised" version is still an X, just in a different font. You couldn't be including the font used by every brand in every article, and there's no reason why Twitter/X is special. Gatepainter (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@SamH29I think you should have a comment on this as well as @Artemis Andromeda. Personally, I, too disagree that it should be included as it is still just an X with a different font or style. The Man Without Fear 🦇 20:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I also disagree with including "(stylized as 𝕏)" in this page. It's just a slightly different font. We could as well just include "(stylized as [insert photography of the exact logo]" in every single article of every single company and product. It is completely pointless to include that in the article. "(Stylized as [something])", should be only included if the logo/brandmark is indeed stylized to such a degree that, it seems like completely different characters, and a reader would require some clarification. Personally, I'm completely against including "(stylized as [something])" in articles, because 90% of the time it is just editors finding random Unicode characters, that (arguably) match the font. And in many times, those characters happen to have completely different meanings or not even be related to what they are meant to even show in the article. In this case, "𝕏" is a mathematical symbol. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@The Man Without Fear Exactly, it's an X with a different style, that's what "stylised as" means. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
It’s an X with a different style. Not a mathematical symbol. The Man Without Fear 🦇 21:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Gatepainter It's not a font. It's the specific Unicode character. This was confirmed. this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd like it to be included. I like discovering new Unicode characters. Whether it's 𝕏.com or Toys ᴙ Us, there's an enjoyable novelty in being able to use text that resembles their styling. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm personally convinced that it should be included in some form, but "stylized as" could be too far. I would advise that it be either placed in an EFN or in a subsection/paragraph with RS's demonstrating the visual similarity of the Unicode character and the new logo. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Support This is like LaTeX's stylization. 99.231.28.70 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@The Man Without Fear Edit 2: Nevermind. I was correct. I withdraw my withdrawal.

Edit: I have misunderstood. It does use a font. The symbol just looks like the font. I withdraw my comment.

I think it should be included. We use "stylized as" for things that are written differently than in plain, regular characters, including ones written in exclusively upper and lower case, for example. I think it shows how the brand name is being styled and written, and is different from a plain character. It's not just a different font, it's a specific Unicode character (mathematical double-struck capital x), different from regular Latin text. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The new logo just uses this font. The fact that it happens to look like mathematical symbol is coincidental. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, if we include the "stylized as" tag, we should change the fonts used by social networking sites from their respective articles to match what their logo utilises. The Man Without Fear 🦇 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my comment. See the edit. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Strugglehouse: Your comment was actually correct.
@Artemis Andromeda: Monotype has confirmed that their font was not used in the logo. This information is also supported by an article from the Financial Times, linked in their tweet. The article clarifies that the logo actually uses the Unicode character U+1D54F with a generic fallback font, rather than a specific font. This detail can be found in the ninth and tenth paragraphs of the article. Thibaut (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094 Oh, that's interesting. Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@The Man Without Fear Not the font. It's the symbol. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Artemis Andromeda No, it doesn't use the font. The symbol doesn't just look like it, it is the symbol. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose if we include the "stylized as" tag, then we should change the fonts used by social networking sites from their respective articles to match what their logo utilises. The X in the logo is just X with a different style. Not a mathematical symbol. The Man Without Fear 🦇 21:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @The Man Without Fear It is the symbol. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, it's a letter X in a certain font, and does not look like whatever 𝕏 is. How something is stylized in its logo doesn't matter, the name is what matters. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    @AnemoneProjectors It is the symbol. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    It still doesn't matter how it is stylised. It's called X. Stylisation doesn't matter and should be eliminated from Wikipedia articles. I don't know why people are so obsessed with it. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as I explained above and per the Financial Times’ article, it is not a specific font but rather a generic fallback font for the Unicode character U+1D54F. Thibaut (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @WikiLeon and Dagon1846: Do you have strong opinions? I see you have added the (stylized as 𝕏) to the article recently. (I think I personally support it under that Financial Times article.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It makes no sense. Should we also add that for every brand where there's a unicode symbol that looks more similar to the logo? Ironmatic1 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Ironmatic1 yes PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    Very thoughtful argument, really makes you think. Ironmatic1 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Ironmatic1 It doesn't just look like the logo. It is the logo. The logo is the symbol. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No, we should not be matching company stylization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless Musk said the name was specifically Unicode ### rather than X, it is abundantly clear that the service is being called X, so per MOSTM we don't need to present any "stylized" facet. This isn't a Ke$ha or Deadmau5 situation. Masem (t) 17:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Masem It is the symbol. Musk has referred to it as so. That's what the logo is. See this Financial Times article. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    That FT does not have anything from Musk that directly states that it is now called "X the glyph" - its just over-analysis of where the origins of that glyph came from. If it intentionly to be called "X the glyph", then it would be all over the publications they have made since, like the CEO's message, since its just a Unicode expression. But they seem to be stuck on the plain X as the name. Masem (t) 12:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I have been proved correct. I withdraw my withdrawal. It should be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I have been proved correct. I withdraw my withdrawal. It should be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I have neutral stance now. And I really don’t know if we still need to indicate the styling even if you are correct. I still want this topic to be discussed by others. The Man Without Fear 🦇 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Strugglehouse as per @AnemoneProjectors “Stylisation doesn't matter and should be eliminated from Wikipedia articles.” As I already stated, I'm not sure if we still need to indicate the styling, whether you're accurate or not. However, after reading what Anemone has said, I am returning to my former position with Oppose. The Man Without Fear 🦇 07:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
It's just my opinion but I really don't see the point of it. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a wider discussion about stylisation if there hasn't already been one. The only example I can think of right now is way back at the time the show was on TV, the article Humans (TV series) included the stylisation with all caps and the upside down A, but it's since been removed. I'm also thinking about songs that are released either in all caps or all lower case, example Cuff It says the title is stylised in all caps. Also the fact that this stylised X appareantly only shows correctly on certain operating systems or whatever means a lot of people reading the Wikipedia article wouldn't see it correctly and would go, like I did, "no it isn't". — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@AnemoneProjectors A better example is Toys "R" Us, which has a note explaining that the logo is stylised with a backwards R ("ᴙ").
On your point of the character not showing correctly on some OSs, that just happens with some characters. That's why we have Template:Contains special characters. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, you can add it as a note. Not in the way it has previously been written. The Man Without Fear 🦇 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Strugglehouse, very good points. I like how the Toys R Us article deals with it. I'd say I'm still opposed to it but not as strongly as I was, so I'm struck the "strong" in my oppose! — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Adding to this. I still support it. Musk has referred to Twitter by using the mathematical symbol instead of just "X", such as in this tweet. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support with conditions. I will support it as long as it is added only as a note, not beside the name as a text. The Man Without Fear 🦇 20:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I have decided to change my mind on this. I saw a post from Elon Musk the other day where he actually wrote it as 𝕏. So it got me thinking that the name is actually 𝕏. However I agree that it would look better as a note. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'm basing my opposition on how the company refers to itself on app stores and on its own blog.[1][2][3] In each case the company could have chosen to utilise 𝕏, but has chosen not to. Domeditrix (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Our ongoing commitment to combat antisemitism on X". X Blog. 8 September 2023. Retrieved 19 September 2023.
  2. ^ "X on the App Store". apps.apple.com. Retrieved 19 September 2023.
  3. ^ "X – Apps on Google Play". play.google.com. Retrieved 19 September 2023.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

