Talk:Twitter

Requested move 25 August 2024

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: no consensus. There is currently no consensus on this now oft-proposed move, and the community remains strongly divided. It is unclear what the current WP:COMMONNAME is: the recent YouGov surveys referenced by Patar knight point one way, while many sources using "X" point the other. There is no consensus that "X" is the common name here. Whether "X" under Elon Musk is a different service from "Twitter" is a different conversation, but one that is still worthwhile.

Also, to all participants in this discussion – please keep your !votes policy-based. There were many !votes here, from both new and established editors, that provided no evidence or were based purely from personal preference.

To reiterate: there is currently no consensus as to what is the best title here. (For those counting votes who really shouldn't be: there are 34 "supports" and 35 "opposes", making this discussion almost equally split.)

If you have concerns or complaints about this close, feel free to discuss on my talk page. Thanks, (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Twitter → X (social network) – Before reading this move request, the comments written on the move requests I opened on this article and Twitter under Elon Musk should be read. I am opening this move request for a second and final time given wbm1058's closure of the latter move request two days ago, which is well-articulated and notes that the AP Stylebook no longer requires "X, formerly known as Twitter", as mentioned by an editor here. The New York Times does not mention Twitter unless in reference to an action or statement made prior to July 2023. The strongest argument that opponents of a move have—that Twitter is the common name—is a difficult claim to substantiate, even with fallible Google Trends data. The page notice and WP:COMMONNAME defer to reliable sources. Efforts to move this article in the past were premature. In terms of the claim that the history and cultural impact of Twitter should bear weight, I note that Guaranteed Rate Field is named such, though many continue to refer to the South Side baseball field as Comiskey Park. The use of parentheses in the proposed move target is unfortunate, but Wikipedia does not always decide what products are named. If X was the original name of Twitter, this article would be named appropriately. Threads (social network) is not named P92 or Project 92 because of an aversion of parentheses.

This move request should not cover the status of Twitter under Elon Musk, though discussing a page move if this article is moved would not be improper. As wbm1058 stated, "scope-changing issues are problematic with project guidelines." Consensus would have been solidified if moving Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) had not been proposed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jump to:

Survey

Proposed moratorium

Survey

• Strong oppose The site that was historically Twitter is still notable on its own and is now dead. Elon made it into a fundamentally different company by gutting the vast majority of staff, very few original employees remain there, so we shouldn't pretend that X is the same company just because the interface is similar. I firmly believe there needs to be either a new article for X, or the "Twitter under Elon Musk" article should be moved to that name and rewritten somewhat. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I really have to agree here. Twitter before Musk and Twitter after Musk, even if they are the same service, are treated as two very different approaches in social media by reliable sources, and trying to ascribe the things that Musk's X are being criticized for as part of Twitter is very much inappropriate. If RSes are no longer using Twitter, then we should consider Twitter to be a former service and not try to force all of that under the name X. I know that many editors from the move RFC insist that Twitter and X are the same thing from a social media standpoint and thus cannot be split, but this makes it extremely difficult to write about both before and after with any type of clean split. Masem (t) 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this, and think three articles are required:

  1. Twitter
  2. X (social network)
  3. Twitter-X transition

  BilledMammal (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  There's no consensus for any such arrangement, and a possible split was argued at great length without success over the past few months. The first two topics you mention are the same thing, and this is the overarching article which describes the whole history of that thing. The third one you mention is effectively already covered by the Twitter under Elon Musk article, which details the acquisition process and presumably would be renamed "X under Elon Musk" if this move were to go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with this. The site historically known as Twitter is not dead, it just has a new name. To assert that Twitter and X are somehow different websites or different services would be original research, because absolutely no sources make that claim. X is Twitter, it just changed its branding. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Plenty of places noted the (incredibly drastic) change in policy from Twitter to X with a total management shift and a near complete employee turnover. Even if Twitter is going to be primary-redirected to X, there needs to be a new article for X. This should at the very least remain as a "Twitter (2006-2023)" article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Having two separate articles makes sense. We tend to do the same for things like relocated/renamed sports teams, where despite being the "same team" they have distinct articles (e.g., Seattle SuperSonics→Oklahoma City Thunder). ╠╣uw [talk] 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  The case of Seattle SS and OKC is a separate one, though. OKC established itself as a separate team in 2008 and has made itself into a distinct franchise following years of development. And besides, there is "no consensus that Twitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately". 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise, X not only has a whole new name and branding from Twitter but sharply different leadership/management, culture, and even apparently an upcoming physical relocation. The comparison to how we treat a renamed sports franchise seems increasingly apt. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I like this analogy and agree. Shotgunheist ^💬 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this narrow move request, as I believe the better path forward is a multi-move / scope change of both the current Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk articles. As mentioned in the recent no-consensus close of that article's RM: The major problem with this RM was that it implied a scope change to the Twitter article, as, without a scope change to that article it would become a "redundant article fork" of X (social network) [...] That issue could have been solved by making a multiple-move request which also moved Twitter → "Twitter under Jack Dorsey" or a similar title, but it wasn't.

I would support a multi-move / scope change like so:

• Twitter > Twitter, with scope change adopted to describe only the pre-Musk social network.
• Twitter under Elon Musk > X (social network), with scope expansion to fully describe the post-Musk social network.

These are the easiest names for the immediate multi-move. Names of each individual article can be adjusted in subsequent moves, once the scopes are established.

Agree with the users above that there was a fundamental split in the service upon the acquisition by Elon Musk, as covered by reliable sources. The name change AND major ownership/content/moderation/etc. policy changes makes this an easy choice to split the articles.

PK-WIKI (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

How would you deal with List of X features and List of Twitter features? If the split is so "fundamental" shouldn't there be an article which compares the feature sets of each? Presumably there is not that much overlap between them? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of those pages seem like unnecessary splits from Twitter, should the above moves be performed and approrpriate content shifted between the two articles. Similarly History of Twitter seems like an unnecessary split if the Twitter article was strictly about pre-Musk Twitter. — Masem (t) 12:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of those pages? There is only one article, the other title is a redirect. So then I presume you would re-target List of X features to Twitter under Elon Musk#Appearance and features? Making this change later as a redirect for discussion doesn't feel like the best approach to me. Trying to implement your restructuring piecemeal is going to run into all sorts of resistance. Proposal should be structured as a package which accounts for all the moving parts. I feel like having separate lists of features, with no comparison between them, leaves a gap in coverage. I want to know what the difference between a "tweet" and a "post" is. I think I've heard that while a "tweet" was limited to a small number of characters (hence micro-blogging), a "post" isn't so limited and can be other things? wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I would appose a piecemeal move approach, I have said before that we really need a reshift of all pages currently about Twitter or X to redistribute content along with appropriate page moves. Mind you there is still a goof glue article Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk that could be used for any summary of major feature changes. Masem (t) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Only mention of features in the acquisition article is that Musk "planned to introduce new features to the platform". No mention of feature changes or removals. The brief legacy section at the bottom of that article just reviews financial or general post-acquisition changes, particularly in political POV. I don't think that's the right place for discussing detailed feature changes, though I suppose major changes could be summarized. That particular article feels fairly stable to me, and probably doesn't need to be included in the scope of your restructuring proposal. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, there might be a better place. But it goes back to that the solution is not these piecemeal moves but to really discuss the content of all these Twitter and X articles and how they should be redistribute and renamed on the basis that the service pre and post Musk are operated very differently and have commentary and criticism specific to each, rather than treating it as a simple continuation and creating these we have now. Masem (t) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

See also: History of the San Francisco Giants, List of San Francisco Giants managers, etc. articles existing alongside New York Giants (baseball) and San Francisco Giants. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New York Giants all-time roster redirects to San Francisco Giants all-time roster. That shouldn't happen if these are "essentially different entities", they should have separate all-time rosters.

Oddly enough the List of San Francisco Giants managers goes all the way back to the 1800s. Essentially I see New York Giants (baseball) as a subtopic of San Francisco Giants, not a separate and unrelated team. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving this page doesn't prevent further discussion about the split proposal. It can be split from either title. The "oppose because I prefer a split" comments on the last RM on this page prevented any consensus from being formed. I'd recommend we focus on whether common usage has shifted here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this proposed scope change is a bad idea. Having Twitter be a separate article from X (social network) would imply that they are different subjects, which they are not. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• oppose no new developments never mind substantial ones—blindlynx 14:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose there have been no new developments since the last requested move. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 14:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support, it's clear that the COMMONNAME of the company is now X. Not sure why NAMECHANGES allows persons names to change so quickly, while for organization and countries that change their name it's such a pain in the ass. The arguments against the move don't realy make sense either, the website as it stands now is not so different from Twitter that you can say it's an entirely different company.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  A name change would be easy, but this is a name change PLUS a massive, documented, ownership/culture/feature switch. It's more akin to a sports team relocation. The articles Seattle SuperSonics and Oklahoma City Thunder both exist, despite describing "the same team", to document two separate eras. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting. "The new team will play under a different nickname. The old Sonics nickname will be reserved for a future NBA team in Seattle. The Sonics' franchise history will be "shared" between the Oklahoma City team and any future Seattle team." Kind of like the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens. So is there a real possibility of Twitter being revived and resurrected at its former URL? wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  While Seattle is hopeful that some day the Sonics might be revived, they'd still have their own separate historical article even if there was no hope. So possible revival doesn't need to be considered for "Twitter".

  See also Seattle Pilots and Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota North Stars, New York Giants (baseball), etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Another metaphor I'd use is a restaurant changing its management, its name, and most of its chefs while retaining the same location and kitchen appliances. It still wouldn't be considered the same business nonetheless. And now even the location thing is up in the air as they might abandon their HQ. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're making false equivalence arguments here, the X staff was the same as Twitter, just reduced in number. It's not like they hired a whole new workforce as one. Business appliances, interface, functionality, users all remained the same. Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really see a massive ownership/featureshift. Ownership is different obviously, and that will change the culture, but that happens with tons and tons of ownership changes. Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Going by news articles, the name is now "X (formerly known as Twitter)". When the parenthetical part is dropped readers have no idea WTF the authors are talking about, because "X" is a terrible brand that nobody knows about. –jacobolus (t) 01:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The situation remains largely as it was at the time of the May 2024 RM discussion. Twitter and X are so substantially different as social media websites/applications that shoehorning all of it under X inhibits the encyclopedia's educational purpose. This is not as simple as a "name change" as a human might go through while remaining an obvious continuity of self. With X, the features are different, the experience is different—it amounts to a different topic.
  I would support something lie the mult-move/scope change that PK-WIKI suggests, as it's along the lines of the Viacom (2005–2019) and Viacom (1952–2005) precedent that remains a good model for this editors on this topic to follow. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Viacom (1952–2005) was split into the second incarnations of CBS Corporation and Viacom. Twitter was split into X and... what other entity? Seems a bad analogy.

