Jump to content

Talk:Twitter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 97: Line 97:
* [[commons:File:Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg|Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-04-09T23:34:04.667063 | Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg -->
* [[commons:File:Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg|Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-04-09T23:34:04.667063 | Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump twitter fact check tweets of may 26 2020.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

== Criticism missing ==

Where is the criticism section? The page "Criticism of Twitter" is a redirect to a "criticism" section that doesn't exist. Why does the article contain only positive things about it? By contrast, the [[Facebook]] page has not only a rogue's gallery of criticism about it, but also an entire page related to [[Criticism of Facebook]]. [[Special:Contributions/183.83.147.38|183.83.147.38]] ([[User talk:183.83.147.38|talk]]) 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:08, 24 May 2021

Template:Vital article

Good articleTwitter has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 19, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 1, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
June 13, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Piatigda, Kragw (article contribs).

"Twestival" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twestival. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#Twestival until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Super follows"

Twitter is adding super follows, see [1][2][3][4]

  1. ^ "Twitter explores Super Follows for creators to earn money". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
  2. ^ Conger, Kate (2021-02-25). "Twitter Shakes Off the Cobwebs With New Product Plans". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
  3. ^ News, A. B. C. "Twitter to let users charge followers to see premium posts". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-02-25. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ "Twitter Floats Letting Users Charge Followers for Special Access". Bloomberg.com. 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-25.

Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page). Should this be included in the article, or is this TOOSOON? WhoAteMyButter (📨📝) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism missing

Where is the criticism section? The page "Criticism of Twitter" is a redirect to a "criticism" section that doesn't exist. Why does the article contain only positive things about it? By contrast, the Facebook page has not only a rogue's gallery of criticism about it, but also an entire page related to Criticism of Facebook. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]