I would like to change the title to its current name. JAMES606060 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See #Requested move 30 August 2023 above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Don’t request to rename this page

If you are here to request to change the title of this page, don’t. Please read the FAQ at the top of the page. NM 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need a specific topic about this? I'd suggest making the FAQ, temporarily, visible by default and higher on the page. It won't stop all the requests but it may stem the flow. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
There are 7 competing banners at the top of this talk page. I put it here because if you click on add a section, it scrolls to the bottom of the page and you see this message. NM 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Let remove the redirects (Tweet and Tweeting) after changing name of the servicre to "X"

Tweeting and Tweet no longer apply here (per wp:primary topic) when service changed the name. This one should go to bird's topic now. Even if the name of artucle still remain as Twitter (or disambig if Bird vocalization does not mention Tweeting or Tweet at the lead but remember applying significance of the two redirects here will decrease soon) Dawid2009 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion doesn't make sense. Even if "tweet" ceases to be a term commonly used in reference to Twitter/X (it won't), the fact that "tweet" most often refers to Twitter in historical contexts will not change. We cannot and will not suddenly disregard history. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I lately noted Tweet is alreafy disambig and lately noted google ngram viewer (I am not English native speaker anf though tweet is very common word as say stinging or Like until I saw ngram viewers with case intensive) but I still think we should reconsider removing the redirects, if not soom then at lest when usage of word "tweet" will be already lower for English literature than say in 1925 due to dominaance of refferencr to "X". And yes as google ngram viewer are recontinued couple years after couple yeats so we will have to wait bit of time. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Tweeting is still the WP:COMMONNAME for posting on X aka Twitter. Even if it weren't, redirects serve purpose whenever it is a common reader search query, which in this case they will be for a very long time. Not happening.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Where?

In the Impact section: "In April 2023, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) announced..."

Where in the world is it? 43.249.196.174 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I rephrased it to make it more clear it's the MTA in New York City. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Twitter now identifies as X, stop the deadnaming

We will not rename it to X, per WP:COMMONNAME, as has been discussed repeatedly. Further discussion is useless.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2023 (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.

