Talk:Twitter#Requested move 25 August 2024

{{Discussion top|Already brought up many times before, see the FAQ, helpless discussions popping up. Cwater1 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Since twitter is now x should we change the name? Yrawfdatrærb (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Please see the FAQ. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:You are right, it should be changed, I don't know why it wasn't done, it adopted the name for over 1 year now. StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::We're about to do another move request in a few days. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Here we go again. 🙄 GSK (talk • edits) 03:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Lol we’re deadnaming X As Twitter 36.230.49.118 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://i.imgur.com/DZz7KFM.png {{tq|>"""""""""deadnaming"""""""""" X}}] 1101 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am new to the hullabaloo, but came here wondering the same thing. —  AjaxSmack  04:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:came here and thought the exact same thing. It's called X. why is the article called Twitter? Is it going to be that way in 20 years when Twitter will be as archaic a word as Ask Jeeves? I can't help but suspect that it's a political influenced stance to not change the name. Binglederry (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia doesn't use official names, it uses common names, as per article naming policy. 1101 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd say at this point in time, X is now the common name. At least, within my information space, I've heard more people start to say X than I've heard people say Twitter. Binglederry (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::lol you must hang out with Elon fanboys then. I don't know a single person who calls it X. It will always be known as Twitter to everyone except Elon's pathetic worshippers. 199.255.217.212 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Move it to X asap, especially now after merging with xAI.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The letter X already a page. 1101 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We are talking about the social platform. It is supposed to be X (social platform), not just the letter X. Formerly Twitter. StormHunterBryante5467 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, apparently there's a six-month moratorium on requests to move the page according to the FAQ and if I move it without a request it'll almost certainly be reverted so I guess we'll have to wait before deciding on a new name. 1101 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The moratorium ends tomorrow, or today in the UTC time zone, March 30. StormHunterBryante5467 00:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Don't you think it should be X (social network)? At least that seems more common than social platform. {{See also|Threads (social network)|Mastodon (social network)|Gab (social network)}} 1101 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::environment pictures 112.79.110.8 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Discussion bottom}}

Not saying that this is invalid, but I believe to stay neutral and relevant, perhaps we should either add a source for this or rephrase it to say instead "have been considered in consensus to be widely recognizable to the general public due to its history and cultural impact". We could even link to articles related to other countries or past discussions where this point was made, or if there are several, we can link to the one with the most prominent information. We perhaps should have a link to the discussion where the statement was made thatthere is "no consensus that Twitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately".

Discussion is encouraged and appreciated! Theadventurer64 (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Theadventurer64}} The FAQ is intended to summarize the sentiments expressed by editors in the now 11 RMs linked in the second sentence. Any editor can edit the FAQ page and is welcome to discuss possible improvements if they believe it is not an accurate summary of the consensus, though few concerns have been raised thus far. The quoted sentence in particular is from this RM's closing statement; the most recent RM and RfC have reaffirmed this finding of no consensus, so I will update the FAQ accordingly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Theadventurer64I 94.201.14.208 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium had expired anyway.

What about we split "Twitter" and "X (social network)"?

• The "Twitter" page covers the original Twitter from it's creation until Elon's takeover in 2022 (and rebrand in 2023). Twitter as in Twitter in the past, which is a defunct platform. Same goes to Musical.ly which become TikTok.
• "X (social network)" covers the current Twitter. (There's a page called Twitter under Elon Musk which covers further the current Twitter under Musk.)

This is to prevent any further confusion from especially who still calls Twitter "Twitter" (myself included) and others the letter X. SuperMario231 64 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Another option is to keep one page about the social network, with a brief summary of its history (using main or seealso links to the existing separate history pages for pre-Musk, the Musk buyout, and post-Musk history), a summary of the major features of the network, perhaps making a section on historical features since removed or changed, and then having any major discussion of controversies, moderation, etc. again briefly summarized and using main/seealso links to separate pages for pre-Musk and post-Musk aspects, otherwise keeping the one page about the actual network as free as possible over these factors. Masem (t) 18:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Twitter is something that was bought and renamed to something else. Twitter is what Jack Dorsey founded until its transformation into X. Twitter is historical and no longer exists as an active platform. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Twitter is historical and no longer exists as an active platform.}} Except it does. Pre-Musk tweets are still visible and platform functionality has changed relatively little since he bought it. The only significant differences are the owners' political views and peoples' attitudes toward the site. Like it or not, X and Twitter are objectively the same as far as this article is concerned. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Twitter no longer exists. It has changed its name, its owner, its functions, and its userbase. Calling X and Twitter objectively the same is really not smart. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Considering its name, owner, and userbase are not factors in the idea that X and Twitter are different (just about every platform that’s been around for a while has undergone at least two of those changes), please back up your claim that the functionality is so fundamentally different that they cannot be considered the same platform. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's name, userbase, and owner, ARE factors in the idea that X and twitter are different, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. Stop parading around like you're so holy. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|Stop parading around like you're so holy.}} Since you're new here, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of WP:CIVIL when you said that. Anyway, your argument contradicts the concept of identity. For example, if someone buys a used police car, uses it for personal travel, and gives it a new name, is it a new car? Its owner, userbase, and name are entirely changed, but it's still the same car. You can even remove the lights and give it new paint to make it unrecognizable, but its identity would remain.

