Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Talk:Twitter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Discussions on this pagehave often led toprevious arguments being restated, especially about the article's title. Please read recent comments, look in thearchives, and review theFAQ before commenting on this topic.
This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theTwitter article.
This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL
Archives (index):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15Auto-archiving period:30 days 
Frequently asked questions
Why don't you rename this article to "X (social network)"?
As of April 2025[update], there isconsensus against renaming Twitter-related articles to "X". Numerous discussions have been held on this matter, none of which has resulted in consensus tomove orsplit; seethis extensive list of past discussions.
Please do not attempt to make a new move request unless the situation has changed or you have a convincing argument that has not been considered.
For recognizability and ease of searching, Wikipedia articles usethe name most commonly used in reliable sources, which is not necessarily the official name used by its owner orits current name. For example, we useKanye West instead ofYe (musician),Statue of Liberty instead ofLiberty Enlightening the World, andUnited Kingdom instead ofUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Twitter and its related terms (such astweet, a dictionary word) remain widely recognizable to the general public due to its history and cultural impact. Renaming this page "X" would also require some form of parenthetical disambiguation, whereas Wikipediaprefers the use of natural disambiguation if possible. Finally, there is "no consensus that Twitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately".[a]
  1. ^This finding was made inAugust 2024 and upheld inFebruary andApril 2025.
ConsensusCurrent consensus (January 2026):
  • Inthis close, a moratorium was placed on this talk page until February 9, 2026 regardingall discussion about the article name.
  • As per the consensus formed inthis discussion, the lead sentence begins withX, formerly known as Twitter or some variation thereof. However, this consensus does not apply to the article's name (title), which as of Jan. 2026, remainsTwitter.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:

Other discussions:

This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAppsTop‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofapps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps
TopThis article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.
Contribute to the project:

WikiProject iconBrandsTop‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbrands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
TopThis article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCalifornia:San Francisco Bay AreaMid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
MidThis article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported bySan Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed asHigh-importance).
WikiProject iconFreedom of speechMid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFreedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
MidThis article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternetTop‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theInternet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
TopThis article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet cultureTop‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofinternet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
TopThis article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUnited StatesLow‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWebsites:ComputingTop‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part ofWikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the majorwebsites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
TopThis article has been rated asTop-importance on theimportance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported byWikiProject Computing (assessed asMid-importance).
          Other talk page banners
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly thoserepresenting the subject of the article, arestrongly advised not to directly edit the article. SeeWikipedia:Conflict of interest. You mayrequest corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, orcontact us if the issue is urgent.
Former good articleTwitter was one of theEngineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2007Proposed deletionKept
March 28, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 19, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 1, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
June 13, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
January 14, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
July 13, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the"On this day..." column onJuly 15, 2018.
Current status:Delisted good article
iconThis article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into theTop 50 Report annual list. This happened in2009 and2023.
iconThis article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Section sizes
Section size forTwitter (69 sections)
Section nameByte countProse size (words)
HeaderTotalHeaderTotal
(Top)18,62818,628449449
History6022,4580702
2006–202122,19222,192695695
Since 202220620677
Appearance and features6562,39102,502
Tweets20,43720,437756756
Multimedia content8,2908,290270270
Trending topics2,2982,298175175
Lists2,0712,071123123
Moments1,7891,7896464
Algorithm2,5562,556150150
Mobile1,6051,6054444
X Premium (formerly Twitter Blue)3,06914,10279451
Verification of paid accounts11,03311,033372372
User monetization5,2875,287300300
E-commerce2,1822,182108108
X Money Account1,7091,7096161
Usage3,17516,927103755
Demographics6,9836,983285285
Content2,7242,724170170
Levels of use and class action lawsuit3,4373,437148148
Decline on mobile devices6086084949
Branding8,0778,315326346
Logo evolution2382382020
Finances1512,4830526
Revenue sources5,1345,134201201
Advertising bans4,6034,603215215
Coerced advertising6776773434
Fines2,0542,0547676
Technology1740,08401,904
Implementation6,0346,034336336
API and developer platform7,6487,648343343
Innovator's patent agreement7437432222
Open source5,0415,041311311
Interface8,2698,269357357
Security7,9907,990374374
Outages4,3424,342161161
User accounts2049,56202,538
Verified accounts8,7278,727333333
Privacy14,80914,809778778
Harassment8,4908,490454454
Suspect and contested accounts8,7928,792536536
Malicious and fake accounts6,2466,246313313
Bot accounts2,4782,478124124
Society1461,30003,309
Usage74716,366431,154
Protesters2,9462,946227227
Governments6,1816,181361361
Pornographic content1,8361,836104104
Child sexual exploitation (pre-acquisition by Elon Musk)3,4033,403302302
Deepfake pornography1,2531,253117117
Impact1514,3680781
Emergency use2,7802,7809797
Education4,5494,549187187
Public figures4,3174,317268268
World leaders2,7072,707229229
Censorship and moderation7,37813,814287611
Moderation of tweets6,4366,436324324
Community Notes9,7239,723289289
Court cases, lawsuits, and adjudication7,0157,015474474
Criticism3,4213,421145145
Statistics178,4690305
User accounts with large follower base2,4452,4451010
Record tweets6,0076,007295295
See also13013000
Notes313100
References35235200
Further reading1,2181,21800
External links1,1711,17100
Total306,940306,94013,48113,481
The content oft.co wasmerged intoTwitter. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.
Predictions of the end of Twitter was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on24 July 2023 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoTwitter. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve toprovide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
icon
The following are reference ideas for Twitter. Click [show] for details.
The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Requested move 9 February 2026

[edit]
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedsingle-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspectedcanvassed users:{{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked forsockpuppetry:{{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|username}}.

It has been proposed in this section thatTwitter berenamed and moved toX (social network)X (social network).

Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.


Please use{{subst:requested move}}. Donot use{{requested move/dated}} directly.

TwitterX (social network)X (social network) – Current reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the platform as “X”. Sampling of reliable sources consistently shows that these sources refer to “Twitter” only in historical or “formerly known as” contexts. Usage guides and reference works (e.g., AP Stylebook, Encyclopedia Britannica) have also adopted “X” for present-day use. Common objections based on colloquial speech, legacy terminology, URLs, or disambiguation concerns are inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and past practice for renamed entities. Detailed explanation below.Dustinscottc (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)— Relisting. LuniZunie(talk)07:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on naming
Common Name
The standard for the title of the article is found inWP:COMMONNAME:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject'sofficial name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority ofindependent,reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit thefive criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach aconsensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

To summarize, the preferred title is “the name that is most commonly used”, but that determination is not made by editors’ own sense or observation or even by surveys of the general population. That determination is explicitly “determined by [the name’s] prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.”
Name Changes
The official policy (WP:NAMECHANGES) also provides specific instruction with respect to name changes:

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

(emphasis in original)
In other words, if there is an official name change, the article name should also change if the reliable sources follow that name change. Note thatWP:NAMECHANGES explicitly requires that the name change to what the reliable sources use “when discussing the article topic in the present day”. Therefore, the length and significance of the history of the article topic under the prior name anre irrelevant. Theonly thing that matters is use by reliable sources in the present day to refer to the topic in the present day.
Use ofX vs.Twitter by reliable sources
Reliable sources, as distinguished by theperennial sources list,have adopted “X” as the primary name. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly begun referring to the social network solely as “X”, rarely, if at all, including the disambiguation "formerly Twitter." Primary references to “Twitter” are exclusively limited to historical contexts. There are currently 46 unique sources in the below collection byEatingCarBatteries andOmegaAOL.
The above list is just one collection of sources gathered by various editors over the last ten months (since the last substantive request to move). Other editors have collected similar lists at different points in different discussions, including by taking a neutral approach by comparing news articles that include “said on X” vs “said on Twitter” and actively searching for current news articles that consistently refer to “Twitter” instead of X. In summary, those searches show that some less reliable sources or editorials by people who, for political or personal reasons, continue to refer to “Twitter”, but these instances are rare. In addition, there are specific sources of note who have visibly implemented the change:
  • TheEncyclopaedia Britannica has switched to using X, titling their article "X", and using only "X" for post-2023 operations (while maintaining Twitter for historical use only):X (social media platform) - Britannica. Britannica is also an encyclopedia (like Wikipedia), and is treated as a reliable source to such an extent that many older Wikipedia articles are almost entirely based off older versions of the Britannica, for exampleLegal history of wills.
  • TheAP Stylebook, which governs usage for all articles published through theAssociated Press wire service and widely used by other news and other media outlets, directs writers as follows: “Use the social platform X on first reference. Reference to its former name of Twitter may or may not be necessary, depending on the story. Limit use of the verbs tweet and tweeted other than in direct quotations. Instead: posted on X, said in a post on X, etc.” (last updated April 2024).
Use ofX vs.Twitter by users
Google Trends is an analytics platform that shows the relative popularity of Google search terms. While common usage is not indicative of WP:RS usage, those have been covered in previous sections, and this section exists solely to combat the argument that Twitter is used more commonly than X in casual settings.
This data quite obviously indicate a shift from “Twitter” to “X” in everyday use, showing that the latter term is preferred both casually and in publication.
Common objections
The following summarizes and responds to common objections to moving the article that have been raised in past discussions.
  • All my friends say “Twitter”, not “X”. In fact, I haven't heard of anybody who calls it “X”!
    • SeeWP:RS andWP:OR. In addition, Twitter may well be preferred in speech, but in both the majority of all-inclusive reliable coverage and measured common usage, “X” takes precedence. There is a reason thatSears Tower redirects toWillis Tower.
  • Some internal code, URL, etc. uses “Twitter”.
    • This is irrelevant to the naming of the article. The standard requires us to consider usage in reliable sources. Digging up source code is original research.
  • Google Trends data show that people use “Twitter”.
    • No it doesn't, at least not in the past 12 months. References to historical Google Trends data (such as ranges 2010-2012, 2007-2009 etc) do not reflect usage by reliable sources now, which is the point of reference for name changes.
  • The term “tweet” is still in present usage.
    • This is an interesting linguistic note, but ultimately not relevant to the title of the article. The article is about the social network, not about related terms. People can (and do) refer to “tweets” on the X platform. Merriam Webster even defines “tweet” as a “post made on the X online message service.”
  • The name “Twitter” has historical significance.
    • Wikipedia policies hold that in the case of a name change, the article should carry the name that reliable sources presently use to refer to the subject. See above.
    • “Twitter” will still be used in the article in a historical context, as it is now.
    • The need to follow established policy should settle the matter, but retaining “Twitter” after an official name change that is subsequently adopted by a majority of reliable source is also inconsistent with how similar issues have been handled with other article subjects. There are countless examples of companies, brands, and venues whose articles are now known by their new name despite a comparatively long history under another name:
  • This article should be split into two.
    • There are strong arguments for splitting the article into two distinct articles with a separate scope. The best arguments here analogize to a sports team that changes name and moves to another city.
    • However strong those arguments are, that issue should not impede a necessary change based on the change in common usage. Right now, we have a situation where a reader looking for information about an active social media site that exclusively uses the name “X” in all of its branding, logos, etc., and that news sites refer to as “X” without any reference to “Twitter” will be redirected to an article with a completely different name. Avoiding a fix because editors can’t agree about a separate issue is letting perfect be the enemy of good.
  • We should prefer “Twitter” over “X” because using X requires a parenthetical disambiguation.
    • While this would be true if “Twitter” were used nearly as widely as “X” in reliable sources, this is objectively not the case. Most credible news organizations now overwhelmingly refer to “X”, “the X platform”, etc. If publications use the term “Twitter”, such usage is now overwhelmingly either to (a) discuss the platform when it was officially known as Twitter, or (b) make a single clarifying statement before going on to exclusively refer to the platform as “X”. The second usage used to be much more common, and while not establishing “Twitter” as the most common name, provided a decent argument for retention of “Twitter” when combined with disambiguation concerns. However, reliable sources have generally dropped this practice and refer to “X” without further explanation.
    • ”Twitter” is not a natural disambiguation as described in WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject - not using a whole different word or name. The examples provided are cases where additional words are added to the actual term (i.e., having French language and French people for 'French', or hand fan for 'fan').
  • Sources still make references to “X, formerly Twitter.”
    • The use of “formerly Twitter” or a similar note is, for the purposes ofWP:NAMECHANGE, a historical note, not a reference to the topic in the present day. Even if these could be framed as a present-day reference, neitherWP:COMMONNAME norWP:NAMECHANGE give special weight to a former name if reliable sources continue to mention it. The standards have no requirement for extinction of the old name; they instead emphasize (a) the prevalence of the name (WP:COMMONNAME) and (b) routine use (WP:NAMECHANGE). If an article notes in the first paragraph that “X” was formerly known as “Twitter”, and then goes on to refer to the social network exclusively as “X”, then the “X” is by far the more prevalent name, and the source routinely uses the new name. See, e.g.,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Survey