Rename it. 2001:4C4E:24A6:7800:9D68:F341:A89B:A360 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No. See numerous discussions on this page that basically point to WP:COMMONNAME.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It is time to rename the article to X (Social media platform). Twitter has been rebranded to X for months and will contiune to identify as X Sickpanda42 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sickpanda42: Again, no, for reasons we have pointed out repeatedly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
no. TheDohnJoe (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but Twitter is absolutely still the common name, which is what we go by. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
rename it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickpanda42 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
See the numerous discussions. The Wikipedia article Kanye West was not renamed Ye as soon as he changed his name legally. This article probably will be renamed X, but not until this is the formal name of the service, not a redirect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah even though x.com exists (all links from websites’s “share” button now give you an x.com URL to share) but as long as “twitter.com exists, the utility of just copying the URL from browser’s address bar exists and thus, the band lives on and not a defunct term. Fwd079 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I personally think that, from a discoverability perspective, it should remain Twitter. If I search "x", what pops up is the social media account on the fabled site, then twitter.com, the Google Play Store link for the app, then the movie X until it becomes wildly diversified what pops up. If i search "twitter", it's the website, the app, news about Twitter, content about Twitter, and so on.
Most likely, the app you think of is Twitter, not X. Regardless from how good or bad of a rebrand it is, it's inconsistent. At least until the URL changes, the Wikipedia title ahould stay the same.
RM-Steele (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
As well as Twitter still being the common name, you can't "deadname" a company and it's it mildly offensive to draw that comparison given how it minimises the emotional trauma of trans people. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that the BBC is still "deadnaming" Twitter. As of October 2023, its news pages are still saying "Have your say on Twitter" and showing the blue bird logo.[1] Like many other websites, the BBC has not updated its design and social media buttons simply because Elon Musk renamed the service in July.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
BBB has started to refer to the platform as X now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341
_ Fwd079 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, not this again. We've had numerous discussions in the past, all of which have ended with consensus against moving the page. This is exactly like what happened with Kanye West — wacky, controversial guy bizarrely changes a longstanding name to an ambiguous one; nobody follows suit except for themselves and their closest allies. Whenever anyone refers to Twitter/X, they always disambiguate "X" by adding formerly known as Twitter or some variation (as I did just now). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
From a quick Google search from just the past 24 hours (emphasis added):
  • Fortune: Elon Musk argues that disturbing content on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter ...
  • NBC News: ... plans to better counter Hamas videos on X, the site formerly known as Twitter ...
  • Quartz: In an Oct. 10 letter to the Tesla and SpaceX tycoon who bought X (formerly Twitter) last year ...
  • WSJ: X, the California company formerly known as Twitter ...
  • Variety: ... about the Israel-Hamas war on X, formerly known as Twitter ...
  • BBC: On Tuesday the EU warned X, formerly known as Twitter, about ...
  • Rolling Stone: Elon Musk's solution to combating misinformation on X (formerly Twitter), is ...
  • CBS News: Social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) said ...
  • The Independent: Elon Musk made one of his more subtle changes to Twitter/X ...
  • Mashable: ... noting the circulation of disinformation on Twitter/X and urging him ...
  • The Telegraph: Twitter, now rebranded as X, has been deluged ...
  • NYT: Since taking over X, the social network once known as Twitter, Elon Musk ...
InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
We should really get someone to lock this. This thread is going nowhere and all the people suggesting to rename it X are seemingly not bothering to engage with the points provided by the Twitter article namers. Does anybody know how to go about that?
RM-Steele (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2023 (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.
I have rewritten the /FAQ and added it to the talk page's editnotice, so hopefully that will help deter people from asking the same question over and over again. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2023

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: speedy WP:SNOW close. The RM initiator appears to have straight up ignored the FAQ. There is overwhelming consensus that "Twitter" is and will be the WP:COMMONNAME for the platform for the foreseeable future; nothing has changed since the last three RMs. (closed by non-admin page mover) InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Twitter → X (social network) – The lead section's now changed to "X, formerly Twitter" from "Twitter, rebranding to X" per community consensus. Also for multiple news sources, they now mention "X (formerly Twitter)" on a person's X posts (previously tweets). RMXY (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The MOS:LEADSENTENCE is independent of the article title. The lead sentence can list any official name or alternative name, but the article title is still the WP:COMMONNAME. IMO, "X" is still not the common name until reliable sources no longer need to include "formerly Twitter" or "previously tweets" for clarification. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME Oppose until 2030 People still call it Twitter. I still call it Twitter. (And always will.) IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 03:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose following the Kanye West example (where the lede is "Ye, also known as Kayne West,..." --Masem (t) 03:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - perennial request. WP:COMMONNAME is clearly Twitter. Yes, it technically has fewer searches than "X" but considering a sizeable number of those are probably looking for something else (X was more commonly searched long before the rebrand, with little change in the numbers). [2]
As it stands now, Twitter more than satisfies the WP:CRITERIA. I would also support a moratorium for a few months because surely nothing drastic is going to change in the intervening time. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, this is such a perennial request that it's literally the #1 FAQ at the top of the page, which explicitly says there is strong consensus against renaming.... WP:SNOW is probably appropriate here as well, which I forgot to mention above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that a moratorium is necessary. O.N.R. (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. GSK (talk • edits) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and snowclose. At this time, Twitter is clearly still the common name. O.N.R. (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Previous discussions are clear that the article will not be renamed at least until the official domain name is X.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:26, 24 October 2023 (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.

First words in lead: should they say something like "X, previously Twitter" or still "Twitter, rebranding to X"?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the title. I think the title should absolutely stay put.

I'm talking about the first sentence in the lead only. I direct your attention to this quick list of current source mentions here by InfiniteNexus under the recent discussion. These sources have a consensus of saying "X, formerly Twitter" over "Twitter, rebranding to X" as it were.

Do you think it's time to switch, and why? If you don't, what needs to happen before you would think so? 2601:200:C100:D20:153A:AEA:4A2:3C3E (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this - nearly all news media I've seen lately use the "formerly Twitter" phrasing. Eg) [3] Ca talk to me! 14:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, the whole process is incremental and, with most media references now being formatted in the "formerly Twitter" format, the intro should reflect that. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Support as well. I always see it in the news media as "X, formerly known as twitter". See e.g. the first two articles I found [4][5]. Endwise (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak support. Most new citations mention X first, though there will always be a huge corpus of older references to Twitter. "Twitter, rebranded to X" might be a compromise. Certes (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong support, reliable third-party sources are all now using the "X, formerly known as Twitter"-type phrasing. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The text seems to have changed whilst this discussion was in progress, including removal of terms such as "tweet" for which there is no obvious replacement in reliable sources. Are we happy with this development? Certes (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The mention of the term "tweet" should probably be brought back. Ca talk to me! 05:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is now approaching edit war territory, with various mentions being changed from Twitter to X and back every few hours. We need to agree which statements should use which word, request editors not to switch back and forth while discussion is in progress, and consider protecting the article if the conflicting edits continue. I don't have a strong preference for either name, but there is obviously disagreement here and it is not serving our readers well. We should also consider removing or at least amending the outdated edit notice which dictates that Twitter is the one true name. That's still a very credible point of view, but I no longer see clear consensus for it. Certes (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern: Transphobia

Enough already, WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello my fellow Wikipedia editors. I would like to politely but sincerely raise an objection. I am a transgender individual, and I am very grateful for the support Wikipedia has shown the Transgender community and LGBTQ+ community at large with its WP:DEADNAME policy. However, I am concerned that when we call X "Twitter," we are essentially deadnaming it. This has me personally frightened because my concern is this: if a bunch of sources started primarily dead-naming a Transgender person tomorrow, and all those sources abandoned his, her, or xer preferred name, would Wikipedia then use the dead-name as the page title?