::::::Same goes for X/Twitter. Elon did not start X from scratch as a Twitter clone, nor did he fork X from Twitter. He bought an existing platform and changed it from there. I'd estimate that 95% of the code has remained untouched since the acquisition, and its functionality is still virtually the same as before. In fact, Twitter underwent many drastic changes long before Musk came along; first with "New Twitter" in 2010 and the interface redesigns in 2014 and 2019.

::::::I understand that the whole Twitter to X change upset a lot of people, but let's not lose the ability to think critically about this. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is still a car, but it is no longer a police car. The most important thing here is that most people who are new to social media don't want to be wrapped up in this debate. They know it as X. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|It is still a car, but it is no longer a police car.}} I think you missed my point, which is "it is still the same car, which was a police car." Likewise, X is still the same platform, which used to be called Twitter. You can make the point all you want that it's not what it used to be, but you can't change the fact that X and Twitter share the same identity. Twitter didn't cease to exist when X came to be; it became X. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is not the same car if it has a different identity. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I can't tell if you're joking or if you seriously don't understand the concept of identity. Either way, this is a waste of time and disruptive. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's not a waste of time. Two things: 1. Having an article whose topic is the social media platform X is obviously valuable. 2: Having an article whose topic is the historical twitter platform (An article named "Twitter" or "History of X" or "History of Twitter") may also be valuable. These two things have different identities, just like the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That analogy doesn't work as the Roman Republic and Empire are two historical periods of the Roman state. They were never two different identities, but rather the identity of the Roman state was transferred from the Republic to the Empire when the government changed. Likewise, pre-Musk Twitter and post-Musk Twitter/X are two different periods of the same social media platform. We already have an article on Twitter under Elon Musk, and there is no need to restructure it or create a new article on X as if it were distinct from Twitter. Such an article would largely be a duplicate of the existing Twitter article except for the history section since a vast majority of the functionality of X is the same as it was before Musk bought it. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::But they do have two separate articles. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::As does Twitter under Elon Musk. There no need to create a separate article for X as if it were a different platform, since it is the exact same platform in a different time period. The partial userbase change is not a factor because X still uses the same account database to store its users’ data, and we almost never treat companies or services pre/post-sale as separate identities, even if they are renamed, unless it involved a merger or some other circumstance that prevents us from doing so. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Except X is the current name. The "Twitter" article should be renamed "X" because X is now the most common name. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::At least we're on the same page now about the identity issue. As for the whole X/Twitter article name debate, I don't have very strong opinions at this point. English sources do seem to be using "X" more frequently than they were last year, but I'm not sure it's crossed the WP:COMMONNAME line. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I think it is probably in the process of crossing that line now. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|15}} A move request was closed less than three weeks ago. Please don't use this content split request to relitigate the requested move. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you responding to my comment? I can't tell who you're responding to. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Before this section gets filled up, I'd like to mention that the above section also includes !votes and discussions about whether or not to split, so to make it easier for whoever has to determine the consensus, please comment in the above section, rather than either this section or starting a new one. That way, the closer only has to read one section instead of seeing arguments split across multiple sections. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I see no reason to split them. Despite the name change, the platform still works the same, the API is the same, the userbase is the same, and all tweets from the beginning of the platform are accessible and can be interacted with just the same. Separate articles would have loads of identical text and would likely confuse readers. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to propose that we update the name of the platform in the Wikipedia article to reflect its current rebranding from Twitter to X. As of 07/23/23, Twitter officially rebranded itself as X following the acquisition by Elon Musk. This change has been widely reported by reliable sources, and the official name of the platform is now X.

While I understand that many people still associate the platform with its previous name, the rebranding process has already taken place, and the company is actively promoting its new identity as X. Given that Wikipedia aims to reflect the most accurate and up-to-date information, I believe it’s time to update the article accordingly.

I also understand that some may be concerned about the historical significance of the Twitter name. However, Wikipedia guidelines state that the current, widely recognized name should be used for articles unless there's a compelling reason to retain the former name. This is especially true as X is becoming more prominent in the public discourse, with major media outlets already adopting it as the default name.

