This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Abot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Comment: I mean I’m not sure if the public would like this, Twitter would have to be renamed, Twitter (2006-2022) (or 2023) I mean it’s plausible. But I’m not sure this article can be X (social network). I have not made up my mind yet & I’ll think about this before I choose. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, this whole article would have to look similar to the Twitter article that’s up right now. & I’m not sure if someone is willing to do that. And also the article rn would have to be one of the parts in the Table of Contents in the new article. So we will have to see. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of want to move it now, but I can’t. We have to agree first. But if we all agree the bot would probably move it so I wouldn’t have too. Misterunknown24 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Wikipedia article of "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk" which contains the same contents as this article of "Twitter under Elon Musk". So, it's nonsense to make another page for this article. It can be merged with the article "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk". And there should be two different articles of X (Social Network) and Twitter.
Support this helps to deal with the significant WP:BLP issues that this article faces which are caused by having Musk's name in the article name. This article covers the X corporation and since Musks name is in the title it by default (and incorrectly) attributes many actions to Musk, who may or may not be involved in those actions. This name change (move) will also serve to demarcate the change in ownership and structure of the new corporation. While BLP policy will of course still apply to content that is attributed to Musk on the moved article, it will not by default be incorrectly attributing every bit of X corporation to Musk. We have to AGF to Musk and that tells us that he is the chairman and owner, but not the CEO. It is UNDUE to therefore attribute all to the owner. Think of football and basketball teams, that are often owned by a billionaire who views the team as a bobble, we dont attribute the actions of the team to the owner. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is since the article name is the BLP subject, it attributes by default all actions by the X Corp management to its owner. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current title does not pose any BLP issue. There is no BLP proscription against using the name of a living person in a title that is descriptive of something commonly named in association with them (e.g. we have Presidency of Joe Biden and so on instead of "46th Executive Administration of the United States" or something). This is clearly the case regarding post-acquisition Twitter/X, including after Musk stepped down as CEO. Here are a variety of sources associating the current entity with Musk just from last week: CNN, Euronews, Mashable, Washington Post, NPR, The Independent (note that I provided the same evidence in the move review to refute the notion that BLPRESTORE somehow applied there). Obviously claims about Musk are themselves subject to BLP considerations, but this would be true regardless of title. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support.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. Misterunknown24, don't get ahead of yourself. Do not move this page until 1) consensus has been reached, and 2) enough time has passed for other editors to weigh in - usually seven days. GSK (talk • edits) 22:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It may be confusing to some readers, and incoming links to Twitter would have to be repaired for post-2022 mentions, but I think there is a substantial enough difference between the two that warrants separate articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about companies, there's plenty of precedent; Yahoo Inc. is another. But this is a product, and I don't believe there have been many cases similar to this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of sources in the last week, with the change of the domain name, are basically considering this the final nail in Twitter's coffin. And while the service/social media may be similar, the controversies and management aspects of it are vastly different that it would make covering the whole of Twitter/X in one article undue and confusing. — Masem (t) 01:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think, as per the previous discussions on the Twitter talk page, that the Musk acquisition represents such a significant break in Twitter's management, branding operations, and general approach that a) it's become necessary to rename this page to serve as the home for all X-related events and b) that the original Twitter page should remain as-is to preserve the original company's decisions/ethos/impact. Fiendpie (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is the solution that Masem proposed that I fully endorse. The platform under Dorsey & Musk has been different enough that separate articles are warranted. But, yes; a lot of work will be needed to essentially rewrite the Musk article. BOTTO (T•C)00:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Didn't he say he wanted X to ultimately be an app along the lines of WeChat? I understand in its current form it's just a social media site/app, but overtime as they focus on that goal, new features not related to social media may/will get added. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and should this WeChat-like app come to pass, that's just more a change of name of this from X (social network) to whatever name is more appropriate but without having to move content around. — Masem (t) 01:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have spelt out exactly what I think needs to be done, which includes this rename but also some content management, at Talk:Twitter#Masem’s proposal. All those steps don't need to be decided now, but it is the logical outcome involving this renaming. --Masem (t) 01:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the consensus established on Twitter that “there is no consensus that "X" is the most commonly used name for the social network”, so either “Twitter” is the current common name, or “X” is the common name. Both cannot be true at the same time. The core product also hasn’t really changed since the takeover, and the subject of this article is pretty much just controversies and complaints caused post-takeover. This feels like an attempt to sidestep the consensus established in that RM, especially as this would also call for substantial content duplication and/or merging. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest01:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind the Not Move was that there wasn’t consensus that “X” was a more common name than “Twitter”. As pointed out in that closing, this isn’t something we can do with just an RM.
Can we establish that “X” is a different product from Twitter? The management changes and controversies have been cited but there was a year’s time where those still happened under the Twitter banner post-Musk. So does that retroactively belong in the “X” article? Or does it belong in Twitter? If the latter is true then what exactly is the difference between Twitter and X? Is it POV to even suggest that the two are fundamentally different products? This isn’t something you can fix with an RM, this is calling to basically change the subject matter of an entire article based on something where we weren’t able to decide if the name change is even the COMMONNAME. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest02:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another major issue is that when do we draw the line for when Twitter became no longer Twitter? The changes started almost immediately after the takeover, but the rebranding happened a year later. You’re almost bound to end up with WP:NPOV issues because there really isn’t a clear point to draw the line. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest01:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The natural break is when Musk bought it. That's when much of the backend and policies changed. You'd need a section on Twitter to summarize the acquisition, and likely documenting when the domain names were changed, but that's just for comprehension. Masem (t) 01:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in my other comment, that leaves almost an entire years worth of time where the site was unambiguously referred to as “Twitter”, even by Musk himself. Also there are obvious POV issues with suggesting that Twitter ceased to be the moment Musk bought it, in addition to POV issues with suggesting that “X” and “Twitter” are different products at all given that the status quo is that they’re being treated as the same product. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest02:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that within weeks of the purchase, Musk was calling it X. While we can talk about COMMONNAME aspects and why keeping Twitter where it was for that year, at that point, that when it was formally renamed to X. Thus, it absolutely makes sense that the history from the day Muck bought it that all that content makes sense at an article called X, if we are keeping a historical article on what Twitter was before Musk bought it.