[edit]
  • Oppose move and propose one-year moratorium. Let me preface this by noting that hardly anything has changed since the last RM, and this will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. We are now onthe13th RM to move this page to "X", not counting separate attempts to move its sister articleTwitter under Elon Musk. This is soon to become an annual tradition until one side wears out.
    The first point ofWP:CRITERIA states:Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change. Bythe company's own admission: "Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through theTwitter.com domain; users around the world continue to refer to the platform asTwitter and posts astweets [...] Twitter is one of the world's most recognized brands [...] consumers and the media consistently refer to X Corp.'s core product asTwitter and its posts astweets [...] the continuing popularity and use ofTwitter is readily apparent and often the subject of reporting". The question of whether "X" has superseded "Twitter" as the most common name used in reliable sources is also not as clear-cut as the nominator makes it sound: where mentioned, "X" is often qualified with "formerly known as Twitter" or a similar phrase, a clear indicator that "X" has yet to establish itself as a widely recognizable name on its own that rings a bell with most readers.
    Secondly,WP:NAMECHANGES is a subsection ofWP:COMMONNAME that merely clarifies its definition in the context of a name change; in other words, it is a supplement to an existing policy, not a separate "rule" to be viewed on its own. Quoted out of context, it appears that NAMECHANGES is telling us wemust move an article ifreliable sources [...] routinely use the new name; in reality, it merely explains how to evaluate sources when identifying the COMMONNAME after a name change. However, this is not the only consideration we give when determining the common name of a subject, and certainly not the sole determinant of the most suitable article title. Focusing only on a single PAG while disregarding others would be narrow-minded and poor judgment. Further down the page,WP:NATURAL provides a key exception to COMMONNAME — and by extension, NAMECHANGES: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. This is corroborated byWP:NCDAB in even stronger wording, ranking "natural disambiguation" as the most preferable form of disambiguation above parenthetical and other forms of disambiguation:When there is another term (such asApartment instead ofFlat) or more complete name (such asEnglish language instead ofEnglish) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. The "apartment" vs. "flat" example here shuts down the nominator's claim that "natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject — not using a whole different word or name" as objectively false.
    Hence, in terms of disambiguation, there is no question that "Twitter" is far superior to "X (social network)", and it is also moreWP:CONCISE by 2 words and 11 characters. That means "Twitter" wins in at least three of the five CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, and concision. These CRITERIA are the guiding principles behind all of Wikipedia's naming conventions, so when in doubt, they take precedence above all;WP:IAR tells us to useWP:COMMONSENSE rather than attempt toblindly attempt to follow "the rules" without regard for their intent. If we blindly adhere to NAMECHANGES to a T while contradicting its underlying principles as expressed by CRITERIA, what good is an article title that is "commonly" used by reliable sources but unfamiliar and thereforeunhelpful to readers? What is theWP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia? Finally, there is substantial precedent for using a former name that continues to be vastly more commonly recognizable than the official name as the article title, including:Kanye West ("Ye"),Turkey ("Türkiye"),Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"),Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"),Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"),Ivory Coast ("Côte d'Ivoire"),Facebook Messenger ("Messenger"),Department of Defense ("Department of War"), etc. The examples listed by the nominator are edge-case outliers, not the dorm; some of them are not comparable here because their former names were never well-known to begin with, or the new name has indeed overtaken the old one as the most commonly recognizable, while others probably warrant additional review to ensure we are applying our PAGs consistently. TheAP Stylebook is irrelevant because we do not follow external style guides, and certainly not those whose primary goal is political correctness.
    InfiniteNexus (talk)00:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first point of WP:CRITERIA states: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change."
    Incorrect. Please refer to the Google Trends data above.
    • By the company's own admission: "Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through the Twitter.com domain; users around the world continue to refer to the platform as Twitter and posts as tweets [...] Twitter is one of the world's most recognized brands [...] consumers and the media consistently refer to X Corp.'s core product as Twitter and its posts as tweets [...] the continuing popularity and use of Twitter is readily apparent and often the subject of reporting".
    X Corporation is not a reliable source. Irony and subpar legal defense does not factor into considerations of whether to move an article or not.
    • Further down the page, WP:NATURAL provides a key exception to COMMONNAME — and by extension, NAMECHANGES: 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.
    See the sources above. The vast, vast majority do not even make a (formerly Twitter) reference.
    • When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. The "apartment" vs. "flat" example here shuts down the nominator's claim that "natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject — not using a whole different word or name" as objectively false.
    Proper vs. common noun, and it's not like one is newer than the other.
    • Hence, in terms of disambiguation, there is no question that "Twitter" is far superior to "X (social network)", and it is also more WP:CONCISE by 2 words and 11 characters.
    "Blabla" is more WP:CONCISE by one character; we should rename the article to Blabla instead. Or no, we shouldn't, because Twitter is quite obviously regarded as a historical term by WP:RS.
    • That means "Twitter" wins in at least three of the five CRITERIA: recognizability,
    No, Trends data.
    • naturalness
    No, outweighed by complete absence of "Twitter" in WP:RS and proper noun and actively marketed product status.
    • and concision
    Well, it does win in this one out of five categories.
    • What is the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia?
    Certainly not to cling to a long-dead name after the reliable sources and common language has abandoned it.
    • These CRITERIA are the guiding principles behind all of Wikipedia's naming conventions, so when in doubt, they take precedence above all
    I agree, and seeing as Twitter fits 1/5 of those CRITERIA, we should move to X (social network).
    • Kanye West ("Ye"), Turkey ("Türkiye"), Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"), Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"), Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"), Ivory Coast ("Côte d'Ivoire"), Facebook Messenger ("Messenger"), Department of Defense ("Department of War"), etc.
    That is what those are referred to in reliable sources and common usage, as the old names. This is not the case for X.
    • and certainly not those whose primary goal is political correctness.
    There are many who would make similar claims about our very own encyclopedia. Nonetheless, its political leanings in other aspects are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.OmegaAOLtalk?00:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources and common language has [sic] abandoned it. Clearly, they have not — otherwise, the Google Trends data that you seem to think is infallible would have shown a flat line for "Twitter". You are exaggerating when you claim that the use of "Twitter" has fallen to zero, and you seem to be under the impression that "reliable sources" only means "online news articles".InfiniteNexus (talk)00:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fallen to basically zero in reliable sources*
    • and you seem to be under the impression that "reliable sources" only means "online news articles"
    Those very same articles are published offline, too, without the reference to Twitter. Also, I am under the impression that generally reliable sources are what is catalogued at WP:RSPS. Even going by Google Trends, the fact that Twitter is lower than X is indicative that it is no longer the preferred term in common parlance.OmegaAOLtalk?02:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under the impression that generally reliable sources are what is catalogued at WP:RSPS. You would be mistaken, and if you were under this impression while drafting the nomination, then that is yet another flaw in your analysis. Please reviewWP:RS for what is defined as a reliable sources, and then readWP:RSPIS to see what that page actually is — certainly, not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. For starters, the nomination completely ignored scholarly sources, anda simple search on Google Scholar yields plenty of results.InfiniteNexus (talk)08:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to point to a Google Scholar, you'll need to do some actual work. Just clicking your link yields results that are overwhelmingly from prior to the name change. I tried sorting to look at more recent articles, and of those that I sampled, all used data sets from pre-Musk Twitter.Dustinscottc (talk)11:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Include* what is cataloged at WP:RSPS. For how eager you are to point out flaws in 'my' analysis, you have not responded to any other point in my reply.
    Scholarly sources are not the best indicator of WP:COMMONNAME.OmegaAOLtalk?05:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You said: “In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change.” I notice that you don’t provide a citation for this claim. That’s likely why the guidelines require us to look at what reliable sources have to say, not a poll of readers. But even if this were true, isn’t this true of every company or organization that changes its name? And if that’s true, wouldn’t that basically neuter theWikipedia:NAMECHANGE guideline? Most of your points are in direct tension with that guideline.Dustinscottc (talk)00:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dustinscottc: Given that this reply was submitted two minutes after the initial move request, it was almost definitely written previously and stored as a reply for the exact moment this draft was published. It might have been written at a time when Twitter was undisputably the commonly used name.OmegaAOLtalk?00:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent three hours writing this last night, based on the draft that has been publicly visible for several months. I was ready to post this reply at 00:00, but the nominator for some reason needed an extra two minutes to copy-and-paste the rest of the nomination in a separate comment, and then you posted a duplicate request, so I had to wait untilone of you reverted yourselves before posting.InfiniteNexus (talk)00:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it matters for the substantive arguments here, but I copied and pasted the rest of the nomination as a comment to avoid having a super lengthy request on the RM page. But if you spent three hours on this response, why didn’t you respond substantively to the arguments in the request? You are making the same arguments that you have been making for months, all of which depend on outright rejecting WP:NAMECHANGE in favor of what you think general principles dictate. You acknowledge this by arguing we should not follow NAMECHANGE to a T, but then you cite examples where reliable sources have not adopted the new name. If you are going to respond to this request, please do so by actually responding to this request and acknowledging the significant evidence, much of which, contrary to your assertion, has changed since the last RM, or at least was never really demonstrated or acknowledged then.Dustinscottc (talk)00:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I did respond to the arguments in your request: I noted that NAMECHANGES was not the sole determinant for the best article title, that sources have not completely abandoned the use of "Twitter", that we should not place total weight on what appears in online news articles, that blindly following NAMECHANGES may not be what is best for readers, that NATURAL supersedes NAMECHANGES, so on and so forth. I also think it's ironic that you accuse me of spending three hours on a nothingburger when you had months to prepare this request and yet all you could come up with was "NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES".InfiniteNexus (talk)04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see anything here that doesn’t essentially amount to that you disagree with NAMECHANGES. You don’t like the policy. We get it. But you need to have a better reason than trying to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation for disregarding it. You say we shouldn’t place total weight on online news articles, but you have failed to provide other sources. You mention that sources have not completely abandoned the use of “Twitter”, but there is no policy, standard, practice, guideline, etc., that advises that a name change should wait for total abandonment of the old name.
    So yes, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, because that’s the policy that applies, and you’ve shown no good reason to disregard it.Dustinscottc (talk)05:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained why we should consider other PAGs in this casein addition to NAMECHANGES. NAMECHANGES only works if following the policy aligns with other the PAGs onWP:AT. And yes,trying to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation is avery good reason to disregard it. I don't see any wording onWP:AT that suggests COMMONNAME or NAMECHANGES must override or take precedence over NATURAL, CONCISION, or any of the other PAGs on the page.InfiniteNexus (talk)08:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So why haven't we moved Turkey there country to Türkiye so that we can avoid a parenthetical for Turkey (bird)?Dustinscottc (talk)11:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples to oranges. Turkey, the country, has been determined to be the primary topic of "Turkey", so it needs no disambiguation. It is turkey the bird that requires disambiguation, and yes, natural disambiguation would be preferable to parenthetical disambiguation according toWP:NCDAB; however, no such natural alternative exists for the bird, because there is only one name for the bird that is commonly recognizable, so we have no choice but to use parenthetical disambiguation. Furthermore, even if Turkey the country was the one that required disambiguation (which, again, is not the case), "Türkiye" classifies as an obscure name as described inWP:NATURAL; "Twitter" obviously does not.InfiniteNexus (talk)19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t follow the logic here. “Turkey” can refer to both a bird and a country. It’s a real stretch to presume that a reader is going to see “Turkey” and automatically assume you’re talking about the country, so I don’t see how including a disambiguation for one but not the other is helpful. I also don’t think it’s obvious that Türkiye is an obscure name while Twitter, at least as a name that refers to the website that is now branded and marketed as X. If someone sees a news article about a social media platform called “X” that makes no reference to Twitter, or sees the website itself, and wants to know more about it, they will be looking for “X”. Seeing an article called “Twitter” is confusing to someone who doesn’t already know the history of the platform.Dustinscottc (talk)20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the claim in "By the company's own admission" ignores the context. There is a group that tried to launch a "Twitter" page, similar to the former one, claiming that the X corporation has renounced to the trademark. There is a trial over that, and the linked text is X's defense (who, obviously, will try to explain that "Twitter" is still in use, so that they do not lose it). Not only it is a biased source, it is almost as if they were saying so under duress. That link should be ignored in this discussion.Cambalachero (talk)03:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that last time, and I'll repeat my rebuttal: unless you're suggesting that X Corp.'s legal teamlied, which would be a grave accusation, it doesn't matter the context. Nixon was also "forced" under duress to produce the "smoking gun" tape.InfiniteNexus (talk)04:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Contextalways matter. For example, how many people still access the site from the "www.twitter.com" page? That info is relevant for the legal case that discusses the trademark, and so the defense mentions it, but it is completely immaterial for a requested move within Wikipedia.Cambalachero (talk)13:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move andpropose one-year moratoriumpropose ten-year moratoriumpropose permanent moratorium, unless name changed againpropose one-year moratorium, until name changed againpropose two-year moratorium oppose any moratorium. It has now been three years, and this is getting ridiculous. As I have contributed to the above move request draft, everything I could hope to state as argument is already there: "X" has replaced "Twitter" in both reliable source usage and common usage, with (formerly Twitter) article disambiguation being virtually extinct. It is ridiculous, then, to maintain the claim that "Twitter" is the WP:COMMONNAME.OmegaAOLtalk?00:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is me being pedantic here, but you can't "propose" a moratorium that's already been proposed. Glad we're in agreement that there needs to be a moratorium, though.InfiniteNexus (talk)00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't my moratorium on a different basis than your moratorium? That's why I used 'propose'..OmegaAOLtalk?02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Youchanged the wording of your comment after my reply. Please do not do so without using strikethrough, perWP:REDACT. Also, oppose a permanent ban as it contravenesWP:CCC and is against the spirit of collaboration.InfiniteNexus (talk)03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It says 'commonly best practice' and the reasons for that do not apply here, as the context remains unchanged. Please do not edit others' comments without their consent.OmegaAOLtalk?04:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move and propose 10 year moratorium, I'm partial to InfiniteNexus' argument but 1 year is not enough.
Cognsci (talk)00:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
10 years is paltry. Perhaps 100 years would be more suitable.OmegaAOLtalk?02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am frankly astonished that this article is still titled "Twitter".Thanks,Glasspalace (talkcontribs)01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, Support split. I am still of the opinion that Twitter pre-X should remainTwitter, and that the social network as it is now (X) should be its own article. While the software and foundation are fundamentally the same, there is enough of a perceivable difference between how Twitter operated and X operates that it could be considered a different platform entirely. If there isn't enough support for a split, then Ioppose the move and support a moratorium.GSK(talkedits)01:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "support a moratorium" for what length do you support a moratorium?Cognsci (talk)01:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimum of one year.GSK(talkedits)01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A split isn't being proposed. It would be helpful if you explained the reasons for your opposition to the move itself.Dustinscottc (talk)02:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A split might not have been proposed, but it is an option. --Super Goku V (talk)23:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A split would require significant work to disentangle the two articles. A proposal for a split should have drafts of the proposed articles ready to go. That can still be done after a move, so it’s not incompatible with the present proposal.Dustinscottc (talk)23:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you oppose the move if a split is not possible?OmegaAOLtalk?02:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I feel thatTwitter should remain an article detailing the history of the platform up until Musk bought it and renamed it to X.Twitter under Elon Musk exists too, I think that would make a better article for post-Musk changes, andthat article should be the one renamed toX (social network). This is one issue that I don't think we will agree on.GSK(talkedits)18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    History of Twitter exists as well, I believe, and I think the conflict between the camps is really which article should be renamedX (social network). I do however think that Twitter changed much more in the pre-Musk period than the post-Musk period; it was originally a website that "served to answer the simple question: what are you doing?", by letting you post one liner status messages. The site was objectively a completely different platform right before the Musk purchase than it was in the first year of its existence. Musk, meanwhile, hasn't even changed the user interface one bit.OmegaAOLtalk?07:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I slightly disagree with this assessment. According to the nomination above,The need to follow established policy should settle the matter, but retaining “Twitter” after an official name change that is subsequently adopted by a majority of reliable source is also inconsistent with how similar issues have been handled with other article subjects. There are countless examples of companies, brands, and venues whose articles are now known by their new name despite a comparatively long history under another name[.]
    My reading of that section is that the nomination is opposed to a situation where we have an article on Twitter up until October 2022 and an article on X that is up-to-date, despite that being how it works on a variety of articles. (PK-WIKI has provided examples below this involving Byzantium, Constantinople, the baseball New York Giants, and the Seattle SuperSonics and I have provided the example of the Oakland Athletics in my vote to this proposal below.)
    It the goal of this nomination was to first move Twitter to X (social network) and then split the article into a copy called Twitter that was restricted to the end of 2022, then I wouldn't mind the move. But I don't believe that is the goal here. --Super Goku V (talk)00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of contention

    Note that WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly requires that the name change to what the reliable sources use “when discussing the article topic in the present day”. Therefore, the length and significance of the history of the article topic under the prior name are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is use by reliable sources in the present day to refer to the topic in the present day.

