Talk:Twitter

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Simply, there is no consensus that "X" is the

On the subject of Masem's proposal: it's an interesting one, but it's not one that can be, or should be, solved within a RM. I would suggest further discussion regarding an article split take place after this closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter → X (social network) – The arguments presented in the talk page notice are not sufficient; such a supposition must be stated before I may present my arguments. Likewise, the previous discussions referenced do not adequately express the necessity of a move request. I believe this qualifies as both a "substantial new development", as references to "Twitter" now appear officially absent, and an objection to a previously and overwhelmingly considered argument.

The argument that Twitter is the

Though there remains a significant usage of the term, I believe sufficient time has passed to support the claim that X may be used to a degree wide enough that—with consideration for official usage—this move request is supported. The term "X" has largely replaced "Twitter" in news articles where the service is not being referred to in the past, though "formerly known as Twitter" remains a common descriptor. This appears to be associated with a change in the AP Stylebook. help.x.com refers to "X Rules" and "X accounts", and twitter.com is now x.com, the reason why I have suggested this move; The Verge wrote "it's not Twitter anymore". In a personal account, many articles I edit where a person is quoted on the topic have increasingly referred to X, not Twitter.

This move request is largely without precedent, but there exist instances where object within the real world have changed names, creating an inconsistency with colloquial references to said object. Willis Tower in Chicago is commonly referred to as Sears Tower because the tower had been known as that for 35 years. Similarly, Comiskey Park is known as Guaranteed Rate Field and formerly U.S. Cellular Field, but Chicago residents continue to refer to the field as "Comiskey". Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is Washington National Airport to many. Name rights moves may be comparable in this circumstance, as they present a shift in colloquial terminology and official terminology that is reflected within Wikipedia to adhere to the present name of the field or building. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope it happens sooner rather than later, because at this point there's no excuse to not move it. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only because what should be done is keep
  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) to cover the takeover. There will need to be some content shifted between these two articles, but this will make future editing of the new stuff cleaner than trying to fit the new stuff into what Twitter did from the start. --Masem (t) 15:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Also we should decide what to do with History of Twitter, which I think should be merged into these two articles on the same basis; the content there split between pre- and post-Musk easily fits within both of these suggested articles. — Masem (t) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely agree with both of these suggestions. Sock (tock talk) 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't have an opinion on this issue, however, the Google Trends data above suggests that "Twitter" is still the significantly more common term when compared to the increased use of "X" alone. However, waiting for the use of "X" to become as common as "Twitter" may be

  WP:CRYSTALBALL territory and @Masem's proposal is an effective middle-ground to end what is by now a repetitive and cyclical pattern while following WP:Article titles perfectly. Those currently opposing the move below, as of writing, all support this proposal which would treat what are now inherently two separate topics. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nah,I feel like that would everything very messy. It should all be in the same article EarthTeen (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So your proposal is that merging the three articles with a combined word count of almost 30,000 words (excluding other articles about Twitter) would make things less messy? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is no reason not to rename the page, X has been known by its new name for a good while now, the only people protesting this are those living in a pipe dream where they think that not changing this page name is going to make Elon rebrand X to Twitter. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The last vestiges of what was once Twitter have been scrubbed from the Earth. Bremps... 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The correct course of action to address these distinct entities is as Masem suggests above.  — Scott • talk 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support but Twitter as an entity that existed between 2006 and 2024 may have to be split off into a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is effectively what I've proposed above, just starting from a different approach to reach the same conclusion. — Masem (t) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because making X (social network) a separate article is preferable. There's so much shift in the platform after the acquisition (premium service, API pricing, check mark policy, media reports on increased hate speech...) that different articles should cover the entities. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These changes don’t constitute the separation of the article, the platform hasn’t been merged or split and still operates similarly to before it was acquired by Elon Musk. No other article would be split in the event of a rebrand, this one should be no different. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Viacom (2005–2019) and Viacom (1952–2005) set an excellent precedence for splitting as a result of corporate leadership changes. There's zero question that the function and operation of X from its management (Musk) is far different from the function and operation of Twitter before then, and most of those aspects of Twitter remain important from an historical context. — Masem (t) 18:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those (and similar examples, like the HP articles) are about mergers/splits of corporate entities, where the continuity is unclear and subjective. None of that is the case here; there is obvious continuity, and it is the split which would be subjective. Further, the "Twitter under Elon Musk" article is highly unbalanced by excessive focus on short-lived controversies, and embodies the very worst of current Wikipedia's habit of including every news story as it happens, perhaps guided by emotional investment in these same news stories, which can't, and didn't, result in an encyclopedic overview of the service as a whole (to no one's surprise). The painstaking work of integrating coverage of new-Twitter into this more encyclopedic article on old-Twitter is the only way to counteract those impulses, rather than a split-through-move. I strongly oppose your proposal. The level of detail in the