  ViacomCBS was renamed to Paramount Global but there was no need for separate articles about each. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Bruce Jenner the decathlete changed his name without changing his "features"? Sorry, should stick to finding corporate comparisons; people are a step too far off base. wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Don't deadname or misgender Caitlyn Jenner. I encourage you to strike and correct your comment, as bigotry is disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I'm at a loss for words. The previous two successive RMs just closed after more than three months of discussion. This is now the tenth RM to move "Twitter" to "X" since the rebranding last year. It will likely be years before "Twitter" and its related terms, such as tweet (an actual dictionary word), cease to be widely recognizable to the general audience because of its decades-long history and cultural impact. I see many reliable sources that continue to affix "formerly known as Twitter" to mentions of X — including Musk himself as recently as this month. Several months ago, a CNN report delved into "why we can't stop X 'Twitter'". Even the Supreme Court is calling it "Twitter" because this is what it was known [as] during the vast majority of the events underlying this suit — it's the same situation here, except we're talking a Wikipedia article instead of a lawsuit. In other words, the vast majority of this article relates to the history of Twitter when it was known as Twitter. If we apply the ten-year test, are readers likely to recognize "Twitter" or "X" more? In addition to COMMONNAME, we must also consider WP:NATURAL — as noted by the nominator, "Twitter" is more natural than "X", which requires a cumbersome parenthetical disambiguation that is more than double the length of "Twitter". The Threads comparison isn't valid because (1) Threads was never commonly known as "Project 92", which was an internal codename unknown to most readers; (2) Threads has always been known as Threads, and the nominator is correct that if Twitter were named X from the start we would have gone with that, but that isn't the case here; and (3) NATURAL specifically states that ... alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, emphasis added. There was a clear absence of consensus in the previous RM, and a change in the AP Stylebook isn't going to meaningfully change that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The only policy we need to consider here is WP:NAMECHANGES. "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. 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." It is fairly clear (and I don't think even disputed by those in opposition) that reliable sources now use the term "X" for this network. Sure, many are currently still appending "formerly known as Twitter" so that readers who haven't yet been aware of the switch know what they're talking about. But the first and subsequent mentions are always X. See [1] for just one of many examples. The assertion that Twitter and X are somehow different sites is also not remotely borne out by reliable sources, and the RM at Twitter under Elon Musk, proposing a split, failed to gain traction for exactly that reason - while various policies at the company have changed under Musk's stewardship, the site is fundamentally the same as the historic Twitter, with much the same user base. It is not a brand new site, and no reliable sources say otherwise. That's it, really. Wikipedia naming policy mandates us to make this move (as indeed it did for other long-term historic and much-loved names which were changed over the years such as Sears Tower and Hotmail), and the above oppose votes seem to be mainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, having no basis in either policy or evidence from sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Amakuru and WP:NAMECHANGES. 'X' is becoming the commonname, and people are now aware of its usage. 'Twitter' was named for short tweets, but now the concept has grown to include videos and other longer forms of communication, so, relevantly, even the initial meaning has changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  That there was a well-known service named Twitter, named for its iconic 140-character tweets, would seem to indicate the need for a past-tense historic Wikipedia article about the notable subject that was renamed and its major features changed/discontinued during a corporate acquisition. The WP:COMMONNAME for that article would be "Twitter". Much like our articles for Vine (service) and Periscope (service). PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, which is a shift from my opposition in prior RMs. There are plenty of sources now using the term "X" first and in headlines to refer to the platform ("formerly Twitter" remains common in these articles though): NYT, Rolling Stone, Newsweek. The evidence suggests that "X" on its own is now an equivalently common name to Twitter, and per WP:NAMECHANGES, it makes sense to give preference to the new name. I'm not sure opening another RM right after the last one closed was a great move here, but I agree the evidence supports the move now. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  As a reminder to those pointing out that "formerly Twitter" is still common, policy doesn't require us to prove the old name is no longer a common name for the subject, just that the new one is also a common name for the subject. Preference should tilt towards the current name if it is in common usage; this can take time (and the lack of evidence it had happened led me to oppose prior RMs), but it now appears to be the case that X is a common name, even if Twitter is still in use as a name. People still say Sears Tower and AT&T Park, for instance. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Policy also says titles should be WP:NATURAL if possible, even if less common. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support based on above users, though would also support "X (formerly Twitter)" as many sources seem to include that as well. JSwift49 12:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - The merits of the new brand name have replaced Twitter. Per NAMECHANGES, the time for everyone to adapt the new brand is expected to be shorter. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support X is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME now Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: These discussions are getting ridiculous. We just a few days ago saw the previous discussion related to this "issue" end. Twitter is by far the common name. It was its name for twenty years. "X" is not its legitimate name in the eyes of 95% percent of people and reliable sources still consistently refer to the app as Twitter, or at least add "(formerly Twitter)" after speaking of the app's name. And that consensus is very unlikely to ever change, though not impossible. λ NegativeMP1 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I refuted that reliable sources refer to the app as Twitter in the move request. The AP Styleguide no longer recommends "X, formerly known as Twitter" unless the article concerns Twitter prior to July 2023. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't refute anything? Reliable sources that aren't the New York Times still exist that refer to Twitter as Twitter and only Twitter. And while there's too many sources for me to list that do this, I can assure you that every time I have checked a source that references the site, it is typically worded as Twitter or "X, formerly known as Twitter" or something similar. My opinion remains the same. λ NegativeMP1 03:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  AP Style is widely used, but it is not the supreme authority on style. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support: X (Social Network) would absolutely be the accurate name for this article. EarthDude (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support The site is already commonly referred to by its new name. While the old name lingers, the new name is widely used. In the presence of two common names it only makes sense to go with the official one. There is hardly anyone left who is not aware of the change, so keeping the old name most certainly violates the priciple of least surprise. It is unfortunate that some people cling to the past of this platform, but this vocal minority has to come to terms with reality at some point. And I can hardly believe that there are people to whome the statements like "European Union is considering to ban Twitter" make more sense then "European Union is considering to ban X". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 05:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  In the presence of two common names it only makes sense to go with the official one. This isn't correct. If both names are equally common, we should go with the one that is more WP:NATURAL and WP:PRECISE. The five WP:CRITERIA always trumps WP:OFFICIALNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does anyone actually call it X without also pointing out that it was formerly Twitter? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  ...Yes, and significantly more often than they did when the platform was first renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ordinary humans call the service "Twitter". News articles published by corporations who don't want to be sued call the service "X (formerly known as Twitter)". –jacobolus (t) 01:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). Nowhere does the naming guidelines say "ordinary humans". Wikipedia operates on reliable sources, not what you think ordinary humans use. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, keep in mind that the subject of the article is a social network that is owned by X Corp., a different company from Twitter Inc., the then-owner of Twitter, the then-network that is now… X. The use of the new name is more commonly used in RS, as others have pointed out; however I would not oppose an alternative title X (Twitter) if it means we can achieve WP:CONCISE.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, since X is progressively becoming the common name in RS, the talk page’s warning is almost inapplicable and should be deleted if the article is moved. Finally, many users mention moving Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). Before such a change happens, though, we may need an extensive discussion regarding whether or not the change of staff, the logo, and other changes warrants a separate article. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 23:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. To me it seems like this means it should be a separate article, as the ownership has changed so significantly. Shotgunheist ^💬 02:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There was already a lengthy discussion about this. Per the closer, there is no consensus that Twitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support and create a new article on the history of twitter, prior to it becoming X. Its a distinctly different service now, and this article refers to the new, distinctly different service. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: We've been through this song and dance 10 other times, it's obvious there isn't a consensus on if "X" is so wildly adapted that we'll change the name. Twitter is still the most common name and is still notable, why else would every news article refer to it as Twitter LittleMAHER1 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The named changed and so should the article. I see a lot of sources calling it X formerly known as Twitter and that's enough to show it’s gotten a lot more traction. The fact that the platform has changed a lot since it was called Twitter doesn't really matter here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. When an individual changes their name, pronouns, gender identity, we're always quick to implement those changes here. Can't see why the same cannot be applied to companies and organizations. Not to mention that X and its logo is now frequently used online to refer to this website. Incidentally I opposed the change in title in one of the previous RMs but I think now is the time to follow suit and move this page. Keivan.f^Talk 21:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Kanye West? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is totally different. He might have changed his name to Ye, but you would still find his profile on Spotify and other platforms under the name 'Kanye West'. So the subject himself is still using his former legal name. Keivan.f^Talk 15:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed in the month since the last RM was rejected. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Agree 100%. How WOKE do you have to be to believe the article should still be titled "Twitter"? Face it--we have X now, not Twitter, and the heat death of the universe will come before that changes. 66.44.113.139 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you provide an actual input on the conversation either supporting or opposing the evidence provided above instead of using a meaningless buzzword? λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you grow a pair and converse like a normal human being rather than resorting to snide, passive-aggressive commenting? 66.44.113.139 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Based on your previous messages on this topic describing Wikipedia as whatever your definition of "woke" is (1) and disregarding people using official English Wikipedia policies as to why they thought it shouldn't be changed as Musk "triggering" them (2), its hard for me to tell whether or not you are worth "growing a pair" over. λ NegativeMP1 04:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also agree with changing the name from Twitter to X (Social Network), but how is that related in any way to being woke??? EarthDude (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support I concur with what Amakuru wrote. Also I agree with the observation that many of the oppose votes seem to mostly be WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The page should be moved to X (social network). BlueShirtz (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - this whole discussion is ridiculous. If you want an X (social network) article, your chance was during the multi-month move discussion to move Twitter under Elon Musk → X (social network). You blew it. This Twitter page's name won't be changing. 2605:B100:12C:7570:95A8:511:79AF:CEA9 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Per Amakuru and WP:NAMECHANGES. I was honestly surprised when I came to this page and saw it still hadn't been updated to the new name. This name change has been widely accepted by reliable sources. Many articles will add the "formerly known as Twitter" once before switching to using X for the rest of the article. I came to this article after the recent news broke that X was suspended in Brazil. I went through all the top sources for this story from Google and here is what I found. These sources still add "formerly known as Twitter" after the first mention of X: BBC, CBS, Forbes, and NBC News. These sources only bring up Twitter later in the article, often when discussing the history of this story: AP, ABC, NY Times, The Guardian, France24, Fortune, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, and CNBC. These sources didn't mention Twitter at all: CBC and Reuters. None of the sources I found are still calling it Twitter, they are using the new name of X. I understand this change has been proposed many times, but the situation has changed significantly from the first proposal. Now the reliable sources have adopted the official name change and per WP:NAMECHANGES, so should we. --Pithon314 (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support X is a common name by now. It should mentionned in the lead that is was formerly known as Twitter, as a lot of RS say, but X is a WP:COMMONNAME. Unfortunate that some people oppose's votes revolve around "previous votes failed so this one should too", I don't think we should use that. The website has drastically changed now and fully uses X, including with x.com. I do agree that we should stop always proposing that move though. win8x (talking | spying) 05:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also like what Amakuru is saying about sites such as Hotmail -> Outlook.com. I think most people here can agree that Twitter was a much better name, but X is pretty common at this point, and what Twitter/X users prefer is irrelevant. No RS uses Twitter exclusively. I feel kind of bad for going against consensus, but pardon me. win8x (talking | spying) 05:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support What is Twitter, anyway? It’s what was, not what is. It is not the official name, nor is it the name most people use (in my experience). Many new users don’t even know what Twitter was. But everybody who cares about X knows it is called X. It is high time we change the name.