Thank You For Your Time, 57.140.108.13 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have given this matter a great deal of sympathetic thought, which is summarised in MOS:DEADNAME. We recognise that the naming of transgender people is a very different matter from referring to Twitter or X, which isn't a human and won't be damaged or offended by using its former name where appropriate. Certes (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
No where near the same thing as WP:DEADNAME, not even close. It's not a human with emotions or intellect, its a social media site. If a person wants to use particular name or pronouns at any given time, of course most respectable sources wouldn't deadname them as to not offend the individual in particular, and even if they didn't we'd still ignore them for the sake of the established rule. I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but the very fact you even tried to compare it as such is so absurd to me that I can't even comprehend what kind of point you were trying to get across with this.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if we take it to that extreme, our deadnaming policy does allow us to retain old names that are part of a subject's notability, which is 100% true for Twitter before being renamed for X. This is not going to go anywhere. Masem (t) 02:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Twitter is a social media site, and GalaxyFighter55 does some up my points well. How does it affect trans people like you, IP user? It doesn't! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
People who come here to comment, remember WP:DENY. NM 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Principle of using common names requires retention of "Twitter"

Aside from Elon Musk's personal fiat speaking the name of Twitter into X, there is no basis in reality for the name. The website continues to be twitter.com, that is the domain that people type to reach the site, the eponymous "tweeting" continues to be name for the action performed by using the website, the little bird badges continue to be the icon found the web-world over for the website's "share this on" widgets, and the vast majority of public usages of the "X" name seem to more often be a mocking equivocation with the fiasco of Prince trying to abandon having any name whatsoever. All things considered, the name "Twitter" continues to be the overwhelmingly most commonly used name, and therefore should be used here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b078:6c00:478:457b:bb4d:5885 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the last half of this statement, the widgets have now been rebranded to X and most third party widgets have too. Rarely does mocking take place when referencing Twitter/X. The concern shouldn’t be the popularity of the rebranding nor the usage of adapted terms rather the intended marketing rebrand. There is no reason for this Wikipedia page to continue to be called Twitter. Coronaverification (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this is pretty much common sense. CodemWiki (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Rename This Page Into X

Twitter Changed his name so we need to change this page name. Musicalartist071 (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the dozens of threads above why we are not changing it now. --Masem (t) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Do it anyways Tytygh55 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You were just explained on your talk page that there is strong consensus against that. And it appears you completely ignored the editnotice that popped up when you edited this page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Not yet. Not until the domain changes from Twitter to X. Cwater1 (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The domain has now changed. Spectritus (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It redriected to Twitter.com for me. Cwater1 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The domain still redirects to twitter.com. GSK (talk • edits) 17:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

Add to the Premium (formerly Twitter Blue) section, including X Basic, X Premium, and X Premium+, the recently released new plans, each $3, $8, and $16/mo USD. 2001:5A8:4142:6E00:C8AD:7F5F:5726:EEA4 (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

source? 75.111.12.48 (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Two detailed sources for this topic:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/27/x-is-launching-new-premium-and-basic-subscription-tiers/
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23935317/x-premium-basic-subscriptions-reply-boost-no-ads 2001:5A8:4142:6E00:982C:32D:6CD1:ABC8 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick question from someone uninvolved.

If you do not believe the title should be moved right now, what would need to happen to convince you? Domain name change? News coverage no longer appending "(formerly known as Twitter)". Something else? Mach61 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

When the majority of reliable sources use "X" to refer to the platform, forgoing any mention of its former name. Once the rest of the world decides that most people know what "X" means without having to disambiguate it with "formerly known as Twitter", Wikipedia will follow suit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Time to split off the post-Musk features to leave this as the historical Twitter service?

Given that X is now adding voice and video calling, the feature set of what used to be Twitter is effectively long gone. I've suggested before that we should be pushing anything that had happened post-Musk acquisition to a separate article (which Twitter under Elon Musk does exist for this purpose), with this article staying at the name "Twitter" and treating the service as it was up to the acquisition, with one short section pointing to this other article Twitter under Elon Musk to describe the service post-Musk acquisition. Eventually, that article will get the X (social media) branding though as discussed above we are still at the point that Twitter is the common name.