  Twitter under Elon Musk article is only appropriate if we think of it as a child article to History of Twitter, itself a child article, and not treat it as a substitute to this one. DFlhb (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Most of the sources I've seen treat old Twitter as dead and X as something that emerged from it, even if that's more proverbial rather than literal. When you look at all three current articles related to Twitter (Twitter, Twitter under Elon Musk, and History of Twitter), there's really one too many articles here, and it seems extremely natural to split what Twitter/X is between the historical service that was Twitter before Musk bought it, and X which is the current service. Masem (t) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and instead support
  Twitter under Elon Musk due to the drastic shift in the platform's governance and policies following the acquisition. Aditoo17 [💬|✒️] 16:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose move. The better option is to rename the Twitter under Musk article and shift stuff between the pages. O.N.R. ^(talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move, supporting @Masem's proposal with my attached views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok supporting will changed article from "Twitter" to "X (social network)", thanks. Andre Farfan (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move, for all the good reasons already stated above, and also because deadnaming twitter is funnier. Deiadameian (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per Masem's proposal. GSK (talk • edits) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — The split argument is justified and would resolve this with ease. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per Masem's proposal. I see no valid reason to rename. –Davey2010^Talk 19:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• [just got into an edit conflict] Oppose because of the fact we (as in, the Wikipedia community) prefer
  CBR (website). JuniperChill (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose move per everybody else, weak oppose Masem's proposal – unconvinced that we need two articles just because the product evolved (slightly!). We don't keep separate articles for
  GSuite and Google Workspace, or for all the various incarnations of Gmail or Facebook. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Because the different incarnations aren't notable in their distinctions. We have separate articles for every incarnation of countries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It's finally time. Most media outlets just call it X now. The transition from Twitter branding is pretty much complete by now and only certain stubborn factions, and the otherwise ignorant with little-to-no interest in X remain. And frankly, a lot of people insisting on still calling it Twitter have their own
  WP:NPOV-violating reasons. In the spirit of our guidelines, we have to embrace the new name; it's been like two years now. The domain change was the final straw; NOT changing the title by now raises suspicion.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't know about other people's regions, but https://twitter.com and https://x.com both work separately for me. We haven't even had the new name for a year. The fact they've taken almost a year to fully rebrand it doesn't mean it's now automatically the

  common name. --Ferien (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  twitter.com is just a redirect for me now. I see no vestiges of Twitter on the Support or even more technical pages or dev forums, like it was for a while. Everything has been swept up now. It's like Bell becoming AT&T, or [insert better brand analogy here]. It's over. The common name is sufficient in the lede, not the title. (Edit: excuse me, it seems "Twitter API" has yet to be updated in toto, but I imagine there's hurdles to that considering its critical functions. The exception that proves the rule? "X API" is being used sometimes though too.).--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The URL change does it for me now, also per above. Efe Önem (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Makes much more sense to maintain this as a historical article and focus future updates on X (social network), given the Viacom precedent and the significant change in leadership, policies, and coverage post-Musk. Jordan117 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per all. Twitter's history extends much further back than the last 1.5 years. It's better known as twitter. Also, it currently has the nice url of wiki/Twitter, rather then renaming it to something like "x (social network)" or "x (formerly twitter)" (To the inevitable person who is going to insist that this social network is more relevant than the letter x, and deserves wiki/x, please come to my talk page, where i will thoroughly enjoy that argument). Your google trends data is worthless, because it compares searching for a literal letter (which could be done for other things--Google X, Project X, SpaceX, US Steel, X.org, pretty much anything with an X) with twitter. There hasn't been enough use of "X" to just ignore the 15 full years of Twitter. Tantomile (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Those who oppose changing the name of the article do so out of a sense of nostalgia and a grudge against Elon Musk. Twitter was beautiful but it's gone, you have to accept that, you may still use the old name yourself but you can't change anything by force just by thinking that's how it is. Wikipedia should not be guided by your personal feelings, it is an encyclopedia and it should write what something is officially called.

Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please

assume good faith and avoid making unfounded assumptions about editors' behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support The URL change and the year long time span since Musk has begun his rebrand makes it rather evident that X is the new title and some arguments for retaining the title "Twitter" aren't that convincing. I will say however that there is potential in creating a new article dedicated to the history pre-Musk. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's time. The last few months of the company before Musk takeover were gone. Please embrace the new brand. Ahri.boy (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The current platform needs to be discussed at X (social network). The transition in branding has now reached a point where sources no longer refer to it as Twitter and are dropping the "(formerly Twitter)" qualifier when they refer to it. Renaming should be entirely uncontroversial, what we should be discussing is whether or not to split the article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Much like the ship of Theseus, I do not regard X as the same social networking site that Twitter was due to the substantial changes in management and interface. For legacy purposes, they should be separate articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That actually is a good thing: Twitter would be the former social media platform & X would be the current social media site. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I know, they're both the same social network. Splitting an article doesn't mean treating them as two separate companies. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are the same social network. Musk bought the site for a large sum of money in a highly publicised deal, and all the users and main operations remain the same. But it seems we're now guided by original research such as "I do not regard X as the same social networking site that Twitter was" rather than actual verifiable citations, so all bets are off.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  X inherited the format and posts from Twitter, but it's clear that the company intended to create a new social media site by renaming it. Musk has mentioned the desire to make an "everything app" and the site has seen radical changes in business model, features, and moderation policy. It would be intuitive and beneficial to cover the history of the site in two distinct articles, much like Meta Platforms and Facebook. Flameoguy (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: For all reasons above. 120.21.19.229 (talk) 120.21.19.229 (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The vast majority of people still call it Twitter not X even regardless of the URL change. Maybe in another year or two X might start to overtake twitter as the more common name, but we are certainly not at that point yet. Jasp7676 10:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Masem's proposal - By far the most reasonable as X seems to be becoming a different type of social network to what old Twitter was. Enough sources use X as well now that I think it can be justified. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's so different as to be called a different social network? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides branding, there have been changes in business model, moderation policy, and implementation of new features. Anyone who has used twitter since before the merger can tell you it is a different website now. Flameoguy (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per
  Nickps (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support move, since X is now the dominant name by which the network is referred in reliable sources (particularly the AP Stylebook), and the old Twitter domain now redirects to X, signalling the rebranding is complete. I'll restate, based on my reasoning above, that I think Masem's proposal is deeply flawed; the
  Twitter under Elon Musk article would be fine if kept where it is, and indeed much of that coverage of Twitter/X's controversies was news precisely because of its relation to Musk, his leadership, and his impact on society, so it constitutes a proper topic, and an important one. But that article would not be fine if it became the primary article on X, since it would create pervasive due weight issues, problems which don't currently exist if that article is left alone. An article covering X mainly through the prism of problematic actions and employment disputes (as the other one does) would fail to cover its features, its technological aspects, its structure, and its societal impact in a proper and birds-eye way, as an article on any social network should. DFlhb (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think a new edition is coming out in a few weeks. Probably not possible, but perhaps we should wait until then? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the best time to do it now, after the domain change ALMRWIKI94 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the reasons given above—blindlynx 14:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Parenthetical disambiguation is unavoidable in this circumstance. It is not the fault of Wikipedia that Musk has chosen to name his social media service after a letter in the alphabet. See Margaret (singer), Red (Taylor Swift album), Persona (series), Thriller (album), and Telephone (song) for articles that have parentheses in their titles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it "unavoidable"?

  WP:NATURAL explicitly states that the naturally disambiguated alternate name may not be the most commonly used name, and it doesn't have to be as long as it meets the five CRITERIA (which includes recognizability). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose — Based on my personal observations of other Twitter users, a significant majority of them seem to still use the name Twitter. Many people that don't use social media might also not recognize the name X. In my opinion, the article title "X (social media)" doesn't match the criteria of Naturalness.

Hxnc (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously supported splitting the page but I'm now wondering what will happen to articles like

List of X features may not meet WP:Article titles. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"List of Twitter features" appears wholly redundant to what's already in the Twitter article. That should all be material covered in the main article, not broken out. Masem (t) 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles like TweetDeck should probably be kept as is since that's another topic and X Pro won't follow WP:Article titles even if this page is moved or split. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 18:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we do end up splitting the Twitter/X articles, "List of Twitter Features" should be merged into the main Twitter article. Even now, that article seems a bit redundant. I do agree with keeping the "TweetDeck" article separated from the main "Twitter" article, since TweetDeck was originally developed as a separate Twitter client that was later acquired by Twitter Inc. Hxnc (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What happened after the long-winded
  X (social media)
  , partially because Musk is no longer the CEO, so that article's title is flawed. Rant over.

CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay if I tag everyone that participated in past move requests? 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it would, as it concerns them. Thanks in advance. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and sent notifications to 29 users that had previously participated in similar move requests but haven't in this one. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ElijahPepe Oppose for reasons already discussed TheThighren (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate a little, please? Do you support the other ideas presented or you just flat-out want it as Twitter in perpetuity? ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move per other comments, and support Masem's proposal. AG202 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per other comments and the fact that this name change will create more confusion for users as I see it.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move and instead support the proposal to rename
  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network), initially suggested by Masem. I found the comparison to Viacom (2005–2019) and Viacom (1952–2005) persuasive. I suppose would Twitter then change to say "Twitter was a social media website"? (Or "Twitter was the name of the social media website formally rebranded as X in 2023"?) Hydrangeans (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  i Support this proposal—blindlynx 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move per
  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) would make sense. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Masem's proposal to rename
  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). There has been precedents. – robertsky (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @ElijahPepe, and since there is already a number of editors supporting the alternate proposal, would it make sense to have this changed to a multi-page move discussion? This is so that the RM banner/notification can be placed on the other page as well. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be ideal to let this request take its course. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would have been more ideal in hindsight to propose what previously had rough consensus, and was never acted upon, which is moving

  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This, since a lot of those opposing the move are in support of an article called X (social network), which a lot of those supporting the move aren't aware of. As it makes it seems to many supporters that opposing the move would lead to not having an article for X, there is a broad response bias diluting the consensus. This isn't helped by the fact that many replies have been vague at best. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At this rate, we're unlikely to reach a clear consensus for any outcome, but I'm optimistic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move - Twitter remains the COMMONNAME, but per LilianaUwU, a move of
  Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) would be wholly appropriate. The existence of that article also strongly indicates that there is a clear demarcation. This article should be about Twitter and remain under that name. The X era has its own article and should take that name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per other comments, this article should stay as "Twitter" for historical purposes. Masem's proposal seems like the better solution. Davey2116 (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Toadette^Edit! 14:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the purposes of AFD, it would be best if you present some reasoning with your !vote. Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I was originally strongly pro-move, but reasons provided by others about split changed my mind. There should definitely be two separate articles, as X has a completely distinct identity, philosophy and features; and will continue to get even more distinct moving forward. I have three questions that I am not sure if this page is the best place to discuss them, but I will ask anyway.

1. When did twitter cease to exist and X was born? The date Elon completed the purchase or the date he announced the rebrand? (I believe it is the former.)
2. Which page should be moved to
   Twitter under Elon Musk page that are notable, but I do not think they deserve to be included in the main X page. Also, I believe X (social network)
   should be a brand new page, explaining X from scratch)
3. What should be included and covered in the X (social network) article? There is a huge overlap between features of Twitter and X. (I believe everything from the Twitter page that is still applicable and relevant to X should be included in the new page.)

Please help me if there is a better place to discuss these questions. فره ور تیش (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only here. There's no other place we can discuss the move. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, you're conflating the company (Twitter, Inc. → X Corp.) with the service (Twitter → X). Facebook the company also changed its name to Meta, but the service is still called Facebook. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was talking about the service itself, not the company. No confusion about Twitter, Inc. vs X Corp. To my understanding, a lot of the contributors to this discussion believe that there should be two distinct pages, one for a defunct service called Twitter, and one for X, the current service. Some here believe that the changes made to to Twitter are substantial enough that it can be considered a new service called X. That's why I asked when was Twitter discontinued and was replaced by X. فره ور تیش (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is still known as Twitter most of the time and even when the media feels required to acknowledge the new name it is as "X formerly known as Twitter" almost like "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince" and we didn't rename that article. Obviously that argument weakens as a few more people gradually start to call it "X" but we are quite a way off the tipping point there. Also, it is clear that what we see now is not X as Elon Musk intends it but a transitional form that is essentially just Twitter but with more monetisation and Nazis. X is meant to be "the everything app" and that will definitely be worth an article, whether it succeeds or fails in notable and interesting ways. We don't know what this "everything app" will be. It might even be that describing it as a "social network" isn't a good description. If it were to become primarily financial then that would suggest a different title. So, I think Masem is on the right track here. Twitter was/is Twitter. X is something else, yet to be seen. Maybe it is going to be three articles eventually? 1:Twitter, 2:Twitter after Musk, 3: X (Everything App)? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose any split. Twitter and X are clearly the same thing, one's a continuation of the other and the operation and model of the site is largely unchanged, give or take the rename and a few other Musk quirks. The idea that we should split it just because someone has taken over and shaken things up a bit is absurd. I'm actually gobsmacked that this is being seriously considered. As for the move request, let's just follow NAMECHANGES and assess what sources do. It may already be time to rename, but equally the name Twitter is still used so we could wait a bit longer. Neutral on that really.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A decision would still need to be made on whether to move this article or not. Five criteria that WP:Article titles assesses are:

  • Recognisability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognise. This is more difficult to assess due to a lack of reliable source material but worldwide Google Trends data (as opposed to the US-specific data posted in the move request) suggests that while use of "Twitter" has declined slightly, the decrease is in proportion with changes in active users commonly presented in the media. The use of "X" in the past five years have remained the same. Even in the US-specific data presented above, the total use of "Twitter" is also still significantly higher than the increased use of "X" alone. Based on this, it could be assumed that "X (social network)" does not yet meet the recognisability criteria. However, both waiting for "X" to reach recognisability levels previously enjoyed by "Twitter", or assuming that it ever will, is
    WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. In addition, recent media using "X" still has clarification in some form, obvious or not. The conversation here is extremely skewed by particular demographic groups that may be significantly more knowledgeable on the topic than the wider population. Wikipedia doesn't always use the article titles that an entity identifies as, based on a large subset of precedent. While there has been a somewhat increased use of "X" in the media recently, Twitter has significantly higher historical usage, brand recognition, consistency with related articles (e.g. X suspensions
    anyone?) and current search trends. This move request was created far too soon after the URL was changed for many of the factors that could be used to assess recognisability to be properly assessed.
  • Naturalness: 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. This again brings forth the issue of whether the people in this discussion are reflective of the wider population, the answer to which is obviously not. "Twitter" has played a significant cultural factor in recent modern history. Almost everyone regardless of demographic factors has heard of Twitter, even those who don't know what it is. This is not the same case with "X (social network)". While the Wikipedians here may disagree, the wider population is a completely different demographic to most Wikipedians (especially here) and - supported by global Google Trends data - "X (social network)" lacks the simplicity, common use and natural disambiguation that WP:Article titles expects. Recent increased use of the term in the media alone cannot account for naturalness and this is yet another example where "X (social network)" fails the test.
  • Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "X (social network)" already fails this check because it uses parenthesis for clarification, which is not the case for "Twitter". Without the use of clarification, "X" is an extremely ambiguous subject. It is literally not precise and cannot be easily distinguished from other subjects without it where "Twitter" does with ease. Facebook and Instagram are precise, "X (social network)" avoids
    Bed, Bath & Beyond" should be moved to "Beyond
    ", yet there isn't a sizeable proportion of Wikipedians advocating for it. Perhaps because we have stronger feelings towards the social network than for "Beyond"? That's bias.
  • Concision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. My thoughts on this matter are going to be in addition to what I have discussed so far because unambiguity is literally in the description. Twitter is a single word. Everyone already knows what it is. Aside from significant changes in management, X hasn't changed enough from Twitter and having an article about what is still Twitter with a non-concise title is more marketing consistency than about encyclopedic tone. "Twitter" as an article title is easy to search for, read and refer to. "X (social network)" is not a more concise title, where "Twitter" is still an acceptable article title. X is not yet the "everything app" that perhaps may justify a move in the future, though then it may end up splitting anyway, but X is currently still colloquially Twitter just with a new logo. Aside from significant change in management, employees and company policies, they are both the same social network platform and based on the Google Trends data, almost everyone still refer to it as such. The clarification "(social network)" is redundant when the article title is "Twitter" so it is more concise and has better natural flow. This is another area "X (social network)" as a title totally misses the mark.
  • Consistency: There is a very large number of article titles that, under the same conditions, still have the article title be the most commonly used name because it is
    WP:COMMONNAME, why not move "Twitter suspensions" to "X suspensions"? If they are the same topic, why not move "Twitter controversies" to "X controversies"? If "X (social network)" meets the above criteria, why not move "List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter" to "List of mergers and acquisitions by X"? Based on everything I have said so far, splitting the article is the only effective compromise because there is a very real possibility that there may never be an article called "X (social network)" as we go round and round about whether the title will ever meet WP:Article titles better than "Twitter". The title "X (social network)" lacks historical consistency and requires a separate article (or an excessively large subsection) about "Twitter" for the "X (social network)" article title to be consistent. That's literally the only reason I've been supporting separate articles so far. X is very notable, I'm not denying that, but Twitter is more so. If there has to be a page move today as things currently are, not splitting the articles won't make sense, because "X (social network)" doesn't meet WP:Article titles
    and any support for moving this page is already against precedence.

  Splitting is more a compromise than anything. If Google changes its name tomorrow, should there still be an article called "Google" or should an encyclopedia erase the brand, which has significant historical notability, in favour for whatever is next? Preserve or demolish? What is Wikipedia? For me, based on everything I have said so far, its either keep the page as is or split the article. Split by my definition is not writing two separate articles about the same social network, but what content each page will have is not something that I would like to determine myself. I have no interest in the subject matter other than to not have a loud minority dictate whether Wikipedia's guidelines should or shouldn't be followed. Splitting is nothing more than a compromise for which I have no interest in working on myself. I'm sure someone with more interest can write an effective essay on what it should include, as clearly there are many, and I'm sure it would be less about a former company but more about a period of time as per Masem's comparisons with Viacom.

  This is a long and opinionated rant so I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes and just because I'm opposing the move or favouring a split right now, it doesn't mean a lack of willingness to support moving the page in the future under different circumstances. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 17:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: I meant Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) should be moved to Beyond (online retailer) under the same special treatment. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 17:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I’m still in support of Masem’s proposal to split the article as per above or oppose the move for now. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support that too. It seems some accounts tried doing that. Editior23 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per others. RPC7778 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  WP:COMMONNAME is still obviously Twitter. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong oppose, since many are still referring to it as Twitter, also per above. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think the rebrand is now complete as their domain is not x.com. And Twitter is a thing of the past even though they are still called Twitter by many, the official records still states that Twitter is now X.The Man Without Fear ^🦇17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But articles are named things that most people call them, which doesn't necessarily reflect official records. --Ferien (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move; weak support Masem's proposal. It's only been a year of "X" — less than a year, actually — but nearly two decades of "Twitter". The first bullet point of
  WP:NATURAL elaborates on (emphasis added): Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. But here, "Twitter" is arguably still more the common name. Masem's alternate proposal is basically what was proposed last time, which seems to have reached rough consensus but was never executed. I think it's a good idea and a reasonable compromise, but at the same time, two articles about the same service could lead to confusion and concerns of unnecessariness (is that a word?). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think this whole vote tally is a case of people struggling with the

  is/ought distinction. What is "arguably...common" and "natural" in this case? ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 20:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Twitter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling

  the Netherlands as Holland is also more common and natural then especially amongst Boomers, to where still some don't even know exactly what the Netherlands refers to. Yet Wiki still does an "um actually 🤓" when you search Holland. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, it's not. Most people call the Netherlands, the Netherlands. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly needed now that the domain name has changed Isla🏳️‍⚧ 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Most media calls the company and website X now. So does Encyclopedia Britannica. Hence, this is the common name. Oppose the proposal to make a chronological split of the article around the time of the purchase by Musk. It's not like Twitter ceased to exist and X emerged instead. The changes are gradual. It took two years to complete the rebranding. Since there is too much to write to combine it all one page, we have sub-articles for
  WP:OR) -- after all many of them still write "X (formerly Twitter)". Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  [2], [3], [4], [5], and numerous others. Even Musk considers Twitter to be dead. Masem (t) 23:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some issues:

  • X being used more commonly in the media, including EB, is undermined by the constant use of clarification
  • X has seen negligible impact on global search trends and Twitter remains the dominant search term
  • The slight reduction of search trends for Twitter is proportion to the change in active users as in the media
  • Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica and has its own guidelines for determining a common name
  • A split doesn't need to be chronological and X's article can retain most of Twitter's history
  • Historical precedence of Viacom 1952-2005, Viacom (2005-2019), Bed Bath & Beyond and various others
  • The redundancy of
    Twitter under Elon Musk
    without an article about Twitter itself
  • The overall notability, cultural and sociopolitical impact of the Twitter brand and its historical significance
  • What if Google changes its name? Should Wikipedia not have an article about something that notable?
  • The two articles not needing to imply distinction or lack of linearity between the two topics
  • I'm not convinced of the idea that something shouldn't be changed because there is too much to write
  • X (social network) is notable and deserves its own article outside of Twitter's large shadow
  • X (social network) not yet surpassing Twitter in all five WP:Article titles criteria as per my other post
  • Assumption of X (social network) to ever reach or surpass the recognisability of Twitter is
    WP:CRYSTALBALL
  • An ongoing cycle of the last two points having the potential for a repetitive cycle of move requests

  However:

  • The Viacom precedent above used parenthetical disambiguation. Perhaps something similar is needed?

  𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This can cause
  SEO issues if the article name is changed to "X". It's one of those reasons why I dislike the Twitter to X rebranding as the benefit is only the CEO himself, but it actually made SEO much worse. If I were to take over X (formerly Twitter), I'll change the name back to Twitter Civic Nexus (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Wikipedia doesn't care about SEO issues at all. Masem (t) 23:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Feelings towards a rebranding and considerations about who benefits is also of no concern, only WP:Article titles. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I finally got over it. For the last 10 months, I was acting like a crybaby. And wanted X to change back to Twitter. But like most media sites. I’ve gotten over it. Elon Musk has completed his rebrand of Twitter to X.I think it’s time to make a change. Also Elon Musk has changed the URL from Twitter.com to X.com. In a post (not tweet or “x-press, even though that’s kinda a good name.) that “all core systems were on x.com” And it looks like a lot of people selected oppose, I mean I get it it. It’s not an easy thing to get over with, erasing one of the most recognizable brands in the world. But I got over it, after 10 months. And I never thought I would get over it. So I think it’s time for a change to, X (social network). Editior23 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alternate: X (social network) is the article about the current platform (the rebranding of Twitter.) & Twitter is the article is about the social media platform before the rebrand to X. (I think it was Masem’s idea so credit to them.) Editior23 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose that, like other people said. It’s the same thing. Misterunknown24 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if it's the same thing ( a debatable point), there is clearly a size issue that everything dealing with Twitter and X cannot fit into one article and a split is necessary. The most natural split is on Musk's takeover, thus strong rationale to have "Twitter" be the old historical service and "X (social network)" as the current existing one. — Masem (t) 13:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Viacom (1952–2005) and Viacom (2005–2019) precedents uses parenthetical disambiguation. Perhaps something similar could be added to "Twitter" to make it not appear as separate? The infobox currently uses "Twitter (2006–2023)", which would match the two examples. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 14:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is never so much to write about a single entity that the most important points can't be summarized in one article (i.e. this one for Twitter/X).