Mstf221 (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Makes more sense to keep this page describing the social network that existed from 2006 to 2022/3, and then create a new article or move Twitter under Elon Musk to something like 'X (social network)' Averkf (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I know X is the common and official name of the website at this point, but there are still a lot of outlets out there to this day that tend to call it "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X, formerly known as Twitter", so the Twitter name isn't really dead yet. Maybe a compromise like JSwift49 suggested can work. MushroomMan674 (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Or maybe, since X Corp. is technically a brand new company from Twitter, Inc., maybe there should be two separate pages for Twitter and X? Just throwing it out there. MushroomMan674 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support . No confusion anymore. Web-julio (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose same arguments from before without any evidence of any change and none of the concerns in previous RM—because Common name is not the most important article titling criteria—have not been addressed still. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  This argument doesn't really align with the way the policy is written, or indeed longstanding precedent. WP:COMMONNAME says that we "generally [prefer] the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above". It then instructs us that "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly". So if it can be demonstrated that a particular name is indeed the most commonly used, then in the majority of cases it is unnecessary to look directly at the five naming WP:CRITERIA, which are in any case much more subjective and harder to evaluate than common usage. WP:NAMECHANGES further expands on this by urging us to give much higher priority to recetn sources in the case where the name has changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Generally doesn't mean always. The new name is less recognisable, less natural because people will put all sorts of things such as X (website), and WP:NATDIS supports an alternate name like Twitter over a parenthetical disambiguator. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  If "Common name is not the most important article titling criteria", what are the criteria here which should override it? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  See above. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just bludgeoning the process. Twitter still is, and will remain, the common name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, Twitter is still known and widely used name, although the name of the company was changed. Karol739 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Think about twitter.com, which was a valid domain from 2006 to May 2024. Not to mention the impact that Twitter the brand name itself has had on the world. There should be only two consensuses in a argument like this: keep it as it is, or split it into two different articles. Lekvwa (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, Twitter remains the common (conversational) name of the social media platform now officially called X. Therefore, changing the article name from Twitter to X may cause confusion and would go against WP:COMMONNAME. Otherwise no notable changes since last discussion, as LilianaUwU states this is a simple matter of bludgeoning. CMDR Quillon (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone above said that the only policy we need to consider is WP:NAMECHANGES. Really, that is just a single subsection of WP:TITLE, which at its beginning lists five criteria for a good title. Our whole purpose in this discussion is choosing the best title for this article. The criteria are as follows, and for each I will give my opinion on whether "X (social network)" is a better Y for that criterion than "Twitter", or not better N.
  Recognizability.N The subject of this article existed under the name Twitter for some 17 years. It has been called X for just over a year. I presume there are many more who would recognize "Twitter" but not "X (social media)" than the other way around. This could definitely change in the future.
  NaturalnessN, which is given as The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. I remind us that "X" is not the proposed title, because X is taken by the letter X. The proposed title is "X (social network)", with that parenthetical disambiguation, making it a clunky three words. In my opinion it wouldn't be more natural to search for "X (social network)" than "Twitter". You might say, "well, they would just search for X", but it's still less likely that they would easily find the article. An additional indication of what people are actually calling it in English: an analysis of thousands of marketing emails reports "One year later: Why 89% of brands still call it Twitter despite the rebrand to X".
  PrecisionN, given as The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "X (social network)" is unambiguous because of the parenthetical disambiguation, so the titles are equal in distinctiveness. However, in the Precision section of the page, WP:NATDIS and WP:PARENDIS tell us that if there is a sufficiently common alternative name, we should use it. I don't think there's a question as to whether "Twitter" is sufficiently common.
  ConcisionN, given as The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Clearly, "Twitter" wins over "X (social network)" here.
  Consistency?, The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There are many other pages with the name "Twitter" in them which might be made confusing or clunky if we replace every instance of "Twitter" with "X" or "X (social network)". HenryMP02 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  The policy at WP:COMMONNAME clearly says that we only evaluate the individual "criteria" if there isn't a clear and obvious common name. NAMECHANGES also makes this point,. that we use the name favoured by recent reliable sources... and it's fairly convincingly been shown that they mostly use "X" (occasionally with a "formerly known as Twitter" appended, but this doesn't change that they used X as the main name). Your subjective analysis of the criteria is neither required nor useful here.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It does not say that. In WP:COMMONNAME, I think you might have interpreted that from the sentence: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. But "Not A, then B" does not imply "A, then not B" (see Denying the antecedent). If we go back a sentence, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. (emphasis added)

  Generally is not always. We generally choose the most common name in reliable sources because it is generally is the best title. There are cases where we choose names that are not the most commonly used in sources, because those are not the best title. The five criteria help us make that determination.

  Lastly, I don't think it is unquestionably obvious that "X" is the COMMONNAME. Check out Patar Knight's comment. And things are still muddier than that, because proposed title is not "X", but "X (social network)". HenryMP02 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Not sure how the previous discussion regarding the name changed has been resulted differently, but per WP:NAMECHANGES, It is already happened a year ago and most of reliable sources are using "X" instead (along with phrase "formerly known as Twitter" in parentheses). To settle the discussion, the page could be just moved to "X" with more emphasis regarding "Twitter" as the "former name and still commonly known" in parentheses and hatnote. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – Culture Crave: "Even Elon Musk still calls the app Twitter" InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  And so what? Jõsé ^hola 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. 'X' is clearly used as primary name in the media, while 'Twitter' is mentioned as its former name (see how do the BBC, CNN and Deutsche Welle report about the recent block in Brazil). People should divorce their emotions from the fact that 'Twitter' that they used to know no longer exists because you can literally do whatever you want in today's world if you have money. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs committed in the business world. Additionally, this name change has exactly the same legal effect as when countries change their names. There are people who still use 'Swaziland' or 'Burma' even though those two are former names of the respective countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  For better or for worse, Wikipedia only renamed its Burma article in 2015, well after Myanmar did so in 1989. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Patar knight: That comparison wouldn't matter IMO to say, it did not take Wikipedia long to rename North Macedonia and Eswatini while Turkiye remain contested. Articles are renamed based on popularity of usage and acceptability, not time of use. Jõsé ^hola 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  To be less flippant, obviously each article is judged according to the criteria at WP:TITLE. I just thought it was interesting that Burma was cited when Wikipedia's slow adoption of that title reflected the reality that the English-speaking world was also slow in adopting the new official name. Sometimes things go quickly like Eswatini and North Macedonia and sometimes things take a long time. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Patar knight: I live in 'Macedonia' and call my country by that name even though it was changed more than five years ago. So do most of the people in my country and that name is prevalent in reliable sources in the Macedonian language after the name change took effect, which is the main reason why the article on the Macedonian Wikipedia is still titled 'Macedonia' and will probably remain for good per the Macedonian equivalent of WP:COMMONNAME. I also routinely use the name 'Twitter' for the social network now known as 'X' and will probably do it forever, but I can't deny the fact that 'X' is the name that already prevails in reliable sources in the English language (to be more specific, 'X, formerly known as Twitter' is the most widely used wording). The main difference compared to the case of 'Macedonia' is that 'Twitter', albeit still being the preferred name in use by ordinary people, is no longer prevalent in reliable sources. We can find zillion cultural and social reasons why people still prefer 'Twitter' over 'X', but what people use colloquially in everyday life is not a reliable source in line with our policies. So, calling it 'Twitter' when it's actually 'X' in reliable sources in the English language makes Wikipedia vulnerable to criticism and defamation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Twitter is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. --Tataral (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per HenryMP04. BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - natural disambiguation and recognizability Red Slash 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the various reasons already elaborated above. I think PK-WIKI's comparison above to a relocated sports team is particularly apt: despite something like the Seattle SuperSonics and the Oklahoma City Thunder being the "same team", they're sufficiently distinct that we treat the two iterations separately. The sharp break in name, brand, culture, leadership, etc. between Twitter and X mandates a similar approach here. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - clearly the common name now (just read the New York Times, or any other outlet; they just say "X" now instead of "X, formerly known as Twitter" as was done previously). Furthermore rebrandings are not sufficient reason for creating a new article or holding onto a previous one indefinitely. E.g. "Meta" is hardly the same company as it was when TheFaceBook Inc. was run out of Zuckerberg's college apartment, but we have an article on "Meta Platforms" wherein the first sentence mentions its previous names. No need for a separate article, or refusing to move the article upon its corporate rebranding. TocMan (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support: It truly is getting to a point these days where "X" is becoming the more common name for this subject instead of "Twitter". Seeing the phrase "X, formerly known as Twitter" in reference to this subject does not happen nearly as often as it did when the platform was first renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Simply put, Twitter is dead. —theMainLogan (t•c) 22:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support as usual with these perennial move requests we are being held back by a bunch of people who keep invoking WP:COMMONNAME without having actually read that page. That page clearly advises us to use "commonly recognisable names" as opposed to official or otherwise overly formal names. It is not relevant to the question of whether the title of the article about Elon Musk's dead bird app should be "X" or "Twitter" as both of these are "commonly recognisable names". The difference between them is that one of them is a current name and the other is historical, therefore, we should move the article... it really is that simple. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Except "X" is not the name we would move this page to. "X (social network)" is. It isn't favorable to switch to a name that requires parenthetical disambiguation when we already have a well-established, naturally disambiguated name. This is based on policy - WP:NATURAL. Unfortunately not so simple. HenryMP02 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  The answer is even more ambiguous than you are insinuating, neither NATURAL, nor NAMECHANGEs, nor COMMONNAME take preference over each other. We have to arbitrarily decide which is more right, which is why these discussions are so heated. We can't just lean on NATURAL like you're implying. Ortizesp (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely. There’s no ultimate policy that trumps the others in this conversation. I put my thoughts (based on each of the 5 WP:TITLE criteria) in an opinion above. HenryMP02 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  The difference between the two is that one is a natural and simple title and the other requires two extra words and parentheses for the title. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Good grief. Let me get some initial thoughts out of the way, which I will try to put aside for the sake of this RM (since they're not grounded in policy or guidelines):
  • I think renaming Twitter (that is, the actual website) to X was a terrible idea and should be reverted (preferably whenever it leaves Elon Musk's hands). In addition, I personally tend to use "Twitter" instead of "X" in conversation, mainly for clarity's sake (though this may change over time).
  • I am more receptive to renaming articles as a result of official name changes than the wiki tends to be.

Anyway, based on trends as listed above, our refusal to call the article "X" (with disambiguation, of course) comes off as antiquating more than anything. With the AP style guide calling for de-emphasis on the name "Twitter", I think calling the article "X" fits better in an encyclopedic register. And as much as I try to push for WP:NATURAL in some cases, going out of our way to keep an old name to avoid the need for disambiguation feels unnatural.

As for the repeated requests: why do I get the feeling that if we do decide to call this article "X", the repeated move requests will stop or at least slow down? If the move request goes through and we end up getting a bunch of requests to change the name back to Twitter, then I will eat my words. But if this turns out like how no one has seriously requested that the infobox on Stanley Kubrick be removed since an RfC determined that one should be placed after years of back-and-forth over whether to add one, then perhaps the move is proper after all. I suppose WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and all, but I can't quite shake this feeling.

So, uh, support, I guess. I also agree with what Amakuru, TocMan, and filelakeshoe said above. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose largely per HenryMP02's analysis. I will also copy what I wrote in one of the earlier RMs which is relevant here as well: Two recent [July 2024] 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. [2][3] Based on these polls, it seems at least fair to say that for a plurality of our readers "Twitter" is still the most recognizable name. In respect to reliable sources, while the usage of "formerly known as Twitter" has dropped, many still use it (e.g. BBC), and many still refer to the site as Twitter [4][5][6][7][8] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also to add on to this, it seems that peer-reviewed academic sources as seen in a non-scientific analysis using the search option on WP:LIBRARY seems to favour "Twitter". For papers published in 2024 a search for: "Elon Musk" "social media" that excludes "Twitter" yields 16 results, of which only one appears to discuss the website in any detail (in the context of xAI's Grok chatbot). Including Twitter gives 86 results, most of which are obviously about the website. Of course there is the possibility that X is widely used in academia, but not in a way that can be searched (which again, points to the shortcomings of "X" as a name and a title). These results may also have been affected by the fact that the topics/data/research used/focused on in these papers were from before the name change. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support Since none of the earlier request was completed, it now makes much sense that another consensus has to be reached, especially given that it's now 4 months since the acquisition and renaming. Personally, I am surprised the requested move was not achieved, the social network is now known as X with most sources now referring to it as X (formerly known as Twitter).Jõsé ^hola 04:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Came to this discussion from trying to perform another user's requested move of TweetDeck to X Pro and discovering that X-related name changes are controversial. Using the current name of the service consistently across the board to refer to it in the present day and updating the article(s) to reflect any needed context about the change in ownership or changes from when it was called Twitter seems consistent with WP:NAMECHANGES. Onyxqk (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As per PK-WIKI, I would support two articles: Twitter (for historic social media platform) and X (for Twitter under Musk). Seems the best way to retain relevant info without diluting/changing scope.Lewisguile (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per henrymp02. Another move discussion after so many is borderline WP:BADGERING. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose The common name is still Twitter, even the name X is too ambigous for us and would be prone to lawsuit. Does not need for the page move for next 5 or 10 years. 114.125.235.203 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Should the articles of social media that Twitter is currently and move page article to X (social network) it will became soon? Andre Farfan (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Pardon me Andre but what did you sayyy? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. COMMONNAME is not about what the general public uses to refer to something. COMMONNAME is about what reliable sources use to refer to the subject. I have seen no evidence that the common name in reliable sources is not X now. What the public uses to refer to something outside of reliable sources is irrelevant and !votes that do not address the mountain of evidence regarding reliable sources using the name X need to be ignored or downweighted to oblivion as they are not in compliance with the applicable guideline. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Votes that don't focus on a specific and not even the most important part of our article titling policy should be ignored, really? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Quite bluntly, yes. Because there has been no evidence that it doesn't meet any of the 5 actual criteria whatsoever, so we fall back on things like COMMONNAME to decide. The only two of the 5 actual criteria in question are the first two - recognizability and naturalness. X has been referred to either by X (on its own) or X (formerly Twitter) in reliable sources for the better part of a year now. The website domains and apps are all titled X now. So it's obviously recognizable. Secondly, naturalness - people may still search for Twitter, yes, but there's equally likely to be people searching for X (social network) that expect to be shown this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Except the proposed title isn't X it is X (social network).