In any case, I think we need to make this distinction now, its clear the old Twitter is not going to be coming back, and that will avoid random editors coming to try to label this as X or discussion X-only aspects that are going on. Masem (t) 23:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Musk has said that he wants X to be an all-purpose internet service, similar to WeChat in China.[6] At the moment though, X is largely Twitter that went through a rebranding exercise. This article does have WP:SIZERULE problems, and there is scope for splitting some of it off into other articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
"the feature set of what used to be Twitter is effectively long gone" is certainly a stretch. X's core features—and the main reasons why people use the app—remain the same as Twitter's always has. At this point in time, Twitter and X (at least to me) don't feel like separate products. Though I will concede that my feelings are not a reliable source. Saucy[talk – contribs] 09:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure X is so totally different to Twitter that it needs to be treated as a separate article. We have plenty of other articles on long-lived long-running subjects that experience drastic change throughout their lifespan. For example, Nintendo. There's not much in common between today's Nintendo and the original playing card company, but it's still the same company. Splitting out parts of the article, with this as the parent, might be reasonable though. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
One possible future development is that Musk belatedly recognises the value of the Twitter brand name and makes X a parent for Twitter and his other ambitions, making X be to Twitter as Alphabet is to Google or Meta is to Facebook. That would justify separate articles. However, we're nowhere near that status yet. Certes (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Using Nintendo as an example would be better if we were talking about Twitter, Inc. verses X Inc. as businesses, as there there's a history that we can describe. What's happened with Twitter as it transitions to X is that the feature set and other factors related to that (such as legal and controversial aspects) are vastly different, and trying to discuss what Twitter used to do to what X does now is far different. Masem (t) 14:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
X is more different to Twitter than video games are to playing cards? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not? I like that idea. (The bird could be in the infobox once again.) IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 13:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's still fundamentally the same app. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    No its not. Some of the features are there but now with audio/video calling, plans to make it a banking and dating app by the end of next year, and a host of very different controversies over the app, its the difference between night and day between what Twitter was and what Twitter/X is. Masem (t) 13:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    Of the things you listed, only audio/video calling affects the app directly and is in place. Plans for banking and dating might very well fall through, based on Musk's track record, and the controversies don't make it a separate entity. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment BTW, We have quite similar "issue from historical perspective" for Hi5 vs Tagged but I do not think both articles have fine content and it is difficut which name is more proper (Hi5 is historically more significant but name Tagged survived longer time after integration and lost population of users, interwiki/views are very comparable). Perhaps someone could evventually create essays/proposition how changing thingd in Internet can be followed from historical/enduring/non-shortsighted perspective be followed? Dawid2009 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I will stress again that we should be looking at using Twitter under Elon Musk to add anything of significant since when he acquired it. For example, the recent story about Twitter now only being $19B instead of the $44B he paid for it is really an issue that should be on that other page, and there should almost be no updates to this page. --Masem (t) 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Blue X

Could someone upload the blue variant of the logo, as it doesn't seem to have been uploaded here or on MediaWiki Commons. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? There is no official "blue variant". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
It's mostly seen in embedded links. See here ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Unless its being used on the main home page of X, its hard to call that the official logo. A black X seems to be the current one. Masem (t) 13:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It does seem to be an official logo, but of limited use. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not on here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Case in point

Today, Insider announced that it was changing its name back to Business Insider, ending a two-year stint in which almost everyone ignored its rebranding. Our own Wikipedia article, Business Insider, stayed put at its former name despite two RM attempts. We're dealing with the same thing here with Twitter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please change "quote retweeting" to "quote tweeting"

In the lead: please change "tweeting, retweeting and quote retweeting" --> "tweeting, retweeting and quote tweeting".

I have never heard of "quote retweeting". I am horrified by that lame name. When I read it I was dumbstruck, mortified. I was at a loss for words. I fell into a deep depression.

-.-.-.- Here, I will prove the proper name -.-.-.-

"Quote retweet": 122,000 google results

"Quote tweet" 3,340,000 google results

Reliable sources

1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/10/opinion/twitter-all-time-tweets.html "Hillary Clinton’s deployment of a Twitter idiom paired with a quote-tweet dunk illustrates the extent to which the platform had become important to national politics". -NEW YORK TIMES

2. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/07/twitter-new-quote-tweet-function-tunnels "Digging into Twitter tunnels: new 'quote tweet' function launches" -THE GUARDIAN

3. https://www.scmp.com/sport/martial-arts/mixed-martial-arts/article/3042227/ufc-245-jorge-masvidal-ben-askren-agree-colby "“Sometimes life kicks your butt when you least expect it. Make no excuses and move on,” Askren wrote in a quote tweet of Masvidal’s message." -SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST

4. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-twitter/twitter-imposes-restrictions-more-warning-labels-ahead-of-u-s-election-idUSKBN26U1XA "Users can also only ‘quote tweet’ this content, as likes, retweets and replies will be turned off." -REUTERS

5. https://apnews.com/article/twitter-tweet-elon-musk-x-c1c3871e9bef60aa0a4c1a40129c155a "For now, we still tweet, retweet and quote tweet, and sometimes — perhaps not often enough — delete tweets. -ASSOCIATED PRESS

You can do it! Please save the world from this tragic miswording. Thank you, fine Wikipedians! 168.150.116.219 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: There is a better way to go about requesting changes to an article than invoking WP:DRAMA. I'm also not particularly fond of you using depression in this way. It is a two character difference in an article where it is mentioned only once. GSK (talk • edits) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
GSK, do not feed the trolls.  Done. It was a simple typo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually thanks for the defence but it wasn’t a typo, being Scottish I’ve never heard anyone in my circle use the term quote tweeting, as you are not simply tweeting but retweeting with a quote added. Coronaverification (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the button used to be called "retweet with comment" before it was changed to "quote tweet". I've never heard of it being called "quote retweet", but it's possible that's a Scottish/international thing? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Yep, found the original announcement. But in your defense (see what I did there? ), it may have appeared differently outside of the U.S., who knows? In any case, since Twitter is an American product, we go by the wording on the U.S. version. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Untrue claims

This claim should be updated or removed, as obviously X incorporates advertising: “While Twitter displays no advertising, advertisers can target usersbased on their history of tweets and may quote tweets in ads directed specifically to the user.” Twitter displays many companies’ advertising. —2601:8C0:A83:87F0:C44:F4B2:1F7B:9329 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

fixed soibangla (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is "X, formerly known as Twitter" seen as support for using the title Twitter?

