Jump to content

Talk:Twitter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 151: Line 151:
::Most sources refer to it as X (formerly Twitter) so maybe that could be the name. [[User:BasedGigachad|BasedGigachad]] ([[User talk:BasedGigachad|talk]]) 15:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::Most sources refer to it as X (formerly Twitter) so maybe that could be the name. [[User:BasedGigachad|BasedGigachad]] ([[User talk: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 [[Talk:Twitter#Removed_incorrect_statement_about_stylization_of_the_name_X|below]] for more of an explanation. [[User:RoyLeban|RoyLeban]] ([[User talk:RoyLeban|talk]]) 05:31, 30 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 [[Talk:Twitter#Removed_incorrect_statement_about_stylization_of_the_name_X|below]] for more of an explanation. [[User:RoyLeban|RoyLeban]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Blockchainus Maximus|Bob]] ([[User talk:Blockchainus Maximus|talk]]) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture==
==Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture==

Revision as of 19:18, 1 December 2023

Former good articleTwitter was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2007Proposed deletionKept
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
January 14, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
July 13, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 15, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Twitter is still the domain Cwater1 (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both x.com and twitter.com work. Page title should be 𝕏 Tytygh55 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Most sources refer to it as X (formerly Twitter) so maybe that could be the name. BasedGigachad (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 9 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SiddhSaxena (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mbraile (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because "Twitter" is more recognizable, natural, and therefore easier for readers to find. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because redirects don't exist. 108.34.149.124 (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Musk has said that he wants X to be an all-purpose internet service, similar to WeChat in China.[1] 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
X is more different to Twitter than video games are to playing cards? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose It's still fundamentally the same app. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

source? 75.111.12.48 (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sock (tock talk) 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
GSK, do not feed the trolls.  Done. It was a simple typo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why? There is no official "blue variant". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly seen in embedded links. See here ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It does seem to be an official logo, but of limited use. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[2]. --Tataral (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we have Twitter under Elon Musk. Masem (t) 18:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or, we could do History of Twitter: 2006–2023 and History of Twitter: 2023–present. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Remember that we are supposed to summarize a topic, not go into excessive detail about it. Masem (t) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3] [4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are we on the same page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's literally what it says in the poll. Care to elaborate?? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you think thats useful I suggest you do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please centralize this sub-discussion to Talk:History of Twitter#Redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter&oldid=1187840265"