And given everything Musk has said as well as how the media have approached it, Twitter and X should be considered wholly different products. It is a unique situation compared to anything else out there, hence why the comparison to why we have two Viacom articles (reflected eras of different management) makes sense here. Masem (t) 05:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the one question I have is how we plan to handle incoming links. Mentions of Twitter post–July 2023 should probably use [[X (social network)|X]]or[[X (social network)|X]], formerly known as [[Twitter]], and mentions of Twitter pre–October 2022 should definitely retain [[Twitter]]. But what about mentions of Twitter between October 2022 and July 2023, when the service was under Musk's ownership but still called Twitter? If we decide to retain the article's current scope, which covers that period, then what are we supposed to do, use [[X (social network)|Twitter]]?InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“there is no consensus that "X" is the most commonly used name for the social network” argument fails basic logic and also policy. We follow official corpoate names, and not wikipedians opinion on names. We would still be calling alphabet as google. There is nothing in WP:NCCORP to support the argument that we will use an old corporate name because we do some WP:OR and count sources. There is also nothing in WP:MOSTM that supports the argument that we wikipedians are going to call it twitter, just because the name is better than x. I personally like the twitter name and the bird better, but this doesnt mean that I get to raise my hand and suggest the article should be called that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“We follow official corpoate names, and not wikipedians opinion on names.”
Aside from the fact that NCORP doesn’t even cover X (the social media) as it is a product, NCORP would cover X Corp. but NCORP explicitly states that “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).” So WP:COMMONNAME still applies. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest21:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the policies you and I have both cited support changing the name to follow the x re-branding as well as the sources coverage of the re-branding. I doubt you can even find a couple decent recent sources that use the term twitter without mentioning the name is changed to x. Of course there are RS that are stating 'x, formerly called twitter' and/or 'twitter now called x', but those dual mention RS only lend weight to us changing the article name. Post your actual RS here showing recent RS that refer to twitter alone and make no mention of x, rather than just stating your opinion the sources are doing this. Where are those sources? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Anyone who uses the site can tell you it's quite different now that Musk runs it, and there's no sense in not acknowledging a deliberate rebranding. Flameoguy (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose
having this article be called x app, is wrong cus twitter is X they are the same thing. they should have different names they cant have the same name, otherwise people will be confused as why Twitter has 2 pages. like what would you link too? Twitter or x app. the way it is now its good.
Support: In the previous request, I supported both the initial proposal and the alternative proposal. This is effectively the alternative proposal, which had quite a lot of support in the previous request. From my understanding, a proposal similar to this was also the most popular option in a survey I participated in a few months ago at Talk:Twitter. –Gluonztalkcontribs02:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any sources that actually support the claim that X is “fundamentally” not Twitter? Also citing the Ship of Theseus highlights the problem with POV I noted earlier, because it is literally based on your POV if the Ship of Theseus is still the same Ship of Theseus. There is no “correct” answer that doesn’t violate WP:NPOV in the absences of sources that also make the claim or draw the line. PadgriffinGriffin's Nest02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that X is intrinsically a new company and should have a dedicated page. It would stop all the attempted moves of the Twitter page that are unwarranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "I think that" vote... I have rarely seen an RM so beset by people's opinions rather than sourced verifiable arguments. Just to be clear, Twitter and X are not "intrinsically" different. Musk bought Twitter and gave it a new name, but in other respects it's the same thing and that's what sources say. — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RM established Twitter as the social network's common name.
Twitter/X is the same social network. This article is about a particular era of that social network's history. The proposed title would suggest that this article is about a social network itself, thus wrongly implying that either (a) X is social network that is a successor of Twitter, rather than merely a renaming of Twitter, or (b) this article is about the entire history of the social network since 2006.
Point 2 is easily remedies with a well-written lede section and hatnotes to make sure the reader understands the content of what X (social network) is from 2023 onward while Twitter is covered elsewhere. Masem (t) 05:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would paper over a genuine issue - the fact that a service changed (for the worse, some say) or that new features are planned (like payments) does not mean it is a successor. The widespread mention of "X, formerly Twitter" in reliable sources, or the seemingly unanimous media framing of the Twitter -> X move as a "rebrand" (meaning, the same service) shows that it would be WP:OR for us to treat them as separate services. DFlhb (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edited 06:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit. First, to suggest the closer please check the move review comments (especially Dylnuge's, who lists sources using the names interchangeably).
Second, some brought up Viacom; that split was done due to unclear continuity (the old Viacom's legal successor wasn't the new "Viacom", which was a brand new company). Unclear continuity is an objective criteria, and it's a rare corner-case for corporate mergers/splits. It wasn't split due to the changes being subjectively considered "too significant" (many comments here would apply to Boeing after the M-D guys did a soft takeover and ruined it, but we didn't split that). When there's no continuity issue, split can increase reader confusion. See Final Cut Pro: there was a rewrite (FCPX), hugely controversial (sound familiar?), so we "preserved" the "dignity" of the more-loved FCP by giving FCPX a new article, but many readers who wanted to learn about the current software (FCPX) landed on the "old" (FCP) article, and kept adding material about FCPX to the FCP article. We'd see the same confusion here, since people keep calling the current service "Twitter".