There seems to be a general consensus that sources referring to the site as "X, formerly known as Twitter," should be considered evidence in favor of titling the article "Twitter." Why? Shouldn't it be the opposite, since they are calling the platform X and simply including "Twitter" in a note for clarification? 206.204.236.102 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Because "Twitter" is more recognizable, natural, and therefore easier for readers to find. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Because redirects don't exist. 108.34.149.124 (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the lead sentence could've said "Twitter, now known as X". However, that is really my point of view, and depends on what consensus is given. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
That explains why the title is still X, which I do understand. My question is asking why the phrase "X, formerly known as Twitter," has been cited as evidence that Twitter is the more common name. 206.204.236.102 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

X > Twitter Article Renaming

I understand the Wikipedia commonname guidelines, but I feel the policy is applied far too egregiously here. For example, The Wikipedia page for the Xbox network is called Xbox network, despite Xbox Live still being the preferred commonname used not only by users but by professional gaming outlets. To contrast, most publications attribute the name X correctly, and only users who are unfamiliar or of opposition to the name change will still call the service Twitter. I think this needs to be reconsidered as it has the potential to be influenced by political or user bias. Coronaverification (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The article should never be renamed, but be split in two articles, one article about the historical Twitter, and one about the far-right antisemitic conspiracy theorist website called X[7]. --Tataral (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Which is why we have Twitter under Elon Musk. Masem (t) 18:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't originally intend for that article to go beyond Musk's initial wave of reforms, but it might be a good idea at this point to convert that article into X (social network) as some have suggested. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I touched on this below in a split proposal. To me it seems like the history "ended" on the acquisition section, and continues elsewhere. But the article still remains hideously long, nobody's reading beyond the lede unless they have to to get to where they want to go.
Renaming Twitter under Musk to X (social network) isn't the worst idea either. Realistically the entire Twitter history section could also be split to a new article leaving only a summary followed by how Twitter functions on a technological, societal basis, etc. This is another section that should only be two paragraphs as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Or, we could do History of Twitter: 2006–2023 and History of Twitter: 2023–present. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Personally I think the Twitter under Elon Musk is fine for all post-acquisition history to go into, there's only a years worth so far, the article isn't too big yet, so it has room to expand. The main article should be shrinking rather than expanding though.
Ideally there would be a History of Twitter 2006-2022 (what's already there), leaving only two paragraphs on main article.
Then the history section would be simplified to sub-section summaries, all of which lead to main articles:
  • 2006-2022
  • Acquisition by Elon Musk
  • Post-acquisition
Ideally someone would just WP:BEBOLD and do it. Arguing against it given the size of the article is senseless. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think we all agree that the article needs to be split, but we must agree on how before acting on it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree on the article being split, ideally how I suggested, as I think it makes the most logical sense without changing too much. Yours I realise doesn't make any sense, as 2023 would go into both articles? If not, then it's basically as I suggested, without creating a new article simply for 2023-Present history that we already have with the Twitter under Elon Musk article, unless you mean using the Post-acquisition section from here to go there? Maybe you can clarify. I agree to any type of split that get's the job done really. Maybe somebody will come up with a better suggestion though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Also I think two proposals at once could be over-complicating things, as it's seems quite simple.
1. My suggestion is to have post-acquisition as a summary, as this is how it should be as per a section with main article re: WP:SS. The only question is whether to delete it or move it to Elon Musk under Twitter, and I recommend not deleting.
2. For splitting History this needs a split template put there and new topic. Then it either get's split or not, in hindsight with acquisition, post-acquisition and X re-brand sub-sections, as that's what comes with it.
3. Re-naming Twitter under Elon Musk, completely unrelated to this talk page imo.
Regardless of whether post-acquisition section is moved to a new history page or not, it none the less should only be two paragraphs based on WP:SS. Most of it is just a duplicate of it's main article, hence why it should be a summary only. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

To centralize these two discussions, let's keep it at #Spiltting post-acquisition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

“and one about the far-right antisemitic conspiracy theorist website called X” Is the exact reason I made this talk page. Regardless of the (not even CEO) comments, it doesn’t define the platforms commonname. This has clear editor bias and should be addressed immediately. Coronaverification (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting Community Notes

Given the notice on this page that the article is indeed too long, I'm suggesting to split Community Notes to it's own page.

A few reasons for this:

  • Community Notes is it's own program in it's own right with around 130,000 users
  • There are now a reasonable number of reliable sources
  • It's a fast developing program with regular coverage
  • This topic only requires a short summary of CN