  >but there's equally likely to be people searching for X (social network) that expect to be shown this article

  Do you truely believe people are going to search with a parenthetical disambiguator? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons to Lewisguile. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of searches use the addition of Twitter. – The Grid (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. There only big problem I see is that there's a lot of articles that refer to the site, in the narrow temporal context of the updates in question, by the old name as it was used at the time. I'm not opposed to moving the article itself to current name (and keeping redirects and mentioning the old name in the lead), but I'm not sure if updating every single past mention in Wikipedia is worth the effort and it could be detrimental to understanding the historical context. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - The ownership change seems to be so significant between X Corp. and Twitter, Inc., that even with the similar functionality remaining with the app, X may refer to something uniquely different. I oppose only if there is not a possibility of an article split where both Twitter and X can co-exist. The combined history can be added to History of Twitter if it isn't already present. Shotgunheist ^💬 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's probably time at this point. Cloaker416 (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the Twitter related discussions have been going on since May 2024, and I think a six month pause on moving Twitter related articles is sound. Also, it's still common for people to use and search Twitter. Additionally, WP:NATDAB (natural disambiguation) comes into play. It means that its preferable to use a term without a parenetical disambiguator if that is at least sometimes used. That's why it's titled elevator and not lift (machine), lift (device), etc and because lift has no primary topic. Therefore, Twitter sounds more natural than X (social network). The proposed title is also longer than the current one. Maybe the social network gets more views than the letter, but long term significance and WP:RECENTISM applies. JuniperChill (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment For those !voting "per COMMONNAME", please remember that COMMONNAME is merely one of the many criteria we consider when deciding on an article's name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose In addition to being a much, much less common name, there's also simply the fact that this is likely very temporary, and even the site's owner calls it 'Twitter' on occasion, showing the branding change is still as half-hearted as it ever was. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, still very much Twitter as per WP:COMMONNAME, and the fact that sources still frequently refer to it as such. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Not this song and dance again. X is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this social media, and Twitter is still widely used. Even Musk still calls it Twitter. So, per this, and all the arguments made in the previous requests, no, it is too early for this mofe.Melmann 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:RS are all calling the site X, sometimes with the note that it was formerly Twitter. I think most opposes are letting their personal dislike of Elon Musk get in the way of seeing what reliable sources are calling the website. Gazingo (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support About WP:COMMONNAME, I would refer to the Willis Tower as a precedent. Although many people have not adopted the new name, and possibly never will, the tower was renamed by its legitimate owners and the new name was adopted for formal and official use, including in the media. Furthermore and sadly, many arguments here are leaning on petty politics prejudice, i.e. left-leaning calling 'Elon' by first name as a bad actor, like if the company owner had somehow significantly altered its user base and contents, or right-leaning calling Wikipedia a 'woke' platform because resisting the change, etc. I think such arguments should be ignored, it could take ages to reach consensus otherwise. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, "X" is no longer that uncommon in everyday language; its URL was recently changed to X.com. I don't see a good reason to retain the name "Twitter" just because some people might still be used to it here on WP. The rebranding is somewhat comparable to Facebook's transition to Meta. –Tobias (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Facebook was never rebranded, so don't really see how it's comparable. Nobody is suggesting to merge X Corp. to Twitter, Inc. (or vice versa) as far as I'm aware. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support First and foremost, X is the official platform's new name. Wikipedia’s policies emphasize that articles should reflect the current, official names of organizations, and in this case, the platform has rebranded itself under this new moniker. Continuing to title the article "Twitter" would create a disconnect between the company's actual name and its representation on Wikipedia, misleading users who expect the most up-to-date and accurate information. While some users may still refer to it as "Twitter" out of habit, "X" has quickly become the official name in the media, on the app stores, and across legal documents. Major publications and institutions now recognize and refer to the platform as "X." Wikipedia should not lag behind these global developments but rather stay in line with how the platform is now understood and recognized. Any argument opposing such a change is simply illogical. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:UCRN actually states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title" but instead prefers to go with what's commonly used. (And as noted, people — including Musk himself — still say Twitter.) ╠╣uw [talk] 23:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is supposed to lag behind, it is an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia’s policies emphasize that articles should reflect the current, official names of organizations – It most certainly does not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is ridiculous. Having the same exact discussion every few months despite nothing changing is a waste of time. Twitter is the name that is primarily associated with the website both now and historically. This is unlikely to change any time soon. Continuously restarting this discussion is the very definition of WP:BLUDGEONING. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's just like if somebody changes their name. For example, if Chevy Chase would change his name to Christopher Chase and his social media and stuff like that, the Wikipedia arcticle would be changed to 'Christopher Chase'. I think this Twitter-X name change is very stupid, but still, it's about the officality of things. Twitter is now X, just like how Princess Auto Stadium, the home of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers was called IG Field until earlier this year, and since it got a new name, the arcticle was changed into 'Princess Auto Stadium'. Leikstjórinn (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not necessarily change titles just because an official name is changed. We still use the title Kanye West, for example, because that is the name that is most well-known. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the same reasons as InfiniteNexus and HenryMP02. Further, I don't feel that much has changed since the last RM; let's please not keep holding new RMs while editors increasingly tune out. DFlhb (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2024 (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.

Proposed moratorium

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.

---

Proposing a one-year moratorium (or six months) on new move requests for this page and Twitter under Elon Musk, regardless of the outcome of this RM. We can't keep having these repetitive and time-consuming discussions every few months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. These repetitive discussions are just tedious until things change in any major way. Healthy debate is in the spirit of Wikipedia but these new RMs don't bring anything new. The same people seem to be involved every time and it's highly unlikely that consensus tips. I'd say at least a brief moratorium would be good if only to save everyone's energy.

ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support the giant warning about new evidence clearly isn't working—blindlynx 13:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• I would agree holding off these individual move suggestions, but there absolutely needs to be a discussion on the collective set of articles on Twiiter/X on how the content should be organized due to the acquisition and changes after that, from which a more obvious naming scheme may fall out and thus making a combined set of moves alongside content reorganization necessary. Right now, the confusion of what we have in article space makes writing anything cohesive about Twitter, before or after, extremely difficult. Masem (t) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  We had a very lengthy discussion at Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk about possibly splitting the topic, and there was no consensus. I'm not really seeing anything more to dicuss on that point. The status quo remains that this page covers the whole history of the site from its inception through to the present day, and the only real ongoing debate concerns whether to name that overarching page Twitter or X. Presumably there will either be a consensus to move to X here (as I have supported above), or there will be no consensus/consensus against, in which case it remains at Twitter. Either way I can't imagine any appetite for further debate in the forseeable future.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  If there was talking of splitting that page, it's buried under the single page move request, which was a problem for the same reasons the above request is bad. Thre definitely was an interest to relook at the pages and reorganize content to deal with the dramatic shift that happened after Musk. But that should be talked about first before proposing any page moves, which was my original idea way back. — Masem (t) 19:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support six months. I do think the common usage is shifting here. I also think that this has been discussed in some form or another across multiple venues basically non-stop since the renaming. The title doesn't matter enough to be worth this discussion going forever. Requiring enough new evidence is discretionary and clearly some people will always favor opening another RM as the common usage shifts. I do think a year seems extreme, but taking a break for six months sounds valid to me. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Noting my support here is for a broadly constructed moratorium on discussing reorganizations of Twitter articles related to the official name change to X, including both RMs and the split proposal. I agree with Masem that their split proposal was muddled inside the Twitter under Elon Musk RM, but it was still discussed extensively there. I'd argue the confusion there was in no small part because of the haste in immediately starting another discussion. Opening a formal split proposal following this has the exact effect I think editors want to avoid here, which is to continue debating in some form or another the proper thing to do with the name change. In a nearly continuous period from 17 May until 10 September the name change has been discussed at some venue or another (counting the MRV). We have exhausted the arguments; further discussion right now won't magically make consensus appear. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, preferably six months but I wouldn't have a problem with a full year. This is going in circles and it's clear there needs to be some time for the dust to settle before we're likely to reach a consensus on how to handle the names and scopes of Twitter and Twitter under Elon Musk. Sock (tock talk) 20:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose a general moratorium, Strongly Support a conditional moratorium on X, or X (Social Network) such as what the warning implies. There may be other good ideas out there involving both names, but this requires precision and a sledgehammer isn't the correct answer. Discussions seem to be currently underway. Usage is rapidly shifting. While I believe that any further requests for X, X (Social Network) or any semantic variant would be extremely disruptive, we should not shut down everything else. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, frankly the opposition to the moves are political and emotional and not based on facts. Just a bit silly, and the pages will end up being moved at some point down the line.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A moratorium wont help Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a general moratorium. The repetitive requests have been specifically those that call for moving to X or X (social network). I would support a narrow moratorium on such moves. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support six months. A moratorium would most definitely help, these nominations are getting repetitive at this point and all it does is waste time. But I do think that six months is better than a year since, while extremely unlikely, consensus could change in six months. λ NegativeMP1 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly these repeated move discussions have not been going anywhere. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. GSK (talk • edits) 23:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Glad someone's bringing this up after about the 13th or so attempt. The entries here comparing this to trans people by misgendering and deadnaming trans people is certainly not helping it escape the perception of being ideologically driven. KingForPA (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this is unneccessary. The previous time we had this discussion on this specific article (Twitter) was 3 months ago, and the time before was 9 months ago. I think a moratorium would've been appopriate in 2023, but right now this isn't a major problem. win8x (talking | spying) 05:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)—The replies below are to a comment an editor deleted after posting. This dummy comment is intended to make it clear they're not to the above comment while respecting the editor's retraction. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Uhhh, that's pretty close to a personal attack against those editors. Comment on their !vote, not them as editors. Masem (t) 12:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mstf221 Please don't go around spreading personal attacks. I genuinely think those kinds of comments give the move proposition less chances of passing. win8x (talking | spying) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Commenter has deleted their message. win8x (talking | spying) 18:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Freedom of speech, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject California, WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support These constant RMs followed by MRs are not productive. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for at least two years. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, we don't have to waste time to discuss it all over again, but only if the article's name is not changed. If it's changed, we can discuss it again one more time in a period of a few months. Karol739 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A user who strongly opposed the most recent move request due to loss for words is now willing to impose a moratorium for similar requests in the future. That's not how Wikipedia works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Preferably for 2 years. Twitter is the common name, it's an iconic name, and that's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future regardless of Musk's proclamations. --Tataral (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, for two years. This is becoming a perennial dispute, and the encyclopedia would be better served by giving time for sources to become clearer before revisiting it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• I don't mind a moratorium (though two years seems long for a recent change, I'd prefer one year), but make it conditional incase a split of some sort that impacts the article titles is decided upon at some point. Pure move requests don't seem to be the way to go. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere and it's just tedious. It is unlikely for a consensus to be reached with the current state of affairs.

