Talk:Twitter/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Twitter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I read the FAQ. Looked at the RMs. Couple thoughts:

• Most prior discussions have low attendance, less than a dozen editors. I don't see discussions of long length involving the wider community.
• The argument of discoverability is the same argument that Twitter is/was the better brand name. Hardly anyone will disagree with that, forever. It was an epic brand rename failure. Thus, we on Wikipedia will always argue that Twitter is more "discoverable", because it's fundamentally true on and off Wikipedia. Nevertheless, maintaining Twitter forever, for discoverability reason, is POV, essentially concurring with - and consciously indicating - it was a brand rename failure.
• X.com redirects to twitter.com .. this is an extremely strong case for keeping Twitter for now. If/when the company changes to X.com, the case for Twitter gets weaker.
• Wikipedia can follow the lead of many other sources using "X (formerly Twitter)" etc.. as an intermediary step, a deprecation step. This is already done piecemeal throughout Wikipedia.

-- GreenC 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with concerns over small headcounts in the previous RMs. An RfC should probably be done in the future, with options like "X (social network)", "X (website)", "X (formerly Twitter)", and "Twitter" as titles. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I would keep the current article name, because it’s the historical and common name. But if you had to change it, I would change it as “X (formerly Twitter). TheMasterMind321 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless we can agree on “X (formerly Twitter)” being the WP:COMMONNAME I doubt that we could change it to that. I can’t think of instances where we had to attach the former name to the title, and you’re unlikely to get consensus on changing it to something like “X (social network)”. The fact that the URL is still twitter.com and consensus being that “Twitter” is the COMMONNAME lends credence to maintaining the current title. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(formerly XXX) would be an unconventional form of disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also this would set precedent for other titles like ye (formerly Kanye West). Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW twitter.com redirects to x.com now AbsoluteWisp (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The website is now x.com, so the name has to change. 2A02:B127:11:2238:2BB4:A1DF:2585:19DA (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The website is now x.com and the company has virtually no official publically seen relation to the name Twitter. However it is true that many people still refer it as Twitter. So, it seems to me that the best name, as suggested above, is either "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X (social network)". I think it should be the first for a couple of years until the public associate X and Twitter, and then the latter while still allowing "formerly Twitter" in the lede. Mstf221 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is no longer relevant to social network X, it should be moved from the current wikidata item to this https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q126022120 wikidata item. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/26/nyregion/twitter-lawyers-threadnought-elon-musk.html

pretty clear what the common name is. 2600:1700:AB0:4210:2CEE:3297:5111:4B6E (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

They also call it X https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/technology/elon-musk-x-biden.html GamerKlim9716 (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the previous proposal (which I supported), failed. I’m not sure if masem will write this but if they does, this discussion will be closed. Their proposal was that, Twitter before Elon Musk & X under Elon Musk should be split into 2 articles. (I think someone is already working on Twitter before Elon Musk, which would be named Twitter.) So Twitter before Elon Musk would be called, “Twitter, Twitter (2006-2022.)” & X under Elon Musk would be called, “X (social network), X (social media).” So we probably won’t split it (since the last proposal of renaming it failed.) But I think it has a higher chance than renaming the article. So we will see. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter under Elon Musk is decidedly not Twitter even before the finalization of the X name change. Whatever happens going forward, Twitter should remain Twitter as a history of the service up to Musk's purchase of it. I believe moving Twitter to Twitter (2006-2022) would be a pointless disambig and would probably violate WP:TITLE. GSK (talk • edits) 22:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all.

1. Twitter stays where is at; the article would be rewritten to put it in the past tense and clearly described as the service before Musk's intent to rework it as X.
2. Twitter under Elon Musk is moved to X (social media). This page should start with Musk's expressed intent to acquire Twitter and the subsequent transfer.
3. Content at Twitter that deals with anything after Musk's acquisition - save for a few paragraphs to provide the aspects of transfer - should then be moved to X (social media). Similarly, some of the content on the X page may need to be moved back to Twitter.
4. History of Twitter should be ultimately deleted/redirected, but after shifting through the material to make sure that the above two pages capture all the key points (There are some unnecessary details on that page) and moving as necessary
5. Timeline of Twitter, I don't know what to do. I think that that's bordering on the detail that WP:NOT#CHANGELOG cautions against, though there are key points one could either attribute to the business(es) or the service that could be kept. I think that a cautionary starting point would be to keep that article at that place, while a new Timeline of X (social media) (I think that would be the appropriate name, but I may be wrong) can be started for the X part.