Third, some are misunderstanding "Twitter is dead". People also say "Facebook/Snapchat/Reddit is dead". Many who say "Twitter is dead" also say "X, formerly Twitter" or just keep using the old name. The continuity isn't ambiguous, Musk didn't start from scratch or merge/split multiple social networks; subjectively "significant" changes aren't a reason to split. DFlhb (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
X is not twitter. They are incredibly different sites, with different cultures and user experiences. Twitter never had paid blue checks, or a button for AI nonsense. Musk has stated that he is deliberately attempting to create a social media network on the bones of twitter, rather than simply overhaul the existing site. Flameoguy (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are incredibly different sites, with different cultures and user experiences. I would say the same of the Facebook of 2004 and the Facebook of 2024. Graham (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this it the same platform as before, just with a name change, so it should be listed under its commonname Twitter --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This move only makes sense if we treat Twitter & X as two separate networks, which would be a subjective decision. This article is fine as a child-article. It covers Twitter/X's controversies in relation to Musk, his leadership, and his impact on society (which is the precise reason why these controversies were found noteworthy by the press). Second, this article would not be fine as the "primary" article on a social network; that would change its scope and require a rewrite, to refocus on its features, technological aspects, societal impact, etc, like all of our articles on social networks. A move would create pervasive due weight issues which don't currently exist. DFlhb (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a fork if it covers a different subject. As long as Twitter is up until the Musk era and this one is the Musk era onwards, it is a split, not a fork. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I recognise the strength of oppose arguments that Twitter remains the commonname including for Twitter under Musk. But the point of COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES is that the name must be recognisable. Twitter under Elon Musk as a subject is very recognisably the X social network. The split makes sense, because Musk very clearly bought the network and maked it something else. Keeping this as Twitter under Elon Musk would not be a worng result for now, but at some point it will definitely need this change, whereas the Twitter article can be repurposed and the old name kept, which will always be more sensible for an article on the Twitter era, which would not really make much sense under the new name. It could be a touch too early for the change, but ultimately this is the way it should be, and it will not be confusing - indeed it will be less confusing - to make this change. For that reason, we should just get on and do it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone above and per COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES, It actually makes sense to have 2 articles as without making this 10x long it would be impossible and confusing to have it all under one article, We should preserve all history we have being an Encyclopedia and all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk08:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The above claims that Twitter and X are different things are pure WP:OR and not at all supported by reliable sources, which almost universally refers to the site as "X (formerly Twitter)". The fundamentals of Twitter, including its user base, mode of operation, technical details and history remain the same. WP:NAMECHANGES tells us to rename the article Twitter as and when the new name has become the most common in reliable sources. What it does not tell us to do is to fork off a new article under the new name, just because a few Wikipedians think it's not the same website. — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false analogy, because Londinium is effectively a sub-article of London, as indeed you'll see if you scroll down to the History section and observe the text there on the Roman period. And there's no contention over names there, because nobody uses Londinium to refer to the modern city. With Twitter/X though, these are just alternative names for the exact same thing at slightly different times, and the two are often used interchangeably. — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per previous rough consensus established months ago, as well as strong support for re-naming in previous RM. I see some opposition claiming that consensus wasn't established in previous RM for a name-change, but that RM has nothing to do with re-naming this article as X (social network), as others have explained. The article is question otherwise documents the transition from Twitter into X, so it seems entirely appropriate for it to reflect the article X (social network), especially given the clear lack of consensus to re-name the Twitter article as X in previous RM. This implies re-naming this article has been green lit, in the context of a lack of conflict with the Twitter article that won't be re-named to X anytime in the future it seems. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good to do. People are complaining about due weight issues as though this article isn't warranting a rewrite anyway. Flameoguy (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are complaining about due weight issues as though this article isn't warranting a rewrite anyway Not just a rewrite. Major deletions would be necessary to go from this article on the changes Musk made to Twitter, to one that covers X overall. I think the most likely scenario, if this RM passes, is that these deletions will be challenged, and therefore require affirmative consensus, which has proven hard to attain when it comes to newscruft involving controversies. Which means we will have an article on X, which will be very hard to turn into a proper encyclopedic article on X. And that's if we accept that Twitter is dead and X is a separate, new service. DFlhb (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) edited 23:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Fundamentally (and in terms of legal continuity) the site is still the same, just with major refocusing of moderation, audience priorities, and obviously the rebrand. As discussed at the Twitter RM, most RS still use a FKA Twitter qualifier when writing about X, and many still just use the old name without mentioning the new one. There is also the issue that the X rebrand is not entirely chronologically synchronous with Musk's takeover, which this proposal doesn't address. Until X becomes the common name for the site, these articles should be consistent with each other. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions12:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is presently not a general topic on X, but part of my whole proposal (first made in the previous page move request) would be to move content from Twitter to X so that it becomes a page about X as a social media service with significant different policies and wealth of criticism and controversy that are different than pre-Musk Twitter. Simply selling this idea as a page move is not capturing the full suggestion that I had. Masem (t) 12:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters I oppose most of the other parts of your suggestion, but primarily because I don't think they accomplish your goals I think they do the opposite and the will leave both readers and editors worse off. Good goals though. What I don't like is the appearance of forum shopping, which one move request being opened the same day the other is closed looks like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't address the forum shopping (I was planning over this weekend to make my proposal for formal discussion). But I question why this approach would be confusing to readers and editors. Twitter everything before the acquisition, X after, the split is extremely clean. Hatnotes and ledes to make it clear where a reader should go if they were looking for X content but landed on Twitter. Masem (t) 13:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an argument for having a History of Twitter and a History of X... Not for having neither. I appreciate that you would have done a better job of proposing the changes. I just think that fundamentally we have too much coverage we need to include to meet NPOV to do it on the main pages... Its been necessary with a lot of the other majors (History of Facebook, History of YouTube, etc) One thing I can agree with is that the timeline page is questionable (even if they seem to exist for others like Timeline of Instagram) and should be rolled into history pages where available (as it is at History of Facebook). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all these history and timeline articles on social media services is a symptom of the overall problem we tend to have with long-term events or topics that have existed past the start of Wikipedia - that editors tend to want to document every single time that event is mentioned in the news. This leads to extremely overly-detailed histories and timelines, filled with proseline that goes "On (this date), (this thing) happened." which is nowhere closer to encyclopedic writing or a summary of the topic from major sources. (our COVID articles have the same problem, for instance). Documenting the history of a social media service is definitely within our wheelhouse, but it should not be written in this fashion, and across all of those articles, much of the unnecessary details could easily be trimmed down or removed while writing a more narrative approach (such as what the early period of the main YouTube article covers). To use a better example, History of Microsoft, up until the last section, is written in a manner I would expect consist with WP's approach, and because this is a 50 year old company, it is reasonable that it is that long and split out from the main company article. Not saying that eventually X may need its own split of history, but we're being too aggressive with splitting out before need, particularly as efforts to trim down first have been made. Masem (t) 20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Doc I don't see that as a problem... But if thats your diagnosis I will take it under consideration (we have gotten far from the topic under discussion so I will desist, but thank you for the philosophical and practical perspective on editorial best practices more broadly). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I wouldn't consider this forum-shopping considering the alternate proposal did gain traction but only failed to obtain a clear consensus because of the structure of the prior RM (usually, the more options there are, the more difficult it is to reach a consensus). The closer also explicitly called for further discussion regarding an article split take place after this closure. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since the previous move on the mother page has failed, this should not be moved. Also, I feel like Twitter under Musk seems to describe the essence of the takeover better. ✶Quxyz✶13:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In discussions with HEB on Talk:Twitter, a fair question that one should ask themselves here is if Twitter and X are individually notable topics that merit their own standalone pages. I myself think yes, but I can also understand the position that they presentally are not, though with everything Musk has said about his intent for the platform, in time it will be harder to justify that position as he converts X into something closer to WeChat. However, that all said, if there is not consensus on that, it may be a question to asked at a future time (like at least a year from now). --Masem (t) 14:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as he converts X into something closer to WeChat at the risk of stating the obvious, this is, so far, vaporware. Facebook added payments a decade ago and didn't turn into WeChat (nor into a "different"/successor service); the feature saw no adoption and was abandoned. Nothing says an "everything app" is possible in the West, and Twitter, with low marketshare, won't have the winner-takes-all/network effects that WeChat or even Facebook got. An "everything app" also requires more employees and higher reinvestable profits, and Twitter has gone in the opposite direction. We shouldn't let the "everything app" narrative cloud our judgment; it hasn't happened until it has. The feeling that Twitter "is dead" or "unrecognizable" is driven by the moderation changes (his motive for acquisition) and monetization (required by the debt load & ad exodus), we shouldn't mistake it for a sign that anything else changed substantively. DFlhb (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the current contents of this page is more about the transition, the controversy and the politics rather than the social network itself as a platform. Generally speaking I oppose the split because the function of the platform (thinking in terms of social role and impact) has not changed significantly after the takeover. As a somewhat quirky analogy, you don't split the White House article after every president change just because of politics. The function remains the same. It could be argued that Musk is pushing Twitter/X towards something radically different than pre-Musk Twitter, but as of today, it hasn't happened in my opinion. I acknowledge that there are many moving parts in this discussion, it's complicated, and this is why strong consensus should be reached before taking action. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
X is a young platform and most people don't like the changes Musk has made. Of course much of the content of an article on it would deal with transition, controversy, and politics. Naturally after the move there is a lot more that can be added to the article. Flameoguy (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stating "most people don't like the changes Musk has made" is not WP:NPOV in my opinion. I would agree that most people (including myself) don't like the rebranding for valid, objective reasons that have been stated many times. But other changes like community notes have many supporters. Furthermore, I don't think article naming decisions should be made based on any of that. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. News articles and other online information dealing with the present site call it X now. Frankly I'm excited to see the site documented under the new name so that we can better preserve the history of the original twitter. Flameoguy (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support with conditions:
This is obvious but this article needs significant re-synthesis and expansion. I'm assuming that would happen early on.
Significant sections from the Twitter article should be summarised into this article, including its history, with a see also link.
I see this move request as more of a compromise than anything as keeping everything as is for now may meet WP:Article titles better. I did write this essay about why it's going to be difficult (perhaps ever) to move TwittertoX (social network) on the other move request and this option allows for an article about X without the WP:Article titles issues from moving Twitter itself. However, the Viacom (1952–2005) and Viacom (2005-2019) use parenthetical disambiguation and having two articles about the same platform may not follow WP:Notability without them.
Oppose. The fact that reliable sources often say "X, formerly known as Twitter", combined with the fact that there were several months where Musk owned Twitter before deciding to rename it X, tells me that Twitter is X, just with a different name and management. Using the website myself, it doesn't feel so fundamentally different that I would describe it as being completely different. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)20:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why this keeps happening, but please add new !votes at the bottom of the page, not randomly in the middle of the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat unrelated, but CNN has an interesting article on how and why everyone still calls it "Twitter" and not "X", though it was written before the URL change. While some people (mainly fans of Musk) have embraced the X brand, most have not. Many people, both online and in person, still call the platform Twitter, and refer to posts as tweets.InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I believe that this page has a lot of good information that would be too much of extra details for a page named X (social network). But, I do strongly believe that there should be a page named X (social network) separate from Twitter. I feel like there are two eventual options:
Move this page to X (social network) and after some time, we will realize that there are too much information in the page that would require spinning off parts of the article into a page named History of X.