I've made a recent update, but otherwise held back from providing too much info. With it's own page, there could be a lot more detail included such as updates, criticisms and controversies. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Strongly recommend NOT splitting. Its part of Twitter and/or X, and how its implemented is also tied to controversies, both before and after Musk. Masem (t) 18:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not like creating a new article would mean it won't be mentioned here, just that it will have a new page to expand on, while keeping a relevant summary on the Twitter page. Given that this page is too long already, I don't seen any issue with a split like this. It would be far from the only section to link out to a dedicated page. - OdinintheNorth (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Remember that we are supposed to summarize a topic, not go into excessive detail about it. Masem (t) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on WP:ASSESS, ideally topics are "thorough" and a "definitive source for encyclopedic information". At best the section only needs two paragraphs. The detailed origins/history, reception, criticisms, failures, updates, etc, aren't relevant to the main topic. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you still recommend not splitting, and is this opposition or just a recommendation? If you check again it's looking more and more like it's own page. Haven't even got round to adding Scholar references yet. The sooner it can leave this dumpster fire of an article the better. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I had actually been thinking about creating that article after finding coverage from multiple publications. Searching again, it seems that the IFCN, WaPo, WSJ, Le Monde, Wired, El País and Bloomberg have very well-detailed articles. There are op-eds from The Financial Times and Haaretz, and quite a few articles from The Verge [8] [9]. All of these are reliable per WP:RSP (except El País and Le Monde, newspapers of record). Searching for "birdwatch" "twitter" or "community notes" "twitter" on Google Scholar gives a few potentially relevant results (excluding arXiv preprints). Extremely likely passes WP:GNG. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'll dig into those sources, those that I can access without a paywall. On a summary glance, many of these recommendations have already been used as sources, or otherwise cover similar subjects to what has already been included in the section. If you have a look at the section, you'll find it's quite detailed now with WP:RSP. I already did the usual google search for "community notes", admittedly I haven't done this for birdwatch, so there is likely more Pre-2023 articles to cover. Ideally with splitting the section to a new topic this would leave some room to expand the history of community notes. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Very nice. Please note that I used Google Scholar for the last two search terms to find scholarly literature, not the usual Google Search. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for reiterating that re: Google Scholar. I just had a look, I didn't expect there to be papers published already and some seem very insightful. I've otherwise filled in the rest of the history gaps from The Verge and restructured so believe it's ready for splitting. Will wait longer for further discussion though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Pinging some users active in discussion here for opinion, given there has been limited feedback; one user believed it extremely likely passes WP:GNG, one in support, another who saw no issue, as well as one user who strongly recommended not to do so (prior to further udpates to the article it should be noted). Please check Community Notes prior to forming an opinion. Also to note, there is more information to be added (from Scholars in particular), but I have held back due to the current size of the section, as well as page size. The most recent update including the Bloomberg analysis will have further WP:RS added in due course, potentially trimmed down a bit too.
@Tataral @InfiniteNexus @Coronaverification CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2023

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: WP:BOLD snowclose. See the FAQs for why the article is titled the way it is. It also appears as though the nominator failed to read the quite prominent page notice before requesting this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Twitter → X (app) or X – The present name is X so it should be reflected in the article name as well. Any one of the above will do based on consensus. No point in retaining Twitter as page name. MSincccc (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose: See previous discussions. This is unlikely to happen while x.com is a redirect to twitter.com.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (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.

Removed incorrect statement about stylization of the name X

I have fixed this and written a lengthy comment, but thought I would add some more.

Twitter/X does not "stylize" their name as 𝕏. I can find no primary or secondary sources that use 𝕏 rather than X. Their logo is the Unicode character 𝕏, like Apple's logo is (roughly) the Unicode character  and nobody would say Apple stylizes their name as .

The citation for the supposed stylization calls 𝕏 a logo and uses X throughout: https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-x-logo-unicode-math-textbooks-2023-7

See also:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/apps/a44641211/twitter-x-unicode-symbol/

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/musk-rushes-out-new-twitter-logo-its-just-an-x-that-someone-tweeted-at-him/

(many more findable via Google)

For how X uses their own name, see:

https://twitter.com/en/tos

https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/download-the-x-app

https://business.twitter.com/en/basics/intro-twitter-for-business.html

Their name is never given as 𝕏, just like you never see Apple use  as their name.

Note: I personally happen to think the rename/rebrand was stupid. I still call it Twitter. But this isn't about my opinion, it's about accuracy.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the previous wording, which said The logo resembles the mathematical symbol U+1D54F 𝕏 MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL X. It seems people kept on changing it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I refuse to name my Wikipedia page on Twitter with X.

As a guideline, the wiki page name will be a general name rather than the real company name or app name. 42.126.220.154 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No one owns a Wikipedia page. Article titles are decided by consensus but usually take into account the common name of the topic. Certes (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no owner, but there are guidelines. 42.126.220.154 (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
You wrote I refuse to name my Wikipedia page on Twitter with X. That is a violation of WP:OWN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I highly doubt this page will be re-named X, as we already have a page by that name, covering the primary topic, which is the letter itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Question: Does this page have redirects? If there is, please let me know 42.126.220.154 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there are currently 106 incoming redirects, listed here. Although the title of the article remains Twitter, it is still the correct target for redirects such as X (social network), and such redirects should not be changed without consensus. Certes (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If you were to change the page name, although I am against it, what would you do? 42.126.220.154 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This IP is globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse. Certes (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SiddhSaxena (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar Correction in First Sentence

Original Text: "Twitter, formerly and commonly called X, is an online social media and social networking service operated by the American company X Corp., the successor of Twitter, Inc."

This sentence incorrectly implies that "Twitter" is the current platform name, and "X" is the former, as well as more commonly used variant. It is in fact the opposite, where X is the current platform name and Twitter is the former and more commonly used variant.

To correct, the first sentence should be adjusted to switch subject nouns ("Twitter" and "X").