Addressing this argument, I'm not sure the titling policy is that mandative. A portion ofWP:NAMECHANGES that you left out says "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we giveextra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change."
Butextra weight is notabsolute weight, right? The subject was officially known as Twitter during the period it rose to popularity, and held the name for 17 years. I think that if the policy were directly mandating/requiring a change to the point of other considerations beingirrelevant, it wouldn't mention "weight"ing. So
17 / 20
thelength and significance of the history of the article topic under the prior name might carry enough weight to offset recent developments.HenryMP02 (talk)01:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
[reply]
Split After reading much more discussion, I think it there is a solid case to split the article in two, like PK-WIKI has proposed. The rebrand is sharp delineation point, with aTwitter page representing the service up to June 2023, andX (social network) representing it from then to the present. Today, it much clearer since 2024 RFC that X has established enough of a unique, distinct history from Twitter to treat them as two separate subjects. There are numerous reliable sources talking about the changes that have occurred, from rebranding, reorganization, the moving of headquarters, firings of employees, etc. Furthermore, Ioppose any moratorium because this may impede the splitting.HenryMP02 (talk)23:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the policy were intended to slow down moving articles when the article subject had its name for a long time, it would certainly say something to that effect. But looking at other recent name changes, the duration of the old name is treated as almost entirely irrelevant. See, e.g.,Scouting AmericaDustinscottc (talk)02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've been going on for months about how you feel the previous Twitter moratorium was unjustified, so I'm sure you understand howI feel about the BSA move. However, two wrongs don't make a right, especially since our PAGs have been properly applied on every article except for a small handful that you cherry-picked in your nomination.InfiniteNexus (talk)04:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is it? Should we set aside policies to pursue some broad notion of “intent”, or do we generally properly apply polices? Because I do think that policies have generally been properly applied to name changes. And there are no examples of articles about entities that were not moved if (a) underwent a name change, and (b) reliable sources subsequently consistently used that new name. Or, at the very least, no one has pointed to any articles that fit that bill.Dustinscottc (talk)05:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Properly applying policiesmeans ensuring that the intent of such policies are being followed.InfiniteNexus (talk)08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I failed to mention before this discussion was opened that the secondWP:NATURAL-related counterargument that is listed in the rationale of this RM (that[n]atural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to refer to an article's subject) is flawed. This is for roughly the reason that@InfiniteNexus ended up pointing out. In fact, not only is that claim disproven byWP:NCDAB, which InfiniteNexus referenced, but it is also contrary to WP:NATURAL itself, which provides a third example ("Elevator" versus "Lift") that apparently was missed. Better points would include arguing that "Twitter" qualifies as being anobscure name under WP:NATURAL – this is similar to what the first WP:NATURAL-related counterargument seems to be suggesting, but I would not necessarily recommend that it be emphasized because it may imply that "Twitter" should be removed from the lead sentence of this article, a position that I doubt would draw any significant support – and pointing out that, because WP:NATURAL does not state that natural disambiguation must be used wherever possible but merely notes that itis sometimes preferred, this may be a case in which it is not preferred given all of the other reasons that are listed in the rationale of this RM. –Gluonztalkcontribs01:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the situation here anything like "Elevator" and "Lift"?Dustinscottc (talk)01:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what is meant is "Lift (conveyance)" is to "X (social network)" as "Elevator" is to "Twitter".
    This example directly negates the notion in the proposal thatNatural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject - not using a whole different word or name.HenryMP02 (talk)01:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a totally different situation. This is an entity that has changed its name, not a thing that has different names based on regional variation. Twitter is the old name, not an alternate common name.Dustinscottc (talk)03:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Twitter" is an obscure alternative name for "X"?InfiniteNexus (talk)03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: That case could at least be made. It would be a better argument than the obviously invalid one. –Gluonztalkcontribs16:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split (but how do that split and the related pages should be discussed first). While the DNA of X is the same as Twitter, it very clearly a different beast than Twitter which a whole host of different reception and controversy over it. A split should be done to keep Twitter pre-Musk's involved as a historical element, with X as the current updated service. But again, this is not a simple split and plans for how to do it need to be done. That said, absent the splitOppose move as Twitter is still frequently used in regards to the service even if its "X, formally known as Twitter" language.Masem (t)01:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please address the facts as supported by something other than your own feelings or observations as they apply to WP policies and guidelines? This will not be a productive conversation if people are simply chiming in with their vibes-based view of how frequently one or the other name is used. I'll also point out that whether "formally known as Twitter" is included in a source is not really relevant to whether RSs have adopted the new name. Adoption of the new name does not require complete disavowal or non-acknowledgment of the old name.Dustinscottc (talk)01:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twitter is still frequently used in regards to the service even if its "X, formally known as Twitter" language.
    This is not actually true - as you see, X is mentioned more in both reliable sources and GTrends.OmegaAOLtalk?02:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Sure, X may be mentioned more, but Twitter is not absent nor a minor use. Its still there. And I'd rather see a natural split happen over a move (which essentially will still get the X article anyway), it just is easier to work from the split starting point than move, and later ask about a split.Masem (t)03:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We already had this discussion atTalk:Twitter/Archive_13#RfC:_Is_X_a_different_service_from_Twitter? where users disagree with the notion that "Twitter" and "X" are different platforms/services, so a split proposal will most likely fail.Some1 (talk)04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well,consensus can always change, but as noted in the last sentence ofthe FAQ, we have indeed already had three discussions on this, all of which have rejected the notion thatTwitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately.InfiniteNexus (talk)04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The same reason we're having this requested move is the same reason why asking about a split now is reasonable: consensus can change. A lot has happened with X during the move moratorium that it is completely reasonable to bring up splitting at the same time.Masem (t)12:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAMECHANGE gives no indication that an old name needs to completely fall off before changing the article name. Nor is that the actual practice (e.g. Scouting America). If a source makes 30 references to X and one to Twitter, then X is very clearly the common name.Dustinscottc (talk)03:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find out very soon that we place greater weight to "what best follows the intent of PAGs and most benefits readers" than "what best follows the exact wording of PAGs irrespective of the context". I've told you this many times, but you just keep circling back to "OK, but NAMECHANGES says so".InfiniteNexus (talk)04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think you'll find out very soon"
    Are you seriously threatening an editor?OmegaAOLtalk?05:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ???InfiniteNexus (talk)08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to know the intent of a policy is by its words. But setting that aside, I don’t think having an article about a website that carries none of the branding associated with the name of the article helps readers. Which is why NAMECHANGES exists — because it reflects what is best for readers.Dustinscottc (talk)05:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, as per proposal (also OmegaAOL's rebuttal to InfiniteNexus). While some points are better than others (ex: we don't follow AP stylebook, we follow theMOS), ultimately thevast majority of sources now call the platform "X" without saying "Twitter", which is by far the biggest player here. While "Twitter" will always be in normal people's vernacular, it would be incorrect to call the page name that given that it's been 2.5 years since the name change, usage of the term Twitter is declining, andreliable sources call it "X". Frankly, I think "X" is a stupid name for a platform specifically because it requires disambiguation (and it also sounds like a porn site), but for the best of Wikipedia we should rather have a disambiguated title than an incorrect one.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)01:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an "incorrect" name. "Twitter" still only has one meaning. In fact, the companyrecently sued another company for attempting to infringe on its trademark, asserting that the Twitter name is not "dead".InfiniteNexus (talk)03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter does have one meaning (if the move goes through, it'll always redirect to the new page), but it isn't the term that reliable sources use anymore. I meant incorrect in a conclusion sense; it would be "incorrect" to say that Twitter is the common name used by sources, given the points in the proposal.
    We'll see how the suit turns out, but X Corp itself is a bit biased when arguing that they haven't abandoned their trademark.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as per proposal. Well established that X is the common name now (despite how terrible I personally think it is).pcuser42 (talk)01:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move Reliable sources nowadays refer to the social media platform as either: 1) X or 2) X, while mentioning that Twitter was its former name. Using the sources from my January 13 comment above in another section, major media outlets, when reporting on the recent Grok AI images controversy that occurred just last month, refer to the platform asonly X,without using the word "Twitter" at all:
    New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/world/europe/grok-ai-images-x-elon-musk-uk.html
    BBChttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy875j28k0o
    The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/10/elon-musk-uk-free-speech-x-ban-grok-ai
    NPRhttps://www.npr.org/2026/01/12/nx-s1-5672579/grok-women-children-bikini-elon-musk
    Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musks-x-sues-music-publishers-over-alleged-licensing-conspiracy-2026-01-09/
    NBC Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/international-pressure-builds-x-musk-grok-deepfakes-rcna253639
    Newsweekhttps://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-ofcom-investigation-grok-ai-deepfakes-11345837
    CBS Newshttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-x-elon-musk-grok-ai-sexualized-images-fake-nudes-starmer/
    ArsTechnicahttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/uk-investigating-x-after-grok-undressed-thousands-of-women-and-children/
    CNBChttps://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/09/grok-app-should-be-suspended-from-apple-google-democratic-senators.htmlSome1 (talk)02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose a split because having separate pages for Twitter and X (social media) will just confuse readers into thinking that these are two separate platforms and that one became defunct, etc. when that's not the case at all. And proposals for a split should really happenafter this RM concludes.Some1 (talk)00:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No new significant reasons to move that weren't brought up in previous move requests. All of the valid reasons for opposing a move in the previous RM, which are that there are still reliable sources that use "formerly Twitter" when referring to the current platform, and that sources that don't use that wording should be taken as a reason to split the article instead of moving, still apply. The nominator appears to beWP:CANVASSING to try to reach a consensus in their favor. It is unlikely that this RM will reach a consensus to move.Greedycell (talk)03:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    References to “formerly Twitter” are historical references, not references to the subject in the present day. From WP:NAMECHANGES “If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well.”
    I also didn’t canvas the vote here. And even if I did (again, and I cannot stress this enough, I didn’t), the remedy for that is not to ignore the request.
    So far, all of the opposing editors (except the first), make only vague references to prior arguments, completely ignoring the points raised in the proposal. I encourage whoever closes this discussion to disregard comments that do not contribute substantively to the actual points being made.Dustinscottc (talk)04:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please provide any proof of this supposed 'canvassing'? The editors mentioned there had previously consented to be included on that list, including me.OmegaAOLtalk?05:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, and it's about name. It should have already been renamed a long time ago. The presence of editors that still support the current name in the face of so much evidence is concerning.Cambalachero (talk)04:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence that previous RMs have determined to be insufficient to warrant a move.Greedycell (talk)04:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is substantially different than in previous discussions, at least with respect to the evidence actually presented. News sources have almost entirely stopped including “formerly Twitter” in run-of-the-mill stories about something someone said on the website. Prior RMs also did not go into detail regarding why “formerly Twitter” isn’t relevant to the WP:NAMECHANGES guideline in the first place. There is a significant amount of information included in this proposal that has not been presented in previous proposals.Dustinscottc (talk)04:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    8 out of 11 sources listed inTalk:Twitter/RM draft October 2025#X Outage January 2026 use "formerly Twitter". I highly doubt thatNews sources have almost entirely stopped including “formerly Twitter”.Greedycell (talk)04:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your own incredulity isn’t a source. There are multiple sources listed in the proposal. Of those, the AP, Reuters, the New York Times, NBC News, Politico, PBS, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Times of Israel, News Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Time, the Jerusalem Post, the Hindu, Gizmodo, ProPublica, the Huffington Post, the Hill, Ars Technica, Forbes, Engadget, CBS News, Al Jazeera, ABC News (Australia), and ABC News (America) all have precisely zero mentions of “Twitter” in the body of the article. A few had “Twitter” in historical contexts (e.g. CNN mentioning Musk removing Twitter’s moderation tools from when it was officially Twitter), but most others that are on the list above that I didn’t mention just now I left out because I didn’t want to get around a pay wall.Dustinscottc (talk)05:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that proposals can be bias, but it is recommended to be factual. If you are saying that all of those sources no longer use Twitter, then that is a problem. --Super Goku V (talk)23:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your comment. Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. Links to all those sources are in the supplemental portion of the proposal.Dustinscottc (talk)00:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. This is what I wanted to confirm because I am 100% certain that is false. To be specific, you might be correct that some of those sources have stopped using Twitter, but not all of them. --Super Goku V (talk)01:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, rather than assume I'm lying to you, you could check for yourself.Dustinscottc (talk)03:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't an assumption. This is why I want to make sure I understand correctly since my rebuttal will take a good chunk of time to compile and I would be annoyed if my time was wasted in a misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk)03:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you were 100% certain that was false. That's not skepticism—that's opposition to the idea that it might be true. And that's the problem. You can't be 100% certain unless you check. And some people seem to be opposing a move based on what theybelieve rather than on the facts that have been presented.Dustinscottc (talk)04:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't be 100% certain unless you check. Well, I should be fine then as I currently have 35 articles that I have confirmed mention Twitter for one reason or another. --Super Goku V (talk)05:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you’re just collecting random articles that mention Twitter, you are misunderstanding both what I said and the point of the citations we’re talking about.Dustinscottc (talk)05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, my comment below never included the Reuters link in the end, so here was that:US startup seeks to reclaim Twitter trademarks 'abandoned' by Musk’s X
    But I am curious how you checked this because of how many articles I have gathered so far. --Super Goku V (talk)04:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have lost some of the context. The proposal lists the following sources:
    Those links represent a broad range of reliable sources. Of those listed links, my comment above called out 27 of those 46 sources that literally do not mention “Twitter” anywhere in the body of the article. The remaining were either historical references (e.g. the CNN article) or articles that I could not check because of pay walls. When this collection was posted a few weeks ago, I was able to verify that 100% of them primarily refer to X.
    An article about a dispute regarding the TWitter trademark is obviously going to mention “Twitter”. That tells us nothing about whether reliable sources refer to X when discussing the topic in the present day.Dustinscottc (talk)04:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is how I am following things. You listed 46 groups that you appeared to claim that they don't use Twitter anymore. I said that would be a problem if that is what you are claiming. You made it crystal clear thatYes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. You told me I should check rather than make assumptions, I told you it wasn't an assumption, and now you are saying what sounds like a different thing here thanYes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. --Super Goku V (talk)05:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you’re misrepresenting what I said. The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter. Of course I wasn’t saying that, for example, the BBC will never again write the word “Twitter”. Of course they will—-in the context of articles about when the website was called Twitter.Dustinscottc (talk)05:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter. Well that is very crystal clear for me, so thank you for clearing this up.
    Of course I wasn’t saying that, for example, the BBC will never again write the word “Twitter”. Of course they will—-in the context of articles about when the website was called Twitter. Ah, I wasn't meaning anything like future-proofing. --Super Goku V (talk)06:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    First 50-ish articles have now been noted below. I will try to keep working on it over the next few days. --Super Goku V (talk)07:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    With that out of the way, what is the specific claim that you are making here regarding the sources? --Super Goku V (talk)05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero out of 46 sources in "Use ofXvs.Twitterby reliable sources" add the Formerly Twitter label, and those sources are newer than the ones you just quoted.OmegaAOLtalk?05:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero out of 46 sources in "Use ofX vs.Twitter by reliable sources" add the Formerly Twitter label, and those sources are newer than the ones you just quoted.OmegaAOLtalk?05:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources I quoted are new enough?Greedycell (talk)05:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming as much, add those sources to the list of 46 sources that do not mention Twitter and you still have 49 sources that don't mention the platform and 8 that do?OmegaAOLtalk?05:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And out of all those 57 sources, none refer to Twitter as the primary name. This is not cause for keeping the article at "Twitter".OmegaAOLtalk?05:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And out of all those 57 sources, none refer to Twitter as the primary name. That is not an argument that wasn't brought up in the previous RM.Greedycell (talk)05:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And 49 out of those 57 sources do not mention the word "Twitter" at all. This was not the case in the previous RM, where almost all sources mentioned "formerly Twitter".OmegaAOLtalk?05:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for the previous RM's, then, but this is not the same evidence as the situation has drastically changed from that time.OmegaAOLtalk?05:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion those previous RM were wrong, too. But now is a good moment to set things right.Cambalachero (talk)12:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to X (social media) orX (social netwrok) etc. perWP:COMMONNAME IMO; going by Google Trends and news source articles since late 2023, the majority (not all) of them now useX on its own. Btw I spent ten minutes just finding out where in the world I should vote in this wall of text, also some dude way above me tried to make their brick of text more visible by making the background red (or did another editor put it their because they are supposedly canvassing?). I ain't reading all that bruh. This is why people laugh at Wikipedia, and from the parts I did read, I can see why. Anyways, I want to join the party and proudly get laughed at in screenshots of this thread on Depths of Wikipedia and MAGA Twitter (yes I still call itTwitter), so here is my brick of text regarding British news sources:
    • BBC News[9] has 40+ results forX (specifically the social media platform, I checked and verified) in December 2025 and January 2026, with thelast article of theirs to use the nameTwitter beingthis one all the way back on 17 November 2025. According toThe Economist's text search function, the last time they usedTwitter is in an article on 3 November 2025. In contrast, they use onlyX a few times, as in articles on13 January 2026,15 January 2026 and28 January 2026 just to list a few examples of where the social media website is named on non-paywalled text. There are the topic categories for X / Twitter onThe Guardian,Metro andSky News, and you yourself can gloss and text search the latest articles to see that almost all of them use only X on its own. The headlines for the Financial Timeshttps://www.ft.com/x-corp seem to only use X, but I do not have access to the contents of their articles. Now, there is one exception that I will mention for the sake of Wikipedic accuracy I know we love: The Independent[10] appears to alternate between using X, Twitter and the classic X (formerly Twitter) garbage.
    • Not super reliable per se, for many reasons, but on Google Trends for 'worldwide' search volume, “X account” surpassed “Twitter account” in November 2024, and far surpassed the latter in August 2025.[11] “Elon Musk X account” has been slightly but consistently above “Elon Musk Twitter account” since August 2024.[12]

❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at06:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what is up with the accessibility of this thread. I have no clue what the red/yellow background is doing there behind the replies - it's an eyesore. I also had to search for a place to reply, because the original move proposal didn't have the "Reply" button.
I've already accepted that there is a non-zero chance that Musk or those in his orbit will tweet out this discussion, and I don't think I'm looking forward to it.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)07:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeing a red or yellow background behind certain comments, it's because you have the user scriptUser:Headbomb/unreliable.js activated, and the comment includes a link flagged as potentially unreliable (such asTwitter.com). I just checked both of yourcommon.js pages, and that is indeed the case. Sorry to be blunt here, but I would suggest that editors at least know how the scripts they have installed work before making uninformed comments such assome dude way above me tried to make their brick of text more visible by making the background red orit's an eyesore.InfiniteNexus (talk)08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out! It indeed is that, hovering over the text for a couple seconds shows "generally unreliable source"EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)18:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The way I would accomplish this is by using currentTwitter as the past-tense article. And moving and usingTwitter under Elon Musk as the base of the newX (social network) article.
Failing a split, I guess Ireluctantly and strategically support move ofTwitter toX (social network). The reason is that I think it will be easier to re-create a past-tense "Twitter" article after the move. Let things settle down, then cooler heads will hopefully see the wisdom in two article to describe the two fundamentally different eras of the company.PK-WIKI (talk)20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. To be clear, I think not moving to X was absolutely the correct call when this first happened. X is ambiguous, Twitter is an iconic name, media routinely used both "X" and "Twitter" at the same time to clarify, the social network itself still referred to "Tweets", etc. More generally, Musk is a... mercurial... guy. It was absolutely a reasonable possibility that he'd just change the name again on a whim. However... it's been three and a half years. twitter.com now redirects to x.com . People have gotten used to X-the-social-network and it no longer always requires the "formerly known as Twitter" disclaimer. Take a look atFrance’s Raid on X Escalates Trans-Atlantic Showdown Over Social Media, a news article in the New York Times from just this week (hardly a source Musk would consider friendly). "X" is in the title and subtitle, and the prose says "French authorities raided the Paris offices of Mr. Musk’s social media platform X". The word "Twitter" does not come up in a CTRL-F. It's time. It seems that the name change is here to stay, and reliable sources have adapted.SnowFire (talk)21:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument isn't necessarily that X is now the common name (I agree it is) but whether it should be considered one continuous company with former Twitter. It is clear that when the company was bought out, it changed drastically and irreversibly. I don't believe that the historical Twitter article should be overridden by X, and there is a perfect article to describe the current X,Twitter under Elon Musk, that could simply be moved to X instead. While the two platforms have similar backends and interfaces and retain older messages, the change in management is big enough to require a separate article.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ()08:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    History of Twitter already exists. I'm not opposed to renaming itHistory of Twitter (2006–2022) and renamingTwitter under Elon Musk toHistory of X (2022–present) and/or creating as many other spin-off history articles as desired. But IMO there should be a parent article for the social network as a whole during its full history, which is this article, whatever it's called. If some of the Dorsey-era Twitter details are moved into a history article, that's fine, but it's not quite a full split.SnowFire (talk)18:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    History of Twitter can also stay the same, as it's implied to be talking about the former pre-2022 social network, a new "History of X" page shouldn't be necessary given it has such a short history.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ()10:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If some of the Dorsey-era Twitter details are moved into a history article, that's fine, but it's not quite a full split. Hmm, interesting. For sports teams, you usually see a split when a team relocated where both the old and new keep the same copy of details with the new article getting updates. My understanding of a move is that we would just move this from Twitter to X without creating an old copy. --Super Goku V (talk)11:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split for the same reasons asPK-WIKI. "X" refers primarily to "Twitter under ELon Musk", while "Twitter" is still commonly used by folks referring to Twitter prior to its acquisition by Elon Musk. The evolution of the social media platform seem sufficiently seperate to warrant a split.Casspedia (talk)22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Change Redirect that to Twitter
Most reliable sources say "X, formerly known as Twitter, …"
There was even a| Reddit post about it.
Examples of this being the case includes:
| GEO TV Article on February 10th, 2026,| this India Times article within the first paragraph, and| mentioned in this Michigan Times article as the title and in the text.
It is clear that across the world, it is still used as that and culturally is connected to X. Twitter is clearly the common name and the whole reason news sources do that is because Twitter is the what it has been known as for so long.
Reader of Information (talk)22:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A reddit post from 2 years ago, an article of February 10 that can be read on February 9... I don't think I need to continue.Cambalachero (talk)00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know think the GeoTV article is very useful but I don't understand your date point. It was already 10 February for nearly 3 hours in Pakistan where the source seems to be based by the time Reader posted so there's nothing particularly weird about the date, it was just a very recent source when posted. It's perfectly normal and expected that the date line of a source will be based on their local time. For example, MrBeasts's tweet shows as 10 February 6:18am for me in NZ. Any NZ source writing about Mr Beast's tweet is likely to have a date of 10 February or later. The fact it may still be 9 February for Cambalachero, or UTC is irrelevant and doesn't indicate there's something wrong with an NZ source.Nil Einne (talk)13:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t think an article from Pakistan that has nothing to do with Pakistan posted at 3 a.m. Pakistani time is weird? It’s a press release. It was scheduled to post.Dustinscottc (talk)15:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what Cambalachero commented on and it wasn't what me reply addressed.Nil Einne (talk)11:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move perWP:NAMECHANGES: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. Seems quite clear and straightforward, and a compelling and detailed case is made above that it applies here. "Twitter" is nowhere near as commonly used to deserve consideration as an alternative.
Opposition based on favoring a split or something to be done with some other article is irrelevant. The topic ofthis article is this social network that exists today. The name of this article must be based on sources about this topic.Crossroads-talk-01:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split (Oppose move): Twitter as it existed has been notable since 2007 and has been notable enough for words related to it to appear in dictionaries:Britannica,Cambridge,Dictionary.com,Merriam-Webster, etc. This already suggests that an article for Twitter on its own makes sense. Regarding things during the moratorium,the company has admitted to Twitter still being recognizable:[X Corp.] says that users continue to refer to X as “Twitter” and posts as “tweets,” while some websites still display Twitter’s bird-shaped favicon when linking users to X. The lawsuit adds that as of December 11th, 2025, more than four million users accessed X through the “twitter.com” domain. (...) Even the company know how recognizable the former name is to people. (WP:Recognizability) One of the more telling things of that is the description onthe Apple App Store,Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter) (...) .
    Despite this, I am wiling to consider PK-WIKI's proposed split. It does help that I am aware of how we are handling theAthletics, a baseball organization that was formerly theOakland Athletics and that plan to become theLas Vegas Athletics. As can been seen, the first two links are standalone articles with the third being a redirect to the current process so far. That and we still haveTwitter under Elon Musk floating around. If this can end the contentious of this topic, then I am for it. (As an aside, I am for a12-month moratorium on just move discussions if this fails given that this was posted the literial minute the last one ended.) --Super Goku V (talk)01:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there appear to be claims that sources have moved on from using Twitter at all, here is a list proving the opposite: --Super Goku V (talk)07:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Super lengthy list produced by Sgv that is auto-collapsed by default. Listed is ~50 articles where they have used Twitter in the article since August 2025 or roughly the time of the moratorium. Part 1 added 07:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC).
  • @Super Goku V: This does not show a diversity in sources; there are 5 sources in this list, whereas the X-only list cites 46. Even if this was a list of 46 different sources, that is still a 50/50 split between articles which use X as the sole name and articles which use X as the sole name, with a single explanatory reference to Twitter. I think the evidence is clear.OmegaAOLtalk?07:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me hours already to get through those sources. That is why it says Part I on it. The evidence in the nomination isn't fully accurate. --Super Goku V (talk)07:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my apologies then for not seeing the 'Part I' note.OmegaAOLtalk?07:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It looks like I am not even going to bother with a Part II now based on the below, so your original comment is fair that there is only 5 sources overall. --Super Goku V (talk)23:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear you've put a lot of time into this, but I'm afraid you are attacking a straw man and misrepresenting the argument from the nomination. I haven't gone through your entire list yet, but of the dozen or so that I have, every single reference to "Twitter" is a historical reference. The standard from WP:NAMECHANGES is not whether reliable sources have started to pretend that the old name never existed—it is whether reliable sources have adopted the new name when referring to the subjectin the present day. This was stated in the nomination.Dustinscottc (talk)11:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve now been able to look at all of these and have confirmed that nearly all of these citations use “Twitter” in an unambiguously historical context or are about the trademark. The articles bring up Twitter in the context of Musk’s purchase of the platform (when it was named “Twitter”), people associated with the company before the sale of to Musk (again, when it was named “Twitter”), controversies that occurred on the platform when it was named Twitter, platform rules that were in place before Musk acquired the company (and when it was named “Twitter”), or a legal dispute over the Twitter trademark. There are a few sources, mostly NBC News, where there is a simple “formerly Twitter” is thrown in at a seemingly random point in the article, including some where the old name is noted for the first time after several references to “X”.
    In short, these are all instances where the source is not “discussing the article topic in the present day”. As explained in the proposal under“Sources still make references to X, formerly Twitter”, single references to the old name in “formerly Twitter” do not indicate present use of the new name, but these examples are all even weaker than those kinds of references because they are (nearly) all references to the old name made in explicitly historical contexts.Dustinscottc (talk)20:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter.
    This is what I understood your position to be about the sources; that they no longer were clarifying that X was Twitter. This is why I talked to you the last two days so that I made sure that I understood the exact reason the sources were used in the nomination.
    As I said earlier this week, it was going to take me awhile to compile everything (and I still am not done) and that I didn't want my time wasted.
    So to hear that I ammisrepresenting the argument really burns meDustinscottc. --Super Goku V (talk)23:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant, but I guess not. Of the 40-some-odd news articles included as links in the proposal, the news articles from the sources I listed did not include “Twitter” in the body of the article. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear and you spent considerable time trying to rebut that, but even if I had meant that literally none of those publications ever mention “Twitter” for any reason, I don’t see how rebutting that moves the ball any in resolving the RM.Dustinscottc (talk)00:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support move as mostWP:RS now use the current name of the platform, which is X. Additionally, the name Twitter itself is now often used as a shibboleth to express dislike towards Elon Muskas described in this article, meaning thatX (social network) would be a betterWP:NPOVTITLE.UltrasonicMadness (talk)22:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise a good point. I'm not sure I agree 100% with this characterization, but it often reads as a deliberate choice when sources use still 'Twitter'. This is a reversal from the early days, when early adopters of 'X' were often explicitly endorsing the new direction under Musk or occasionally were critics seeking to draw a distinction from the platform's 'glory days'. Even if it does not always reflect a non-neutral POV, use of 'Twitter' in 2026 stands out and raises questions about the source's intent. —Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk)20:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also heard the name Twitter being used out of habit in conversation, similar to someone using the old name for a local shop that has changed hands or has otherwise been renamed (seeMcColl's), though there is overlap with the usage described in my original post in the case of Twitter.UltrasonicMadness (talk)21:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentionWP:NPOVTITLE, but I am questioning whether you read it before doing so. The entire section talks about how non-neutral names are permissible provided that they are commonly recognizable, so that doesn't really help your case. Furthermore, it's not a conspiracy — no one has advocated for using "Twitter" as the article title as a protest against Musk, and you should not insinuate this to be the case. People can interpret Wikipedia article titles however they want.InfiniteNexus (talk)05:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading ofWP:NPOVTITLE is that Twitter, especially now, is not so established as the name that it would overrideWP:NPOV concerns surrounding its usage as a primary identifier, certainly not to the extent ofAlexander the Great vsAlexander III of Macedon, especially since mostWP:RS use X as the primary name, sometimes mentioning the past one once.
    I did not intend to suggest a conspiracy as such was taking place but reflecting on the usage of the names X and Twitter generally. For instance, previous RMs often have at least a couple of postsWP:CRYSTALBALLing about the name reverting to Twitter in the event of Musk giving up ownership of the platform - this being at a point when it had been called X for a year - and other users simply stating that they will personally never stop referring to it as Twitter, in some cases invoking a dislike of Musk when doing so.UltrasonicMadness (talk)15:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who cautioned that the name change may not stick weren't the ones looking at a crystal ball, it was those who speculated that "X" would overtake "Twitter" as the common name when it had onlybeen called X for a year — far too early to make such a determination. Those who cite personal preference as their rationale for supporting or opposing a move will be discarded perWP:NHC. Regardless of where this page title ends up, it will be entirely because editors are following our PAGs, not an endorsement nor insult to Musk. Like I said,people can interpret Wikipedia titles however they wish. For this reason, I disagree that "Twitter" is, on its own, non-neutral term.InfiniteNexus (talk)20:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move as I think enough time has passed since the rebranding and now most news sources and people refer to it as X not Twitter.GWA88 (talk)23:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It took some time but sources are using this name enough to satisfy ourWP:NAMECHANGES policy.Oppose spit, there's already aHistory of Twitter and I'm unsure what further value we would gain from a separate article detailing pre-Musk Twitter.LM2000 (talk)02:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enough time has passed that this is now the more common name.Rreagan007 (talk)03:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is gettingWP:YOGURTish. Come on. Are we just going to keep doing this move request for all eternity? BTW I would supportX (Twitter) as an IAR compromise.RedSlash16:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As best I recall, Wikipedia practicallynever uses an article title of the form "Topic name (alternative name)". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk)16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It would be a sui generis solution.RedSlash17:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perennial topic of discussion atAssociated football (per its FAQ), and that article ultimately settled for an uncommon-but-natural disambiguation over an awkward parenthetical. And I mean, you can't get any more "uncommon" than "association football", a name used by virtually no one, so naturally disambiguating this article with a widely recognizable former name, "Twitter", is far from egregious or unusual compared to how numerous other articles apply NATURAL.InfiniteNexus (talk)05:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Associated football is a classic example of adding a word for a natural disambiguation, which is not the sort of thing that is occurring here. If we weighted theWP:AT criteria as you have suggested doing, "soccer" would have won out as more natural, concise, and precise as "associated football". But we don't, because across the English language, especially among those most interested in the topic and in most of the RSs writing about it, "football" is the dominant term. The article title reflects the greater weight given to the common name. So yes, given that Twitter is no longer the common name, keeping that name would be both egregious and unusual.Dustinscottc (talk)04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "X" is the name of the service and has been for almost 3 years. An article with the name "Twitter" should persist as thehistory of Twitter before it became X. The X article should focus primarily on the current iteration of the service, i.e. what is currently referred to asTwitter under Elon Musk. —Samvscat (talk)18:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose movesupport split and merge intoTwitter under Elon Musk they're functioanly two diffent things at this point—blindlynx12:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think they’re functionally two different things? Twitter evolved more along its lifetime until Musk’s acquisition, which did change some things, but barely modified the UI.Awesomecat ( /)23:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter under Elon Musk: Company layoffs and restructuring; "X Hiring", a job search system; Grok; X Premium; X Money Account, a planned banking feature; Changes to moderation, including the weakening of policies to restrict hate speech and transphobic attacks; Removing the report system; The various account reinstatements in late 2022; The various suspensions also in late 2022; The changes made to labeling state-affiliated media; Requiring verified accounts to pay for it with what ended up becoming X Premium; etc. --Super Goku V (talk)00:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V: May I remind you that Twitter was originally a service to post one-line status messages through SMS?OmegaAOLtalk?03:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You may. :P My understanding has been that Twitter started to move away from that around 2008 to 2010, but left the ability to still do so in. I believe the feature was removed after Elon took over, but there was apparently a vulnerability that was discovered. --Super Goku V (talk)04:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the feature was removed slightly before the Musk takeover... my point was that the service itself changed significantly more in the Twitter period than it has in the X period, making a split on those bounds meaningless.OmegaAOLtalk?04:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those don't change the core of the platform, though; posting, DMing, replying, reposting/retweeting are still the same, while many still call X posts "tweets". The core of the platform has remained the same. You wouldn't call Minecraft a different game after it moved to Microsoft, although many things have changed.Awesomecat ( /)04:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - even the user interface is the same.OmegaAOLtalk?05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but at this point it seems like this is more of aAthletics situation.
    (Minecraft isn't a good example for me as I know there is a PC version and a mobile version and two(?) console version that are all different from each other to my understanding and I have no idea which ones are from before Microsoft took control, except that the PC one was the original.) --Super Goku V (talk)05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Before Microsoft, there was Java (the original PC edition), legacy mobile edition, and legacy Xbox 360 edition with the latter two being developed by 4J Studios and the former being developed by Mojang. Nowadays, we have Java, still just for PCs, and Bedrock, which runs on PCs, phones, and consoles. Microsoft hasn't phased out Java due to the certainty of massive user backlash and abandonment if they even attempt to do so, although they have been trying to push Bedrock over Java for a few years. (Bedrock is also heavily monetized, unlike any of the pre-Bedrock platform editions or Java)
    Minecraft is still one article.OmegaAOLtalk?05:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. On a separate tune, what if you took a hockey team in the west and had them ride a 90 minutes plane? You would get theUtah Mammoths, a team that has only played since 2024, but is the former assets ofArizona Coyotes. Sometimes we have two articles for the same overall subject. --Super Goku V (talk)09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V: I don't think the case is the same here. The Mammoths are an entirely new team that just absorbed the assets of the Coyotes; X is just a rename of Twitter, itself renamed from twttr.OmegaAOLtalk?07:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A large part of the notability of Twitter was its iconic "tweet" verb, 140 character limit, hashtags, third-party accounts and API, bird theme, SMS lineage, etc. The article about Twitter needs to dedicate a ton of space to these unique and novel features and how they developed over the years, per reliable sources. Detailed descriptions of these things are allWP:DUE for inclusion in the Twitter article.
    All of that is gone now in X. Describing those Twitter features isn't needed in a dedicated X article, beyond perhaps a brief mention and link. Instead the X article should probably focus on things relevant to the social network X owned by Elon Musk. But if the article is a combined Twitter + X article, now both must be included and the article is much larger, less focused, less readable, and worse as a result.
    That's why a split would be so valuable. The name + ownership change provides a specific clean break that allows each article to focus on what it is/was. There is of course some amount of overlap; summary-style descriptions and links to the other article are a better way to tell the full story of Twitter/X rather than trying to cram both into the same article.PK-WIKI (talk)08:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    These changes happened gradually - the 140 character limit was changed to 280 in 2017 and the SMS service was discontinued in April 2020. Musk bought the platform in 2022, and the rebranding away from the bird theme and "tweeting" along with the API controversy happened the following year. I'm not sure about hashtags specifically as I don't personally use this particular platform under any name.UltrasonicMadness (talk)19:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, all of these things were introduced and evolved during the Twitter era. Then removed during the transition and ownership change. They have no real relevance to the current social network X and can thus be split off into an article dedicated to the particular features and culture of pre-Musk Twitter. The X article would have a section that summarizes this transition and links back to the Twitter-specific article.PK-WIKI (talk)20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The features I mentioned were removed well before the leadership change, and the site continues to evolve afterwards (e.g. X Hiring in 2024). The leadership change itself is one of many steps, if a significant one, in the platform's history.UltrasonicMadness (talk)22:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support move/rename, strong oppose split Over the past few RMs I've voted neutral on a rename, but have made it clear that was on the circumstance that wedon't treat Twitter and X as separate entities. They are not separate entities, and I'm surprised to still see that argument being used. All sources make it clear that they're the same website, usually by calling it X (formerly Twitter). This time, it seems a lot of the oppose votes specify that they're opposing on the grounds of splitting, which is a huge no. I support moving this page to X (social network) in the hopes that this ends the split arguments, as this time it seems there are currently more supports than opposes, unlike the past RMs.