I wanted to personally propose the latter. But right now it seems like the discussion is about a binary choice between the status quo and moving this page to X (social network). In that case, I reluctantly support the move and will just wait for the right time to propose the inevitable split I mentioned in my option #1.
Strong Oppose — It is still the same platform, even after the rebranding. It would be very clumsy and confusing for there to be two separate articles about the same platform. EarthTeen (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I have previously stated from the talk to the main Twitter article: “Support, I think the rebrand is now complete as their domain is not x.com. And Twitter is a thing of the past even though they are still called Twitter by many, the official records still states that Twitter is now X.” The Man Without Fear🦇15:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates a procedural issue I have; this is presented as an RM, but it's really a proposal to split Twitter (only, using material we already put here), and that seems to have biased some of the votes so far, who treat the split as self-evident without justifying it. Despite what elijahpepe says immediately above, this is the central argument. The rationale for moving TwittertoX (social network) can't be the same rationale for moving Twitter under Elon MusktoX (social network). - DFlhb (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, considering how we've already went through this two times it's clear this does nothing but confuse people. Just leave it the way it is and move on. LittleMAHER1 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - making a separate page for X would imply that X is a different thing from Twitter. That would be WP:OR. There is no evidence that X is a new social media site, or a new product. In fact, most sources I've seen that mention X say "(formerly known as Twitter)", implying that they are the same thing but it just has a new name. X is not a different subject from Twitter, it's just a rebrand. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole two pages, Twitter and this are now completely chaos. I mean, we can't discribe one same thing at two pages. If we insist not to change to the new name, at least they must trim to pervent WP:REDUNDANTESSAY. Awdqmb (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Nobody in the real world actually calls it "X". If they do, it's probably to mock elon musk. 48JCL12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To rename this article but not split the post-2022 related content from the original Twitter article does not make sense, hence the condition. If this was a new Twitter with the same name, I could understand the Twitter (2006–2023) naming idea brought up, but the fact that the platform service has been completely changed and renamed, there's really no justification for a Twitter (2006–2023) name when simply Twitter works to describe what the platform was when it bared that name. While I understand (and partly agree) that X is not really a WP:COMMONNAME, ultimately it is the name of the platform and as time goes on, more and more people and reliable sources have begun to use the X name, so it might as well just happen here. – Handoto (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I remain unconvinced there's any evidence that "Twitter" and "X" are being treated as truly distinct entities, instead of just a rebranding. News articles continue to use the terms interchangeably or refer to X as "formerly known as Twitter" in the first sentence (e.g. [1], [2]). The Twitter RM failed to establish a consensus among editors that Twitter isn't still the common name for the current website. The point of article names is to be as discoverable and reasonable for readers as possible, and I can't fathom that the average reader makes a logical distinction between Twitter and X when the average editor doesn't. A size split like this article makes sense, given the amount of information covering the acquisition and subsequent changes, but treating it like a content split does not. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)22:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To any closer brave enough to tackle this thing, noting that my oppose is to the broad split proposal. If this discussion is read in a narrower sense of only retitling with no change in scope to the extant Twitter page, I strongly oppose that on the grounds that it directly violates WP:AT requirements on precision and consistency. The consensus on Talk:Twitter is that the common name is Twitter, and this page having an alternative title of X (social network) without an equivalent change in scoping of both articles would be inappropriate. I think the majority of comments here are discussing the split proposal, in spite of it being an RM. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft opposing this proposal — It would be very difficult to build consensus right now without parenthetical disambiguation as it would result in two articles about the same platform. If no consensus is reached here, the only alternatives are to wait for an unknown period of time longer to move TwittertoX (social network) or wait for more significant changes to the platform. Twitter (2003-2023) changes the context of the article to a period of time in X's history, allowing for an article for X. If Twitter can't be moved to X (social network) and X (social network) can't be separate because of duplication, its the most effective compromise to allow for an article for what is a notable topic in itself. Waiting for X to become as a more common name for Twitter is predicting that it ever will, which is original research and WP:CRYSTALBALL. While there has been a change in ownership, branding, content algorithms, executive board, workforce layoffs, workplace culture, sharp decrease in advertisers, pivot from a predominantly ad company to paid subscriptions, corporate policies, market share, API restrictions, user moderation, change from short tweets to up to 25000 character posts, long-form videos, mass removal of old user accounts as well as a general desire to erase any mention of Twitter; we don't create a new article whenever private equity buys a fast food chain, sells off assets and its profits decline. We should either move TwittertoX (social network), which will take time and may continue to face opposition, or have a separate article for X (social network) by using the Viacom (historical period) precedents. The brackets can always be removed in the future if X becomes the everything app that Elon Musk seems to want it to be, marking a significant deviation from what Twitter has historically been. For now, the brackets are needed because it hasn't seemed to have happened yet and Wikipedia doesn't make predictions. This is a similar proposal as the one I made while disagreeing on its most fundamental principle. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻23:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am of the opinion that the article Twitter is, and should remain, the main article covering the website as a whole, both before and after the Musk takeover. This article has a place as a repository of the commentary and criticism of Musk's leadership of Twitter, but it makes no sense to me that the main meta-article and its spinoff should referr to the same website with two different and confusing names. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I do not support this proposal. However, I do agree that Musk's name should be taken out of the title. Something like 'Twitter under private equity' should be fine. Melmann18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is still the same platform despite a rebranding in the name. I fail to see how it has genuinely actually changed as a social media platform, even if the branding is different. Jasp767615:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support To reiterate my comment in the discussion linked at the top of this thread, I found Masem's proposal and the comparison to Viacom (2005–2019) and Viacom (1952–2005) persuasive. Some content may need to be moved around, some from TwittertoX (social network), or vice versa, etc. The management of the app is sufficiently different that it can be understood, at the article level, as two different topics. Twitter was the app with lots of bird theming; X is the app run by a company owned by Elon Musk. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — the name has been in place for a long time now and is increasingly what I see in people referring to the platform. So the entity that the former-company Twitter became after Elon Musk purchased it clearly has a name now, and it's not merely "Twitter under Elon Musk." It's like in various governments, Wikipedia has an article on the particular government of some particular country led by some majority/coalition/whatever government in office for each epoch of time. And a new article when that all changes. Clearly X is significantly different under the ownership of Musk, whether looking at company workforce (now much smaller), lever of automation, whether & how the company does/does not do extensive content moderation beyond legal requirements in each country, etc. — N2e (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s clear that then-Twitter and today’s X platform are so different that a split in content is almost inevitable. I completely agree with renaming this article as its current name that still refers to the platform as Twitter is no longer accurate. The rename would also allow the Twitter article to keep its pre-buyout history separate from the X platform. 2605:B100:10C:273E:30F8:2F7C:207B:C7CE (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that X is a different subject is original research. There is no evidence that X is anything other than a new name for an existing service. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per previous nomination and above, the two services are to diverge to a content split would've occurred at some point. There would need to be restructuring on both articles. DankJae13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As before, what is different about the "two services"? Aside from small cosmetic things, what's fundamentally different that would warrant a separate article, and where's the sourcing for your assertion? WP:OR like this should be ignored by the closer. — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous changes on how the service functions like the blue check system, new features never considered under Twitter like video chat, moderation and content policies that have completely shifted the larger view to what X hosts like its welcoming of far right content, which has led to a lot of criticism and attacks on that criticism. — Masem (t) 11:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the fundamentals are unchanged, including most of the userbase, the prior content which is still in place, the model of operation etc. And anyway, as I said before this is all just unsourced editors' opinion. Criticism and a few people leaving the site is one thing, but to assert that it's a whole new entity needs strong sourcing, which hasn't been presented. — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this move happens, the lede and body should make it crystal clear that it is the same effective service, rebranded under new management, which has implemented numerous changes outside the basic service and those changes have come under a whole host if criticisms. It definitely should not be treated as a successor or a new entity. — Masem (t) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede (currently) seems overly critical and doesn't cite the major structural changes in the company aside from frivolous policy decisions. Due to improper closing, both article titles and scope are a mess. If the page isn't moved, it may be ideal to revert the content to a revision prior to the initial move. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻14:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least fours to be considered for rewriting for better encyclopedic organization: Twitter, this article, History of Twitter, and Timeline of Twitter. There's multiple content moves and splits that should be considered in the first place regardless of this RM. And that was state before the move, charges, and reversion. Masem (t) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the recommended tweets on notifications and the timeline feed, which before it was about who you followed but now appears unfollowing accounts as well. Web-julio (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Question — Now that this has been relisted, I'm unclear how we should handle the current scope status of Twitter and this page. Since the closure was originally used as justification for those changes, it might make sense to restore the original scope of these pages, but that's honestly a mess since they've been actively edited for two weeks since closure, and would be especially annoying if this closes with consensus to move and rescope.
It was noted in the move review (and in the May 2024 Twitter RM close: [3]) that a move isn't really the "right" venue for this kind of scope change, though personally I don't care too much assuming A) participants are all clear on what they're discussing and B) editors at all impacted articles are properly notified. I think B is solved easily by putting a notice on Twitter (and TBH I suspect anyone who cares is already here). I'm less clear on A; whether this is about Masem's split proposal or "just" changing the name seemed more contentious in the MR than I expected. Does anyone with experience in this kind of discussion have a decent sense of how to sort this out? Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)15:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when there were two articles for X and Twitter, I really thought that was a result of one of those split discussions. I thought "Twitter under Elon Musk" was a third page describing the intermediary short period of time in which Elon Musk bought part of the shares of Twitter before its rebranding/rename. That's what the name and the Wikidata item imply, that this article is about Twitter under Elon Musk, and X (social network) is a separate article for the succeeded/followed current time. But now knowing that this article is just a renamed cfork, I believe it should be discussed or changed if editors want two articles talking about the same thing, or separate things, one for the past and the other the current, or keeping as is. Web-julio (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be logical, but it is not the current state. Currently we have the twitter article and this this awful WP:BLP mess in which we no attribute every bit of twitter corporate trivia to Musk, even he might not even know anything about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is that article. The issue we need to address is what do we do with future twitter/x content. Do we just merge the non-musk content to twitter or do we need to have a new article post aquisition. I can see there is a pov that twitter is now so different than before. I personally (myWP:OR dont see any difference. I just see a social network that looks like a news feed. I dont see why we need a new article to cover the corporation. We of course do have acquisition timeframe and we can expand that to be Acquisition and management of twitter by Elon Musk that can cover his time as CEO (which he no longer is). Then we mitigate the BLP issues which we have now, where the article continues to be associated with him, and it isn't/shouldnt be primarily a WP:BLP, it should be WP:CORP, so we should remove the person's name from the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, there is far too much about Twitter and X (treating them as a single article) that SIZE would be evoked, even if the history sections are split out and the acquisition article left as is. We need to consider a split. In that fashion it is not an OR issue if we say that we're going to consider Twitter as everything up to the acquisition, and X as everything after as to avoid the size issue, as long as its crystal clear that this was a continuous transition of a singular service. Not a new service, not a successor, etc. Just the nature of the original service under the new branding and management. When looked from it at that way, then it seems apparently obvious that this article (Twitter under Elon Musk) should be the basis of the X article.