It is far more complicated than a page move request or even a simple split. Masem (t) 22:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

ok what I was saying was that Twitter would be that & Another article would be renamed X (social network) Misterunknown24 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We'll need to revert some of the terminology changes in this article, as well. Now that the article is exclusively about Twitter before rebranding, it doesn't really make sense to still use "post" over "tweet", etc. – Primium (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

History of Twitter is certainly notable as a stand alone topic, we even have feature length books... and its too long to be reproduced on other pages, thats why its Stan alone. What would be the policy or guideline based reasons for deleting or redirecting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If we did the appropriate renaming and content moving of Twitter and X, the contents related to Twitter and X separately within History of Twitter would have no problem being inserted into the updated articles without size issues, and would achieve better comprehension of the history aspects of Twitter and X (individually) in context of description of the service. While I don't question that the topic of "history of Twitter" is notable on its own and would qualify for its own page, one should consider if context and comprehension are better if the content is kept the content with Twitter/X, per WP:NOPAGE Masem (t) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems unlikely... History of Twitter is not a fully developed article, the only thing due is expansion. We're most likely going to be splitting it due to size at some point in the next few years. Context and comprehension are fine, but they aren't policy and guideline... WP:N, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV all are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of History of Twitter is duplicating content already on Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk. In fact, the bulk of the History of Twitter page is a copy-paste of the history of Twitter from the Twitter page, plus a few additional paragraphs. Its clearly unnecessary right now. --Masem (t) 13:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not arguing that its unnecessary right now... You're arguing that its necessary right now but won't be in the future (and if you're not then strike "ultimately" and "after"). The bulk of the History of Twitter page hasn't yet been written, thats the whole point. I would also note that as notability goes even 1% unique content is enough for something to be stand alone, you're bashing the article but not in ways that are relevant just in ways that are personally insulting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

In what is presently in the History of Twitter that is pre-2023, there is a lot of fluff and unnecessary detail, maybe up to 25% of that content could be trimmed down. However, those details can't change anymore, no new history items related to Twitter (not X) will come around for the most part. And given that Twitter has the bulk of that exact same content due to the copy-paste creation, we can already evaluate the size issue, and there's clearly no immediate size problems with that history in place on the Twitter article.

Now, the history of X/Twitter under Musk will grow, I agree with that, but with X on it own page, there would be plenty of room for that to expand. (Twitter under Elon Musk does have also a large level of fluff that can be trimmed down too) Maybe at some point years from now X would have a much more detailed history that would require it to be separated, but by that point, I doubt the "X (formally Twitter)" issues around naming would still be around, so if that's necessary then, breaking "History of X" could be done. But that's crystal-balling. It is clear that with what we can write about X on its own page for that.

And this is keeping in mind that Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk absolutely should be kept, which would significantly reduce the need to reiterate the details of acquisition on either the Twitter or X page. Masem (t) 13:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"no new history items related to Twitter (not X) will come around for the most part." But more will be written about the history of Twitter. Thats actually how most historical pages work on wikipedia, its current and expanding coverage of something which doesn't exist anymore. History of X was broken out, technically Twitter under Elon Musk is a child page of History of Twitter and serves that function. I don't see the logic of keeping a page about a specific part of the history intact but devolving the larger page about the history, I agree it should be kept but even if I didn't I couldn't make a valid argument against its stand alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that Twitter existed while Wikipedia was around, and has been worked on for all those years use then-current news sources, I cannot see how the history of Twitter (pre-2023) can be significantly expanded in the future. It clearly needs a trim as its filled with proseline, the first sign of editorial fluff, and there certainly could be items that were not documented originally that get identified as essential historical context, or improving the narrative based on books that are very much secondary for Twitter's history, so I can see some expansion - but more than a, say, a 25% increase on what's presently there even without removing fluff? That's very doubtful.

I think the fundamental question underlying all of this is whether there is valid justification that X is not the same as Twitter even if it is a continuation of the same service, such that Twitter and X should be treated as two separate topics. Once that question is answered by consensus, then we can get more into the nitty details about how to handle pages like History of Twitter. If there is consensus that Twitter and X are very different things, then the History page should clearly be split like that. If there is consensus about these being two different topics, though, matters. Masem (t) 13:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict while trying to add, avoiding threading issues) Further, if there is truly a size issue (even if Twitter/X were still on one page on their own, there's a lot of excessive detail that could be trimmed down), it likely would be better to keep the history with the main page on the topic and split out Criticism/Ligitation of Twitter as an article on its own, yes, even with the cautionary warnings around standalone criticism pages. But I think we can easily have Twitter, X and the related history and criticism of both within just these two pages after a fair dealing of reworking contenet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can also split out Criticism/Ligitation of Twitter as an article on its own, but in general we avoid stand alone criticism or controversy articles... And the remaining content would still be too long for one article. In terms of time vs coverage you normally don't get a ton of serious academic work until one-two decades out... So much of the high quality coverage doesn't exist yet. We shouldn't be expecting really solid work historical on for example the Musk acquisition until the 2030s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. So much has changed under Musk: policies, people, its name, the userbase. But it's still a continuation of Twitter, so one article can be thought of as a part 1, and the other as a part 2. Timeline of Twitter should redirect to History of Twitter, though, since its the same idea (and NOTCHANGELOG). This article can become less unwieldy. SWinxy (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Osunpokeh. My changes were based on the splitting of Twitter under Elon Musk from Twitter, hence this article now applies only to Twitter before its acquisition. You can see Masem's comment above for what I was working on. – Primium (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bad idea. It's the same social network, not sure where the clean cut into two pages is coming from nor where the consensus was reached to make that change (hence why it was reverted) [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 00:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to branch out a bit from the discussion of renaming/splitting this article, here's a list of potential pages that would either need to be renamed, duplicated, significantly rearranged, or merged if there was a split: Censorship of Twitter; December 2022 Twitter suspensions; History of Twitter; List of Twitter features; List of Twitter services and applications; List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter; List of most-followed Twitter accounts; List of most-retweeted tweets; List of most-liked tweets; Timeline of Twitter; Use of Twitter by public figures; Twitter usage; Twitter verification. As well as Template:Twitter navbox which might be better kept together, with separate sections for Twitter and X, when logical (not to mention this template could use a very serious update). Evel Prior (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Popping in to say I support this change. This rebranding and owenership change is akin to a merger or spinoff IMO, which generally get distinct pages on Wikipedia. While legally the company is the same, it's clear that the media and public generally view it as changing entirely after Musk's purchase. It also seems like the cleanest way to end the constant debate over these pages and move on. glman (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A long note on the ontology of Twitter and X:

The way I currently see Twitter/X, it's like the difference between Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. The two are very similar to the point that if you ask the average person to name any difference between the two, they probably won't be able to say more than the lack of the Start button. At the time the difference was huge, and vastly relevant, now it feels like a distant memory.

I think Twitter and X are the same as Win 8/8.1, while (with regards to WP:CRYSTALBALL) once Musk revamps the site even more then future X would be analogous to Windows 10, but the transition from Twitter to X can still be expressed as its own article. (On a personal note I'm also in favour of Twitter "not to be confused with X", but for obvious reasons this label should not exist on Wikipedia.) Whether or not this happens, whether or not the two are dis/similar, they seem to be two separate expressions of the same social media concept, just like Win 8.1 is a moderate update to the same operating system concept of Win 8.

On the question of similarity, there needs to be a test and a tipping point. That tipping point is in favour of splitting the articles, and very much opposes a rename. We went from articles describing changes made to Twitter by Musk, to articles describing a coup de grâce to Twitter, and ascribing new functions and changes to X.

As a library and information scientist (LIS), I'd say the ontologies of Twitter and X have drifted far enough apart to not consider them the same thing, they don't share similar problems, they don't seem to share the same social context (as X killed the global town square feeling that Twitter had). The changes to the API, options to mine data for research, changes to weather alerts, the changes in political discussions. On the other hand, the ontologies of the names seem to be complex where WP:UCRN comes in. Do people refer to the impact of X on society, public dialogue, mental health issues, democracy and such, or do they still consider it the impact of Twitter. This seems to be still in the X (formerly Twitter) phase, as well as sociology as a science. Another thing to mention from a LIS perspective: I have to put in Twitter to the search terms to even get relevant results compared to searching for "X social media".

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, my recommendation is that Twitter as its own distinct ontology/phenomenon (or expression of the same social media concept as X), should always remain an article without redirects or confusing interlinks between it and X.

(I know Wikipedia's structure is not a mirror of Musk's opinion, but even he justifies it as a new platform: “This is not simply a company renaming itself, but doing the same thing.")

(I would also point to the difference between Vine and Huddles (originally V2, Byte, and later Clash). Though not sure at this point to which direction this would tip the scale.) Evel Prior (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is dumb to split it just because of a name and ownership change. Regardless of the name, it is stil the same website.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:4D8B:6716:A336:5ED8 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet / maybe / no... It is very tempting and easy to get caught up in the frenzy of news and argue about the day to day but you need to pan out from the wide view. Twitter had existed for 16 years before the major acquisition and for 17 years before rename and the new name has not supplanted the common name and is unlikely to supplant it any time soon. We might be able to think about a split but even there we are talking about a company with less than 2 years of history or 10% of the lifetime of the service. If there is ever more to say about the service that it should be split into its own article then this would be a grand proposal to start from. But not now. Jorahm (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, then that also goes along with my talk (which I just created.) So my talk can be closed if we are talking there. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Result of the discussion was to move the "TUEM" page to X (social network), so we're gonna have to move several redirects of Twitter like the "X" related ones to the new one. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good spot. For many of the 103 incoming redirects, the best target is obvious: Twitter (website) should continue to target Twitter but X (platform) should divert to X (social network). Others are debatable: is The website previously known as Twitter a reference to X or to previous versions of the website, which we cover in Twitter?

There is a wider issue that some of the 71,316 incoming links to Twitter should also be changed, but that hurdle may be insurmountable. Certes (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Granted, there's currently a move review evaluating whether the move was valid. But currently the review leans to endorse the move. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

According to lead, is this article now about "name Twitter" or "social networking service"? If Twitter changed name to X why there are two articles if it's the same social networking service? Eurohunter (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have written this opinion on why this article should have parenthetical disambiguation as Twitter (2006-2023) under the same precedence used to have two articles. The brackets can always be removed in the future after a more significant deviation from what Twitter as a platform has historically been instead of just changes to corporate structure. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to submit another move request as the change was recent and it may be more ideal to wait and see how this article resynthesises and matures first. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think an RM for Twitter 2006–2023 would likely find support, now that TUEM as been moved to X (social network). But probably best to wait for the move review to finish before opening it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Twitter 2006-2023" is absolutely unnecessary for an article title. We don't add unnecessary disambiguation parts to a title. The lede is meant to be there to describe what the article is about, the title to aid in searching for the topic. Masem (t) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be ideal to cite structural changes in the lede to prevent confusion. As an example, 80% of the workforce and the executive board being laid off may be a more notable change than who is CEO and increased media scrutiny. Consensus for the last X (social network) move request hinged on continuity issues, which wasn't addressed by the closer. Considering the likely overturning of the page move, Twitter (2006-2023) may be a good compromise for future move requests. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The move review is honestly leaning on overturn atm Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and X corp. ar 2 different entities. Twitter is the platform, and X corp. is the holding company of twitter. Pickleishere (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that Twitter is now a past tense event. Apart from the rebranding, the service has become significantly different under Elon Musk.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and X Corp. and separate entities, I don't think anyone is arguing about this. The discussion is about Twitter and X (social network). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like File:Twitter Home Page (Moments version, countries without dedicated feed).png can be DRV'd. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 13:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The redirect X (social network) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 19 § X (social network) until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about uncritically reporting the number of active users based on claims from Musk; courtesy tagging @Mstf221 who updated this most recently. The source they added ([1]) clearly states the following, linking to a tweet from Musk:

Elon Musk claims X now has 600 million monthly active users, 300 million of whom use the platform daily. (He doesn’t indicate what portion of that user base consists of automated accounts or spam, though — and as X is no longer a publicly reported company, the numbers can’t be externally verified.)

It's clear that the 600 million count is a non-independent claim not verified by the source. However, user counts are typically kinda weird—the data is generally non-independent by its nature, and we cite non-independent sources on similar articles (e.g. Facebook currently cites user count to Meta's 2022Q1 investor report). This may be necessary to report user count for any site, though I'm a bit skeptical of it in all cases since user counts are self-serving claims. In this particular case, however, I think there are a few reasons to be more skeptical of the claim than usual (in order from most to least compelling):

1. A significant amount of independent reporting has called these numbers directly into question: e.g. NBC News, The Guardian, Mashable, Slate. These articles are generally sourcing third party analytics firms which estimate trends in web traffic and have shown a significant decline in usage of Twitter/X during the same period of time that these claims of growth have been made.
2. While both a quarterly investor report from a public company and a tweet from the owner of a private company are non-independent, the former is a more formal declaration and typically given more weight by secondary sources (e.g. see the above quote in full). Regardless of source, it's atypical for publications to include the degree of caveat included here; e.g. here's the same publication reporting user claims from Sam Altman about OpenAI, which notes that they come from Altman directly but lacks the extensive disclaimer used in the claim above: [2]
3. Musk in particular has a history of making false or misleading claims about corporations under his control via Twitter/X: [3].

Personally I would tilt towards completely removing this claim from the infobox (as we have no recent reliable independent numbers to go by) and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose. I've left the claim in place for now as I'm curious what other editors think. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the solution of removing this claim from the infobox ... and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose for all the above reasons.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Since X Corp. is a private company, Musk has the controlling share of it and CTO of X, it seems to me that what Musk says is kind of the same thing as what a company report would say (which does not exist). Since private companies (like X and Telegram) do not need to publish their MAU, what the owner claims is the best thing we could have and I really do not think Musk is lying to us in this case because there are over a thousand people working at X and some employee might uncover his lie at any moment. I don't think he would want to lie about such a topic which can be shown to be a lie by objective measures. ("Taking Tesla private, funding is secured" thing cannot be shown to be a lie objectively as he could claim "I thought 'these guys' would support me taking Tesla private and it turns out I was wrong. I didn't lie, I was mistaken.")

MAU is an important info and I think it should stay on the infobox. Mstf221 (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If the best source we can get is primary, non-independent, and has been actively called into question by independent reporting in reliable sources, I don't think we should be stating the claim as undisputed fact (which infoboxes implicitly do). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In the past Wikipedia community had no problems with Twitter's company reports on its user numbers, which is not much different than what is done now (instead of the company, its owner is reporting). It wasn't that user numbers added to the infobox after Musk's takeover of the company; but somehow it has become a topic of discussion after his takeover. As I said before, it is hard to believe for me that Musk, the richest person on Earth, tells us a lie so blatant. It is because, among other reasons, he could be exposed by some employees (many of whom are not fans of Musk) at any moment.

Companies know the exact number of users they have. The only problem is whether they would lie and as I explained due to the objectivity of numbers, in this case this does not seem to be the case.

Spotify, Netflix etc. publishes their user numbers and people have no problem but when it comes to X...

I think the problem some people have is their dislike for Musk because the number of userbase is increasing and this can be easily seen on Wikipedia, they could not push their "Twitter is dying" lie. (No offense intended.) Mstf221 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting your last sentence from. I said above that I don't love the practice of undisputed reporting of claimed user counts—they are often massaged in self-serving ways (e.g. Meta shifting to a new "family active users" metric recently)—but the concerns here are because these claims have been directly called into question by a variety of independent reliable sources and not because of some weird vendetta against Musk (unless it's being coordinated across a variety of highly reliable news sources). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When the official numbers' accuracy is widely questioned by sources Wikipedia considers highly reliable, we really have to reflect that. Infoboxes are supposed to be 100% verifiable facts. — Red XIV ^(talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems we have rough consensus forming that we shouldn't be stating this as undisputed fact, so I've gone ahead and moved the user count claims to the article body with attribution to Musk. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Look who is agreeing with you... I will not push any further but Musk was right, Wokipedia seems to be a better suited name for this leftist dictatorship who apply the rules only when it suits for their purpose. Mstf221 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

100% certainty is unattainable (you would have known this if you had read some epistemology or philosophy of science). The question is not whether we are 100% certain about the information but whether the uncertainty of the information is tolerable. Mstf221 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When the reliable sources say that the reported user numbers are dubious, the article must reflect that. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, all citations just appear as plaintext ("[4]") instead of as a clickable citation. These citations are useless because they cannot be clicked or give any information. Wiichicken (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says:

• Since his [Musk's] acquisition, the platform has been criticized for enabling the increased spread of disinformation and hate speech.

But the BBC says:

• Musk said his efforts to delete bots - automated accounts - has decreased misinformation on Twitter since his takeover.

and

"Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't."

He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content.

When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied." [4]

I'm just wondering if we need a section in the article on "criticisms" or "controversy". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The BBC says "But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The rise of hate speech, supported by those studies, as well as Musk's claim its not, absolutely needs mention, but that probably should be over at Twitter under Elon Musk. Masem (t) 17:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is already over at Twitter under Elon Musk and maybe also Views of Elon Musk? Not entirely sure what to do here, but a stand-alone "criticisms" or "controversy" section isn't it (even if those weren't in general discouraged) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this makes sense to have covered in depth in the body and not just the lead (and probably not in a controversy section). If it's useful to any editors working on adding/expanding that, the lead used to have a bunch more sources, which I pared down in this diff. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been a bit of disagreement on which word should describe Twitter's situation (specifically in the first sentence and in the infobox) now that X is its own page.

1. Defunct
2. Rebranded to X
3. Replaced by X
4. Succeeded by X
5. Renamed to X (option was added later)
6. other

Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Option 2 or Option 5 would work best, perhaps worded “Rebranded as X” or “Renamed X” respectively. Vanesa2494 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As the nominator, I choose option 2. Twitter still exists and it never shut down, since all tweets, likes, accounts, etc. carried over into X, and the twitter.com URL still redirects to X.com, even when viewing specific tweets. The policy changes gathered enough sources for a split to be necessary, but it's not accurate to say Twitter is defunct or replaced when it still exists. Neutral on "succeeded" (option 4) though, since it doesn't as strongly imply that the site is gone as saying it is "defunct" or "replaced" does. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon X supports:

• Introduction of a paywall with different tiers; the following features may be under a paywall:1
  • Long-form text, including text formatting and article publishing
  • Audio and video calls
  • Long-form video uploads
  • Grok chatbot
  • X Pro
• Removal of features such as Circles, birthday balloons, nft profile pictures and pronouns.23
• Introduction of rate limiters.4
• Significant changes in the backend.^
• Removal of the legacy Twitter API, resulting in the shutdown of most third-party apps.56
• Changes to the recommendation algorithm.7

^Elon Musk initially recruited 50 of his best Tesla employees to analyze the code. According to him, the Twitter code was like a forest that he cleaned, but to what extent this was done is unknown due to a lack of sources. He also pulled the plug on one of the Twitter data centers during the process. The extent of resource cutting is unknown as well. My observation is that X runs on half the resources and code compared to Twitter, but I don't have reliable sources to prove that.89

Defunct implies that the entity was shut down, which doesn't fit. Rebrand means a change in name, logo, and managerial and organizational changes. But it doesn't include any functionality changes it underwent. So I choose either Replaced or Succeeded. However, I lack a concrete source to prove that Elon Musk has changed the entire code, which makes me choose Succeeded. But if someone proves that there was a major change in the back-end, it will be Rebrand.

Also if it's succeeded, what will be the short description of the article? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this amounts to original research. We should align with how reliable sources describe the situation. HenryMP02 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@HenryMP02 Only the part about how much the backend changed is original research; the rest is written based on sources.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — RfC participants might want to be aware that the decision to change this article's scope comes from a requested move on a different page and that closure is currently under review. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Huh, I was not aware that there was a move review going on. Should this RfC be closed until we know how to handle the scope of this and the X social network pages? Unnamed anon (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not an expert but it strikes me as probably fine to discuss in tandem. Assuming the scope change is ultimately upheld, this discussion makes sense as-is, and assuming it's ultimately overturned, it's irrelevant anyways. That said, I thought I'd note it for anyone seeing this in RfC listings and wondering when/where/how the change originated. Plus it sends people with those concerns to the right place; another lengthy "how should the Twitter/X family of articles be organized" argument would certainly derail the intent of this RfC. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 makes the most sense to me. Twitter didn't go away. The company rebranded and is now called X. twitter.com and x.com are the same website. The separate article created for X when that article says it was a "rebrand" and "rename" too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2. What to call the change from Twitter to X is a straightforward case, sourcing wise; the term "rebrand" is widely dominant across sources (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]). "Rename" (not an explicit option in the RFC) appears to be the second most common term (e.g. [9], [10])—this could be an acceptable alternative. "Replace" (option 3) seems to only be used in referring to specific elements of the rebrand, such as the URL or logo change (e.g. [11], [12]). I didn't find any sources using the terms "succeeded" to mean replaced or describing Twitter as "defunct". Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Option 2.{{SBB}} per logic and sources provided by Dylnuge. "Rename", though not an option is accurate and supported by use in sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This cannot be fairly assessed without reference to the reliable sources. In fact may more than one term may fit though others are clearly wrong. Jorahm (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am observing that a common term is that the site was transformed but I also see that there are multiple ways to describe the relationship between X and Twitter and I don't think editors should be trying to summarize a complex change with a single word Jorahm (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Succeeded by X The platform underwent a regime change and experienced all the transformations that entails. The term for describing that is "succession". Reliable sources may not use that term, but in describing the transition from Twitter to X, they name changes which are so drastic that they match the concept of regime change much better than they do the concepts for renaming or rebranding. Wikipedia already has consensus that the situation is not at all typical for a rebranding because we have the unique editorial position of separately covering Twitter and X (social network). Because our scope of coverage is unique to us and because we already have consensus to separate the concepts, we should expect to have other differences in our presentation which account for our longer-term, deeper view of the platforms. We are not obligated to match our tone or word choice to daily news when we are telling the 20-year full story. "Rebrand" is not an accurate term in the context of that 20-year story. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly agree. Twitter was transformed into something completely different as X. Rebrand doesn't begin to cover such a radical change. To lump them together in a single article is akin to if we did the same with, to use a random example, the Polish People's Republic and the modern Republic of Poland. Or corporate transitions like, to use another random example, British Aircraft Corporation to British Aerospace (which was a vastly less extreme change than than Twitter to X was). — Red XIV ^(talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  "radical change" is subjective. It's not like the functionality of Twitter suddenly became similar to that of MySpace. Instead of using WP:OR, let's follow what reliable sources say about this, and most say 'rebranded' (or 'renamed'). Some1 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 That's the only correct option IMO. Twitter didn't go away, it just got rebranded to X after Musk acquired it. Some1 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. We should probably also redo the RM to X (social network), as it seems per WP:NAMECHANGES the site is commonly called X now.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (or 5). There's a reason why X is also called The Website Formerly Known As Twitter, at least in spirit. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the scope changes from last month were undone (meaning X (social network) is back to Twitter under Elon Musk), what should be done with this RfC? Would the consensus from this RfC just get logged here in case the scope changes are reinstated? Unnamed anon (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't change the scope of the article, only the way how the lead is phrased. Actually, it was changed since the move review. If and when the move is consensually made, then this article could change again its scope I believe. Web-julio (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence should be: “Twitter, officially known as X since July 2023.” Instead of “X commonly referred by its former name, Twitter.” It’s just better wording, and it saves some time reading. + the article name is “Twitter.” So start it with Twitter & not X because people might not know what that means. And then add “officially known as X since July 2023.” To let people name it started out as Twitter then became X in July 2023. Therefore spreading more information. So my version of the lead sentence makes more sense. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, but there is hidden text saying Please do not alter this wording. Is there a consensus for this wording, or was it added unilaterally? BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording was shaped by multiple editors over the course of several months. The hidden note was added because drive-by editors would arbitrarily change the wording every few days, which led to edit wars and instability. I don't think any wording is necessarily "better" than others (there are probably a million different combinations we can use), but there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the current wording. If editors desire a formal discussion to reach formal consensus on a wording, I wouldn't be opposed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The current version was authored by @Unknown0124 in February 2024. Before that, it changed many times (formerly and commonly, colloquially, formerly known as, formerly called, currently rebranding to X, etc.) Again, I don't really have a preference for which wording, but I do think we should pick one and stick to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This current wording directly contradicts MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Edited to conform to the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

honestly i think the entire page's name should be changed to X. The company's name isn't even Twitter anymore. Frozen902 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

this wording is here because of politics and it's massively non partisan. this whole page is busted to shit LOL

trash 2604:3D08:357F:7300:9124:407A:A056:5BFA (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

i meant partisan

^*Farts* 2604:3D08:357F:7300:9124:407A:A056:5BFA (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It should stay as it is. The excuse 'Nobody knows what X is' does not work anymore. Almost everyone knows what X is by now. It would be more confusing to start with Twitter because it is not clear what is meant by that. Does it mean the platform before Elon, or before the name change, or the platform now? X solves all these problems.

To me, the article name should also have been changed to X by now, like the articles in many other languages, but that is another topic. Mstf221 (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. I disagree. I believe that the title of the article should be changed to "X (social networking platform)", and the lead sentence should read "X, formally known as Twitter...". Usually we change the article title when a company or service changes it's name, so why the reluctance to be accurate and updated here, too? Grammar crackers (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would keep most of the original wording but include "more" after "X." NesserWiki (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(courtesy ping of @ScarletViolet:). While WP:ISATERMFOR could possibly apply here, the fact is that the social media service still remains, just been rebranded and with new management, and the goal of lede here is to be clear to the reader we are talking about the history and related factors of the service up until the July 2023, when it was known as Twitter. This isn't the type of word-game puffery that ISATERMFOR addresses. --Masem (t) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• adding, we need to be careful to use language like "Twitter was a social media service..." the service still exists, it's the Twitter branding and management that changed with the acquisition. Masem (t) 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've once again changed the lead sentence to be compliant with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Manual of Style is pretty clear on this. @Amakuru: 162 etc. (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think it was probably better the way it was, with the "X, commonly known as Twitter..." formulation but not a hill I'm about to die on... It's fairly standard to use an official name first and then state the "common" name afterwards, for example ""The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom..." or ""Louis Burton Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by his stage name Slim Pickens..." As stated above, we probably ought to rename this page to X (social media network) or similar before too long, as all the conditions for WP:NAMECHANGES are met... Either way, hopefully we won't be reinserting the original research that X and Twitter are different things!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Prefacing this by saying - I don't want to make this into a move request due to it being potentially disruptive. If there is support for this, I will open a "formal" move request.

I'm seeing it referred to as "X Platform" as well as twitter, or X (formerly twitter).

Both uses appear to be concurrent, so, would this not be a decent compromise? DarmaniLink (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to "X (social media)". Should have been done long time ago Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It should be X (social network). X is its current official name, regardless of "how many people still call it Twitter". 2A00:23EE:1480:552D:6B93:11DB:E6A3:108C (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use "official names" . The relevant convention is Wikipedia:NCCORP. A search for recent news finds many articles still refer to the platform as Twitter, as do many users, and news anchors. Thorc12 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree to this statement given the Wikipedia:NCCORP page clearly states:

Whenever possible, the most common usage in independent, reliable, secondary sources should be used (such as The Hartford for The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; and DuPont for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company).

While X is the official name, most people still refer to it as Twitter, or "X, previously known as Twitter". Not sure if there is a standard convention to use aka's....for example, Twitter (aka X)......or Twitter (now known as X). swinquest (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I do rather like X (formerly known as Twitter) as a disambiguator vs. "X (social network)". That's the clear WP:COMMONNAME disambiguation/description being used by reliable sources such as the New York Times.

I'm unaware if there are any existing articles or conventions for using a disambiguation title like that. PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Impressively, the phrase X formerly known as Twitter turns up About 5,920,000 results in a Google search. It's starting to feel like there's an argument to be made that that's the WP:COMMONNAME of the service now. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I like this, it includes both names and avoids the issues caused by using either name exclusively. There is an argument to be made that it's too long, but, it is the name of the article and not the name of the service itself. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Then again, X formerly Twitter? About 154,000,000 results. FeRDNYC (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a real argument to be made that is now the common name DarmaniLink (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please address the potential compromise idea? really don't want this to devolve into the same rehashed arguments again, that would be extremely disruptive.

Both names and uses are concurrent in the news now, so it would seem reasonable to have a name to reflect both, right? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But still, the offical name is X. It's just like how Mr. Pibb changed it's name to PibbExtra, but everybody still calls it Mr Pibb. It's about the officality of things, not how you want things to be. So i support this move request Leikstjórinn (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I doubt that idea is going to get traction. It breaks the title guidelines, specifically on concision and naturalness (people are more likely to look for one or the other). Article titles aren't the end-all-be-all of the subject; we have redirects coming in from both names, and both names are mentioned in the first sentence. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

To your title guidelines, I say WP:IAR DarmaniLink (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a current move request open at Twitter under Elon Musk seeking to move/rename that article to X (social network). In my opinion that's the easiest way forward; leave this article as "Twitter" representing the pre-Musk app, while "X (social network)" takes on the post-Musk evolution. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That RM was finally closed today, as "no consensus". 162 etc. (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Xwitter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1 § Xwitter until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is there stuff about the latest block in Brazil, but not about the latest one in Venezuela which began a few weeks earlier? Source: BBC. The only mention of a Venezuelan block in the article refers to 2014 or 2016. --2003:DA:CF2E:4510:8DF4:BF09:DCCF:F20F (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think every block needs to be mentioned in this article; it's too detailed, and better for a child article. BilledMammal (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)