SirBrahms (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, preferably for as long as possible. These requests are getting repetitive. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not a fan of moratoriums, but without some kind of check it seems like the same wasteful and repetitious debates are almost certain to continue. I recommend a one-year moratorium following the completion of this RM; I also suggest that we consider adding it to the WP:PERENNIAL list. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, since X is now the common and official name, any moratorium will just extend the incorrectness of the page title. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, looking at the rationale of the many requested moves attempting to rename the article X (social network) makes it clear that there is ongoing progress towards the adaptation of the network’s new name. As others have made it clear in the survey, the WP:common name policy is becoming increasingly relevant to X, making the warning on the talk page less accurate and thus, inapplicable. The above !votes supporting the moratorium seem to be mainly about wasting time and energy, having no basis in either policy or guidelines.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - regardless of one's opinion on what the name should be, the common name and usage is fluid, and the situation could always be meaningfully different or more obvious 3 months from now. TocMan (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for 2 years. Nate 2169 ^Talk
  _{Contributions} 19:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As much as this amazes me, the trend for the subject to more commonly be called "X" instead of "Twitter" has been increasing steadily over the past year or so. It has gotten to a point where I have not seen the phrase "X, formerly known as Twitter" as much as I had previously. Such a restriction impedes progress. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. To say that the WP:COMMONNAME won't change within a year is a strong WP:CRYSTALBALL statement. Félix An (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for as long as six months, and certainly not if the move occurs. It seems the use of "X" is increasing over time, and thus I agree with Steel1943 that "[s]uch a restriction impedes progress". Moreover, I would not consider this particular move request to be disruptive as an admin called for another RM, although perhaps not right after closing the last RM. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support and I would also support requiring that a future RM go through a comprehensive RFC process for all the articles that fall under the "Twitter" umbrella to maintain consistency. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry. SilverLocust 💬 10:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose current proposal I don't see whether six months (or 1 year) page move moratorium is needed. If the page move moratorium is necessary, i rather Support 5-year or 10-year page move moratorium specifically for this article. This is purposed to maintain the stability of the article, so when 5-year or 10-year moratorium lapsed, we could move the article without too much of discussion regarding name change. If needed, we could created nutshell or FAQ in the talk page in similar way as Bangalore. I'm afraid that just having short time page move moratorium would be opportunity to make page move more distruptive. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC) I doubt in the next 5 years or 10, readers of Wikipedia won't be "mad" seeing the name shown as Twitter on this website while it remains X in usage (unless a major change supporting the use of Twitter as a name occurs) according to your belief. Jõsé hola 04:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Support 5 years Only six months (or 1 year) page move moratorium is unacceptable, because when it lapsed, it will have more destruptive impact about the page move, which in turn threaten the article title's stability. 103.144.14.16 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Oppose current proposal regarding six or 12 months moratorium. I rather Support for 5-year moratorium of page move but specifically can be happened if the article was already moved to X. Having more than one move request in just a year seems unnecessary and redudant, so let's enough for move page discussion for five years, and open again requested move five years later. 223.255.229.30 (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Strong support Five-year moratorium for this page move. Having too much move discussion is redudant and might threaten the article's stability. Let's wait for 5 years regardless. 114.125.235.203 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Are you commenting more than once? HenryMP02 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Five years?? --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Support but more conditionally specified. If there's consensus regarding page movie from Twitter to X (social media network), a minimum six-month to a year moratorium is preferrable. Otherwise, if there's no consensus regarding the name change (especially for most people who already Twitter user for many years before Elon Musk's takeover), more shorter time frame (three months) is preferrable. Nevertheless, any usage regarding "Twitter"-only name is deprecated over time (unless for more historical purposes), and instead they use sentences such as "X, formerly known as Twitter", "social media platform X", etc. and we would not know whether the platform be reverted to the original name if another person acquire X Corp. So, i suggested the phrase of the name "X" to be more emphasized in the article regardless of consensus of page move. 2404:8000:1037:587:E8E6:A5FB:BF89:2AD (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Support 10 years I think it is more plausible to end its move request and imposed 10-year page moratorium for this article and reopened the move request ten years later ONLY for once, because "Twitter" still maintained long-term significance among English speakers than X, which is relatively unknown unless they also include "formerly known as Twitter), and many of us did not want the move discussion regarding it to repeat again and again. 2404:8000:1037:456:417C:424A:8CC6:7ED4 (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Ten years??! 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Ten years is excessive. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Comment - The IPs calling for 5-10 years all appear to be the same person. Special:Contributions/223.255.229.30, Special:Contributions/114.125.235.203, Special:Contributions/103.144.14.16, and Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1037:456:417C:424A:8CC6:7ED4. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Funny even how this moratorium won't reach a consensus. Some of the commentators here are judging based on emotional and political assessments, and not facts or reality. For me I support a moratorium. Jõsé ^hola 04:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  You support moving the article but also support a moratorium on requests to move the article title? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  And I am not the only user who supports or opposes both. This moratorium is being proposed as to curb the incessant requests for the page to be renamed. Jõsé ^hola 04:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the idea of having a year-long or multi-year moratorium. As mentioned by others, the naming situation has been fluid, and trying to predict whether Twitter still is a recognizable name several years from now falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Preventing page moves for six months or less seems less objectionable, although it still seems preferable to just use the current name of the service and be done with it. Onyxqk (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support moratorium for 12 months. Lewisguile (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is a waste of time for everybody involved. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The mere fact that people continue to ignore reality does not justify prohibiting future move requests. Eventually an administrator will actually weight !votes properly and ignore everyone who has an anti-Elon viewpoint but is ignoring our actual PAGs on article titles which give zero weight whatsoever to what people use in everyday conversation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of searches use the addition of Twitter. – The Grid (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  You may have replied to the wrong section. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely did, never do Wikipedia on mobile. – The Grid (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support for 3 months. – The Grid (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think a moratorium ranging anywhere from six months to two years will be effective in ensuring article stability and avoiding repetitive WP:DEADHORSE discussions, but five years seems too extreme. 10 years is obviously ridiculous. Also, if the closer finds consensus for a moratorium, but no consensus on a time length, they should use their WP:BARTENDER judgment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for a year, would choose a shorter period as a second choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is exhausting. We've had this disucssion basically non-stop since Musk made the change. It's time for a break.Melmann 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support for at least six months. These move requests relating to Twitter have been going on for months and I think its time to put it to a pause. Once six months has passed, then any request to rename should include sources from at least September 2024, to show that new sources only use X. Just like why Bangalore has been suffering many times to be moved, and was formerly the case for Kiev. JuniperChill (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately I believe no consensus has been reached because politically motivated arguments are still polluting the votes. They should be ignored or at least downweighed if we want to reach consensus based on objective, rational arguments and WP guidelines. It's also a complicated issue with many moving parts (in terms of WP:COMMONNAME) to be expected in the following months. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, consensus can change. The attempt to throttle such discussions is everything but what Wikipedia stands for. –Tobias (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  From the past seven move discussions, consensus has not changed. This pause would allow for a better discussion. It's been done in the past many times and even WP:CCC states proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. – The Grid (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support a 2 or 3-month moratorium at most. Because this is not a totally solid situation. In the previous RMs we did not have that many support votes for "X" whereas now some people are thinking the name is more common. Three months down the line there may be more support for renaming it. Keivan.f^Talk 16:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose not again, just leave it Anthony2106 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  wait no I put this in the wrong place, I seid "not again, just leave it" because im sick of the same move requests over and over again. if a moratorium can help stop this, then it's good. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for a moratorium on "X"-related move discussions. The discussion gets brought up every few months despite nothing changing and it's a massive waste of everyone's time. Users continuously trying to move the page to X are WP:BLUDGEONING the process. The discussion has been had multiple times and continuously forcing the issue is pointless. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:JV. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't AfD, it's a move discussion. – The Grid (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but the same case is applicable here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support with my preference being one year. At the moment, we are averaging one move discussion every 42 days or one every 1.4 months roughly. The fact that 10 discussions in under 14 months have yet to provide a consensus to move is a good reason for having a moratorium in place so that the community does not repeatedly have to discuss this every month or two.

For those concerned this is too long, MORATORIUM already says that "[a]n existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so." If such a consensus did happen, then it would likely be enough for a move discussion to change the article name. If not, then it likely would not be enough. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Making it too long would just create the same problem of disruptive requests to overturn it, i would fear. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it gets overturned, then there should be plenty of support to move and if not, then no. It also reduces how much policy discussion has to be brought up each time. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think DarmaniLink's point is more that it doesn't take consensus for someone to start the discussion to overturn it, and if we have a long moratorium, we eventually might just start seeing the same pattern we saw over the last five months but a layer up. Which I think is a reasonable concern, though maybe not an argument against trying, as we wind up in the same state without a moratorium. I'm not sure it will prevent this argument from continuing to smolder, but I want to try this and I hope it helps. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support for 3 years 1.5 years – I think three years is a good call for seeing how much the societal usage of the old and new names changes in the long term. Though TBH isn't this kinda moot since we already have a giant red banner editnotice on the talk page saying not to start a new RM straight away? — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Three years is excessive. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, well well, 3 years is only 50% more than the 2 years that many people seem to be suggesting here. Though I've halved my vote to 18 months, I think people underestimate how long it can take for society as a whole to adapt to major changes to a long-standing status quo like Twitter→X. I'll give some other examples of this, it took at least three years for the stigma that AMD CPUs are "hot, loud, slow" to finally go away after they released Zen CPUs. There are people who still think diamonds are the best tool in Minecraft, despite the introduction of Netherite over four years ago. Other quick examples: "Linux gaming support is terrible" (despite massive recent efforts in Proton and WINE), "You must charge your phone to 100% and then discharge to 0% to prolong battery life" (this is outdated advice that applies to battery technology from 20 years ago). There are probably other better examples out there than these, but my point here is that when a status quo is challenged, it can take many years for much of the society to catch up to it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I've never come across any Wikipedia article where a moratorium of ten years was proposed. This is off the scale silly. The usual rule with move discussions and similar is that once every six months is enough. However, this is such a controversial area that it has become more or less a rolling debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Just an FYI, this should have been closed along with the larger RM. Since this was not the case, I've asked the closer to close this discussion as well; otherwise, we can make a post at WP:CR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  A request has been made at CR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose All of these repeated and failed proposals are indicative of the fact that wikipedians are not working towards a consensus and there should never be a moratorium on working towards a consensus. If editors are abusing the process that it is an AN/I or behavior issue but otherwise it should be up to the more sane and moderate editors to proposal an organizational scheme for a company with a history of this density and length. It is already split into two articles and we should just pick the most WP:COMMONNAME for both of them and be done with it and it is my wish that rational heads and good sources can prevail. Jorahm (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  A moratorium doesn't prevent consensus being reached, it prevents disruption and repetitive WP:DEADHORSE discussions that go nowhere. We need to wait for a reasonable amount of time to allow for consensus to change before another potential RM. Otherwise, we are just going to have one of these every other month, as has been the case for the past year. This cycle is tiring and unproductive. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is a very WP:CRYSTALBALL behaviour to predict that Twitter's WP:COMMONNAME won't become X within one year. Félix An (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seems rather unnecessary. There is pretty much no disruption from asking a question. If it is to much time or effort to participate in the discussion you can simply not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2024 (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.

Orthography in the lede

The article begins with "X, formally known as Twitter". I think whoever wrote that meant "formerly". So, someone with the rights to do so might change that.--138.245.1.1 (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's Twitter, currently known as X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See Talk:Twitter#Requested move 25 August 2024 – The Grid (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

---

If this English Wikipedia changed the title to X (social network), then we will have to edit every single Wikipedia page in other languages too. 14.0.225.79 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why as we don't dictate what the other languages must do and vice versa. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

oh sorry. can we remove the renaming template as the requested move is no consensus. 14.0.225.79 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No because the discussion has to be formally and properly closed. Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 8 September 2024 (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.

Twitter now X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See Talk:Twitter#Requested move 25 August 2024 – The Grid (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Since Twitter is now called X, the name of the article should be changed to “X” and the description to “X, formerly Twitter, ...” 2603:8000:1801:65F1:A9C9:BBE3:977E:5E45 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length numerous times, and so far there has been no consensus to rename the article. Scroll up to the talk page header or the most recent discussion about this. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A discussion on this was just closed as there was no consensus EarthDude (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2024 (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.

Edit notice discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § "Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The name of this article should be changed to X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Repeatedly discussed. See Talk:Twitter#Requested move 25 August 2024 and previous discussions. – Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Last year, Twitter was rebranded as X under Elon Musk, and X is now the official name of the site. So, the name of this article should be changed to "X", or, to limit confusion, to "X (social networking service)" Kwiyqgegsbsjawp (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2024 (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.

Fidelity's total valuation of X/Twitter

This is from Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musks-x-is-now-worth-around-a-fifth-of-the-44-billion-he-paid-for-it-fidelity-says/). Should we mention? It says that Twitter is now worth just $9.4 billion compared to the $44 billion Musk paid for it. I'm not sure if it goes here or if there is a separate page for the financial information of the site. Thanks CNC33 (. . .talk) 19:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So far as I see, there isn't a previously mentioned evaluation. It might be includable, but it probably is best to leave out as it barely helps readers learn about the company, in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, maybe I need a pair of glasses. In December 2023, Fidelity estimated the value of the company to be down 71.5% from its purchase price is literally in the lede. It seems that if it is included, it should be under the 2022–present: Transition to X section. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that now, as well. Thanks CNC33 (. . .talk) 21:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Split into 2 articles

Split article into 2 articles Twitter for pre 2023 content and X for post 2023 content 71.181.116.65 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is X a different service from Twitter?

