Jump to content

Talk:Twitter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lyeuhm (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 1 August 2023 (→Regarding "Registration required": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Current CEO of Twitter

Linda Yaccarino has assumed the charge of new CEO of Twitter on 12 May, 2023. 2402:E000:424:83:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources to support this? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May 12th is the day she resigned from NBCUniversal, and Musk announced she would be the new CEO, not when she assumed charge. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:C169:F12A:3E15:DFF3 (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about lede

Are there any sources to support the claim that Twitter is sometimes referring to as "X"? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not any independent sources as far as I can see - there is some discussion of this on news sites but it all seems ultimately sourced to promotional / teaser statements by Musk and his staff. So I have removed it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users and public tweets

Introductory paragraph below CV block states that unregistered users may only view public tweets. This is no longer the case as of 2023-06-29 (possibly earlier). Tweets are only viewable after logging in with a username. 2600:1700:E73:C10:C9EA:4F5:919F:6D59 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a CV block?

Twitter#Tweets says,

Tweets are publicly visible by default,

but as it says in Twitter#Post-acquisition,

On June 30, 2023, Twitter blocked unregistered users from viewing tweets or profiles on the platform.

Maybe change

Tweets are publicly visible by default, but senders can restrict message delivery to only their followers

to

By default, tweets are visible to any user signed into a Twitter account, but senders can restrict message delivery to only their followers

or something like that? 173.67.42.107 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X

Hi

We could create a new page for X because since Musk's ownership, lots of things have changed since original Twitter. We could move Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). Panam2014 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let's wait till it actually happens, but assuming it does, I think it makes sense to split off all post-Musk acquisition stuff into a new article on the service, while Twitter itself covers up to and the basics of the acquisition. Masem (t) 15:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ship of Theseus XD
I think X is still a renamed and rebranded version of Twitter, and thus, Twitter should redirect to X (social network).
I don't mind a separate page for X before Elon Musk (or is it Twitter before Elon Musk?). FunLater (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely an accepted practice on Wikipedia to periodize articles around major corporate restructurings, even if the company doesn't change names. (For example, News Corporation vs. News Corp and AT&T Corporation vs. AT&T.) Having separate Twitter vs. X articles could be a good solution especially if the company's platforms change substantially. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22 Wikipedia doesn't predict the future WP:CRYSTALBALL. At the moment, Twitter is fundamentally still the same platform as it was pre-Musk, and pre-Musk Twitter probably has much more in common with current Twitter than much earlier iterations of the platform. I agree that if Twitter becomes a fundamentally different platform from its current state (as Musk seems to envision), then a separate article may become appropriate.
Furthermore, we have already periodised the major corporate articles, see: Twitter, Inc. and X Corp.. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here with looking into splitting the articles into two, with Elon talking about X being the "everything app" and the site being planned out much differently in comparison to right now. It's too early to tell at this point but I feel like if X and Twitter are two completely different things, it might be worth separating the two so those looking for information about Twitter pre-X can easily distinguish the two. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is actually what the app becomes, it may warrant a split, but right now it seems like the only thing that has changed is the logo. I don't think a split should occur immediately upon the name change as we should wait and see if significant changes to purpose of the site/app actually occur. - Odin (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Then X Corp or X (social network) would be targets for post-Musk Twitter. SWinxy (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a name change or split being warranted at this time, especially when the service still refers to itself as Twitter and most reliable reporting right now is describing current changes as Twitter changing its logo. - Odin (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the split—obviously the platform has changed significantly, and Musk has communicated his intention to make X a new platform. As the New York Times article says, Musk "hopes to turn Twitter into an 'everything app' called X that would encompass not only social networking, but also banking and shopping." I understand waiting a bit to see where things go, but I think ultimately this will have to be the solution (unless Musk pulls a dramatic 180°), distinguishing the "Twitter" era from the "X" era in two separate articles. It's comparable, for example, to having a separate article for Republic of Dahomey and Benin—the same place, different name, different era. (And yes it may be appropriate ultimately to have Twitter under Elon Musk moved to "X (website)", rather than creating a new article; I don't have a strong opinion on that.) — the Man in Question (in question) 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Registration required"