To address this, perhaps we could add a note in the lead section or a disambiguation page explaining that Twitter was formerly known as Twitter, which would ensure historical accuracy. But I think we should move forward with reflecting X as the current name of the platform. Vanleos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also, the moratorium on move requests started in September 2024. Since it is six months long, it should have expired in March 2025. It is now April 2025, and it is still unavailable to be moved. What happened? Vanleos (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::There is already a move proposal here as well as a proposal to split the article into two. The moratorium did indeed end on March 30, 2025, and both proposals were opened that same day. As for {{tq|it is still unavailable to be moved}}, Twitter was move-protected by an admin in 2012, so it stands to reason that someone with admin level permissions will take care of the move, should a proposal reach consensus. GSK (talk • edits) 17:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Id like this. Twitter and x are arguably separate but connected entities now. X is very well it's own thing and I only ever see it being called anything close to Twitter as "xitter" DarmaniLink (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Xitter lol. I dunno who all these Elon lovers are, claiming everyone they know calls it X and not Twitter. Certainly isn't the case for most people 199.255.217.212 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also, it is referred to as "X" on many other pages, including List of most-visited websites. So, wouldn't it be inconsistent to not change the name to X on the other pages? The only reason we are even arguing about this (as we should all know) is because "evil Elon" changed the name. Vanleos (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Right now, as best as I can tell, these are the key articles that cover Twitter/X as the social media service (not the owning companies):

: Twitter

: List of Twitter features

: History of Twitter

: Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

: Twitter under Elon Musk

: Timeline of Twitter

: Censorship of Twitter

: Twitter suspensions

: Twitter usage

There might be others, but for purposes of trying to help, I'm focusing on these.

And there's probably a few others. But let's start with what is likely not going to change: that regardless of what name we use, the community seems very much opposed to splitting Twitter the service from X the service since there is continuity between these.

So my suggestion is that we keep Twitter or X (this main article) about the service, but make sure that we keep it to past and present features, usage, and technology, relying on subarticles for extensive details. With that, it is important to recognize that with the acquisition, other factors around the service have changed so we should properly reflect that.

• If we are going to keep List of Twitter features then the content in the main Twitter/X article needs to be drastically trimmed. Otherwise, we should keep all features (retired features and current ones) in the main article and eliminate the list article as that's overly duplicative.

• We keep the four history articles, but make them consistent, so that we have:
• : History of Twitter (stays)
• : Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk (stays where it is)
• : Twitter under Elon Musk --> History of X
• : Timeline of Twitter (stays to cover both, but need to add a redirect Timeline of X, and make sure the page is clear to show this break in the tables.

Then, we should have (pulling content from other articles):

• : Litigation and censorship involving Twitter and Litigation and censorship involving X, which should pull in the content in the Censorship article.

The Twitter usage article is good but could be expanded to make sure to include criticism related to it being a social media app (eg: claims of being addictive, etc.) Here, I'm not 100% sure if we need to split this article to differiate between Twitter and X, but the article absolutely needs to be clear of separate user numbers and other stats between the two, as there's been wide coverage of how the service lost users post-acquisition.

Then the one that we really should have is either a single or a split article that is Moderation of Twitter (and if necessary, Moderation of X]] that pulls in the content in Twitter suspensions and expands to include the broader moderation policies that have been used by the service. And importantly, the moderation policies are where there is extensive criticism about the service (but which changes between Twitter and X, hence why I think this needs to be split), so that we can include that criticism where it matters the most but without breaking out a separate criticism article.

I am sure I'm missing something, but the TL;DR here is that this does not split Twitter to differential between Twitter and X, but does do the effective split of content within the subarticles where it makes sense, that it where the topic related to the social media service vastly changes as a result of the acquisition (such as its moderation policies and criticism of those).

And none of this raises the separate question of renaming. This approach is future-proof that if this article is renamed, we likely only have to juggle a few additional page moves with existing redirects (eg if we have " of Twitter" we should have a "Masem (t) 17:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the status quo is sufficient. 2601:204:F182:9AF0:4017:2184:E244:3024 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the extensive discussion, we should impose another 6 month 3 month (or more) moratorium on discussing the title. Mast303 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Edited 22:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:3 months should do it. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, six months is too long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Moratoriums are not to be used lightly, as they are contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. The current level of activity certainly does not justify one being imposed; it was only put in place last year because editors were abusing the RM process by opening one every other month, which was becoming disruptive. This fervor has largely died down by now, which means the moratorium worked. If repetitive WP:DEADHORSE discussions continue to emerge, just hat and close them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This article should be renamed to "X" because most reputable news sources and academic papers now refer to the platform as X. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:a moratorium of six months seems unnecessary. give it 3 months, and then let's see where we're at. isa.p (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)