But it should be clear there is a large amount of Gordian knots to be untangled with how all the current articles on Twitter and X are written (outside of the Acquisition article), as well as how we present each article to be clear that Twitter smoothly transitioned to X. Masem (t) 22:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, there is far too much about Twitter and X (treating them as a single article) that SIZE would be evoked [...] We need to consider a split That justifies splitting details into child articles; you're using a WP:SIZESPLIT rationale to justify a WP:CONSPLIT. And it is WP:OR since it contradicts sources ("X, formerly Twitter").
continuous transition of a singular service. Not a new service, not a successor + the nature of the original service under the new branding and management + (you, not far above:) it is the same effective service this undermines the rationale for a content split.
there is a large amount of Gordian knots to be untangled - I call this "inevitable reader confusion". Respectfully (of course). The Gordian knot is self-inflicted; "continuous transitions" are inherently incompatible with content splits. - DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a split of some sort is needed. Its just incorrect to attribute all of this to Musk, and it is a clear WP:BLP concern. My only point is the BLP name in the article name and that needs to be removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support movetoX (social network), as this is clearly not what used to be Twitter anymore. While I agree with concerns that this title could be misleading to some who still refer to it by its predecessor's name, these are two very distinct incarnations of a platform, and it seems enough time has passed for this to become a more common search term than "Twitter under Elon Musk" is. As an outside perspective who has watched these changes from afar, I happen to quite like retaining all of the pre-Musk information and history at Twitter, all of the post-Musk and X rebrand info in this X (social network) article, and plenty of the in-between acquisition and transition details in that dedicated article. I'm sure once the specific material is sorted out between these articles that the article dedicated to X can retain much of the controversies and criticisms of post-acquisition and post-rebrand X, and I would suggest immediate effects and aftermath of the acquisition be explained at the acquisition article, similar to what has been done at Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, Acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, and Acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, to just name a few examples. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support there might yet be a better way to organize and name this but Twitter should be a historic page that ends with its acquisition and this page should cover everything that has from the acquisition on. There is a logical split due to length and timing.. And there is a clear break between the two subjects even if the exact moment of the break is stretched out over time. One could even go so far as to claim that "twitter under elon musk" is a synonym for "X (social network)" and the rest just boils down to WP:COMMONNAME VS. WP:NATDIS which could come up for discussion again yet in the future... Jorahm (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru and others above. Twitter and X are not two different products or platforms; Twitter just got renamed/rebranded to X after Musk took over (and the changes Musk made to Twitter after he acquired it is, well, described in this Twitter under Elon Musk article). Twitter is X's former name--reliable sources literally say X, formerly known as Twitter. Splitting Twitter/X up into Twitter and X (social network) will give readers the wrong impression that Twitter somehow became defunct and that Musk started a new social networking site, X, in its place. Some1 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as this page's current name is outdated. There should be an X (social media) page, but clearly the Twitter page is not going to be renamed. Best to keep Twitter-era history on the Twitter page and X-era history on this page. 2605:B100:114:6E5E:659F:1CA8:F8CD:AB11 (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per arguments above. Reliable sources do not treat 'Twitter' and 'X' as separate, distinct entities. They treat 'X' as a rebrand of 'Twitter'. Having separate articles for 'X' and for 'Twitter' would either mean describing 'X' as a successor to a now-defunct 'Twitter' (which nearly no reliable sources do), or alternatively having two articles covering roughly the same topic in slightly different ways. Neither options are feasible. Loytra (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Twitter and X are the same platform, offering the same service; the name, branding, and ownership have changed, but there's an obvious continuity between the two topics. If you had a Twitter account before the rename, your account, your followers, your posting history, etc. were carried over completely seamlessly when the rename occurred. Musk has overseen cultural shifts and incremental updates to the platform, sure, but those are not the kind of meaningful or fundamental changes that would justify a content fork. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. X is the name of this company, and Twitter doesn't exist officially anymore. The current name makes Wikipedia look comical.Ae245 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is not a simple retitling of one page - it would be a WP:CONTENTSPLIT of one article into two. We saw that before this RM was relisted (move review), the move as enacted split the Twitter article into an article about defunct service called Twitter and an article about a new service called X, the 'successor' of Twitter. As others have stated, that doesn't align with how the majority of reliable sources describe the situation - they treat the subject as a single entity which has been rebranded. Aside from that, even if that split is a decision we wish to make, I assert that the proper venue for that major split and rescoping would be Wikipedia:Proposed article splits or a consensus on the main article talk page (RfC?). It is very pertinent to note that an RM to move the Twitter page to the X (social media) title failed just hours before the current RM was created on this child article. I think the closer should bear that in mind. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this page was split off as a WP:SIZESPLIT child article, and I think it should remain that way. The way the move was enacted turned this page the main article for the service, and rescoped the old article in the process (it became an article about a 'predecessor'). That is the content split I am referring to. HenryMP02 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Yes, I totally agree. The fact that they are so different now, it is simply pragmatic. Musk has a different parent company as well, I just believe that it is big enough as an element of culture that it needs to be treated specially. Establish a system, that's a good thing. BarntToust (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal, support a move - I do think that we might be able to find a better title, but in my brief reading of this, we already have an article for the social network under Twitter, which even declares that the name is now X. This article, to me, appears to be about the acquisition, changes in leadership, policy, features, etc, which is a different topic. Renaming this to just "X (social network) will lead to two articles about the same topic, which is confusing. If anything, we need to reconcile the two articles, possibly merging some of the content, and agree on scope before we bother moving anything, and that will likely not be a fast process. ASUKITE17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two recent YouGov polls found that in the US and UK respectively, the portion of the general adult population that still uses "Twitter" versus "X" or both is: 49-13-18 and 69-5-12, with the remainder not sure. Among users of the site, it leans more in favour of "Twitter" than the general population at 55-19-21 and 79-6-15 respectively. [4][5] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions13:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent yougov polls points to the controversy around the name which is certainly due in the article for inclusion. The point that Asukite made is valid, in that it is unclear why we would need a content fork. We could not justify a content fork due to a yougov poll, or even more broadly the controversy surrounding the name of the service. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not responding to Asukite. The overwhelming majority of top level comments in this discussion have been bulleted and I was just following that. The polls are somewhat relevant given that the first article naming criteria deal with recognizability and naturalness for the general public, and the former name still has an advantage in that regard.
I agree with Asukite that doing this move as proposed would lead to a content fork and there needs to be a fuller discussion (RFC?) about how these pages will be handled going forward, considering the failed Twitter => X move recently. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to treating them as separate entities I see some people above claim that there was a consensus to treat them as separate entities, but I see nothing of the sort. Reliable sources generally say "X, formerly known as Twitter", doubling down that these are the same platform with a name change. The functionality and policy changes, while notable, don't make it a different platform at all; the fact that all tweets, likes, follows, accounts, etc. carried over should also be a clear sign that this is just a rename, not a new platform. If the Twitter page gets too long its history could be split into multiple pages, including pre-X and post-X if its history still remains as too long, but there should only be one page specifically about the platform itself because Twitter and X are in the most literal sense the exact same platform. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Despite the official name change, it's still the same website/app/service, and Twitter is still the common name. Moving this page to "X (insert disambiguator here)" would suggest that they are different websites, which is confusing and misleading. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs)20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, all the reliable sources refer to the company as X, not, "Twitter under Elon Musk". Whomever changed this article to that title in the first place, I do not know what their thinking was in doing that. The only possible name for this company (as of this moment) is X. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page wasn't changed from another title (not counting the move and relist in this very RM); you might be thinking of Twitter (about the platform generally) or X Corp. (about the company that currently owns it), which are both separate articles. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: you reverted my attempt to add some background to the LEAD. We currently have a cleanup tag for it
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: This article needs restructuring to accurately depict it as the successor of Twitter. (June 2024)
Please suggest another way to state it is the successor. I dont think "former name" is sufficient to explain we are referring to the entity post acquisition by Musk. Do you?
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we need to clearly demarcate the two articles. An earlier editor suggested we add a date to the article name of Twitter, such as making it Twitter (2011-2021). I think this change would help us to prune content here as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's between 6,000-8,000 words, so it's certainly not WP:TOOBIG, but instead an ideal size and doesn't require trimming or splitting. There will always be some overlap of content with Twitter, such as summaries of background, history, and the acquisition, but these are all a basic requirement to provide the minimum amount of context for the overall content. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the whole existence of this article is predicated on the seemingly made up claim that X somehow functions as the "successor" to Twitter instead of simply being a slightly rebranded Twitter. Are there a significant number of sources that explicitly describe X as being the successor to a now-defunct Twitter or is this all simply WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH?Loytra (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In my opinion, the premise that X is a distinct "successor" to Twitter, rather than a rebrand, does not align with what most reliable sources say.
While the present form is problematic as you point out, we can also add a date range to the previous Twitter article or seek some other solution. The previous article name with the BLP in the article name was much worse than present. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome of the move review, there are some definite OR issues here. This especially shows up in the infobox, which should summarize the contents of the article (or at the very least be separately cited). I removed the founding date and founder field from the infobox for not matching cited statements in the article. For instance, the 2nd paragraph of the article currently begins:
Founded in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams, Twitter underwent a rebranding in July 2023 after being acquired by Elon Musk in 2022.
None of the remaining text of the article that I can find describes the rebranding as a "founding" or Musk as a founder. Regardless of how the content organization debate shakes out (and ideally, comments about that closure should be in the MR that HenryMP02 linked), splitting article content scope into pre-acquisition Twitter and post-acquisition X wouldn't be license to invent distinctions that aren't present in reliable sources. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this page named Twitter under Elon Musk when it's main subject would be described as X? It makes absolutely no sense.
I get that it was decided that original Twitter page would describe X pre-Elon acquisition, that makes sense. I also thought that it was decided that this page would be called X (social network), the pages having those names would make sense but this current situation does not at all. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move requestion was put to review and found that it should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. So the move was undone while that move discussion has been restarted. Masem (t) 22:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on following MOS for this page under current title
I made two changes removing the bolding of X and now outdated hatnote which were added when the page was moved to X (social network). Given that the RM was relisted and the page moved back, these seemed like standard cleanup items that had simply been missed, and brought the article in line with other post-relisting changes to the article that were not made by me.
I was surprised that the changes were reverted as "bold" by @Jtbobwaysf (courtesy ping to this discussion), as I am unfamiliar with any precedent or consensus for having an article not reflect the Manual of Style under its current article title just because an RM is active, and other changes to restore the pre-closure title and scope were not reverted. I attempted to clarify with the reverting editor directly on their talk page, but the discussion ultimately raised more confusion than it addressed. I'm seeking consensus among editors for following MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SIMILAR on this page while it is at Twitter under Elon Musk, with no prejudice against restoring the hatnote and rebolding the letter X if the page is later moved. Frankly I think this is an anodyne change, but here we are. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as other editors have now made these exactchanges and they've stood without issue or reversion for over a week, I assume that consensus exists for them. Likely don't need any further discussion here unless someone objects. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June § X (social network) (closed) – robertsky (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