Currently, we have registration parameter set as required but it is not required to view tweets, does that make it not required, should we clarify to something like, Required to post, not required to read? --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: that would be misleading as Twitter/X still requires for registration for most stuff including checking out what their own company as well as their CEO is tweeting/xeeting even when they make major announcements through Twitter/X. AFAIK it's only the individual tweets/xeets that can be viewed, it's not even possible to find the replies to the tweets/xeets via Twitter/X without registration. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK Actually, since some months ago, registration is required to view tweets: I'm not registered and I get a a log-in/register prompt (that there was not some weeks ago), and when I close it I'm redirected to home page. I've just tried 5 minutes ago. Meridiana solare (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No that isn't quite correct either. Currently registration isn't required to view individual tweets as our article sort of says (although IMO it isn't clear enough). Try checking out this [1] or [2] or any link to a non-deleted, non-private tweet and it should work even if you're not logged in. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW does anyone know what a Twitter user profile is? If it means something like https://twitter.com/Twitter or https://twitter.com/elonmusk then the claim in our article about not requiring registration to view user profiles is not currently correct. If so, this is perhaps one reason why we should avoid trying to go into too much detail in the infobox, it's simply to chaotic what you need registration for at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User Profile would be https://twitter.com/ElonMusk. I have just tried to view his profile in a private browser, not logged in, and it has asked me to Login.
Registration isn't required to view tweets as it broke embedding, but otherwise everything else I try to click on asks me to login. Lyeuhm (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well our article still says you don't need to login to view profiles with a cite (although I didn't check the cite) but I think I worked it out. Although you can't visit the user's URL without logging in, if you are on someone's ex, sorry I mean if you are on someone's X you can hover over their username to see their details. It might be there are other ways to see the same thing, I don't know. Why X didn't do what probably nearly every other website would do and let you see those details perhaps with a strong encouragement to register or login to see their X's etc when you visit the user URL I'll let other editors figure out for themselves. 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you can read a post / thread only if you already know its exact URL. It's look like a very minimal use regarding a viewer user (not to tell about a writer user), so the very most of the site is usable by registered users only. So "we have registration parameter set as required" seems the proper indication. Meridiana solare (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To your first part - yes, unless you have the URL or it's embedded into another website (news article, etc.) you cannot view profiles or try and find tweets.
Weirdly though, if you are on iOS and you're not logged in, you can use the explore page and find tweets etc. It seems to be 50/50 depending on the platform you're using. Lyeuhm (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

Change 'twitter' to X Eyalm123 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X transition notice

Editors, now today the startup of twitter.com now shows the X logo, should it be added now or wait for reliable source? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was just before 9am GMT and seems like Twitter began transitioning to the X logo. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also seeing the new logo and the Twitter brand accounts have had their profile picture updated to the new logo as well. Lyeuhm (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can also confirm Twitter now displays the X logo in place of the bird. Jurta talk 09:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The X logo was created by Alex Tourville and not Sawyer Merrit

The X logo was created by Alex Tourville (@ajtourville) and not Saywer Merrit as stated in the article. It is correct that Saywer posted the logo and gave it to Elon. Source: https://twitter.com/sawyermerritt/status/1683150433806692352?s=46&t=Idguo1WjfkxggFFLioF1HQ 98.151.130.99 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X?

Should the name of the article be changed? Parham wiki (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a split based on the rationale in the above discussion. —Legoless (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a split, but let's wait a day or so and make sure what it is actually going to be called so as to not be jumping through multiple incorrect moves. Masem (t) 12:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as where to split, the old Twitter article should cover up to Musk's acquisition, and briefly summarize the transition to X under him. The X page should make reference to Musk's plans for an X app when he tried to change PayPal as part of the bg. Masem (t) 13:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:NAMECHANGE. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DefenderTienMinh07: This is meant to be a discussion not a move request. Parham wiki (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I know, but now that the RM has been closed as not moved, this  Not done: had to be kept. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a name change or split being warranted at this time, especially when the service still refers to itself as Twitter and most reliable reporting right now is describing current changes as Twitter changing its logo. - Odin (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be moved as X (Social Media) or something like that. Oğuzlar 21:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'X (...)' disambiguation

