Talk:Twitter

Page renaming

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

See several, several sections above on this page. Short answer: most sources still call it Twitter, not X. Masem (t) 21:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

twitter.com would be a good compromise since it is technically correct. The best kind of correct. --116.240.236.234 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is still the domain Cwater1 (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Both x.com and twitter.com work. Page title should be 𝕏 Tytygh55 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

How you you separate the Article X and 𝕏. How do you even get 𝕏? Where is that letter on any keyboard? LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

X is a letter of the alphabet. 𝕏 currently redirects to Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols but is being discussed. A non-Unicode symbol that looks a bit like 𝕏 is a stylisation of a branding of Twitter. Certes (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if 𝕏 were the real name of the service, we wouldn't use that as an article title. MOS:TMRULES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus 120.29.110.236 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Most sources refer to it as X (formerly Twitter) so maybe that could be the name. BasedGigachad (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I was actually considering the same, it seems odd to have a wiki page named after a company that has been renamed officially to X. Would also support the change. Bob (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See the many discussions listed on the /FAQ. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The URL is still twitter. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The URL is planned to stay the same. Cwater1 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the share button now generates links to x.com, Elon might decide to change it in the future. (Who knows? His moves have been pretty unpredictable thus far.) Not that the URL of the website matters though — the only thing relevant to Wikipedia's determination of the article title is WP:COMMONNAME and the rest of WP:AT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What about X (Twitter) Space772 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Space772 I like that idea. I suppose that could work. My thoughts too though. Cwater1 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No. There's a general assumption against qualifiers being synonyms. If we rename the page to X (something) – and it's not clear whether the time for that has yet come – then it should be something like X (social network), with the qualifier indicating what sort of thing X is rather than being a synonym or former name for it. Certes (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Though it would show in the search results if someone searched x or twitter. One day in the future the platform will more than likely be called x granted it doesn't change again. Space772 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Spiltting post-acquisition

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

• The history effectively "ends" at the Aquisition, which appropriately only has two paragraphs and a link to the main article.

• Then it "continues" despite there being another article on Twitter after Elon's takeover, which makes no sense.

• All the relevant information related to Twiiter's new management is predominantly based on the other page.

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

As I wrote above, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at this point to move Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). That page would cover everything post-acquisition, while this page (Twitter) would cover everything pre-acquisition. After all, we do have Yahoo! Inc. (1995–2017) and Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly what I was proposing, but sure, it's not a bad idea. Especially given there will never be consensus to change this article to "that name", so it's a convenient work around / compromise.. Needs proposing in the Talk over there though, as it wouldn't just be the X (social network) redirect that you'd be hijacking. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping other people would chime in first on which of the two proposals they think would work better. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think new topic clarifying an option A and option B, maybe even C & D as well, based on how to split post-acquisition as well as history, would make most sense here. Ideally after you clarify your proposal as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option A: Merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk, without moving either page.
• Option B: Merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk, and then move the latter page to X (social network).
• Option C: Split Twitter § History into History of Twitter: 2006–2022, and move Twitter under Elon Musk to History of Twitter: 2023–present.

Are we on the same page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, with this option as well though:

Option D: Split Twitter § History into History of Twitter. Twitter under Elon Musk is unaffected. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue I have with moving Twitter under Elon Musk is that the article isn't just history. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Survey

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

• Option A: Merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk, without moving either page.

  What this would look like: Twitter would have a short post-acquisition blurb, with a hatnote to Twitter under Elon Musk.

• Option B: Merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk, and then move the latter page to X (social network).

  What this would look like: Twitter would be about the pre-Musk Twitter, and Twitter under Elon Musk would be reworked into X (social network).

• Option C: Split Twitter § History into History of Twitter: 2006–2022, merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk, and move that page to History of Twitter: 2023–present.

  What this would look like: Twitter#History would be split into two articles, one about 2006–2022 and one about 2023–present.'

• Option D: Split Twitter § History into History of Twitter: 2006–2022, merge Twitter § Post-acquisition into Twitter under Elon Musk.