In light of the recent rebranding, there’s been a lot of back and forth about whether X (social network) and Twitter are different media services. We’ve seen many discussions on this topic, but there’s still no clear consensus on how to move forward. The closer of a recent RM noted this: "Whether "X" under Elon Musk is a different service from "Twitter" is a different conversation, but one that is still worthwhile." I’m starting this RfC so we can get more community input and figure out how to approach the information in Twitter-related articles. Note that this is not a requested move to rename any article, this is a discussion on whether X and Twitter are different services. Please share your thoughts, suggestions, or concerns below. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment — X Corp. has argued that Twitter no longer exists in court, though that argument was rejected by the judge. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• The most recent RM was less than a month ago. It is too soon for another such discussion; furthermore, RfC is not for article rename discussions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't look like a rename RFC. It appears to be asking a guinine question if Twitter and X are sufficiently different things, which if there is consensus to that, makes sense to start talking about a larger content rework around all related articles, which might require merges, splits, and renamed. But it is easier to start with this question than to lay out a complete proposal. Masem (t) 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  By beginning with phrases like There’s been a lot of back and forth about whether the article on Twitter (and other related articles) should be renamed to X (social network) to reflect the recent rebranding. and The most recent RM for this article, it gives the impression that a rename discussion is under way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have lightly reworded the RfC request to avoid any misunderstandings. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Yovt: Judging by recent comments - e.g. from Masem - this is actually a WP:SPLIT proposal. That is also outside the RfC process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  No immediate action is called for from this RFC, but assuming the consensus suggests they are different, then a proposal of how to actually carry out whatever splits, moves, merges, and the like can be proposed to implement that consensus. So this should not be treated as a split or move or merge proposal, simply if there's a basis for that being the next step. — Masem (t) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support that they should be considered "different" in the same way that the Seattle Super Sonics and Oklahoma City Thunder are different. Or New York Giants and San Francisco Giants. Relocated sports franchises are the same team, same players, same management. But generally Wikipedia has articles for each incarnation due to the fundamental schism created by the relocation and rename. Same thing for Twitter / X, despite being "the same service".
  We need a historical Twitter article that describes the founding as an SMS-based microblog, bios of the founders, novel 140 character limit, iconic "tweet"/"retweet" verbs, bird iconography, API and third-party apps, verified program, IPO and status as a public company in San Fransisco, etc. Then an X (social network) for up-to-date coverage of the current social network, Musk's ownership, firing of most of the previous employees, Twitter name change to X, abandonment of "tweet" in favor of "posts", no character limits, closure of the API, "Verified" changes, new political leanings, advertiser changes, existence as a private corporation, relocation to Texas, etc. Two articles for this company are supported by WP:DETAIL and WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Musk taking ownership followed very quickly by a complete rebrand is an incredibly obvious and convenient place for such a split to occur. The two articles will continue to prominently link to each other and be connected by hatnotes and disambiguation as needed. Strongly support moving/renaming/expanding Twitter under Elon Musk or any other strategy that results in two articles as WP:SPINOFFS of one another, one for historic Twitter and the other for current X. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support the idea that Twitter and X are two suffuciently district services that we should consider how to reorganize the content to reflect that. (how to do that is a question for later) while the backbone of the service remains similar, it's the way it has been managed and gaining a whole different slate of commentary and criticism, is clear reasoning why we should be clear there is a distinction between these. Masem (t) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • To add, there is clearly far more content on Twitter/X that requires some type of split between two or more articles. The most natural split point, based on sources, is the transition from Twitter to X. If there wasn't a size issue then it would make sense to cover both parts in one article, but we are well beyond that point. — Masem (t) 13:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support along the lines of what Masem said. Twitter, the service, was novel - it was a microblogging service that operated as a social media platform. While Twitter had been making some changes prior to Elon's takeover (such as handling links better so they didn't count for as many characters, etc) the bulk of the changes happened after its "rebrand" to X. While many features are similar (such as being able to retweet/re-post something, quote tweet, etc), it is sufficiently different that it should be considered a new service. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. X is the same service as Twitter, just under different ownership. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Twitter and X are the same social media service; there's nothing fundamentally or radically different between the two and the functionality remains the same, though the community itself might feel different after Musk's acquisition (but we don't split articles based on nostalgia). Twitter just got renamed to X after Musk acquired it, and what changes he has made to it are detailed under Twitter under Elon Musk (which is essentially the X (social media) article; see Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk#Requested move 24 May 2024). Plus, splitting the article into Twitter and X will only confuse readers into thinking that these are somehow two different social media services, that Twitter somehow became defunct, then X took its place, when that's not what happened at all. I would oppose a split / support the status quo (keeping the article how it is now) if we're bolding whatever we want in this open-ended RfC. Some1 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  "No consensus" means that the matter wasn't resolved in that move request, but at the same time, it wasn't also the focus of the move request, so asking the more focused question to actually figure out consensus on the specific point makes sense. Masem (t) 12:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support split. Whether the underlying technologies are the essentially the same is rather irrelevant. The historical Twitter as a service and online community is radically different from what X has become, and they should be treated as encyclopedically distinct topics, just as we give separate articles to various other commercial entities after mergers, splits, acquisitions, etc., even when the names are sometimes confusingly similar (which isn't even the case here). There is no question that pre-Musk Twitter and post-Musk X are fundamentally different online services from an encyclopedic perspective, even if there is a chain of legal-entity continuity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Twitter has evolved over the years, but what happened in July 2023 was basically a poorly thought out rebranding exercise, similar to Kanye West changing his legal name to Ye. Twitter is significantly different under Elon Musk's leadership, but whether it is an entirely different service is open to question.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I took the other side on the previous discussion, but I think I was just wrong. The community is different, the intended societal role is objectively different, and the secondary coverage is vastly different. That last point alone makes it impossible to coherently cover both as one thing. As a thought experiment that inverts the question: if we had an article dedicated to "X", and Musk then sold X, and it returned to previous ownership and all the policy changes were reversed, encyclopedic material on that "new" service wouldn't fit in that "X" article and wouldn't make sense there. I also like PK-WIKI's sports teams comparison. DFlhb (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• The old name is still being used as or more often than X is. If this is just new branding or product features, then it would be a continuation of Twitter, but with both involved it's no longer a clear-cut case. CurryCity (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, X is obviously the same service as Twitter.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A lot has carried on between the two, but a lot hasn't. It's a useful divide. The ownership, branding, content, userbase, etc. has all changed drastically. Roughly, Musk bought the domain, some code, and database; very little else remains. SWinxy (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose unless there seems to be a consensus among reliable sources that Twitter and X are distinct entities. Our own opinions as editors are arguably irrelevant. Loytra (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I guess this isn't technically covered by the moratorium but it sure feels like we're continuing to have the same discussion there's been no consensus around, seeing as this came up in all three of the three most recent RMs. Anyways, I can't find much evidence in sources treating Twitter and X as distinct things; plenty of sources still use the terms interchangeably (New York Magazine), use X and refer to it once as being the new name of Twitter (The Atlantic), or even just continue to call the site Twitter (Bleacher Report). The name change is broadly referred to as a "rebrand" (The Verge, CNN, Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal) or "rename" (Variety, Washington Post), and not some more fundamental difference. While plenty of sources cover changes made post-acquisition, there don't seem to be any sources treating the two names as wholly distinct entities. The colloquial usage of "Twitter" and "X" both seem to be used refer to the platform generally, and not any specific point in its history. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would not try to base any decision on sources from last year, but more recent sources, which is where the issue of X being managed differently than Twitter lies. This is beyond a rename aspect but how we are going to split a long topic. Masem (t) 00:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are plenty of reliable sources that say twitter "died" or "was killed", and that what remains at X is something quite different from the social network it replaced.

  • Elon Musk killed Twitter. First he did it figuratively (...) Then he killed it literally: renaming it X, giving Twitter a final ending after fifteen years of chaotic existence. — The Verge
  • The social network formerly known as Twitter has fully metamorphosed into X.com. — Wired
  • Elon Musk has officially killed Twitter. The zombie platform lives on as X, a disfigured shell of its former self — CNN

  Our policies give editors plenty of leeway for a WP:SPINOFF or WP:CONTENTSPLIT based along those lines.

  PK-WIKI (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  These articles are written in an intentionally hyperbolic tone, almost for comedic effect. That's not to say they do not contain real commentary on the state of affairs at X but I don't think these are really evidence that it is not the same company. The CNN article starts off as a fake obituary. The CNN and Wired articles also switch between referring to them as clearly the same entity and saying X is different. For example, the Wired piece says Musk promised new financial management under X. It then goes on to say Twitter under Musk has… followed by a bunch of changes he has made and then closes with The “entire financial world” part remains a work in progress. Both articles also refer to this as a rebrand. MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 07:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Similar to Dylnuge, I had my concerns with this RfC given the moratorium, but am accepting that it isn't a move request. That said, I am a bit confused that the question was "Is X a different service from Twitter?" with the intent to use it to "figure out how to approach the information in Twitter-related articles" and that some of the replies here are to split the article in two.
  In any case, I will say that multiple organizations don't treat X as separate from Twitter. I will also acknowledging that Musk has made significant departures from how Twitter was prior to his acquisition. Personally, I didn't mind either name as the other would be a redirect, as in 'X (social)' would redirect to Twitter and Twitter would redirect to 'X (social)'. If there is a split, then that would complicate things as neither would redirect to the other, but I suppose that is what {{About}} and {{For}} are designed to handle.
  I will also mention that I looked into PK-WIKI's statement regarding sports teams getting split articles. The Decatur Staleys existed from 1919 to 1922, but lack an article compared to the more well known Chicago Bears. The Boston Redskins existed from 1932 to 1937, but also lack an independent article from the Washington Commanders. The Dallas Texans was an inaugural AFC team in 1960 that was sabotaged by the creation of the Dallas Cowboys in the NFL that same year. These Texans would become the Kansas City Chiefs in 1963. To end this football recap, the 1997 and 1998 Tennessee Oilers lack an article compared to the former Houston Oilers and later Tennessee Titans. Despite these examples, there are many more where I found that it was done when both are notable, which should apply here given that Twitter was notable before Musk and the service has remained notable under Musk. (In some of the cases I mentioned, I would say that there are notable former teams that lack independent articles.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many red flags and reasons to oppose this idea. X and Twitter are the same. Splitting it makes very little sense. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to summary style spinoffs, but I am extremely unconvinced of the argument that they are a different service. To be honest, I am not entirely convinced there even is an argument. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm just not seeing any compelling case that this is a different company. I'm not disputing that things are different. While some reliable news sources have published stories declaring "Twitter is dead!" and that Musk has totally changed it, these statements are not to be taken so literally.

MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 07:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and procedural close to this RfC This is textbook window shopping. A six month moratorium has been enacted for move discussions.

From the op: Note that this is not a requested move to rename any article, this is a discussion on whether X and Twitter are different services. Then what the hell is this discussion even about if you're using a comment from a move discussion? They are the same service inside and out. – The Grid (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a follow-up to the move discussion. A number of editors raised the idea that X and Twitter were two distinct services, which the closer of the RM mentioned was a "different conversation." This is that conversation.

Additionally this is not a RM, but an RfC. The moratorium does not apply to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

RM or not, the same question is being asked. – The Grid (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree that we don't have consensus on this issue, this seems like a backdoor way of asking a question we already have an answer for: should the name of this page be Twitter or X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) No convincing arguments are being presented that sources are treating X as a new entity, simply as a somewhat ham-fisted rebrand and re-align. The time may come when the new identity is sufficiently established and has sufficient history to 'split' the article, but at present most sources still feel the need to refer to "formerly Twitter" in order to recognisably describe what X is. What's the point of splitting now? Half the new article would be about the pre-rebrand platform. Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; stick to the status quo: The opinions of its userbase should not outweigh the simple facts that all twitter links redirect to X, all tweets and other content from before 2023 remained up assuming the user didn't delete them, and all users' accounts are the exact same on Twitter and X. There was no migration process because they're the same site. Treating these as different services would be as nonsensical as if we treated HBO Max as a different streaming service from its new name Max (streaming service). Unnamed anon (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  HBO Now has its own article. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's the same company, the services are not particularly distinct from each other before and after. PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fundamentally, it's still the same microblogging website despite changes in userbase composition and minor functional differences. This is reflected by many reliable sources that still use the "X (formerly known as Twitter)" phrasing or even just calling it Twitter. What polls and reports we do have indicate that a plurality of US users, [9] a majority of UK users, [10] and an overwhelming majority of businesses [11] (which would have a financial incentive to accurately describe its official channels) still exclusively use "Twitter". It's rename that hasn't caught on (yet?) not a fundamentally different website. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Twitter and X are the same. The only difference is the naming of the app, and some of the services in it. Other than that, both are still fundamentally the same platform. It's similar to how, if a city changes its name, that doesn't mean it has now become a different city. EarthDude (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It might not be a different city, but we do write a new article (and a song) for each name to represent each era: Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't even the discussion at hand. – The Grid (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Twitter and X are starkly different in a host of significant ways, as innumerable reliable sources affirm. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. PK-WIKI's explanation above makes sense, and their comparison to a relocated sports team is a good one, in that we have separate articles for both even though they are in many ways "the same team". In this case the differences between Twitter and Musk's X are many and sharp, and covering them in two in separate articles makes the most sense. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  One thing to consider with the sports team comparison is that the distinction is recognizable and natural when location is used; no one would say Shohei Ohtani is leading off for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 2024 World Series, nor would they say that Jackie Robinson played for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the 1955 World Series. Meanwhile, Twitter and X are widely used interchangeably, and it's unclear that anyone uses "Twitter" to exclusively refer to the site prior to the acquisition (it's more clear that some people use the term "X" to refer only to the site following Musk's acquisition). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This tracks with how reliable sources treats these cases. No reliable source will use a sports team's old name except in the immediate aftermath of the move or in a clearly historical complex, while in this case multiple reliable sources are still using the "X (formerly known as Twitter)" phrasing or "Twitter" outright. As shown in my links above, the old name has at least a plurality in terms of usage/recognition, which would not be the case for sports relocations expect perhaps among the most bitter and diehard fans.

  Another key difference is that if you go to the former stadium of a relocated sports team, you will obviously not get the same experience as visiting the stadium where the team is actually based. By contrast, X.com and Twitter.com URLs will always take you to the same place without any loss in functionality. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  A key part that is in the sources is that while the functional experience of X is roughly the same as the functional experience of Twitter, the atmosphere and environment are very much different due to the drastic behind-the-scenes policies changes. Too many !voters here are getting caught up on the similarities of the technical part of Twitter -> X , but its the larger picture around the commentary and criticism that is creating the divide between what was Twitter and what is X. Masem (t) 12:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're right. Whether Twitter and X are “different media services” in a technical sense isn’t really the key question; it’s whether reliable sources consider them to be different, or whether sources present the changes between the two as so significant that it would justify us treating them separately. From what I can see, sources generally do — and to be clear, those difference are not simply a “rebrand” (as some have incorrectly asserted above) but a profound shift in numerous key areas: operation, policies, culture, perception, leadership/management, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The way I figured to express that us that it is like a standalone restaurant, a community staple for years, being bought, named, and rebranded, but otherwise keeping all the same facilities with it. In such cases, it's still a restaurant, and ppl will likely use the old name for years, but it is a fundamentally different business. Masem (t) 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think most editors (and sources) are in agreement that A) there are significant changes/differences that occurred following the acquisition and rebranding and B) the underlying service is still generally the same. My contention arises from wanting the article organization to reflect what is most recognizable and natural to readers with passing familiarity on Twitter/X; my assessment of sources is that even in describing the changes following the acquisition, few treat "Twitter" as a word that refers exclusively to the pre-acquisition service.

  Creating a divide between Twitter and X for the purpose of organizing this article may solve one problem, but it raises way more:

  • When does the divide begin? Musk acquired Twitter, Inc. on Oct 27, 2022; X Corp. was established March 9, 2023; the rebrand of Twitter to X was announced July 22, 2023; the URL was changed on May 17, 2024. Even among those arguing for treating X and Twitter as separate terms, I'm not clear there's agreement which of these is the line, and I suspect this would be completely unclear to most readers.
  • The rebranding also incorporated several feature renames. Should content from 2014 be called a "tweet" but content from 2024 quoting it be called "repost"?
  • If site content was written in 2021 but mentioned in a 2024 article, is it "on Twitter" because of when it was written or "on X" because of when it was accessed?
  • Is the appropriate thing to do with sub-articles like Censorship of Twitter or Twitter suspensions to split them up, even if their content doesn't merit it, and if not, what title fits assuming the article covers the entire history of the platform?
  • What about things that are recognizable as standalone terms, like Twitter bot or Black Twitter?
  • Assuming treating them differently results in the spilt you've proposed, where do incidental mentions target? Many articles will have a tangential mention of the platform: a politician's bio where they are quoted decried the platform alongside other social media, a social media influencer who engages with the platform, a television series which announced an upcoming season on the platform, etc. I don't see these as being places where making a distinction between Twitter and X is natural, and saying something like "Doe engaged with their audience via Twitter and later via X" in every article where the platform gets a mention feels especially wrong.

  Though I know this is theoretically not a titling discussion, it seems that what to title these articles is at stake. My opposition is grounded in concerns that while Twitter is a fine title for an article about the platform, and X is a fine title for an article about the platform, Twitter and X being separate articles creates a distinction that is not recognizable or natural to the average reader. It has little to do with whether the platform has changed under Musk (obviously it has substantially), and much more to do with the fact that this is ultimately not a straightforward distinction. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that the average reader would not find it “recognizable or natural” if we distinguish the two is one that'd need some evidence, since much of the coverage I’ve seen in reliable sources since the acquisition suggests the opposite. Innumerable pieces have emphasized (repeatedly) the stark differences that divide the platform’s two eras, so personally I find it strange to think that our readers would be unfamiliar or surprised by an arrangement that distinguishes them.

  I’m also not sure why we’d need to define precisely when the divide occurred; if there are multiple transitional steps then we simply note them. Again to use the Sonics/Thunder analogy, the team’s transition involved numerous steps at different times, to the extent that we have an entire article dedicated to the process. Yet the articles are separate, and in many ways that seems best. I honestly don't see why a similar arrangement wouldn't work here. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're seriously underestimating how little most people really think about the acquisition. This discussion is teeming with sources that use the terms interchangeably, including several of the few sources that have been presented as arguments for treating them distinctly. You asked for evidence, so here's a quick sample of usage in articles that aren't about the technology or business but happen to mention X/Twitter (I went looking for colloquial usage, which is what's under discussion, so these sources come from results searching "Twitter" and "X" and aren't specifically chosen for reliability; "X" is harder to search for, of course, but I did dig for usage of both names): Barstool Sports just says Twitter ([12]), as does Marca ([13]), as does Sports Illustrated ([14]), as does the Scottish National ([15]). Yahoo Sports uses them interchangeably but prefers 'Twitter' in their headline ([16]), as does Commanders Wire ([17]). Newsweek just uses X without mentioning Twitter ([18]). And terms like "Gay Twitter" ([19]) and "Black Twitter" ([20]) are still being used to describe current cultures on the platform.

  Why am I asking where the divide is? Because transitional steps or not, the Sonics/Thunder analogy has a natural and recognizable answer: the team was the Sonics up to and including the 2007–08 NBA season and the Thunder in the 2008–09 NBA season onwards. That was and remains standard colloquial usage when sports teams relocate. The evidence shows that there's no such clear divide in usage of "Twitter". When someone today says an athlete posted something on Twitter following a game, no one thinks they're talking about something that happened two years ago; if someone says an athlete got traded to the Sonics, it's obviously historical. There's an argument to be made over which name is common, there's an argument to be made over how to organize the article, but I cannot genuinely buy that there's an argument that most people naturally recognize Twitter and X as separate things when even the majority of the editors in this discussion (and I'm guessing we're all pretty "online", as these things go) don't. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  So then what was the sport team's name between seasons, from mid-June to late October 2008? Upon what natural and recognizable day recognized by all did the one change to the other? As I’ve said before, I don’t personally think it matters, either for the team or the social media service that we're discussing here... but if you're determined to keeping hammering that point then you invite those kinds of questions.

  As for the argument, it's not that Twitter and X (or the Sonics and the Thunder) are entirely separate things. They're clearly not. The argument is that they're sufficiently different, in ways sufficiently numerous and significant, that it's appropriate for us to distinguish them... and that if we do, readers are unlikely to be confused due to the abundance of reliable sources that emphasize those differences. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Upon what natural and recognizable day recognized by all did the one change to the other? September 3rd, 2008. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  So likewise, On July 23, 2023, Musk announced X's launch. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support – I haven't kept up with this discussion as much as I'd liked to have, but from what I have kept up with there does seem to be a very clear split in the platform (and hell, we already have an article for it under Twitter under Elon Musk, which I think might be enough on its own to say X is considered differently). I don't see why I shouldn't support this, as such. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Its the same platform but with a different name and less censorship --FMSky (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment As an pedantic exercise I do no see how this talk thread is even useful. The only thing that matters is how we cover this on Wikipedia and for the purposes of Wikipedia we will organize different topics into different articles and in my best estimates Twitter "before and after" are different topics for several reasons. Top reason is that the sources cover this break between "before" and "after" very specifically and there is such a distinct burst in new coverage when the company transformed enough to fill two different articles. The second is that the transformation involves a massive change in ownership which in corporate terms is essentially a new organization. The third is that the organization and service were renamed. People are correct when they compare this to Oakland Raiders and Las Vegas Raiders having two different articles: despite a continuous chain of transfer of legal property this is a massive transformation in terms of the actual organization and how the sources cover it... so I guess this would make my comment weak support but I do not understand what purpose this conversation serves. Jorahm (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

•Support

Yes they are different because of the Ui and name has changed Ned1a Wanna talk? 18:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

•Oppose I've used the service when it was called Twitter under previous ownership, I've used it when it was called Twitter under the ownership of Musk, and I've used it while it's been called X under the continuing ownership of Elon Musk. It's always worked in the same fundamental way, The potential word count was increased while named Twitter and features such as Community Notes were added after the serice had adopted it's new name. The service was given the name X while still functioning under the address twitter.com. At some time a function was enabled where people could type an x.com/... address and be transferred to a twitter.com/... address and now people can type a twitter.com/... address and be transferred to an x.com/... address. So when did Twitter become X? Was ot when Musk carried his sink into Twitter HQ or sometime later? Staff that Musk kept on, or rehired later, remained significant in the company. Users retain the ability to comment under other user's posts and to repost various posts. But for the development of Community Notes, the site's functionality has not much changed. GregKaye 14:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Moratorium suggestion

The previous move request came with a moratorium to stop move requests to "X (social network)" for six months. I'd like to suggest a similar moratorium regarding scope changes and split discussions to treat them as different services. It's a related discussion that has become equally as exhausting; regardless of the outcome, I suspect there will be another discussion regarding the exact same thing in a few weeks unless the current moratorium is expanded to this type of discussion as well. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support moratorium as nominator. I'm open for either six months starting now, or this moratorium could be paired with the X rename moratorium (so five months I believe). Unnamed anon (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the second RfC for this article in 5 months and also the second RfC for this article in 10 years. I do not see where this is a reoccurring discussion and would require some evidence that it is a problem. There were 10 move request discussion in the prior 14 months when the moratorium on move requests began, when excluding the three discussions closed for procedural reasons on September 17th and 18th. I don't see the same issue here. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Striking following a discussion and some thought. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For context on that discussion, the RfC 5 months ago that Goku was referring to was also in response to Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to X (social network), specifically a huge mess on whether to consider the Twitter page as either a defunct, rebranded, or replaced website. That came only shortly after another proposal to treat them as separate sites in May. When the site was first rebranded in 2023, there were also constant changes to say that Twitter no longer exists (I can't find the edit right now, but somebody cited a "Twitter obituary" from CNN during that time). It also feels like a loophole to the current moratorium that goes against its purpose of constant discussions surrounding Twitter's status. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support and time to other moratorium. The purpose of the request move moratorium is to stop wasting editor time on this debate constantly. It would be pointless if instead of move requests, that energy was just wasted on discussions on if the page should be split or not or changing the scope of the article to effect a de facto move. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support: bundle with existing moratorium and extend both to 6 months following the closure of this discussion. I get the sense the RFC intended to follow the letter of the RM moratorium, but it's clear that whether to split the article, how to refer to Twitter/X, and what to title the article(s) are intricately linked topics. There's been one discussion or another ongoing about this essentially constantly since the domain change, and each of those discussions get similar participation, generate similar comments, and fail to find consensus (except the current open one, though it seems likely to close the same way). I'd argue the spirit of the original moratorium was that we leave the topic alone for 6 months, and it'd be nice to do that. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Regular discussions, unlike RMs and other XfDs, are not disruptive to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus: Normally I'd agree that regular discussions aren't disruptive, but this particular discussion would likely result in Twitter under Elon Musk being moved back to X (social network) on the off chance it passes. In other words, it functionally serves as a move request for a separate but related page, which feels like it goes against the current moratorium's intent of no RMs. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've said above, but the goal of the prior RFC is to determine if we should treat Twitter and X differently, but that doesn't set out to establish exactly what steps need to be done to manage the content between the 7 or more articles currently out there about Twitter and X (steps which would include content moves, context swaps, merges, and page moves). If that RFC closed to support that position, then to keep in line with the prior page move moratorium, the next few months would be used to brainstorm and outline how the content and pages should be managed, make sure there's agreement to that with likely another RFC but after the page move moratorium is over. Right now without this current RFC being answers, the content being piled onto the various Twitter/X pages is a mess and wholly disorganized and something needs to be fixed. Masem (t) 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a blatant effort to WP:GAME the system and would not disallowed. The moratorium stands, and an RfC cannot and will not override it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Twitter was NOT X from 2006 - 2023!

Do not refer to past Twitter as X, as that is simply incorrect.

The page Twitter under Elon Musk already exists and it describes exactly what you want. Twitter is used to refer to Twitter, as in, the past. Twitter under Elon Musk is used to refer to X, as in, the present. Rowanbird779 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly are you addressing? GSK (talk • edits) 02:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, probably should've looked harder. I literally figured out what these talk pages do last week. Rowanbird779 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Too long

This article is too long, and needs to be subdivided (or have content simply removed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is an issue that the above open RFC will hopefully lead to a consensus based split and content rearrangement among all existing articles. Masem (t) 22:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There is already a page header saying there is consensus not to split on that basis - and rightly so. I'm supprised the RFC hasn't been speedily closed yet, on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In part, because that question was never formally asked in the prior move requests, and "no consensus" results on such side issues can be rereviewed through a focused RFC on that question. Masem (t) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Masem If that was the result, then the header is very ambiguously worded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Masem There's a 6 month momentum for move requests. It doesn't matter if the question hasn't been asked because the discussion will eventually return to a move request (see RfC above) regardless of how much you try to avoid it. There have been EIGHT discussions resulting in "no consensus" - stop beating the dead horse. Let's discuss this again in March. – The Grid (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

One can easily plan and discuss what is necessary to organize the content among the large number of articles related to Twitter/X (there's at least 7 I am aware of), and when that 6 month moratorium is up, actually propose what splits, merges, moves, and other reorganization needs to be done to reflect that. The above RFC is not a rename, move, merge, split, or any type of request along those lines, but how we need to think about the whole of what Twitter/X is. Masem (t) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The article is only 338,473 bytes gross and has been subdivided a number of times... So not too long and doesn't necessarily have to be subdivided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  at >15,000 words, it far exceeds what WP:SIZE recommends. Masem (t) 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  15,608 does not far exceed 15,000 and the page has already been subdivided a number of times... The SIZE reference is meant to provide a guideline for that first split, for something as long as this it gets complicated (see Facebook at a comprable 15,991...) Now one thing we can do which has not been done is make our summary sections tighter. The history section seems especially bloated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:SIZE doesn't say anything about the "first split", that applies to even split articles.

  Yes, there are ways to trim this down, however, I personally think that having a clear expectation of if we are going to treat the pre- and post-Musk versions of Twitter as different things will help better guide how to trim or move content, even without engaging in any type of move request. Masem (t) 19:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Don't we have clear consensus to treat them as the same thing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, there's currently no consensus if they are the same or different, as a side decision from one of the more recent move requests. the RFC above appears to try to resolve that with that specific question, absent any other specific action to be made. Masem (t) 23:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  That RfC is trying to overturn the standing consensus, the current consensus is that they're the same... Thats why there is currently no separation of the history or topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  A consensus can change and that RfC is trying a different approach to this issue. As someone who supported the moratorium, I believe it is a worthwhile attempt to attempt to find a way forward. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:TOOBIG I've summarised the history section and replaced 2022-present with excerpt.[21][22] This excludes unnecessary detail that is otherwise covered in the child articles, and otherwise reduces the page size from 14,857 to 12,951, so still plenty of trimming/splitting needed here. CNC (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:StoneToss

There's discussion at Talk:StoneToss#Twitter or X about whether the social media platform should be referred to as Twitter or X in the StoneToss article. Participation is welcomed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggest splitting some content to: Criticism of Twitter or Twitter controversies

We have Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks (as well as MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé for a bit different twist on the name - all in Category:Criticisms of companies). Surprisingly, we have none for Twitter yet (the Criticism of Twitter is just a redirect to our main article here). It would be good to create it, not only because it is a notable subtopic, but it would also make this article more neutral (scholarly research on Wikipedia articles on companies shows we have a bit too much negative bias by having too much criticism/controversies in main articles on companies...). So I suggest splitting some content into subarticle (copying it there, expanding, while shortening/summarizing here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

A concern with a split, not that it isn't warranted, is that we'd absolutely want to segregate the criticism levied at Musk and now X (such as its excessive right-leaning content) from the criticism of pre-Musk, and from any criticism related to Twitter/X as a whole (eg the whole stance about social media being addictive to youth, etc.) That said, I think we really need an overall take on how content about Twitter/X should be organized between all of the various articles, because it is right now a mess of a lot of duplicated content, weird splits, etc, and all that dependent on the naming factors and whether people consider Twitter and X as sufficient different topics (even if being the same service) to discuss. Masem (t) 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

X has faced widespread criticism for allowing or amplifying hate speech, racism, Nazism, and antisemitism, as reported by various media outlets and organizations. I believe that including a criticism section in the article is necessary. Stormbird (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stormbird I am not suggesting otherwise; note that such a section is not present in the article currently - criticism is spread through various other sections. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTIONs are generally discouraged. The better approach is what we are currently doing, that is, dispersing that information throughout this article and others. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If folks think the content here is well organized, fine. I have created Criticism of Twitter - feel free to work on it (I am not very interested in this topic, I just found the lack of criticism of Twitter article glaring, considering we have a similar article for pretty much all major new media companies). Also, for folks concerned about neutrality, see Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#This_article_has_major_neutrality_problems - now that is pretty close to an attack piece, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any consensus for this split per this discussion and the other you referenced, so have reverted per BRD. This is nothing more than a sloppy split based WP:CFORK, as there is nothing contained in that article that isn't documented elsewhere (based on your edit summary of "No new content has been added" [23] and otherwise no content summarised in parent articles either). Generally, it's best to engage in a WP:PROPERSPLIT when attempting to be WP:BOLD. CNC (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Mhm, you can always take it to WP:AFD but I think it is useful in the current form, as now folks can reduce the amount of undue criticism in some other articles, particularly the one I tagged with NPOV, which is not a far cry from Wikipedia:ATTACKPAGE IMHO (did you see it?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

While I don't support CommunityNotesContributor's unnecessarily aggressive editing style (they should propose a merge or AFD instead) I do think that you might have missed the boat... You don't seem to have first established that there is undue criticism in some other articles. In skipping that step you may have made a mistake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD, in order to implement the current consensus is far from an aggressive editing style. There is no need to propose a merge/AfD with bold editing that may be accepted, similar to how there is no requirement to propose a split when being bold either (as has occurred). Aggressive editing or edit warring would be WP:BRDR (from me) "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle" or disregarding WP:BRDD from Piotrus "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version.", which is more or less what has occurred. Granted technically this was a "Discuss first" per WP:BRB, thus bold edits should never have occurred based on lack of consensus after a discussion was initiated, but here we are. I've otherwise already expressed my opinion on related article and issues so nothing else to add there. Now that consensus has failed, I don't want to waste anymore time on this issue. CNC (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Blanking is the most agressive option available unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised we don't have a page (that I can find) discussing the concept of "stealthy deletion", which I consider redirecting without pinging to be. Surely there should be a place that would point out this is not a "best practice". But despite what I feel is unwarranted criticism of my person by CNC above, I concur that continuing this thread and criticizing one another is counterproductive. I simply followed WP:ATD-R, disputing the redirection, and my edit is the "R" of the BRD cycle following the "B" (bold blanking); if anyone cares, the next step ("D") is clearly outlined by the policy and was mentioned here (i.e. AfD, which I am pretty sure would end in keep because the topic is notable and within a well populated category, namely Category:Criticism of companies)... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

PS. I found out we have {{Uw-blar}}. I don't see it covering the case we discussing here, although I also don't see any place stipulating this template should be used as a "Best practice", although I think it is self-evident it should be recommended. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Well, you think Twitter under Elon Musk is neutral? Speaking as someone who doesn't care one way or another (much) about either Musk or Twitter/X, I seriously have serious doubts about that article; it is very much a "criticism of a BLP", in the context of Twitter. I although have concerns whether it is even a notable topic, unlike the broad criticism of Twitter/X. That said, I do not have time to think more about this and AfD that, but I think folks interested in BLP should really carefully think about this. (Maybe we should report that article to BLPN for more eyes to look into that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been given literally no reason to think otherwise, if you think its not neutral then demonstrate it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I know the consensus is against me at Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#This_article_has_major_neutrality_problems; I certainly won't be blanking that page. If nobody really sees a problem with it, so be it; as I said, it is not a topic I particularly care about. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I spent ten minutes looking for positive coverage of Twitter post acquisition, couldn't find it. None of the grounds it got positive coverage on immediately after the acquisition by Musk panned out... It didn't become a free speech Disneyland, the rebranding wasn't a success, it didn't get rid of the bots/scammers, it didn't increase its user base, and it declined in value 80%... I haven't been able to come up with a criteria by which anyone is calling Twitter/X a success. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that article should be renamed to Criticism of Twitter/X under Elon Musk? Perhaps it's the naming/framing that creates the problematic impression. If the article is named Criticism of, we all know what to expect, but the current name suggests the coverage would be more balanced. Meh, not sure, honestly, how to deal with that article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thats not balance, thats false balance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I say it is an impression, and solving this is though. The article looks unbalanced, but you are likely correct - it cannot be fixed if majority of coverage is negative. What makes me wonder, however, is if the topic is even notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have an overwhelming amount of independent signficant coverage, notability isn't reasonably in doubt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Three comments: 1) given the lack of consensus for any page moves or renames along with the six month moratorium, BOLDly splitting off content seems against the spirit of that. I've repeatedly suggested we should have a discussion about organizing the content among the near-dozen some articles on X/Twitter, but since some feel that falls into the move moratorium, I can't open that up yet. Otherwise, I would just BOLDly reorganize the way I'd want to (which I would not without getting consensus first) 2) Like a recent discussion on "Criticism of..." pages at WP:VPM#Suggestion to rename many criticism/controversies articles to include both concepts in name, I think the first problem is that the existing criticism spread between all of the X/Twitter is capturing every single bit of criticism, no matter how small as long as one source reported it. (For example, the paragraph on PragerU and the timeline advertising spot). We should be seeking to summarize the criticism in broad strokes, or in cases like the Older criticism, some of that stuff doesn't need to be pulled out of the history and/or features of Twitter, since features like Verified Accounts came from that. Criticism of Christianity is by far not a great criticism of... article but it does a far better job at doing summaries without necessarily highlighting every specific point of criticism. 3) Only to back Horse Eye's Back point above, per WP:NPOV we are reporting neutrally on how the media has framed Twitter/X, not to present a purely neutral, equally balanced take on it, which would be against that policy. There are probably good postive commentary about pre-Musk Twitter, but for post-Musk, 90% of what I see is all negative and I would not expect to see much positive except at the fringes of reliable sources. So that the article is loaded on negative facets is not something we can change - we just shouldn't be running that criticism into the ground per my point #2 above. --Masem (t) 05:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)