I agree with the above that we need to not rush into it, but a more better question for now is, what should the article be renamed to? Some have mentioned X (social network) but I'm not sure that's the best descriptor. How about X (website), or X (service)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.68 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be a discussion not a move request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.68 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now. "Social network" makes sense as that is also how Threads is disambiguated. If Musk adds in other features (wanting X to be equivalent of WeChat) then maybe a move to "service" will make sense, but not now. Masem (t) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a social network already a type of service to begin with? Also wouldn't "(website)" be the better term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.68 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if we should listen to Musk

We should keep this pages name as "Twitter" because "X" causes more confusion and it seems as if this rebranding could be undone within a day if it is a failure. Due to ongoing trends, it will most likely be a failure. WiinterU (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have precedent to keep using an old name if that's the WP:COMMONNAME, such as how we still use the name 8chan for a site that hasn't used that name for years. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the service still used the name of Twitter and it seems some editors are being a bit over-eager. We need to wait and see what actual changes to Twitter occur. - Odin (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its good to wait a few days to be clear what has happened, but as I read what Musk wants, the service will be named X, and we need to reflect that somehow. But given that Musk's tenure of Twitter makes for a clear break between pre and post acquisition, keeping this current Twitter article and treating it separate from X makes it very easy to satisfy all naming concerns. Masem (t) 17:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the name of the service itself does change, I agree with CJ-Moki that we ultimately need to wait and see if people actually adopt the new name or continue to refer to it as Twitter. I agree that the change should be reflected within the article if and when it occurs. - Odin (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My guess is that "Twitter" will remain the name that everyone is using. However, should "X", actually be adopted (and only then) we can move the article. Wikipedia doesn't have to meet deadlt, so we should be patient. Cortador (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata edit request (home page)

The home page of the platform is still very much twitter.com. x.com redirects to twitter.com, not the other way round. U-Mos (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stylized as 𝕏

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been proved correct. I withdraw my withdrawal. It should be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been proved correct. I withdraw my withdrawal. It should be included. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have neutral stance now. And I really don’t know if we still need to indicate the styling even if you are correct. I still want this topic to be discussed by others. The Man Without Fear 🦇 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Strugglehouse as per @AnemoneProjectors “Stylisation doesn't matter and should be eliminated from Wikipedia articles.” As I already stated, I'm not sure if we still need to indicate the styling, whether you're accurate or not. However, after reading what Anemone has said, I am returning to my former position with Oppose. The Man Without Fear 🦇 07:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my opinion but I really don't see the point of it. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a wider discussion about stylisation if there hasn't already been one. The only example I can think of right now is way back at the time the show was on TV, the article Humans (TV series) included the stylisation with all caps and the upside down A, but it's since been removed. I'm also thinking about songs that are released either in all caps or all lower case, example Cuff It says the title is stylised in all caps. Also the fact that this stylised X appareantly only shows correctly on certain operating systems or whatever means a lot of people reading the Wikipedia article wouldn't see it correctly and would go, like I did, "no it isn't". — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors A better example is Toys "R" Us, which has a note explaining that the logo is stylised with a backwards R ("ᴙ").
On your point of the character not showing correctly on some OSs, that just happens with some characters. That's why we have Template:Contains special characters. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can add it as a note. Not in the way it has previously been written. The Man Without Fear 🦇 13:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Strugglehouse, very good points. I like how the Toys R Us article deals with it. I'd say I'm still opposed to it but not as strongly as I was, so I'm struck the "strong" in my oppose! — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this. I still support it. Musk has referred to Twitter by using the mathematical symbol instead of just "X", such as in this tweet. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 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: not moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME and being too soon; it's SNOWing here. Strong consensus that this was a premature move request, and that at the very least, rebranding should be completed before a move takes place. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter → X (social media) – Twitter is rebranding as X. Not sure if I picked the right disambiguator in parentheses, but I think it is worth a discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 24 July 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in the infobox.