For the record, when I say "split arguments", I mean treating Twitter and X as separate websites, since they're obviously the same website with a by now 3 year old rename. I am fine with separate pages for thehistory of Twitter/X, so separate pages of "History of Twitter (2006-2022)" and "History of X.com (2022-present) are fine. However,one of either "Twitter" and "X (social network) must be a redirect of the other. In this case, I support making Twitter the redirect and X.com the page name.Unnamed anon (talk)02:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support X (social network), as X.com refers to a defunct online bank co-founded by Elon himself.OmegaAOLtalk?05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note that"one of either "Twitter" and "X (social network) must be a redirect of the other" is your !vote/opinion and not an actual requirement. Our content policies would allow for the current social network to exist atX and aWP:SPINOUT /WP:SPINOFF article describing the previous iteration to exist atTwitter.PK-WIKI (talk)06:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have used the phrase "should be a redirect" instead of "must be a redirect". If we do a Spinout/Spinoff article (which I don't mind doing to reduce bloat), I would strongly oppose naming any of them simply "Twitter". None of the arguments that Twitter is a separate website are convincing, and all sources I have read treat them as the same website. The company pages are already split, which is fine since that's the core issue of why people feel differently about the website pre-Musk and post-Musk, but the website itself is not suddenly entirely different because of an owner change. So let me rephrase what I said using more specific language: One of "Twitter" or "X (social network)" should be a redirect of the other, and if there is a WP:SPINOFF article, the other name being used as the redirect (in this case "Twitter")should never be used as the name of said spinoff unless accompanied by additional identifiers (i.e. history of) to make it clear that there is not a defunct separate website.Unnamed anon (talk)07:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a strong case thatTwitter should be a disambiguation page.PK-WIKI (talk)07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even consider a disambiguation, but that can also work. Just not a fully separate page. The disambiguation should list X (social network), Twitter (company), and any history/userbase pages we spin out for bloat reasons. But again,Twitter itself should not be the name of any full page should this RM succeed. We should not confuse readers by making them think they are separate websites when the majority of sources agree they are the same.Unnamed anon (talk)19:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Info

[edit]
  • Info comment For those interested, I had a Python script go through and categorize all of the titles of the references used in the article, to get a rough proportion of what names were being used in the article's sources (Twitter, X, or Both). Here are the results.(included is the raw output so you can spot classification errors -regex is hard!)
Data

[Twitter only] From Dorsey's First Tweet to Musk's Ownership: A Comprehensive History of Twitter

[Both] X, formerly known as Twitter, constructs new headquarters building in Bastrop, Texas

[Both] Elon Musk says Twitter, now X, is moving to monthly subscription fees and has 550 million users

[Neither] Top Websites Ranking

[Twitter only] So What Do We Call Twitter Now Anyway?

[Both] X, formerly Twitter, opens job search function to all users

[Twitter only] Twitter turns six

[Neither] Company:

[Twitter only] Twitter Passed 500M Users In June 2012, 140M Of Them In US; Jakarta 'Biggest Tweeting' City

[Twitter only] Stunning New Numbers on Who Uses Twitter

[Twitter only] Sizing Up Twitter Users

[Twitter only] A one-class classification approach for bot detection on Twitter

[X only] X criticised for enabling spread of Israel-Hamas disinformation

[Both] X, formerly Twitter, amplifies disinformation amid the Israel-Hamas conflict

[X only] Elon Musk's X adds to fog of war at outset of Israel-Hamas conflict

[Neither] Auditing Elon Musk's Impact on Hate Speech and Bots

[Twitter only] Hate speech is soaring on Twitter under Elon Musk, report finds

[Twitter only] New Data Suggests that Hate Speech is on the Rise on Twitter 2.0

[Twitter only] Hate Speech's Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

[Twitter only] Twitter's New CEO Linda Yaccarino Has First Day in the Role

[Twitter only] Elon Musk to quit as Twitter CEO when replacement found

[Twitter only] Twitter's New CEO Linda Yaccarino Has First Day in the Role

[Both] Twitter X logo: Elon Musk rebrands social media platform

[Both] Elon Musk reveals rebranding of Twitter as X – and what he wants us to now call a tweet

[X only] Elon Musk says xAI has acquired X in deal that values social media site at $33 billion

[X only] Musk's xAI buys his social media platform X

[X only] Linda Yaccarino steps down as CEO of Elon Musk's X

[X only] Read this: A new report shows X is amplifying far-right accounts

[Neither] Elon Musk created a monster that's tearing the right apart

[Twitter only] Conspiracy theorists, homophobes, neo-Nazis: Ten accounts that embody Twitter's change under Musk

[X only] Has X become a Right-wing echo chamber?

[Neither] Elon Musk Merges SpaceX With His A.I. Start-Up xAI

[Neither] SpaceX acquires xAI in record-setting deal as Musk looks to unify AI and space ambitions

[Twitter only] Why Twitter's C.E.O. Demoted Himself

[Twitter only] It's true that @Noah never got enough credit for his early role at Twitter. Also, he came up with the name, which was brilliant

[Twitter only] Buy a vowel? How Twttr became Twitter

[Twitter only] How Twitter Was Founded

[Neither] Odeo Releases Twttr

[Twitter only] The real history of Twitter isn't so short and sweet

[Twitter only] Twitter's Fifth Beatle Tells His Side of the Story

[Twitter only] A Conversation with Twitter Co-Founder Jack Dorsey

[Twitter only] 5 years ago today Twitter launched to the public

[Neither] 13th Annual Webby Special Achievement Award Winners

[Neither] Jimmy Fallon Wins Top Webby: And the Winners Are...

[Twitter only] Twitter Users Send 50 Million Tweets Per Day – Almost 600 Tweets Are Sent Every Second Through the Microblogging Site, According to Its Own Metrics

[Twitter only] Twitter Registers 1,500 Per Cent Growth in Users

[Neither] Big Goals, Big Game, Big Records

[Twitter only] Social Networks: Facebook Takes Over Top Spot, Twitter Climbs

[Neither] Facebook was the most-downloaded app of the decade

[Twitter only] Twitter Says It Has 140 Million Users

[Twitter only] Twitter Now Has More Than 200 Million Monthly Active Users

[Twitter only] Twitter flips the bird, adopts new logo

[Twitter only] Twitter's New Logo Inspires Parodies, CSS Greatness

[Twitter only] Twitter files for IPO in first stage of stock market launch

[Twitter only] Twitter redesign looks a lot like Facebook

[Twitter only] What if the Twitter growth everyone is hoping for never comes?