Edited Text: "X, formerly and commonly called Twitter, is an online social media and social networking service operated by the American company X Corp., the successor of Twitter, Inc." Lokiiru (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2023

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: speedy WP:SNOW close. Several contributors remarked that there have been multiple failed attempts at moving this page to some variant of X in recent months. Discussions on a moratorium on page move requests are out of scope for this type of discussion, and editors are encouraged to discuss this separately if it is felt that it is needed. (non-admin closure) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


Twitter → X (social network) – Twitter has changed its name for some time now Karma1998 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the countless previous discussions and proposals that have established strong consensus against a page move. GSK (talk • edits) 15:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per the countless discussions. Recommend a WP:SNOWCLOSE as it's already clear this will not pass. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow close per the giant notification that shows up when you try to edit this page—blindlynx 15:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow close per the above and WP:COMMONNAME. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow close per above. Einsof (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. I can see the case for this, but I don't think the common name has changed at this point. BD2412 T 16:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, and add a one year moratorium; six requests in five months is excessive. BilledMammal (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Snowclose. We've been over this. I also support the moratorium. O.N.R. (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Also agree with the moratorium. Einsof (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Some sources like the BBC make reference to "X, formerly known as Twitter" probably because many people don't know its new name and its new name is clearly ambiguous so it may be better to keep as is for the reasons in the page notice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Support - I think that most media outlets have switched to naming it 'X', enough to warrant a change. In any case, I strongly oppose a moratorium, especially a whole year which is way too excessive. 3 months at most. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a moratorium of a whole year, the name change was back in July and a lot can change in a year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Although many sources now say "X, formerly Twitter", the WP:COMMONNAME still seems to be Twitter. However, the tide is turning and we should revisit the question soon. This is not a good case for a moratorium because the real-world situation is changing and we should react to it if and when appropriate. An article split into "Twitter" for history and "X (some qualifier)" for ongoing seems likely; if that does not occur then an move to a title beginning with X will probably become the right thing to do some time in 2024. Certes (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Here are several reliable sources still using "X, formerly known as Twitter" today suggesting that Twitter is still the common name. [10] (New York Times), [11] (NPR), [12] (Reuters), [13] (Axios), [14] (The Washington Post). Esolo5002 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2023 (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.
Oh my goodness, did this actually happen for the (counts) sixth time? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, and from an editor who permanently left Wikipedia. Imagine that. GSK (talk • edits) 16:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Well it does say he's semi-retired and occasionally edits. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Move moratorium

Given that discussions of a move moratorium were outside of the scope of the discussion above according to the closer can we have an independent discussion about whether or not it is warranted?—blindlynx 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't really think so, as noted its quite likely in 2024 we will need to move and there has only been a few RMs in the last few months. I think the edit notice is sufficient for now. In any case I'd oppose any moratorium longer than 3 months. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that a moratorium should be in place, though I find the one year suggestion a bit excessive. I would support a moratorium lasting up to six months, given that the usage of "X (formerly Twitter)" hasn't shown much sign of slowing down lately. Sock (tock talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Given the name change was less than 6 months ago I think a moratorium of another 6 months would be excessive. 3 months seems sufficient unless we gets lots of failed RMs. I personally don't think renaming the website was a good idea but that's just my opinion though our article does say that people have criticized the rename due to ambiguity/recognizably which is one of the reasons presented in the edit notice and FAQ. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
As can be seen in the talk page headers above, there have been six failed move attempts in the last six months. With the exception of July and September, there has been 1 move request every month since July 2023. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
That seem enough for 3 months but 6 seems excessive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus that the article should not be renamed until x.com is the official address, not a redirect. As things stand, there is little point in requesting a move when it is likely to fail.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal, Einsof, PrecariousWorlds, and Certes: Pinging those who mentioned a moratorium in the above discussion. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 19:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The point of a moratorium is to prevent pointless debate about the best way to handle a stable topic, but Twitter/X changes frequently. Wikipedia should react to real-world events where appropriate, and imposing a moratorium would prevent that. However, we don't want to be in a state of constant RM. Perhaps we could have a 3-month moratorium with the exemption that anyone may start an RM immediately if the website moves to x.com rather than being redirected from there. Certes (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the most reasonable proposal. Bremps... 23:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This seems sensible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that a three-month moratorium unless the domain is changed is a good idea. Maybe this should be extended indefinitely, so at most one discussion every three months is allowed, except that that resets if x.com becomes the primary domain? Luke10.27 (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this. Maybe 2 months PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

I have two academic papers to add regarding the competition with other social media platforms such as Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads and how users migrated from Twitter to these alternatives. I will add results from two papers (https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09196 (accepted to ICWSM), https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12613 (accepted to SDM)) which are accepted to academic conferences.


From:

"Analysis conducted by research firm Sensor Tower found that global active daily users of the platform via mobile apps had steadily declined during the year after Musk acquired the company, down 16% by September 2023, while the metric showed positive growth for five other major social media platforms.[152] By December 2023, loss of advertising revenue had become so extreme that public media speculation suggested that Twitter would become bankrupt. Accusations of uncontrolled antisemitism on the platform led to many advertisers withdrawing.[153][154]"

To:

"Analysis conducted by research firm Sensor Tower found that global active daily users of the platform via mobile apps had steadily declined during the year after Musk acquired the company, down 16% by September 2023, while the metric showed positive growth for five other major social media platforms.[152] With a surge in the number of users trying to migrate from Twitter to other platforms, people have raised questions regarding what migration patterns are, how different platforms impact user behaviors, and how migrated users settle in during the migration process. While Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads are considered the main alternatives for this migration phenomenon, the enduring appeal of established platforms like Twitter poses a significant challenge in user retention for these new alternative platforms[citations for the aformentioned papers]. By December 2023, loss of advertising revenue had become so extreme that public media speculation suggested that Twitter would become bankrupt. Accusations of uncontrolled antisemitism on the platform led to many advertisers withdrawing.[153][154]" Ujeong1 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change. Thanks for contribution. Let me know if there's any issues. Urropean (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies. I experienced some technical issues and the citations defaulted to pre-existing ones, somehow? Not too sure what happened. It's fixed now. Hope everything's alright. Urropean (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter/Archive_8&oldid=1204245675"