The infobox claims that Twitter has a native Windows client. However, this is not the case, therefore I propose it be removed. 2.103.86.203 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an app on the Microsoft Store for Twitter.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that a PWA? A PWA is not considered a native app. FunLater (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a bit technical for me to answer that question. The Microsoft Store is described as an app store for Windows devices, but whether this makes the Twitter app a native app is something that I'll leave to others.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter app on the Microsoft Store is a PWA and not native. GEGOBYTE (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PWA are not native apps under any definition of native, since PWA stands for "progressive web app" and web apps are by intent (or definition) are not native. PWA store listing is basically just a link to the web site and bit of metadata like listing name, desktop icon, supported languages. Note that this metadata can even be wrong like it is in Twitter's case: MS Store states that Twitter is available in 1 language while it actually supports a large number of them. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, but left macOS. Does macOS have a native client? FunLater (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, macOS does have a native client based off the native code of the iPhone app. dangered wolf (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musk followers?

Collapsed off-topic discussion Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would he really have the most? I can understand a legendary president like Obama, or a legendary performer like Bieber, but musk??? Middle More Rider (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I follow Musk. I can assure you that there are millions of people that don’t consider Obama or Bieber to be “legendary” and therefore do not follow them. I am one of them. 50.239.53.154 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, collapsed, but a valid concern on the truth, if a person owns a site they could potentially give themselves any 'amount' of followers, whatever the reality. I am not saying anyone did or didn't do anything. But I do think the amount looks like a fantasy high. Middle More Rider (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

Earlier, I changed the lede to past tense based on CNN Business and Inc., though this change was reverted shortly thereafter. Even if Twitter.com is still a functional URL, these sources differentiate X from Twitter and refer to the latter in the past tense. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above sections. As we have no WP:DEADLINE, we're waiting to make sure the change to X is legitimate and final, and then we're going to consider what to do next. Otherwise, it is still best to consider the service as Twitter. Masem (t) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

I think we really need to consider splitting pre- and post-Musk Twitter into a separate article, even if the rebranding doesn't stick. What Twitter is under Musk is nowhere close to what Twitter was prior to that, with most of the features and other aspects having been changed. In addition, this article is getting too long, and that split would allow

We have broken out corporate articles when there are major changes of ownership, Viacom as a prime example. This would easily follow, even if we had "Twitter" and "Twitter (2023-)" (I don't know if those are the best names, but just as a starting point). If we split before the rebranding to X is confirmed, that would make it really easy to rename the post-Musk article. Masem (t) 12:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction a few days ago was opposed, but at this point I think a split makes the most sense. Especially with the current length of the article and how much is changing about the app. I'm unsure if it makes more sense to split at the point of ownership change (allowing more to be moved and helping cut down the length of the article) or at the point of the rebranding. - Odin (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Twitter under Elon Musk which covers the history under Musk. We have a general History of Twitter but its not really an article its just a timeline. What if we changed "History of Twitter" to "History of Twitter (pre-2022)" and moved much of the content from Twitter there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a definitely a possible start to a split, but I would still think we need to also separate things like features, moderation, and controversies as well. There is going to be some needed overlap in some topics, eg, the "old" Twitter article needs to include a short bit about Musk acquiring it and massively changing the service structure (as well as the company behind it), while on the "new" Twitter we might have to touch on old policies that were wiped out by the new Twitter. Masem (t) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see two paths here... Either Twitter ceases to exist as a company in which case we have a page for Twitter and a page for wherever the parts end up or Twitter continues to exist as a company and we can continue to cover everything here. In neither case do we need to split the topline page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How I see it is Twitter was the brand, and this has now been rebranded X.
Twitter Inc. was the company, and since earlier this year has been defunct and it’s assets become part of X Corp.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong way to split it, or not split at all. But old Twitter is probably noteworthy enough to retain a substantial description in a Wikipedia article. Fuzzything (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have separate articles for the defunct Twitter, Inc. and the active X Corp. We're talking now about the product of Twitter, which has very different identities before and after the acquisition. Masem (t) 01:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter under Elon Musk sounds like a good target for a split. It could be renamed to X (social network). I don't think I really like History of Twitter as an article; I'd rather that be merged into the #History section. SWinxy (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem Oppose for now: I think maybe we wait until X is anything other than Twitter with a different name. If Musk goes ahead and turns it into an "everything app" like he has talked about, maybe we consider splitting. For now, the app hasn't really changed that much. The Twitter name hasn't even been fully phased out yet. It's too early to split. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The app may not have changed much, but the entire service behind it has significantly been altered since Musk's buyout (eg how blue checks work, moderation, controversies, etc.) That gives us a reason to split this based on pre- and post-Musk versions of the service. Masem (t) 00:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem I think it's close to being enough for a split, but I think we should wait until Musk/Musk's management adds a few new features, instead of just redoing and altering the current ones. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this possible??