[Twitter only] Twitter user growth continues to stall

[Twitter only] Revenue Is Up, But Twitter Is Still Struggling In Slow Growth Mode

[Twitter only] Twitter now has a problem that's way worse than slow user growth

[Twitter only] Like It or Not, You're Getting Twitter's Redesigned Website Soon

[Twitter only] Twitter overcounted active users since 2014, shares surge on profit hopes

[Neither] Q2 2020 Letter to Shareholders, July 23, 2020, @TwitterIR

[Neither] Full Page Reload

[Neither] Updating our Approach to Misleading Information

[Twitter only] Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey On Section 230, Transparency, Appeals And Twitter Turning 15

[Twitter only] Twitter's decentralized future

[Twitter only] Twitter launches Spaces live-audio rooms to all users with more than 600 followers

[Twitter only] Twitter will now let anyone with 600 or more followers host its audio Spaces on mobile

[Twitter only] Twitter launches subscription-based feature

[Twitter only] Twitter is opening applications to test Ticketed Spaces and Super Follows

[Both] Twitter's rebrand to X is destined to fail, critics say

[Both] Musk explains why he's rebranding Twitter to X: It's not just a name change

[Both] Twitter's rebrand to X may actually be happening soon

[Both] Goodbye Twitter.com, Welcome to X.com

[X only] X Chief Says She Is Leaving the Social Media Platform

[X only] X Brings 'Articles' That Lets You Post Long-Form Content

[X only] Elon Musk announces free premium features for X Accounts with over 2500 verified subscribers

[X only] How to control your new audio and video call privacy settings on X

[X only] Grok will be available to X Premium Plus subscribers next week: Elon Musk

[Both] X, formerly Twitter, opens job search function to all users

[X only] X gives free blue ticks to its most popular users

[X only] X is shutting down Circles

[X only] X removes support for NFT profile pictures

[X only] X Removes Pronoun Display Options on User Profiles

[Neither] Elon Musk wants to build a digital town square. But his debut for DeSantis had a tech failure

[X only] Musk's X Corp loses lawsuit against hate speech watchdog

[Twitter only] Here's What Action Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Others Are Taking During Russia-Ukraine War

[X only] Influencers On X Profiting From Fake News On Israel-Gaza War: Report

[Neither] Antisemitic and Anti-Muslim Hate Speech Surges Across the Internet

[X only] X ad boycott gathers pace amid antisemitism storm

[X only] Accounts peddling child abuse content flood some X hashtags as safety partner cuts ties

[X only] X sues Media Matters over report about ads appearing next to Nazi posts

[Twitter only] Know Your Twitter Terms: 'Block' vs. 'Mute'

[Twitter only] 13 reasons to mute people on Twitter

[Twitter only] Now every Twitter web user can 'soft block' annoying followers

[Twitter only] Using Twitter with Your Phone

[Neither] There's a List for That

[Neither] The tricky business of business tweeting

[Twitter only] Twitter quote tweets are now easier to find

[Twitter only] Twitter Officially Launches Its 'Retweet With Comment' Feature

[Twitter only] Twitter officially kills off favorites and replaces them with likes

[Twitter only] 9 Things You Need To Know About Twitter's Massive Redesign

[Neither] Diese Tweets wurden am häufigsten geteilt

[Twitter only] Download the free Twitter app | Twitter

[Twitter only] The edit button may finally be coming to Twitter. Here's when you'll be able to use it

[Twitter only] Twitter: How To Set Up Your Account

[Twitter only] Raise Your 'Hashflags': Twitter Reintroduces World Cup Hashtags

[Twitter only] Twitter hashflags call out support for the Asian American community: Thursday Wake-Up Call

[Twitter only] Twitter's Branded Emojis Come With a Million-Dollar Commitment

[Twitter only] Twitter is testing a way to let you limit replies to your tweets

[Twitter only] Twitter will let you change who can reply to a tweet after you post it

[Twitter only] Coming soon to Twitter: More room to tweet

[Twitter only] Twitter eases 140 character limit

[Twitter only] Twitter redesigns replies so usernames don't count against the 140-character limit

[Neither] Giving you more characters to express yourself

[Twitter only] Twitter Blue users can now post tweets with up to 4,000 characters

[Twitter only] About Twitter's Link Service

[Twitter only] Links and Twitter: Length Shouldn't Matter

[Twitter only] Twitter Tightens Grip on Own Firehose

[Twitter only] Twitter now with integrated photo-sharing service and completely new twitter search

[Twitter only] Twitter photo sharing goes live for all users

[Neither] Accessible images for everyone

[Twitter only] Twitter rolls out its ALT badge and improved image descriptions

[Twitter only] Your Twitter Feed Is About to Be Flooded With Polls

[Twitter only] Twitter quietly deletes millions of accounts from the old text message days

[Twitter only] Twitter turns off its original SMS service in most countries

[Twitter only] Twitter and CBS News to partner for live stream of Republican and Democratic National Conventions

[Twitter only] Twitter plans to broadcast live video 24 hours a day

[Twitter only] Twitter buys NFL streaming rights for 10 Thursday Night Football games

[Twitter only] Twitter still thinks it's a TV platform — and here are its dozen new shows

[Twitter only] Twitter Pushes Live-Video Deals With MLB, National Football League, Viacom, BuzzFeed, Live Nation, WNBA and More

[Twitter only] Twitter is finally letting everyone create Spaces

[Twitter only] Twitter starts testing its own version of Stories, called 'Fleets,' which disappear after 24 hours

[Twitter only] Twitter brings Fleets to India, for 'those uncomfortable with public tweets'

[Twitter only] Twitter Launches Disappearing 'Fleets' Globally After Tests In Select Markets

[Twitter only] What Twitter Fleets signals about the future of the company

[Twitter only] Twitter's Fleets are getting Stories-like ads

[Twitter only] Twitter is shutting down Fleets, its expiring tweets feature

[Twitter only] Twitter Lists!

[Twitter only] Twitter gets a new 'List Search' feature; Know what it is all about

[Twitter only] How to create a Twitter List (and join others)

[Twitter only] Meet Moments, Twitter's Most Important New Feature Ever

[Twitter only] Twitter launches Moments, its dead-simple tab for browsing the best tweets

[Twitter only] Twitter opens its Moments feature up to everyone

[Twitter only] Algorithmic Amplification of Politics on Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter's algorithm favours right-leaning politics, research finds

[Twitter only] Twitter apps for phones, tablets and computers

[Twitter only] Twitter Lite is a faster, leaner mobile web version of Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter launches a 'lite' mobile web app that's optimized for emerging markets

[Both] Twitter Blue Seemingly Getting X Rebranding

[Both] X (Twitter) Blue is Dead, Welcome X Premium • iPhone in Canada Blog

[Twitter only] Twitter launches its premium subscription, Twitter Blue, initially in Canada and Australia

[Twitter only] Twitter will now let you pay to undo tweets and read ad-free news in the US

[X only] Elon Musk unveils new sarcasm-loving AI chatbot for premium X subscribers

[Twitter only] Twitter discontinues ad-free articles for Blue subscribers

[Twitter only] Elon Musk will let you pay $8 to be a verified 'lord' on Twitter

[Twitter only] Elon Musk's $7.99 Twitter Blue with verification is 'coming soon' on iOS

[Twitter only] Can an $8 Twitter subscription bail out Elon Musk? Let's look at the numbers

[Twitter only] Twitter seemingly now requires all advertisers to have a verified checkmark

[Twitter only] Elon Musk delays $8 'blue check' Twitter verification plan until after the midterms

[Twitter only] Twitter quietly drops $8 paid verification;

[Neither] Musk says

[Twitter only] Elon Musk's first big Twitter product paused after fake accounts spread

[Twitter only] Elon Musk relaunches Twitter Blue with higher price for iPhone users

[Twitter only] Schrödinger's blue check: According to Twitter, I may or may not be notable

[Twitter only] Twitter to start phasing out legacy verification system on April 1, but not all will lose blue checks

[Twitter only] Twitter to Revoke 'Legacy' Verified Badges in April, Leaving Only Paying Subscribers With Blue Check-Marks

[Twitter only] Twitter finally removes legacy verification check marks

[Twitter only] Elon Musk says verified Twitter accounts are now prioritized, whatever that means

[Twitter only] Elon Musk says verified Twitter accounts are now prioritized, whatever that means

[Twitter only] Twitter to prioritise replies from followed and verified users

[Twitter only] Twitter rolls out paid subscription 'Super Follows' to let you cash in on your tweets

[Twitter only] Twitter Super Follows has generated only around $6k+ in its first two weeks

[Twitter only] Twitter replaces 'Super Follows' with 'Subscriptions'

[Twitter only] Twitter is testing a new Tip Jar feature for sending money to your favorite accounts

[Twitter only] You can now get paid in bitcoin to use Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter starts launching Ticketed Spaces for some iOS users

[Twitter only] Twitter, Stripe pilot cryptocurrency payments for creators

[Twitter only] Twitter pilots a new shopping section for brands

[Twitter only] Twitter begins testing 'Shops' feature to grow ecommerce

[Twitter only] Walmart will be the first retailer to test Twitter's new livestream shopping platform

[X only] Elon Musk's X partners with Visa on payment service in an effort to become an 'everything app,'

[X only] X Money to revolutionise payments and creator opportunities in 2025, says CEO Linda Yaccarino - CNBC TV18

[X only] Elon Musk's X begins its push into financial services with Visa deal

[X only] Elon Musk's X partners with Visa to move into financial services—and no, it's not for crypto (yet)

[Neither] Global Social Networks Ranked by Number of Users

[Twitter only] Twitter is now losing users in the U.S.

[X only] Elon Musk Says X Now Has 600M Monthly Active Users

[X only] Musk Says X Has 600 Million Monthly Active Users

[Neither] You can now customize your For You feed on Threads using swipes

[Twitter only] Who's Driving Twitter's Popularity? Not Teens

[Twitter only] Inside Twitter – An In-Depth Look Inside the Twitter World

[Twitter only] Who Uses Twitter?

[Twitter only] Why So Many Black People Are On Twitter

[Twitter only] Why Is Twitter More Popular With Black People Than White People?

[Twitter only] Twitter has 100 million active users

[Twitter only] Twitter Reports First Quarter 2014 Results

[Twitter only] Twitter, Inc Common Stock

[Neither] Social Media Update 2016

[Twitter only] Sizing Up Twitter Users

[Twitter only] Twitter Study – August 2009

[Twitter only] Twitter:

[Neither] or peripheral awareness + social grooming?

[Twitter only] Seeking and Sharing: Motivations for Linking on Twitter

[Twitter only] 44 Percent of Twitter Accounts Have Never Tweeted

[Neither] Share of U.S. adults using social media, including Facebook, is mostly unchanged since 2018

[Neither] Many Twitters Are Quick Quitters: Study

[Twitter only] Twitter Is Not America

[Twitter only] Twitter seeks to settle 2016 class action lawsuit for $800 million

[X only] Threads is tracking to surpass X in daily active users

[Twitter only] Who Made That Twitter Bird?

[Twitter only] Twitter's Logo Is Named After Larry Bird

[Twitter only] No flipping the bird! Twitter unveils strict usage guidelines for new logo

[Twitter only] Twitter's bird logo gets a makeover

[Both] Twitter rebrands to X as part of Elon Musk's plan to create an 'everything app'

[Twitter only] Twitter logo change: Five facts about the now-dead Twitter blue bird

[Both] Musk Declares Fan-Submitted 'X' New Twitter Logo in Abrupt Shift

[Both] The logo of X, formerly Twitter, wasn't actually stolen

[Neither] 𝕏

[X only] X

[Both] From Twitter to X: Elon Musk Begins Erasing an Iconic Internet Brand

[Both] App Store users are downrating Twitter's rebranding to X with 1-star reviews

[Both] Twitter's 'X' Rebrand Is Elon Musk's Most Desperate Gimmick Yet

[Twitter only] Twitter Unveils 'Promoted Tweets' Ad Plan – Twitter To Let Advertisers Pay for Tweets To Appear in Search Results

[Twitter only] Twitter Debuts 'Promoted Tweets' Ad Platform

[Neither] Photo agency's CEO addresses TwitPic controversy

[Twitter only] Twitter Ad Revenues to Grow 210% to $139.5 Million in 2011

[Twitter only] Twitter Will Automate Ad-Buying by the End of the Year

[Twitter only] Twitter opens self-service ads to everyone

[Twitter only] Twitter Rolls Out Promoted Tweets for Mobile

[Twitter only] Twitter Is Helping Brands Drive Conversations With Instant Unlock Cards

[Twitter only] Twitter bans Russian government-owned news sites RT and Sputnik from buying ads

[Twitter only] Twitter Bans Ads From Russia Today and the Sputnik Network, Citing Election Meddling

[Twitter only] Twitter Bans Political Ads on Its Platform, Pressure Up on Defiant Facebook

[Twitter only] Twitter allows US political candidates and parties to advertise in policy switch

[Neither] Political Content

[Twitter only] Twitter bans 'misleading' ads about climate change

[X only] X's Sales Pitch: Give Us Your Ad Business or We'll Sue

[Twitter only] Twitter fined $150m for handing users' contact details to advertisers

[Twitter only] Twitter to pay $150 million fine over deceptively collected data

[X only] EU hits Elon Musk's X with 120 million euro fine for breaching bloc's social media law

[X only] Elon Musk's X bans European Commission from making ads after €120m fine

[Twitter only] How Twitter tweets your tweets with open source

[Neither] The Pied Piper of Pay

[Twitter only] Twitter on Ruby

[Neither] New Tweets per second record, and how!

[Neither] Announcing Starling

[Twitter only] Twitter on Scala

[Twitter only] Twitter Search Is Now 3x Faster

[Twitter only] How Twitter scaled its infrastructure to handle record tweet-per-second days

[Twitter only] Twitter API Wiki / FrontPage

[Twitter only] Introducing the Twitter API

[Neither] Ruby on Rails Tutorial (Rails 5)

[Twitter only] Twitter's 10 Year Struggle with Developer Relations

[Twitter only] Twitter Launches Countdown to OAuthcalypse

[Twitter only] Twitter to launch URL shortener and may block TinyURL and bit.ly

[Twitter only] Tweetro says it's 'completely crippled' by Twitter's strict 100,000 user token limit

[Twitter only] Twitter API Changes Set Maximum User Cap for 3rd Parties

[Twitter only] Twitter Handcuffs Client Apps With New API Changes

[Twitter only] Twitter introduces a new, fully rebuilt developer API, launching next week

[Twitter only] Twitter wants to win back developer trus

[Twitter only] RIP Third-Party Twitter Clients

[Neither] Twitterrific: End of an Era

[Twitter only] Twitter is shutting down its free API, here's what's going to break

[Twitter only] Twitter introduces Innovators Patent Agreement, vows not to abuse patent system

[Twitter only] Twitter / OpenSource

[Neither] Open Source Thanks

[Neither] Open Source

[Neither] Search: Stars>1

[Twitter only] Source code for Twitter's Recommendation Algorithm

[Twitter only] A new era of transparency for Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter takes its algorithm 'open-source,' as Elon Musk promised

[X only] X's 'open source' algorithm isn't a win for transparency, researchers say

[Twitter only] Twitter says portions of source code leaked online | CNN Business

[Twitter only] A Brief History Of Twitter's Many Redesigns

[Twitter only] Take a Tour of the New Twitter

[Twitter only] Here Comes the New Twitter.com

[Twitter only] The New Twitter Is an Attack on All Desktop Apps

[Twitter only] Twitter app and website redesign: hands-on pictures and video

[Twitter only] Twitter Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew and Urdu version launch

[Neither] Supported languages and browsers

[Twitter only] Twitter redesign makes more of photos

[Twitter only] Twitter is killing off its Discover tab

[Twitter only] Twitter replaces the Moments tab with Explore

[Twitter only] Twitter tests new desktop layouts

[Twitter only] Progressive Web Apps moving mainstream as Twitter makes its mobile site the main one

[Twitter only] Twitter is changing Twitter.com to be more like mobile app

[Twitter only] Twitter desktop redesign adopts some of its mobile app's best features

[Twitter only] Twitter, Feds Settle Security Charges – Twitter Must Establish and Maintain a 'Comprehensive Information Security Program' and Allow Third-Party Review of the Program Biannually for the 10 Years

[Twitter only] Twitter Warns news Organisations Amid Syrian Hacking Attacks

[Twitter only] Twitter adds two-step verification option to help fend off hackers

[Twitter only] Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, Apple, and others hacked in unprecedented Twitter attack

[Twitter only] Hackers Tell the Story of the Twitter Attack From the Inside

[Twitter only] FBI Investigates Twitter Hack Amid Broader Concerns About Platform's Security

[Twitter only] Twitter confirms zero-day used to expose data of 5.4 million accounts

[Twitter only] Twitter Confirms Data Breach That Exposed Data Of 5.4 Million Users; Attackers May Still Have Data

[Twitter only] Twitter confirms zero-day used to access data of 5.4 million accounts

[Twitter only] Twitter admits to data breach exposing contact info for 5.4 million accounts

[Neither] Fail Whale

[Neither] Tweet, Tweet – There's Been an Earthquake

[Twitter only] La vera storia della balena di Twitter

[Twitter only] Oh, fail whale, you are making my website fail. No more wordpress-twitter-crossposting