  WP:OR. The only sources Masem brought for this claim quote Musk himself who is everything but neutral. Finally, introducing this an artificial hard split between old Twitter and X would lead to duplication of content (especially if also applied to other pages about Twitter/X) because contrary to Masem's claim, much of the features and community are still the same. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  While features may be similar there are still enough differences like what blue checkmarks mean or the addition of live chat and video services that they really can't be summarized easily as one entity.
  However a bigger factor is related to the controversies and legal actions taken by Twitter and by X. What affected Twitter in the past is not what X is facing, and much of the criticism of X (that it, allowing it to swing to the right) doesn't reflect on the original Twitter. And this is a significant part of both articles. Hence the split is still very natural.
  Mind you, all of the Twitter and X related articles are poorly organized to start, and need a significant edit tobteadjystbthem to meet more encyclopedic standards if writing. In my mind I think that with that organization the split between Twitter and X would become even more obvious. — Masem (t) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Twitter under Elon Musk (among others) may imply to readers that they are about Twitter, Inc. since there would be no article called "Twitter" or Twitter (2006-2023). The article is also not called "X under Elon Musk" as you mentioned, and moving it would make no sense because Twitter under X has always been under Elon Musk. History of Twitter is not a good standalone article title. It may lead to multiple large articles (such as above) to be merged into this one because they won't meet WP:Article titles guidelines on precision and consistency. This article is already longer by word count compared to the Hudson's Bay Company

  example provided.

  I don't see how Christianity being a single main article because "Christians don't even agree who is counted as Christian" has any relevance here. The article title itself meets WP:Article titles and its name is not dictated by Christians, or particular denominations, but by everyone. If all the Churches on earth decided to change the name of the religion, it won't change the article title on Wikipedia until or unless it meets WP:Article titles. The Austria example given also supports having multiple articles. There is no one Austria article as mentioned. There's Margraviate of Austria, Duchy of Austria, Archduchy of Austria, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Republic of German-Austria, First Austrian Republic, Federal State of Austria, Anschluss, Austria and History of Austria. While it could in theory be combined into one article, it isn't because of WP:Article size.

  The argument that big things should be summarised into smaller things is not supported the examples provided. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see the relevance of any of the ideas discussed in your first comment here to WP:Article titles. In addition, it appears that a majority of those opposed to the page move are in support of Masem's proposal of soft splitting the article, which in effect creates an article for X. None of them are being a "crybaby" about it. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, gradually we should rename articles from “Twitter.” to “X.” by its official name. But I’m not sure if people would like names such as “X features, X trends, Timeline of X.” Would you agree? I would like to have your opinion on my opinion. Editior23 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My feelings towards marketing decisions made by the company is of no bearing. This is an encyclopedia. An article about X would be ideal as I have said before. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 00:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the first comment, I was saying that I got over the fact that Twitter was X. And in my opinion (Don’t judge me if you think I’m wrong) people don’t want to accept the fact that Twitter is X. I’m very sorry if you didn’t understand by message there. Editior23 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop creating more fake accounts, its so obvious it's you Thegreat6336836853- it's a bit weird that you care so much about this that you are willing to create 4+ accounts. Also if you are going to do it then at least don't make it so obvious with your writing style... Jasp7676 05:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming articles referencing "Twitter" to X, with the exception of specific entities that no longer exist such as
  Wikipedia:ECP on his article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Oppose-
  not predict the future
  . Until I see solid evidence that "X" is indisputably the common name, I will oppose the name change.

Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on

MindGeek more recently. X has been called as such since last July and reliable sources are moving away from the old name, including The Guardian. NPR refers to it as "formerly Twitter" once at the start of an article before using X throughout for the remainder and Al Jazeera uses the names in a similar way, only referring to "Twitter" a couple of times when talking about events from before the rebranding. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

None of that is a valid argument against

WP:COMMONNAME . When you search on bing, "SkyDrive" has 211k hits and "OneDrive" has 7M hits. "MindGeek" has 36k hits and 66k hits. Hence the current article names comply with WP:COMMONNAME . Even if they didn't, it still doesn't mean WP:COMMONNAME should therefore be ignored. 𐩘 Datapass ^{talk ⌇ contribs} 07:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The latter example wasn't moved via a discussion but instead by one user.

I also laughed at the fact that 'Ethical Capital' owns a pornography conglomerate Traumnovelle (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this elsewhere in this discussion. Moving away from "Twitter" requires a higher bar than normal because this is a widely recognized and established household name that has been in use for two decades, and our policy on NATURAL further complicates things. Every scenario is different, and we look at things on a case-by-case basis. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above and
  WP:COMMONAME, but weak support Masem's proposal. Happily888 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support because it doesn't make sense to have the article name still be "Twitter", while everything about the platform has already moved on to "X". EarthTeen (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Begrudging Support Users call it Twitter. News sources call it X (FKA Twitter). According to
  WP:UCN "X" wins. Schierbecker (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support X has been the official name for a while now, and the X platform has evolved from what Twitter was before. X no longer uses the Twitter domain either. GEGOBYTE (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be inconsistent, because I'm currently looking at a tweet on twitter.com. Navigating to different pages isn't redirecting me to x.com. – Primium (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Several official sources call it X now. The domain change is the last straw and the final confirmation. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move of the article as Twitter appears to remain the
  Twitter under Elon Musk is treated as a subarticle. Graham (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to X (website): Shorter disambiguation.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:10CC:DE2F:B0F1:6F3B (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  we are talking here about move to X (social network). Misterunknown24 (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know, I just thinlk X (website) is better because it is shorter.--2A01:5A8:30D:955E:10CC:DE2F:B0F1:6F3B (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't work. Twitter/X is also a mobile app. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I dislike the musky man too, but that is no reason to keep the current name. Twitter is now X. Get over it. Strong oppose keeping the current name. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move, support Masem's proposal. glman (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support We should call the article by its official name. Twitter is what the site was called before it was bought. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia does not take into consideration the

  article titling policy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support since the permanent domain name has been migrated to x.com by now. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is still under twitter.com for me Ye9CYNMD (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clear your cache. No it's not. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It may vary by country/region. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split, neutral on page move. It seems like Twitter pre Musk and Twitter post Musk probably deserve their own seperate histories. Musk formed a new corporation to take over so it works with other splits Wikipedia had done. There are a lot of good arguments for and against a move and I have nothing to add. I think it's worth noting that what you personally like is not relevent and that what the
  WP:COMMONNAME is matters a lot. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Most people still call it Twitter (almost no one uses "X", and even places like news sites that use it still say "formerly known as Twitter". Plus, and this is probably moving towards speculation, if and when Elon Musk loses ownership of the site, it will probably be officially reverted back to Twitter anyways. Ye9CYNMD (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I dislike the name change, and do still call it Twitter, but let's be real. The last traces of Twitter are gone, down to the URL. It's just X now. Altendo 01:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. sjh (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• i use twitter, but X is the official name. i don’t really care if we rename it to X, but who cares. Pickleishere (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It is evident that Twitter is still a
  WP:COMMONNAME
  is, to me, pretty silly.

Not to mention that the current name is a natural disambiguation. The fact that the official name has changed I think has no impact on this discussion, since we have never cared about what the official name is, but what the common name is. Melmann 07:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move, support Masem's proposal. It seems clear to me that soft-splitting these articles is the best course of action, as Twitter/X post-Musk acquisition represents a radical break in both management practices and approaches to development, even if it's for the same service.

Fiendpie (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above arguments and
  Wikipedia:CommonName as the vast majority of people still call the site Twitter despite all traces of that name on the site itself being removed. 2A02:C7C:D02E:1C00:657C:BB82:7C72:876F (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Of course the article for the existing website & social app should exist at the X (social network) title or similar appropriate title. "X" has been the name of the company, and "the service" (the URL-based site & the phone-based app) for a while (10 months ostensibly?). It seems to me that the site not being migrated to the new domain was a legit enough reason to wait to move the wikip article to the new title location. I don't know why that took so long, but the company has now completed that domain migration.

Others here have expressed personal feelings about the name change. These don't matter lol. I don't love the name "X", but I can still recognize that that's what the name is haha.

As for treating the pre-Elon-Musk-owned corporation like a separate entity with it's own article, I don't see this as controversial. But my gut says that any content describing the company (called which was called "Twitter") during that period can probably be moved over to the

Twitter, Inc

article. Modify the first few lede sentences there to reflect that "Twitter" ... "was a company & a social networking service". No big deal.

Interestingly, the purpose of the

X Corp article may become dubious, as it doesn't seem to do much but hold the ownership of the social networking service. But cleaning up that potential redundancy would be the final task in this project. Merging the X Corp article with the new X (social network) article would make sense. I think that merge makes sense especially if (as I described above), all relevant wikip article content about the "Twitter era" (2006-2018 is a decent chunk of history) is moved carefully & responsibly to the the Twitter Inc article.