Is it possible that the company will use "X" online but keep using "Twitter" as a corporate name?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to rename the page?

Wasn’t sure how to go about this because I can’t figure out how to request a page rename.

The rebranding is now complete. The app on iOS and Android is now X via update and the bird logo is gone. Should we rename the page to something along the lines of X (social media)? PrisonedMuffin (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still not complete. x.com still redirects to twitter.com and there still elements both from the app and site that states “Twitter” The Man Without Fear 🦇 22:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like “Twitter Blue” is still visible on iOS app, “Twitter Professionals” and even the latest tweet from the official @ X account included a site that states “help.TWITTER.com” The Man Without Fear 🦇 22:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the move discussion above. COMMONNAME applies as most sites still call it Twitter. Masem (t) 01:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. No. This is absolutely the equivalent of the Turkey rebrand massacree and we aren’t doing it until people actually start using it universally, and not in a “website formerly known as Twitter” way either. Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the rebrand is complete before renaming the article to "X (social media)." Cwater1 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrand.

Most people will still call it Twitter after Elon Musk rebrands to X (in my opinion, this rebrand is stupid). Will Twitter Wikipedia page will still be called Twitter or X? And will also be ether "X, (also known as Twitter)" or "Twitter, (also known as X)" or just "X". TheDohnJoe (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above discussions. We're still currently in a phase that we are going to call it Twitter as the COMMONNAME. If it appears that sources start using X instead regularly, then we'll talk about changing it. Masem (t) 17:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold'' 188.240.127.5 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still called Twitter in many places.

Does this depend on where you live?? For example, is it X in New York but Twitter in California?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy That isn't what my edit summaries meant. I meant it's still called Twitter in many places online (i.e. their main website is still twitter.com and their corporate "About" page still refers to it as Twitter). Strugglehouse (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until everything, including the URL, has changed to X, the introductory should stay as it is. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ValenciaThunderbolt Yes, I completely agree. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay like that even if they change all of that. The name change should happen when reliable sources stop referring to X as "Twitter". Until then, it's Twitter here as per COMMONNAME. Cortador (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles. I believe that, when the rebrand has fully taken place, the article title should stay the same, but the introductory sentence should be changed. It should, however, keep Twitter in it, early on (i.e. X, previously Twitter, is a...). Strugglehouse (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kanye West's legal name is now Ye but this has never stuck with reliable sources and he is still referred to as Kanye West in news stories about him. The same could happen with Twitter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm Yes, that is correct, but we still put "Ye" first in his Wikipedia article. I am not saying that we should change the name of the article, nor that we should remove all references to Twitter. When the rebrand is fully complete, the first sentence should have "X" first, followed closely by "Twitter", as with the example I gave in my previous comment. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is different. This is equivalent to calling Facebook "thefacebook" or, if I recall correctly, Wikipedia "Nunepedia." And, if I recall well, Elon wants to stray away from the word “Twitter” or “tweets” because comprehensive communications and the ability to conduct financial world does not make sense in that context, when refering to the bird or “tweet.” Read this The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Musk wants everyone to call it X does not mean everyone will call it X. Probably in time, that will be the way, but right now, many many sources still call it Twitter and mention the branding to X name. Masem (t) 17:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem Agreed. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as you can see from my previous replies that I actually agree with you. We should call it X after the rebrand is fully completed, but not right now. The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man Without Fear Yes, call it X after the rebrand, but we should not get rid of the "Twitter" name completely. Many people will still know it as Twitter, and sources will still call it that. Once the rebrand has fully taken place, the first sentence should be changed to "X, formerly Twitter, is an online social media and social networking service operated by the American company X Corp., the successor of Twitter, Inc.". Strugglehouse (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man Without Fear Yes, but at this point they're still the same app. If the rebrand is fully complete soon (before X gets brand new features and becomes too different from Twitter), then we should keep the article and change the first sentence, keeping both the "X' and Twitter names. This is because sources still refer to it as Twitter, and many people still know it as Twitter. Once the app becomes different enough, then we can think about splitting and changing the first sentence again. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes sorry I forgot to indicate that it should happen after the rebranding is fully complete. Not now. The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man Without Fear Even after the rebrand, we shouldn't completely omit the "Twitter" name from this article. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t recall saying that we should completely omit the “Twitter” from this article. Even after the name change is complete, it was Twitter. Unless Elon creates a new social media website, Twitter will always be included in this article. The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man Without Fear I thought that was what you were getting at when you were talking about how "this is like calling Facebook "theFacebook"" and that Elon Musk "doesn't want it to be called Twitter". Strugglehouse (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. What I really want to happen is like what you said Once the rebrand has fully taken place, the first sentence should be changed to "X, formerly Twitter, is an online social media and social networking service operated by the American company X Corp., the successor of Twitter, Inc." The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my bad, “thefacebook” is a bad example because it got rebranded to “Facebook” before it got famous. Twitter is with us long before it became “X” The Man Without Fear 🦇 17:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man Without Fear Okay, understood. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Day of mobile App rebrand.

Someone has put a "when?" tag to the app name rebrand,

The most precise information I got for Android is this:

App: X
Version: 10.0.0-release.0 (310000000)
Uploaded:July 27, 2023 at 6:11PM GMT-0000
https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/x-corp/twitter/twitter-10-0-0-release-0-release/twitter-10-0-0-release-0-android-apk-download/

App: Twitter Beta
Version: 10.0.0-beta.0 (310000100)
Uploaded:July 26, 2023 at 8:55PM GMT-0000
https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/x-corp/twitter/twitter-10-0-0-beta-0-release/twitter-10-0-0-beta-0-android-apk-download/

and: https://innovation-village.com/x-logo-reaches-twitter-for-android/

and Musk posted about it on the 28th: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1685096284275802112

But there seems to be some contradiction in the time and version the logo and App name was changed, and I don't really want to dig those small details, so I'm just providing what I found in case anyone wants to start from that. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(closed) Requested move 31 July 2023

TOO SOON
We literally just had a discussion about this. Snowball's chance of consensus changing. (non-admin closure) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twitter → X (social network) – After seeing several outlets refer to Twitter as X, the motion to move is justified. Outlets referring to Twitter as X in some form:

Initially, I was hesitant to request this move as the domain is still twitter.com, but Twitter is being referred to as X now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We just HAD a move discussion above, this request is far too soon. Masem (t) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Twitter clearly remains the common name. This applies even to references on Twitter/X itself: among other things, their main page still says "Join Twitter today." when logged out and https://about.twitter.com/en continues to use "Twitter" all over. These articles don't exclusively use "X", either—they all say stuff like "Formerly Known as Twitter", most in their headlines, indicating they expect readers to recognize it over X. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose Rebranding is still not complete. They updated the applications but in their about page and their website they are still Twitter. The Man Without Fear 🦇 04:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was literally JUST a discussion for this. Opposing per reasons that literally everybody else has already said before (COMMONNAME, rebranding not complete) NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the app did change its name to "X", I would say oppose per everyone else. The rebrand is not completed yet, and changing a name to a company or media platform is more difficult than what you may thought. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:10, 31 July 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.

Merge Predictions of the end of Twitter into this article

I would like to help in redirecting the article Predictions of the end of Twitter but not sure where to put the content in the main article? Cwater1 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a key problem with the list in that article is that (IMO) simply making a prediction isn't inherently notable. Anyone can do that and get it published somewhere. I'd think we'd only want to include predictions that are independently notable, that is, covered by some other third party other than the primary source. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The Impact section perhaps? Mold it to be like, "twitter is very popular, despite the perennial predictions of its downfall"? SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter&oldid=1168246152"