[Twitter only] Killing the Fail Whale with Twitter's Christopher Fry

[Twitter only] Twitter Growing Pains Cause Lots of Downtime in 2007

[Neither] MacWorld

[Twitter only] MacWorld Brings Twitter to its Knees

[X only] X outage: Elon Musk's site is down, here's what we know

[Neither] Not Playing Ball

[Twitter only] Why Twitter Verifies Users: The History Behind the Blue Checkmark

[Twitter only] Twitter Launches Verified Accounts

[Neither] About verified accounts

[Neither] Announcing an Application Process for Verified Accounts

[Twitter only] Twitter opens verification to all

[Twitter only] Twitter Unveils Exclusive Feature For Verified Users

[Twitter only] Twitter Wants to Use Wikipedia to Help Determine Who Gets a Blue Checkmark

[Twitter only] Twitter is launching its new verification policy on January 20th

[Twitter only] Twitter is planning to start charging $20 per month for verification

[Twitter only] Twitter's new gray

[Neither] checks are rolling out to some high-profile accounts

[Twitter only] Twitter 'Official' gray check mark returns, now that 'Verified' is meaningless

[Twitter only] Twitter now lets businesses handle their employees' blue ticks, for a hefty price

[Twitter only] Twitter launches Blue for Business, grants gold checkmarks to 'corporate entities'

[Twitter only] Icelandic MP Fights US Demand for Her Twitter Account Details

[Twitter only] How to Hide Your Followers & Who You Are Following on Twitter | The Classroom | Synonym

[Twitter only] Twitter Privacy Policy

[X only] We read X's new privacy policy so you don't have to

[Neither] Advertisers Are Watching Your Every Tweet

[Twitter only] Twitter Power Players Get Shiny 'Verified' Badges

[Twitter only] Twitter Subpoena

[Twitter only] Twitter Inc., Unknown Posters Sued by Athlete Known as 'CTB' at U.K. Court

[Twitter only] Twitter users served with privacy injunction

[Twitter only] Twitter's European boss Tony Wang gives legal warning

[Twitter only] Twitter chief hints he may have to divulge users' names

[Twitter only] Twitter Buys Dasient Security Startup To Combat Spam

[Twitter only] Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

[Twitter only] Twitter Blog – Tweets still must flow

[Twitter only] Twitter Blocks Germans' Access to Neo-Nazi Group

[Twitter only] Twitter removes French anti-Semitic tweets

[Twitter only] Twitter Is Trying to Block Images of James Foley's Death

[Twitter only] Twitter policy on media concerning a deceased user

[Twitter only] Ireland to become privacy regulator for 300 m Twitter users

[Twitter only] Twitter notifies users that it's now sharing more data with advertisers

[Twitter only] Twitter is fighting election chaos by urging users to quote tweet instead of retweet

[Twitter only] Retweets are back to normal as Twitter ends its quote tweet experiment

[Twitter only] Twitter fined $150m for handing users' contact details to advertisers

[Neither] Social media companies engaged in 'vast surveillance,' FTC finds, calling status quo 'unacceptable'

[Neither] The FTC says social media companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves

[Twitter only] Twitter's Tony Wang issues apology to abuse victims

[Twitter only] Of Pride, Prejudice and Harassment on Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter updates its rules for users, after uproar over rape, bomb threats

[Twitter only] Twitter announces sweeping update to reporting, blocking tools

[Twitter only] Building a safer Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter unveils new tools to fight harassment

[Twitter only] Twitter Gives Harassed Users a Little Ammo

[Twitter only] Twitter Inc (TWTR) Could Use Gamergate Autoblocker Model To Block Millions of Fake Accounts?

[Twitter only] Blocked on Twitter: Software's limits in the fight against online hate

[Twitter only] One Woman's New Tool to Stop Gamergate Harassment on Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter CEO: 'We suck at dealing with abuse'

[Neither] Profitable Provocations

[Twitter only] Announcing the Twitter Trust & Safety Council

[Twitter only] Is Twitter's Trust & Safety Council a Front for Censorship?

[Twitter only] Just Another 'Black Box'? First Thoughts on Twitter's Trust And Safety Council

[Twitter only] Did Twitter's Orwellian 'Trust and Safety' Council Get Robert Stacy McCain Banned?

[Twitter only] Twitter bans 7,000 QAnon accounts, limits 150,000 others as part of broad crackdown

[Twitter only] Twitter's new Safety Mode autoblocks abusive accounts

[Twitter only] Twitter launches Super Follows and Safety Mode

[Twitter only] Revived lawsuit says Twitter DMs are like handing ISIS a satellite phone

[Twitter only] Lawsuit Blames Twitter for ISIS Terrorist Attack

[Twitter only] Can Twitter Be Liable for ISIS Tweets?

[Twitter only] Twitter is not legally responsible for the rise of ISIS, rules California district court

[Twitter only] Fields v. Twitter, Inc

[Twitter only] Twitter Suspends Russian Satirical Accounts, Raising Free Speech Questions | News

[Twitter only] Twitter unblocks spoof Putin account after widespread criticism

[Twitter only] Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code

[Twitter only] Twitter suspends 235,000 accounts for extremism

[Twitter only] Twitter suspended over 1.6 lakh terror-promoting accounts in six months

[Twitter only] Twitter suspensions for promoting terrorism drop yet again

[Twitter only] Twitter's User-Reported Violations Jumped 19%—but the Number of Accounts Punished Dropped

[Twitter only] Twitter reports fall in extreme content

[Twitter only] Twitter has suspended more than 166,000 accounts related to promotion of terrorism

[Twitter only] Twitter will block links promoting hate speech and violence

[Twitter only] Twitter bans 70,000 QAnon accounts as conservatives report lost followers

[X only] Elon Musk's X Settles Trump Lawsuit

[Neither] It's not just the Russians anymore as Iranians and others turn up disinformation efforts ahead of 2020 vote

[Twitter only] Twitter to add labels to U.S. political candidates

[Twitter only] Twitter to verify election candidates in the midterms

[Twitter only] Twitter and Facebook remove accounts in interference crackdown

[Twitter only] When U.S. blamed Saudi crown prince for role in Khashoggi killing, fake Twitter accounts went to war

[Neither] Understanding Global Disinformation and Information Operations: Insights from ASPI's new analytic website

[X only] X rolls out 'About this account' feature that displays a profile's country of origin and more

[X only] X to combat bot problem by showing more info about users

[X only] X launches transparency feature revealing account history, location and username changes

[X only] X's new location feature sparks controversy, but is the data reliable?

[X only] 'Based in Russia': What X's new location tool does and doesn't reveal

[Twitter only] The Rise Of Twitter Bots

[Twitter only] Bot or Not? Researchers make an app to sniff out bots on Twitter

[Neither] I Flirt and Tweet. Follow Me at No. Socialbot

[Twitter only] Twitter Admits 5% Of Its 'Users' Are Fake

[Twitter only] #IAmSpartacus campaign explodes on Twitter in support of airport joker

[Neither] Scottish newspaper identifies injunction footballer

[Neither] GCHQ leak lists UK cyber-spies' hacking tools

[Neither] JTRIG Tools and Techniques

[Twitter only] Facebook and Twitter uncover Chinese trolls spreading doubts about Hong Kong protests

[Twitter only] Hong Kong protests: Twitter and Facebook crack down on

[Neither] accounts linked to China

[Neither] Information operations directed at Hong Kong

[Twitter only] China cries foul over Facebook, Twitter block of fake accounts

[Twitter only] China Resists Charge by Twitter, Facebook of Disinformation Effort

[Twitter only] Ankara reacts to Twitter's move to suspend accounts

[Neither] How Turkey's Earthquake Response Failed Its People

[Twitter only] Police in India visited Twitter offices over 'manipulated media' label

[Twitter only] Twitter loses immunity over user-generated content in India

[X only] X sues government for using IT Act to block content, says arbitrary censorship

[Neither] Pentagon Ran Secret Anti-Vax Campaign to Undermine China during Pandemic

[Twitter only] Twitter's sensitive media policy | Twitter Help

[Twitter only] How Twitter is becoming more like OnlyFans – and what that means for users

[Twitter only] How Twitter's child porn problem ruined its plans for an OnlyFans competitor

[Twitter only] Sex Workers Worry They're Going to Be Purged From Twitter

[Twitter only] How Twitter's child porn problem ruined its plans for an OnlyFans competitor

[Twitter only] Twitter Faces Claim It Benefited From Child Sex Trafficking

[Twitter only] Doe v. Twitter, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 3d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2021), Court Opinion

[Twitter only] Exclusive: Brands blast Twitter for ads next to child pornography accounts

[Neither] Grok Makes Sexual Images of Kids as Users Test AI Guardrails

[Neither] Musk's AI chatbot faces global backlash over sexualized images of women and children

[X only] Musk's Grok AI Generated Thousands of Undressed Images Per Hour on X

[X only] Hundreds of nonconsensual AI images being created by Grok on X, data shows

[X only] X's Grok used to undress Bollywood actors, female social media users through photos

[Neither] Elon Musk's Grok AI generates images of 'minors in minimal clothing'

[Neither] Woman felt 'dehumanised' after Musk's Grok AI used to digitally remove her clothes

[Twitter only] Web 2.0 Emergency Applications: How Useful Can Twitter Be for Emergency Response?

[Twitter only] Twitter becomes a tool for tracking flu epidemics and other public health issues

[Twitter only] Finding Fires with Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter earthquake detection: earthquake monitoring in a social world

[Twitter only] A social network analysis of Twitter: Mapping the digital humanities community

[Twitter only] Some general comments on the 'Twitter Experiment'

[Twitter only] Can we use Twitter for educational activities?

[Twitter only] When talking less is more: exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large-lecture hall

[Twitter only] The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades: Twitter and student engagement

[Twitter only] Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success

[Neither] Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?

[Twitter only] The Use of Twitter in the Creation of Educational Professional Learning Opportunities

[Twitter only] Twitter on the Barricades: Six Lessons Learned

[Neither] The Policy Sciences of Social Media

[Neither] Mira Gonzalez And Tao Lin's Selected Tweets Is Deeper Than It Seems

[Twitter only] Rick Moody's Twitter Short Story Draws Long List of Complaints

[Twitter only] The Impact of Twitter on Journalism | Off Book

[Twitter only] How has Twitter changed news coverage?

[Twitter only] Twitter Is Not as Important as Journalists Make It Seem

[Twitter only] Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?

[Neither] Most major outlets have used Russian tweets as sources for partisan opinion: study

[Neither] In the Scripted World of Diplomacy, a Burst of Tweets

[Neither] Queen's first tweet

[Neither] Twiplomacy Study 2013 – International Organisations

[Twitter only] The reason why the Pope has a Twitter and not a Facebook account

[Twitter only] Russia blocks Facebook and Twitter access

[Twitter only] Religion, Twitter and freedom: A peaceful explosion

[X only] Brazilian judge orders suspension of X in dispute with Elon Musk

[Twitter only] China blocks Twitter, Flickr, YouTube and Hotmail ahead of Tiananmen anniversary

[Twitter only] Iraq Crisis: Twitter, Google, YouTube and Facebook Blocked by Government to Stop Isis Plotting

[Twitter only] Nigeria suspends Twitter after president's tweet was deleted

[Neither] Challenging the access ban in Turkey

[Twitter only] Venezuelans Blocked on Twitter as Opposition Protests Mount

[Neither] Turkmenistan country profile

[Neither] How Israel is trying to enforce gag orders beyond its borders

[Twitter only] Turkey top country seeking removal of content on Twitter: Report

[Twitter only] Turkey had highest request for content removal on Twitter

[Twitter only] United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism: Testimony of Sean J. Edgett, Acting General Counsel, Twitter Inc

[Twitter only] Govt tells Twitter to block accounts inciting anti-India content using Kashmir

[Twitter only] Twitter removes almost 1 million tweets in Kashmir, accused of bowing to Indian censorship

[Twitter only] Twitter Launches Tor Onion Service Making Site Easier to Access in Russia

[Twitter only] Twitter is launching a Tor service for more secure and private tweeting

[X only] X blocks 8,000 accounts in India under government order

[X only] Wishy-washy age verification system puts X in the spotlight

[Twitter only] Twitter just suspended over 88,000 accounts tied to a Saudi disinformation campaign

[Twitter only] Twitter's Powerful Move Silences 175,000 Chinese And Russian Fake News Accounts

[Neither] Disclosing networks of state-linked information operations we've removed

[Twitter only] Twitter suspends government-run accounts in Cuba

[Twitter only] Twitter removes accounts linked to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other countries

[Twitter only] Twitter removes hundreds of accounts it says are linked to Iran, Russia, Armenia

[Twitter only] 200 accounts suspended over Kashmir reported to Twitter

[Twitter only] Twitter Blocks Accounts in India as Modi Pressures Social Media

[Twitter only] Twitter suspends accounts defending Duterte's COVID-19 response – report

[Twitter only] EmTech Stage: Twitter's CTO on misinformation

[Twitter only] 'We're Back.' Far-Right Groups Celebrate Elon Musk's Twitter Takeover

[Twitter only] Days before the midterms, Twitter lays off employees who fight misinformation

[Twitter only] Twitter ends Covid misinformation policy under Musk

[Twitter only] Twitter pulls out of voluntary EU disinformation code

[Twitter only] Twitter's 'Birdwatch' looks like a new attempt to root out propaganda and misinformation

[Twitter only] Twitter launches Birdwatch, a fact-checking program intended to fight misinformation

[X only] Elon Musk's Main Tool for Fighting Disinformation on X Is Making the Problem Worse, Insiders Claim

[Twitter only] Twitter introduces aliases for contributors to its Birdwatch moderation program

[Twitter only] Twitter to show 'Birdwatch' community fact-checks to more users, following criticism

[Twitter only] Twitter will start showing crowd-sourced fact checks to some users

[Twitter only] As Ukraine misinformation rages, Twitter's fact-checking tool is a no-show

[Neither] Moderating with the Mob: Evaluating the Efficacy of Real-Time Crowdsourced Fact-Checking

[Twitter only] Twitter is expanding its experimental community moderation system

[Twitter only] COVID misinfo is the biggest challenge for Twitter's Birdwatch program, data shows

[Twitter only] Twitter's new Community Notes feature lets people add context to tweets

[Twitter only] Elon Musk said Twitter's Birdwatch feature will be renamed 'Community Notes' and is aimed at 'improving information accuracy' amid growing content-moderation concerns

[Both] Avec les 'notes de communauté', Twitter (X) marche sur les pas... de Wikipédia

[Twitter only] I spent one week as an 'arbiter of truth' on Twitter's 'Community Notes' service

[Neither] Supreme Court sidesteps ruling on scope of internet companies' immunity from lawsuits over user content

[Neither] Supreme Court Leaves 230 Alone For Now, But Justice Thomas Gives A Pretty Good Explanation For Why It Exists In The First Place

[Twitter only] Twitter Agrees to Pay $809.5 Million Settlement in Shareholder Growth Lawsuit

[Twitter only] Twitter will pay $150 million for using people's security phone numbers to target ads

[Twitter only] Twitter sued over short-notice layoffs as Elon Musk's takeover rocks company

[Twitter only] Twitter sued by workers over impending layoffs they say are illegal

[X only] Elon Musk's X sues Media Matters over antisemitism analysis

[X only] Musk's X accuses advertisers of boycotting platform in new lawsuit

[Neither] About GARM – World Federation of Advertisers

[Twitter only] Twitter ordered to pay record €550,000 to senior executive in Ireland