  Same thing, but instead of History of Twitter: 2023–present, it would just be called Twitter under Elon Musk.

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

• Option B – At this point, Twitter under Elon Musk could easily be reworked into an article about the platform called "X". We have Yahoo! Inc. (1995–2017) and Yahoo! Inc. (2017–present), which I think is similar. And I think we have too many articles on Twitter's history already. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option A (Obviously leaving two or three para about the transition to under Musk). Naming of the other page still is where Twitter is more common than X, so that's good. I would also consider trying to better work the History of Twitter article into both pages, we don't need that third page. --Masem (t) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option B or D: D can come later if desired, just not option C ideally.
  PS @InfiniteNexus changed Option D that I proposed as realised had made error.
  -- CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have a question about Option D. It doesn't make sense to have History of Twitter: 2006–2022 without another page for 2023–present. Did you mean just History of Twitter? The article could have a {{main}} hatnote pointing to Twitter under Elon Musk. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  History would continue in Twitter under Elon Musk, under merged Twitter#Post-acquisition section. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, so it's basically Option C without the move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yup CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B. Reliable sources are using "X (formerly Twitter)" and similar. That suggests that "Twitter" and "X" are the common names for the two eras and make suitable titles if we split. However, splitting is not mandatory, and !votes for "Option E 0: do nothing" are also valid. Certes (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Certes, why don't you call the "do nothing" option Option E?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

    That works too, though zero is more descriptive. Certes (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed splitting is not mandatory, but it'd be a shame to lose all the info in Twitter#Post-acquisition once it's summarised as per WP:SS CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B based on the use of X (formerly Twitter). I think Yahoo is a great example of how to do something like this. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Malformed request, presents a false choice in a non-neutral way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Care to elaborate? There is obviously the option of none of the above. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That does not appear to be one of the options. Since you assert that its so obvious what number would that be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point. Have updated the poll for you. Option E is do nothing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  So an option E means that I am agreeing that the page is too large and that the Twitter of the past is highly distinct from the 'x' of the present but that I want to do nothing? Does that seems right? What if I disagree that the page is too large or that the twitter of the past is distinct from the 'x' of the present? Which option would I take then? Because I can't take A-E unless I agree with those two points. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This is not a poll, it is a survey. I also don't think "Option E" is necessary, as people can always !vote "None of the above". The more options presented, the harder it is to obtain a clear consensus. I've removed Option E. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Can you also explain how Option B works without having a second move discussion? We can not here on this talk page make a consensus to move a completely different page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's not it works. RMs are not the only way pages can be moved. As long as there is consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  As long as there is consensus on that talk page or a central location you mean. We can't make a local consensus on this page about another page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That talk page has been alerted. And that's not what "local consensus" means... InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're gaslighting people if you're telling them that a local consensus on this page will result in another page moving without more work having to be done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest you read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It seems you're misunderstanding what the term means. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  On this page you can propose merging a section or the whole page with another page... You can not propose moving that other page, you would need to do that in a second discussion on that talk page after said merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. As long as editors of another page have been directed to a central location, and there is consensus to do something, that other page can be moved, restructured, or whatever. And it has nothing to do with local consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is an article talk page, not a central location. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Anywhere can be a central location, not just WikiProjects and Village pumps. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it probably would be better to just have the split options without the move options, with the move discussions to happen after determining what the consensus for the split is, and performing the split. Yes, we still likely will eventually move some page to "X (social network)" or the like assuming nothing changes in the next several months, but the split can be discussed now since there is a clear reason and precedence for it. Masem (t) 20:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why does it make more sense to have two separate discussions, when we're all here already? Sounds like WP:BURO to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The weird part to me is that its already split, thats where Twitter under Elon Musk comes from... So why are we just not expanding Twitter under Elon Musk and making what we have here a tighter summary? What is the point of the merges and moves? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, Twitter under Elon Musk was split from the Acquisition page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Which is a daughter page of this one... Meaning that Twitter under Elon Musk is already part of the ecosystem and counts as a split. You didn't answer the question though, why is either a merge or move needed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  What you're suggesting is Option A. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Option A clearly involves a merge. I propose no such thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The only point of merging post-acquisition is to not lose the information, some of it would fit into Twitter under Elon Musk, even if a lot is simply duplicated from that page. Though it's a confusing post-split proposal I agree.

  My suggestion was to simply expand TUEM, as this is what was supposed to happen after that page was created, but "technically" it requires consensus as it would be a copy & paste job to do it.

  It doesn't require consensus to WP:BEBOLD and reduce the section to WP:SUMMARY that's for sure. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think the goal here is not so a true split but to establish that this page should be treated as an ex-service as of the date Musk acquired it, such that anything dealing with post-Musk activity should be on a separate page, outside of a small summary of the events and broad changes made. Right now we are fighting against the additions of changes to Twitter under Musk that don't really apply to how Twitter had been operated, and makes for a long confusing article. Masem (t) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Somewhat agree, somewhat disagree. The Twitter under Musk article doesn't include all functionality of X/Twitter, only the changes made since he took over. Whereas all the "functionality" of the platform still remains on this page, as well as others, and is in fact updated (in some cases) to reflect that. For example regarding verification. Ideally sections & pages such as usage, features, finances, technology and the likes would also reflect the current state of the platform, as opposed to how Twitter used to function. There's an argument for the Twitter under Musk page to simply identify changes made, as opposed to reflect the platform as a whole. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that the second article - which is likely to eventually be called X (social network) - can have a Features section which can briefly summarize the features still retained by it (microblogging platform) but without spelling it out in full, using a {{seealso}} link to the original Twitter, but then go into detail on key changes, additions, and removals. We want that page to discuss enough of the basics of functionality in a standalone form to be a cohesive article, but we don't need to catalog all the changes that happen while it was Twitter before Musk got involved. Masem (t) 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Masem, if you think Twitter under Elon Musk should become an article about the service rather than solely about the history of Musk's changes, why did you !vote Option A instead of Option B? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  There should not a separate history article; we don't need 3 articles here. The history should be appropriately split and merged into the two pages about the service, each having its own section about the history of Twitter. That further recognizes that when writing about online services, there's ways to separate history related to corporate management and history related to features (additions, changes and removals), the latter that would be incorporated less as a history/timeline and more just explanations. So in the article about Twitter since Musk's acquisition it should absolutely explain the changes made at the service from the corporate level, but where appropriate explain those features (for example, Musk changing the entire blue checkmark system). There's a lot of work to deconvolute everything, but that's what really should be done, as right now, we have two articles that heavily rely on proseline and a timeline article. The only other reason I chose A is that the renaming of Twitter to X is not yet really at a COMMONNAME level, but "Twitter under Elon Musk" is a reasonable title to describe the history and its history since 2022. Masem (t) 05:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  This was my initial reaction as referenced above, that there are 3 different proposals trying to be "rammed" together. One of which doesn't belong in this talk either. I understand the "convenience" of trying to do this all together, but each proposal can be (and probably should be) independent from each other, with some more controversial than others.

  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 Twitter under Elon Musk.

  2. For splitting History to History of Twitter this needs a seperate topic, then it either get's split or not.

  3. Re-naming Twitter under Elon Musk, completely unrelated to this talk page imo, can happen later. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  You folks realize that by moving the page, it also means restructuring the page, right? If we nominate the page to RM without restructuring the page, !voters will look at the article and go, "That doesn't look like an article about a product." InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's even more reason to have it as a separate proposal. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why are you presenting changes to a single section which isn't even that long as the only solution? Why not for example split Community Notes into a stand-alone? Is this actually about prose size or is this just a backdoor way of continuing edit disputed regarding that section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  You mean like proposed here for Community Notes? Feel free to respond there if you agree.

  It would be better to "save" that section and have it elsewhere, otherwise WP:SS based summary will lose a lot of writing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already have. Why would we lose a lot of writing? There shouldn't be any unique text in that section at all after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, there shouldn't be, but that's mainly what it is. Hence it's not a summary but should be. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps then we don't need a literal merge, we just need to update the core page and adjust the summary here. I completely agree with you though vis-a-vis splitting off Community Notes. Thats the real low hanging fruit bytes wise (as would be breaking out technology and impact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty much in reality, it just needs cross referencing and putting what's necessary in the relevant sections and scrapping the rest that's duplicated. I've updated the lede on Twitter under Elon Musk so I think an excerpt could work well of first few paragrpahs. This is what Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Background referencing the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk which seems to fit. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  PS this is why I think History should also be split to a new History of Twitter: 2006-2022, because it's not low-hanging fruit and would dramatically reduce the page size. Arguably Twitter's history has ended now that it's been re-branded as X, so it'd feel like archiving it to it's own page. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about a History of Twitter with the 2022-current primarily covered at Twitter under Elon Musk? Cleaner and less pointy that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's option D. I'm starting to think that you haven't actually read the four options carefully, or the wording isn't clear enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Its not option D. Everything would be split to History of Twitter (not History of Twitter: 2006–2022) including the post-acquisition section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  It'd be the same either way. The last section of History is the post-acquisition that would just be a summary (excerpt ideally) of Twitter under Elon Musk. Admittedly this isn't explained very well in the survey, you have to put 2+2 together. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  To summarise, post-acquisition will be summarized either way, this isn't really explained either. That doesn't require consensus, only following the structure of wikipedia articles for summaries of main articles under WP:SS. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Option D would result in Twitter having a trimmed History section with {{main}} hatnotes to History of Twitter (2006–2022) and Twitter under Elon Musk. Alternatively, it could be called History of Twitter with a {{main}} hatnote to Twitter under Elon Musk. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes this makes more sense. Either way it'd have a main hatnote anyway I assumed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've tried clarifying what each option would result in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes looks better. Ironically there's the combination of B & D that isn't an option, but people so far there is more consensus for A & B, so at least that's progress for merging post-acquisition.

  The whole multi-merge/split concept is clearly too complicated to be swallowed in one go. Once post-acquisition is just an excerpt then moving History would seem a lot more straightforward. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I clarified Option D, hope you don't mind. It was unnecessarily confusing for those who prefer simplicity and the explanation didn't explain anything. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  To summarise, post-acquisition will be summarized either way, this isn't really explained either. That doesn't require consensus, only following the structure of wikipedia articles for summaries of main articles under WP:SS. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Huh, in that case I can more or less agree with option D even if I still have reservations about the whole thing. Definitely prefer "History of Twitter" because that leaves open the option of splitting off other eras (for example early Twitter) without having to rename the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. Technically, History or Twitter would provide all the sections up until current history (that would simply be excerpted) so it'd still be accurate. This isn't a bad idea either, for reason you mentioned. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B Coronaverification (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option B

Option A would be awkward, as the main article on the topic would not describe the current platform, except a short portion.

Options C and D create titles that seem awkward to me; it makes more sense to use names that refer to the changes rather than the years IMO. Luke10.27 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B seems the most intuitive and fits with popular understanding of the platform. Twitter has a long and venerable history prior to its acquisition, but it's clear that Musk wants to make the website into something quite different, which has increasingly little to do with the old Twitter.

Flameoguy (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option B per all above Parham wiki (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Weakly Option B - Seems to be the best option here. I would strongly suggest that the article left at Twitter have a hatnote to X (social network), or just hatnotes both ways. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak option B as a middle ground settlement between the disputants. Someone could reasonably say that X is just Twitter under a new name but I additionally observe that there is a growing sentiment that the existing page is becoming large and unmanagable. It makes rational sense to manage them as separate concepts because there is a clear break in history both internally with its operations and externally with its branding. The history of the break can be explained at the end of one page and at the beginning of the other for X (social network) or another similar title. I guess my weak support is because twitter is still the WP:COMMONNAME but under any article title the reorganization into two different services probably makes some sense Jorahm (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B That appears to be the safest option and is the middle ground. Considering the fact that many news outlets or platforms are now using X (Spotify and YouTube now have the X icon instead of Twitter when linking to the website), I think it makes sense to have an article covering the social network in its current form and another covering what it used to be. That also solves the issue of article length. Keivan.f^Talk 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Option B as per above. Wiki6995 (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option D seems more logical, since 2023 saw Twitter under Elon Musk's wing. X and Twitter are just the same thing with the same concept, just with differing names. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 03:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Option B with hatnotes between Twitter and X (social network). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with Option B. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

got it 60.115.209.88 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option B Since the request opened, more websites are referring to the website as X. These are articles from this week: [1][2][3][4] And this makes sense because X is building its own identity away from Twitter before it. Splitting just the History section is a bad idea because other sections in the article (Finances, Features, Society) are also "history" and is largely dependent on the distinction of pre- vs. post-acquisition. The differences will become more profound as time goes on as Musk changes X to fit more of his vision. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option B sounds the best in my opinion. -Gluonz (talk | contribs) 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Split out content and reduce. The notion that the Twitter of the past and the Twitter (X) of the Elon Musk era are significantly different seems flawed to me. Fundamentally the platform is the same one, and used in much the same way as before. Therefore if the article is too long, we should adopt traditional methods of splitting, namely split out into certain sub-articles while retaining the whole content here in reduced-length summary-style form. Whatever else happens, there should still be a single main article covering this whole topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option D or C with modification I propose the title of History of Twitter (2006-2022), with parentheses rather than a colon for disambiguation, in line with History of the Philippines (1898-1946) and related articles, for example. The title of the newer history article can be adjusted later. The discussion here seems to have stalled, so it may be time to look for near-term common ground. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Update

• I think it's important to identify the following here for the above Split Survey:

• Support for Option B is inclusive of Option A
• Support for Option C is inclusive of Option D
• Support for Options A-D is support for merging Twitter#Post-acquisition to Twitter under Elon Musk[*]

[*]This is something that should have already happened as per section summary/excerpt of main article,WP:SS.

Currently we have support for Option B predominantly, followed by A and D, with no objections. (@Horse Eye's Back initially objected to any changes, but later came around to the idea of Option D in some format: "Huh, in that case I can more or less agree with option D").

Thus so far, famous last words, there is consensus for merging: Option A.

(This is an update for anyone not reading the wall of text above.) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As much as I am in favor of Option B, that's not how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Consensus is determined not by the number of raw !votes, but by the strength of the arguments presented. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of that and made an effort not to imply that either. My emphasis was that there is currently consensus for Option A. Further analysis does indicate consensus for Option B as well, given that there is currently no opposition to that WP:CONACHIEVE.

Unfortunately the survey lacked requesting what contributors are also opposed to as well as in support of, even if that was implied (I'd assume it was). The only opposition I noted in discussion so far was only to Option C (from myself).

Likewise I didn't notice any opposition to Option D, it simply lacks notable support, but would otherwise probably pass a "sniff test" for WP:SILENCE unless someone raises objections in the near future. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats just not how this works... Also you might want to reexamine some of those points, you appear to have accuracy issues (besides for the obvious issue of putting words in the mouth of editors who said no such thing, you can't make things mean something which they don't). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You said "Huh, in that case I can more or less agree with option D". If that's not lack of opposition then I don't know what is. I can modify what I wrote if you like, if you're clarifying that you do in fact still are opposed to Option D. And no, before you go there, having "reservations" or "doubts" is not the same as an objection. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to know that "Support for Options A-D is support for merging Twitter#Post-acquisition to Twitter under Elon Musk[*]" is untruthful? Your description of reality doesn't match reality, thats a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's literally what it says in the poll. Care to elaborate?? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought you said the poll didn't actually mean merge? That was why I said it was malformed, none of these options result in a WP:MERGE. Yet you're still saying merge despite that not being accurate, why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

First it's not a poll, it's a survey.

To clarify I initially called it a WP:SPLIT, because technically that's what would be performed, but InfiniteNexux is correct in that it would be more of a merge of content (even if not a "page merge" as per WP:MERGE), it still falls under the category of WP:OVERLAP regarding the content. It would also be misleading to describe it solely as a split.

Is this you clarifying that you're not opposed to Option D then, since I showed that I didn't put words in your month, given you moved on from that point very quickly onto semantics after I quoted you? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would it be misleading to describe it as solely a split? To me you just described a split. Something gets split, but nothing gets merged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it implies the content will be kept, which is how a split usually works. Most of it won't be kept imo as it's a duplicate of the main article. The re-branding of X is probably the only part that will definitively be kept.

It's a split/merge. Let's just a agree it's both or neither. Or agree to disagree. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats not what it implies, its a given that a summary of the split content will be kept here. Why would it be both or neither? Its a split, but its not a merge. Nothing in there is a WP:MERGE and we can't agree to disagree about that basic fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have undone the attempt to break off the history of Twitter to a separate article that was done by @Horse Eye's Back:, as it was premature given this discussion is still ongoing. I don't recommend a split like this, as long as we find a way to split the content related to Twitter between pre- and post-Musk periods (regardless of naming). The history should be split between these two articles appropriately. --Masem (t) 16:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It passes GNG, so no consensus is needed to create however you do need consensus to delete or redirect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It is disruptive to perform a split while there is discussion (this one) to determine how to work the state of multiple related articles. That's where consensus is needed. Masem (t) 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is unique content on that page which is not part of the discussion here. It is a new page. It has unique content. It would have more unique content if you didn't keep deleting it in the middle of edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It is content where its home after the above proposed merge/split/reorganization is completed is currently unclear. Also, the History section as a whole needs to be reviewed , as it mixes up a lot of corporate, feature sets, and controversies, and as such, should be trimmed first before moving to a separate article. You are purposely disrupting this ongoing discussion with the page creation before consensus is reached. Masem (t) 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No... Content like the stuff in the article not content like with a hot chocolate and a dog at home. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree this wasn't the best timing, even if the right idea. I also think post-acquisition should be moved to Twitter under Elon first (where it should be and given current consensus), in order to reduce complications. Then creating a History of Twitter can be re-proposed, with a lot more clarity over what the history entails, also given the lack of support this at present, based on the current survey feedback.

I was never a fan of the over-complicated nature of this survey, even if it is logicial, as it ultimately should have been three different proposals all independent of each other. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

"I also think post-acquisition should be moved to Twitter under Elon first" you can do that right now but it looks like almost everything is already there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but was going to wait for @InfiniteNexus to do it as may have a better idea how to manage the content duplication... it's also not something I personally want to be dealing with directly if I'm honest, as will involve lots of boring cross-referencing.

Not everything is already there either, the re-branding to X sub-section can more or less be kept as far as I can tell, given there is only a couple of paragraphs on the TUEM page. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If consensus agrees to a split, the main Twitter article is going need to be carefully edited to move some elements to the post-Musk article (whatever that is), make sure everything is described in past tense, and other trims. If consensus doesn't agree to a split, then this type of editing will not be helpful, as its not like moving one section (eg the Community Notes article) in whole without touching other parts. Hence, waiting on consensus is pretty much required to avoid disruption. We know some action should be done, but no one should be boldly taking action while discussion is ongoing. Masem (t) 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a discussion about "spiltting post-acquisition," I did not split post-acquisition I split *history.* There is nothing in this discussion which would result in the sort of changes you just described. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge chuck of the history section that is devoted to post-Musk acquisition, so yes the History section is not isolated from this, and is part of the content under discussion. Exactly how we end up splitting/merging/moving content will affect how the History section should be presented (among the rest of the article content), and that's before looking at other possible trimming to that section. It's not that hard to see that. Masem (t) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in this discussion has any bearing at all on whether History of Twitter is a notable topic. No matter what happens in the discussion here that topic will continue to have a stand-alone page. If you think otherwise be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The history of many online services may be notable, but splitting the history away into a separate article just because a notability threshold is reached is not necessarily a good approach if that weakens the comprehensiveness of the article about the service. And in the case of Twitter and the likely distinct X service, a lot of the elements about the service are tied to understanding its history, so relocating that away from discussion about the service harms this understanding. Masem (t) 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In order to contextualise the above, the current History section of twitter would require a full summarised version of history, before even considering referencing a main article. At the moment, History of Twitter lead is two lines, making it completely useless to use as an excerpt - the ideal scenario here imo given consensus to use as such.

@Horse Eye's Back; instead of focusing on "notability", which is an irrelevant argument here as no one is arguing about that, why not do something productive like creating a good quality lead that can be used as an excerpt? Since you've already split the article and are now ignoring any concerns and issues regarding that.

For example if you take a look at Community Notes section on main page, it's a two paragraph excerpt, that doesn't weaken the comprehensiveness of the article. If anything it strengths it, as it's more relevant than the previous summary, without the excess information that's only relevant to CN, not diretly to Twitter. The Acquisition section is another good example, as the excerpt is also a comprehensive summary, without excess information.

My point is, if not obvious, ideally the History section here would be a full 4-5 paragraph excerpt of the History of Twitter lead. So there's actually something useful you could be doing rather than pointless arguments. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think thats useful I suggest you do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting hypothetical, but this didn't weaken the comprehensiveness of the article about the service. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

With the intent that the History section of Twitter would be replaced with a short summary once you had "completed" History of Twitter, I would strongly argue that the comprehensive of the main Twitter article, if also not the History article would be far less effective than having them in one single article, because several of the feature changes and criticism are tied to history changes. Masem (t) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

History of Twitter will never be completed and I doubt the summary will be a short one. Note that History of Twitter is broader than just the history of the service which is what is on that page... Its the history of Twitter, all of it (corporate, software, user experience, users, social, criminal, everything) in the same vein as History of Facebook and History of Youtube. Only part of History of Twitter will be summated here. Almost everything which was taken from this page is also at Twitter, Inc. Are you really saying that none of this would be an issue if it was primarily Twitter, Inc I had pulled the original content from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

History of Youtube is a terrible example as that is nearly all WP:PROSELINE and just a dumping ground for indicating some event happened that involved YouTube. the Facebook one is a bit better but still suffers the same problem. Neither articles are helpful to the reader. The YouTube one would be a bit more difficult to split apart as there's no current corporate article like there is for Facebook (Meta Platforms) or Twitter/X.

And yes, we also need to look at the History at Twitter, Inc. and separate corporate matters from the history of the service. All this content is excessively duplicative and should be considered as part of this ongoing reorganization of content. The history at Twitter, Inc. should be strictly focused on the corporate side. Surprisingly X, Inc. is a good example of what I would expect in the history section of a social media company, briefly only touching on aspects of the service as it tied to corporate matters. Masem (t) 13:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's so much duplicate content on Twitter it givers me a headache. No wonder this page is so unnecessarily bloated. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What ongoing reorganization of content? This here is a discussion about Spiltting post-acquisition, we don't have an open discussion about a general reorganization of content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days and haven't read the above discussion, but I agree with Masem that History of Twitter should not have been "created" when this discussion is still ongoing. This is both disruptive and confusing. Please work on a mockup in the draftspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that this has been reverts back to a redirect by two people, and issues raised by a third, its recreation is now edit warring. Masem (t) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT says "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." So why not restore the article and nominate it for deletion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the existing redirect makes no sense (its a reasonable search term), and now that you've made additions which can be put into Twitter#History, those could be merged into this article with attribution without losing the history. Masem (t) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The plan of action laid out by REDIRECT is restoring the article and then nominating it for deletion. Arguing that it can't be nominated for deletion because it has not yet been restored doesn't seem logical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please centralize this sub-discussion to Talk:History of Twitter#Redirect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Removed. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As the original author of this edit I agree with your assertion however do not agree to its removal. I tried to be liberal on both ends of the politics regarding this, and it’s important we remain in the middle on this topic. Coronaverification (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The removal was because the claim wasn't sourced. It looks like this text went through a lot of changes so maybe there's some other version that was sourced, but if not the removal isn't negotiable. Verifiability of claims is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principals. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Monthly users

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

Both estimates should be included, similar to what Russian invasion of Ukraine does used to do with the casualty count. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, hopefully formatted correctly. - OdinintheNorth (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)