![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the article's title. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twitter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why don't you rename this article to "X"?
A1: For recognizability and ease of searching, Wikipedia articles use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, which is not necessarily the official name used by its owner or its current name. For example, we use Kanye West instead of Ye (musician), Statue of Liberty instead of Liberty Enlightening the World, and United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Renaming this page "X" would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Wikipedia prefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible.
This subject has been discussed extensively. As of May 2024[update], there is strong consensus against renaming Twitter-related articles to "X". Please see the following discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Please do not attempt to make a new move request unless there have been substantial new developments or if you have a highly convincing argument that was not previously considered. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | Twitter 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
(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)Reply
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.
Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 ([9]) 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):
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)Reply
removing this claim from the infobox ... and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prosefor all the above reasons. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article says:
But the BBC says:
and
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)Reply
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)Reply