[X only] Musk's X Ordered to Pay Compensation to Dismissed Irish Employee

[X only] X ad boycott gathers pace amid antisemitism storm

[Neither] Antisemitic and Anti-Muslim Hate Speech Surges Across the Internet

[Twitter only] The Twitter Standards of Hate

[Twitter only] The Twitter Standards of Hate

[Neither] Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, started calling itself 'MechaHitler'

[Neither] 'Improved' Grok criticizes Democrats and Hollywood's 'Jewish executives'

[Neither] Selfie at Oscars breaks retweet record

[Neither] #BBCtrending: Selfie at Oscars breaks retweet record

[Twitter only] Ellen DeGeneres' Selfie at Oscars Sets Retweet Record, Crashes Twitter

[Neither] Oscars 2014, the year of the selfie: Ellen tweet grabs retweet record

[Neither] @carterjwm 👆 It's official. Carter, your Tweet is the most Retweeted of all time. #NuggsForCarter

[Neither] The 20 Most-Retweeted Tweets

[Neither] Balse Festival: Japan

[Twitter only] airing breaks Twitter record for tweets per second

[Twitter only] How an Old Japanese Anime Broke a Twitter Record

[Neither] Fans in the Philippines & around the world sent 41M Tweets mentioning #ALDubEBTamangPanahon

[Twitter only] 'AlDub' breaks FIFA World Cup's Twitter record

[Twitter only] #BBCtrending: Brazil's World Cup thrashing breaks Twitter records

[Twitter only] Fastest time to reach one million followers on Twitter

[Twitter only] Caitlyn Jenner smashes Twitter world record, reaching a million followers


Summary counts:

X only: 54

Twitter only: 368

Both: 20

Neither: 90

Names in Source Titles
CategoryCount
Twitter only
368
X only
54
Both
20
Neither
90

HenryMP02 (talk)01:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, but worth saying a non-insignificant amount of those references were published/accessed pre-name change.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)01:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this data does much for the name change question without dates. Obviously, material written before Elon Musk announced a name change will not refer to the new name.Dustinscottc (talk)01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with the two comments above. I prefer to see links to actual articles, and preferably articles published within the past three months.Some1 (talk)02:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a link,WP:NAMECHANGES doesn't count sources before the name change, so this can be a red herring as obviously a source about Twitter's founding from like 2015 isn't going to use X.HurricaneZetaC15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMECHANGES gives "extra weight" to sources after the name change. Though I agree with your point that sources written before the change can't use the new name.HenryMP02 (talk)17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The whole report is pointless. The references used on the Wikipedia article are not a good sample (besides the presence of sources from before the renaming, there may be multiple souces from a same publisher, and reliable publishers who have not been cited). The tites are worse, a bad sample of an already bad sample, as the title alone may not follow the same rules as the news piece itself (I mean,all those sources should mention either Twitter, X or both; the idea that 90 of them do not use either one seems ludicrous). I would prefer to remove the table or hide it in the collapsible box, as it is it's a giantRed Herring.Cambalachero (talk)00:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, this report provides little assistance in determining whether the article should be renamed. Its statistical value would be limited even if time-trend analyses were sensibly derived from publication dates. But given the extended period since the platform's rebranding, it would be reasonable to expect the article title to reflect this by using a more neutral formulation, such as "X (formerly Twitter)". —Epipelagic (talk)08:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing concern

[edit]
Thumbs up icon The nom gave a satisfactory explanationHenryMP02 (talk)08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in thisdiff,User:Dustinscottc pinged24 editors regarding this RM, on a subpage for the pro-name-change side. Is thisWP:VOTESTACK?HenryMP02 (talk)01:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure about the others, I put myself on that list.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, I put{{Not a vote}}.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)02:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After further reading, that diff was from 3 months ago. If he were to votestack, he would've pinged everyone again. Given how there was a 6 month moratorium that just ended, it's safe to assume that those pings were just for workshopping that subpage.EatingCarBatteries(contribs |talk)02:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this.Dustinscottc (talk)02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well.OmegaAOLtalk?02:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I pinged those users for assistance in drafting the RM back in October. It makes no sense to ping everyone who was ever involved in discussions over the proposed move when the explicit intent of the subpage was to draft a complete proposal to move. Inviting people opposed to the move would have largely defeated the purpose of preventing yet another round of back and forth arguments. The pings were in conjunction with a message on the talk page announcing the sub-page so that anyone interested would at least be aware. Given that months transpired between the pings and the actual RM, it's hard to see how I could have been votestacking for a proposal that was three months in the future.Dustinscottc (talk)02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn'twhen the pings occurred, but how they were targeted. You selectively pinged editors to favor your desired outcome. That fits the definition ofWP:CANVASS regardless of whether it occurred closer to drafting or the RM itself. The fact that the subpage was framed as pro-move does not exempt you from neutrality concerns when notifications are sent to a curated audience.HenryMP02 (talk)05:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All the editors who I know are on that list added their names themselves, including me and u/EatingCarBatteries. I can't speak for the others but I assume that the case is the same.
I highly doubt the intention was to ping.OmegaAOLtalk?05:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the diff. 22 editors, not 24 - my mistake.HenryMP02 (talk)05:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. However this was many months before the move request, and none of the concerned editors have responded thus far, except me and EatingCarBatteries. It is acceptable to ping editors to collaborate on a move draft, which is what was done. (also, it's 22, not 24)OmegaAOLtalk?05:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I sure did selectively ping editors. But I wasn’t calling them to an RM. I was seeking contributions to a sub-page that explicitly had a specific point of view. I wasn’t asking them to “vote” in a discussion, and any potential “vote” was still months away. So, no, it’s not WP:CANVASS. But if you’d like to complain about me to an admin, go right ahead. The remedy is still not to disregard the discussion in this RM. I should add that the selectivity was not based on the editor’s point of view, but rather whether the pinged editor had previously said something that I thought was useful to the draft. Obviously my criteria tended to bias a specific point of view, but as I recall (again, this was more than three months ago) I included some people who were neutral or even had been opposed to a move in the past.Dustinscottc (talk)05:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.HenryMP02 (talk)08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this concern a month ago; however, since I noticed that the possible canvassing occurred many months ago, I decided it wasn't worth drilling into.InfiniteNexus (talk)03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of editors supporting:opposing

[edit]

I know this isWP:NOTAVOTE, but it's still interesting to see that, unlike any other rename or split proposal in the history of this article, there are far more people voting to move the article than to split or to keep combined (the ratio of move to split/keep is 20:7). I think this shows that the situation has changed quite a bit in the last year.

For those editors who would claim this is a result ofWP:CANVASSING, note that none of the 'canvassed' editors have participated in this discussion as of yet.OmegaAOLtalk?06:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note:WikiProject Freedom of speech,WikiProject Apps,WikiProject Websites,WikiProject Brands,WikiProject Internet culture,WikiProject Computing,WikiProject United States,WikiProject California,WikiProject Internet, andWikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force have been notified of this discussion.TarnishedPathtalk11:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda surprised that they were not notified from the start. --Super Goku V (talk)22:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bay Area Task Force?
What does a company headquartered in Balstrop, Texas have to do with the Bay Area??OmegaAOLtalk?02:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OmegaAOL, are you joking, serious, or making a point that the Bay Area Task Force part is outdated? --Super Goku V (talk)02:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The latter.OmegaAOLtalk?03:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If the California WikiProjects are still interested in the article, then I guess it is what it is. Similar for the apparent disinterest from any Texas related WikiProjects. --Super Goku V (talk)05:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I actually think this very renaming might be the nail in the coffin that makes the California WikiProjects disassociate from this article.OmegaAOLtalk?07:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@OmegaAOL I'm late here, but the script that does this notifies all the wikiprojects that have banners at the top of this article, below where it saysThis level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.HurricaneZetaC21:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's just surprising thay the Bay Area wikiproject maintains interest in this article.OmegaAOLtalk?23:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are getting very close to bludgeoning territory and I would advise you to stop.Esolo5002 (talk)12:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was just an innocuous observation. No call for concern. I also think there is a widespread misunderstanding of what bludgeoning means on Wikipedia but that's besides the point.OmegaAOLtalk?12:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this shows that the situation has changed quite a bit in the last year" is clearly an argument. You have responded to almost all of the comments opposing your postition. Your opinion is known. Let others speak.Esolo5002 (talk)13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I didn't mean for the post to come across that way, so shall I remove that last sentence?OmegaAOLtalk?16:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RM has been open for less than a day. Any discussion of numbers and proportions is still highly premature.Cambalachero (talk)13:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP&redirect=no
Forumshopping. This counts.Reader of Information (talk)22:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree because Twitter is just misleading.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLSPARK (talkcontribs)23:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact we are on our 13th RM on a single topic is crazy.

[edit]

People seriously need to wait like two years before doing another one. Nothing is going to change overnight and at this point, it's going to be considering what is that policy that forces a decision? Agh. Anyways. That policy.Reader of Information (talk)22:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is crazy that it has taken 13 RMs to get to a point where people are willing to accept the name change.Dustinscottc (talk)23:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we move it, people will be unhappy and start an RM. If we don't move it, people will be unhappy and start an RM. This will never end. ―Howard🌽3323:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When, not if, the page is moved to 'X (social media)' that will probably end the RM deluge. For a long time it was 'too soon' for the move, but now, as I mention above, the name Twitter is becoming antiquated (and is likely there already). Once that occurs there will likely not be a serious RM to return the former name.Randy Kryn (talk)01:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the previous RMs had a wrong outcome. It very well could be that this RM succeeds, but only because the RS landscape has finally shifted enough to justify it.StereoFolic (talk)19:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Booth can be true.. I'd argue that a move has been needed since late 2024.OmegaAOLtalk?20:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been nearly a year since the last requested move. In any case, the systematic stonewalling of change regarding this article's name is a problem. When more than half of X related published articles do not contain the word "Twitter", using the legacy name reflects poorly on what is supposed to be the world's most up-to-date encyclopedia.OmegaAOLtalk?05:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't "supposed" to be the most update to date, merely free. one only needs to look at the thousands of articles with outdated tags to see that. regardless i too do like the idea of spliting the article into pre X and post X. we do this with some mergers(like whenSquare merged withEnix to formSquare Enix),Datsun being the old name forNissan might be a better example.Akaibu (talk)08:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to it in the context of traditional encyclopedias which usually have editions published every few years.OmegaAOLtalk?10:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy

[edit]

The fact that it takes so incredibly long for -adult- Wikipedia editors to agree or disagree that a social network changed its name more than a year and a half ago is the height of bureaucracy. Whether I watch the news, read it, or whatever, X is always formally used. This discussion has gone too far, in my opinion. A split is best because there's a before and after Twitter. Twitter as we once knew it no longer exists and will never return. Philosophically, that's the transience of life and everything that exists. And that's okay.Coldbolt (talk)13:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sign of immaturity among editors or the failings of a bureaucracy. Twitter was Twitter for over a decade, and it is now officially X. There are multiple (rather contentious) problems with this decision on a surface level that have gradually developed over the past few years, not the least of which was the initial refusal of news sources to refer to it as such, which has all but subsided at this point. Whether the current state of affairs justifies the article being moved or split to X or similar is being decided upon right now in a very reasonable manner, and that is not a bad thing; there is nothing to lament over here because it is simply a civilized discussion, a debate. I think that complaining about such a discussion isn't productive, it contributes nothing, and remarking that it is some amusing example of the "height of bureaucracy" is a rather hypocritical display of your own immaturity. —rae5e <talk>19:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikpedia is aWP:LAGGING indicator. We do not set trends; we follow them. And we do not look into aWP:CRYSTALBALL.InfiniteNexus (talk)05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Still ongoing discussions.LuniZunie(talk)07:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Too many sources use both names interchangeably to split, and some sources are starting to prioritize "X"

[edit]

X/Twitter had an outage earlier today, and there are multiple sources showing that both names get used interchangeably in articles (not just "X (formerly Twitter), but also using "X" in one sentence and "Twitter" in another sentence in the exact same article). The split votes saying that Twitter and X are "different websites" are not supported by sources. The majority, if not all, of the below sources are all unique sources independent from one another, all of whom seem to agree that X and Twitter are indeed the same site. All of the below sources are also from earlier today, February 16, 2026, so they all indicate that recent sources do not consider them to be separate websites.

  1. APP:Why is X down right now? Is Twitter back up? Some report issues
  2. Mens Journal:Is X (Twitter) Down? Social Media Platform Facing Major Outages
  3. AOL:X down: Twitter not working in major outage
  4. Mashable:Was Twitter down? What users reported: Thousands reported problems with X this morning.
  5. Cincinnati.com:Is Twitter down? Users report issues with X. Here's what to know
  6. Yahoo Canada:Is Twitter down? Updates on X outage on Monday, Feb. 16
  7. Indy100:Is Twitter/X down? Elon Musk's site suffers outage
  8. The Independent:X down: Twitter not working in major outage
  9. Economic Times:X outage today: Is Twitter down and when will X be back up?
  10. Mirror:X down LIVE: Twitter suffers worldwide blackout as Elon Musk's app crashes

About half of these sources list "X" before "Twitter", and the other half list them the other way around. Before considering these as weakening move votes, there are some sources that only use "X" in the title, but mention its former name "Twitter" in prose:

  1. Variety:X Goes Down: Social Media Site Not Working for Thousands of Users Worldwide ("X, the social networking site formerly known as Twitter, was yet again suffering from technical problems Monday preventing users from accessing the service.")
  2. CalCalistech:X down: Social network back online after suffering major global disruption ("Social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, suffered outages globally on Monday.")
  3. USA Today:Is X down? Thousands of users report issues with social media app ("At 8:30 a.m. ET on Monday, more than 41,000 users reported issues with X, formerly known as Twitter, according to Downdetector")
  4. Daily Commercial:Is X down? Users report issues with social media app on Presidents' Day ("On Monday, Feb. 16, 2026, or Presidents' Day holiday, over 40,000 X users reported issues with Elon Musk's social media site formerly known as Twitter")
  5. India TV:X witnessed short outage in India and this could be the real reason ("X.com, formerly known as Twitter, was down for a while in India, from around 7PM IST to around 7:30PM IST.")

And here's some that exclusively calls it X:

  1. Forbes:X Back Up After Several Disruptions Monday.
  2. Times Now News:X Down Right Now? Users Say App, Website Not Working
  3. Toms Guide:X was down — here's what happened during the massive outage
  4. Mint:X down in United States right now? Over 41,000 users report disruptions - Check current status here

I do still support a move, but that really comes down to how most of the oppose votes are also split votes, which contrary to the RM initiator I find to be extremely weak rather than "strong". This is not akin to a sports team changing locations and name, because to my knowledge sources don't consistently liken sports teams to their old location to the same frequency they liken X to its old name. They are the exact same website excluding owners, and this fact is supported by sources. The tipping point for going from status quo to rename is that now some sources are starting to only use "X" in the tile and only mention "Twitter" in prose.Unnamed anon (talk)22:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2026

[edit]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

In the outages section, please add the ongoing one.[13]~2026-10434-29 (talk)14:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Edit requests are for specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)14:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter&oldid=1338817003"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp