DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Can we shut up about the X thing already

[edit]

I’m so tired of these posts telling us to change it to X. Why isn’t there a bot that automatically removes them? Literally EVERYDAY there’s a new post in this talk page. I wish the whole “twitter/x” controversy ended immediately because it’s so stupid. X is and will always be stupid… 2A02:C7C:3917:BA00:95C6:3017:D870:8E3C (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. X is dumb. But it IS X now. And I feel like the platform has changed enough that it shouldn't still be referred to as Twitter. And, you know, calling it its old name is kinda... lying? So... TiggiePops (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter what the official name is. What matters is what name is the most common. Twitter is by far the most common. It's ridiculous we have to go through this basically every month. Thankfully, we do have that moratorium in place now — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Twitter is not the most common name as used in reliable sources. I will be submitting clear evidence of this when I get the time. Also, by my count, the moratorium is no longer in place. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times, 9 July 2025. “X chief says she is leaving the social media platform”
”Over the past few days, a version of the AI built into Musk’s X social media platform praised Adolf Hitler and provided antisemitic responses to multiple prompts from X users. In response, xAI, which owns X, announced Tuesday it would be taking action to “to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X.” On Wednesday, Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X, announced she is leaving the company but did not elaborate on her reasoning or plans.”
- WIRED, 10 July 2025, “Elon Musk Unveils Grok 4 Amid Controversy Over Chatbot’s Antisemitic Posts” https://www.wired.com/story/grok-4-elon-musk-xai-antisemitic-posts/
The platform is called “X” in any and all legitimate contemporary publications. 2601:340:8200:57C0:A4D0:A9C3:326D:7323 (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Twitter is by far the most common.
Not according to reliable sources. To verify this, search for News hits for "on Twitter", and "on X", respectively. You will get more hits for X. Following that, click on the Twitter ones and then count how many are using it in "X (formerly Twitter)" and how many are using it as just Twitter. OmegaAOL (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually do it the other way around. Check how many uses of "X" there are and then check how many of those say "X (formerly Twitter)" rather than just X. ~2025-40752-25 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's stupid, most primary, secondary, and tertiary sources now call it X. OmegaAOL (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just let Twitter die already... TiggiePops (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. Twitter is dead. Let it rest. TiggiePops (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Can’t we just change it already… It is getting boring watching people having pointless debates over this when it is, and has been for a while now, X. Prof. J 13:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the sentiment for updating the article to reflect the company's official rebranding is noted, the tone and specific phrasing of this request are highly suspect. The repetitive use of psychological buzzwords like "childish," "emotionally immature," and "personal comfort zones," coupled with the straw-man argument about "spreading false information," reads less like a genuine Wikipedia editor and more like a language model's synthesis of common online debate tropes.
A seasoned contributor would likely reference the relevant style guides and naming policy discussions that have already taken place, rather than framing opposition as a moral or psychological failing. The assertion that dissent is inherently "petty" or based on "hypocrisy" ignores the complex, consensus-driven process that actually governs such decisions on Wikipedia. This post follows a predictable pattern of stating a position as an obvious fact while aggressively pathologizing any counterpoint, a known hallmark of LLM-generated argumentation. If this was written by a human, it's a poor facsimile of constructive encyclopedia editing. Vrilliann (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we deadahh using ai for our arguments on hawk bruh ~2025-38663-37 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally X, and here's why. Twitter and X are fundamentally different platforms. I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here, but I'm not the one to decide that. Twitter's policies and X's policies are so different, it's like asking why the Willis Tower article isn't called the Sears Tower. Chicagoans all call it the Sears Tower, but for some reason, Wikipedia decided otherwise. Rc2barrington (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone stills calls it the Sears Tower because that's what it's known by. So by the "it should stay Twitter" argument, the article should be renamed Sears Tower. But it shouldn't, because that isn't its official name. I guess this could also apply to Big Ben, but "Great Clock of Westminster" is so unknown nobody will look for that, but people will look for Willis Tower or X. And the more time we move away from Twitter, the less it will be referred to as Twitter. TiggiePops (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will still push that we really need to sepearate Twitter from X, that while they are effectively ly the sand service, the number of changes and commentary on those changes with X make X vastly different from Twitter, and that would also resolve the naming issue. But that can't be pushed until the moratorium is over. Masem (t) 14:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone treat the moratorium like it is a commandment from on high? Some admin just decided to tack it onto the close of a discussion with zero attempt to determine a consensus to do so. My attempts to overturn it were overwhelmingly met not with agreement that there is a consensus to keep the moratorium in place, but with "this isn't the right forum" or "there is no consensus to overturn", with the latter lacking any appeal to policy or the best interests of the encyclopedia. It has been eight months since this matter was last given a fair shake. Those who have opposed the change need to quit stonewalling. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP has no deadline, so there should not be considered any time requirement to change the name. Second, when X was first proposed, there were move requests happening nearly back to back, which was considered disruptive. The moratorium is to allow time to pass so that sourcing can be reassessed six months from the last attempted move request, so that we're not bludgeoning this page with the same move requests without any significantly new evidence to support the move. We don't want disruption like that on WP, hence why we need to wait until its over. Use the time to build a strong case to suggest a move or split or whatever. Masem (t) 13:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it has been eight months since the last substantive discussion that wasn't shut down immediately. And a substantive move request with significant new sourcing is ready to go. The fiction that a moratorium is somehow binding or even official policy is preventing a substantive discussion. The moratorium is the disruption. Dustinscottc (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dustinscottc's points 100%. This is my first time wandering into this talk page, as I (like many, many previous users) stumbled onto the page and thought it was odd that it was still named Twitter. The discussion in August did not substantively re-visit the topic, and besides was still within the previous "moratorium" window. The moratorium should not have been extended, and I suggest that this topic officially be re-opened for discussion. I think there is credible evidence that the majority of reliable sources now refer to the subject as X, so previous consensus may no longer be valid and WP:NAMECHANGES should be freshly considered. RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I was trying to remember when Twitter became X and was actually surprised it was only 2+ years ago. Anyway, I was definitely surprised that it's still called Twitter.
The best way to determine the true common name is polling, but a quick search turned up no recent polls. Our next best is to rely on major media outlets, which overwhelmingly refer to X (sometimes with the former name parenthetically).
And in this most recent discussion, we're no longer seeing good arguments in favor of keeping Twitter. I understand the moratorium is in place, but it seems like it was imposed in bad faith in the first place. And, yes, I know I'm supposed to assume good faith. I just don't see it.
heat_fan1 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atp it's just people don't want to let go of the past or something TiggiePops (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not for or against one way vs the other, however, I want to bring to all concerned editors' attention to the following updated guidance provided by the AP Style Guide on referring to the platform X.
AP journalist Seung Min Kim tweeted the following update to the AP Stylebook:
"An update to the@APStylebook: On first reference, refer to the platform as X, formerly known as Twitter. The term tweet remains acceptable ... Also acceptable is phrasing such as posted on the X platform, formerly known as Twitter. On later refs: the X platform or X."
Her Tweet can be found here!
NPR did some expanded reporting on the change which I have linked here! I will highlight one part of the article in particular:
"Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked that people not refer to their church as the Mormon church or the LDS church. In 2019, The Associated Press Stylebook updated its entry to note that request; however, AP Style encourages writers to connect the more formal name to the familiar reference, "When using the church's full name, include a short explanation such as, the church, widely known as the Mormon church ..."
With both X and the church, clarity drives the language that journalists use. When the terms come up in a news story, journalists want to make sure the audience knows exactly what organization they are talking about."
Do with this information what you will! Keep up the great work everybody!
MiddleMac (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited reference is now more than two years old. Do you have any resources indicating whether the AP style guide still recommends "formerly Twitter"? The best I have is this link that indicates the AP Stylebook changed recently to drop the “formerly Twitter” recommendation. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly has been updated. I just don't have the stylebook subscription so I couldn't fully confirm it myself. MiddleMac (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a pretty good consensus to change. Anyone want to do the formality stuff? Rc2barrington (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a single admin, without seeking or achieving a consensus, declared a moratorium until February. Evidently, that is enough for other admins to shut down any discussion until then, and no one is willing to entertain a challenge to that moratorium because everywhere in the "wrong forum". If you want to start a discussion to get a consensus that the moratorium should end, I would be in full support, but I'm not going to do it because I don't want to be accused of being unable to drop the stick. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's so frustrating -MiddleMac MiddleMac (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People keep asking for the title of the article to be changed to X because that is what the topic of the article is actually called. The platform has not officially been named Twitter since July 2023. The current title is outdated by over two years. Even if the majority of users, or Wikipedia admins in this case, still refer to it as Twitter does not mean they are correct. ~2025-37211-29 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for X remains the twenty-fourth letter of the Latin alphabet. If and when a RM is raised for this RECENT platform, it should propose a qualified title, probably an existing redirect such as X (social network)X (social network). Certes (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing the lead sentence (but NOT THE ARTICLE TITLE) based on a consensus in the last discussion

[edit]
  • Four people spoke in favour, and three provided a detailed reason. One person opposed, providing a reason of their own. It has been nearly 20 days since I proposed this and only 1 person has opposed it.
  • The moratorium is on the article name (its title), not the lead sentence. I am keeping the article as Twitter, just changing the lead sentence on which there is no moratorium.
  • Such a change is compliant with MOS:SYNONYMS.

If any of you oppose this change in particular, feel free to form a new consensus. OmegaAOLtalk? 01:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That change violations MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. The title of the page needs to be listed first. Masem (t) 02:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem how so?
"Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold: Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra." Both Twitter (the first occurence of the Title, and an alternative name) and X (a non-title, primary name) name were in bold in my edit. Your revert has continued to keep both X and Twitter bold without unbolding anything, just changing the order.
Also, the title of the page being listed first has nothing to do with the policy you quoted... For example, look at Kanye West. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be in the order presented, title then alt names. This also feels like an indirect way around the move request even though it is not a move request, and basing such a change on only 4 response is not sufficient for consensus. Masem (t) 02:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:
> They need to be in the order presented, title then alt names
but you quoted MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which does not mention that clause.
> basing such a change on only 4 response is not sufficient for consensus.
Fair, but it's been some time since I raised the topic and there doesnt seem to be much responses, indicating this is not a very busy page. OmegaAOLtalk? 03:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> This also feels like an indirect way around the move request even though it is not a move request
again, Kanye West OmegaAOLtalk? 03:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the notion that they need to be in the same order? I support putting X first, by the way. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One person opposed, providing a reason of their own, but has not replied to further questioning. There was no further questioning. None of your last responses to me included questions. I took it that you had a difference of opinion.
One of the replies in favor was an AI-written paragraph by a single-purpose IP.
Now there is Masem here on the "oppose" side as well, and they also cite policy.
Even more severe is that despite the declaration that "THIS IS NOT A MOVE REQUEST!!!", the moratiorium still exists against "all discussion about the article name" until February. This is really infringing upon the spirit of that moratorium, even if you make the argument that this change is not to the title it's just to what we call the subject. And you yourself explained the motivation for this change as a useful half-measure that will make it easier to form consensus on a move. So it really is intertwined.
feel free to form a new consensus: I challenge that the consensus was reached the first place. I urge you to please self-revert. HenryMP02 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HenryMP02: Hello! I just saw this and wanted to reply. I'd request you to read and respond to this before taking any action.
  • There was no further questioning. None of your last responses to me included questions. I took it that you had a difference of opinion. You are right. I do not remember why I said this. I will update my previous statement accordingly.
  • One of the replies in favor was an AI-written paragraph by a single-purpose IP. AI-written (I suspect AI-"refined") or not, IP edit or not, it still makes a valid, although rude point: the name has changed in common usage.
  • Now there is Masem here on the "oppose" side as well, and they also cite policy. To be fair, Masem cited MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which has really nothing to do with whether the article title should be the first word or not. Neither the previous nor the current state of the article violate that policy.
  • the moratiorium still exists against "all discussion about the article name" until February This is correct, however...
  • This is really testing the bounds of that moratorium, even if you make the argument that it's technically not over the about the name it's just about what we call the subject. ...those are indeed two different things that require two different moratoriums and are generally addressed in two different discussions. See Kanye West, where a RM failed to move the article to Ye, but a later consensus was reached to have the first word of the article be Ye. The wording of the moratorium is 'article name', and I am indeed not interested in entertaining any discussion about changing the article name until February or if the moratorium is overturned.
  • I challenge that the consensus was reached the first place. Broad consensus wasn't reached, but there was still a consensus reached where four supported (three providing reason, two of those giving a WP:CIVIL reason) and one opposed (also providing a WP:CIVIL reason). If you disagree with this point, please reply to me below and I will consider your point of view.
  • And you yourself explained the motivation for this change Correct, yes, such a change would lessen inertia to later push an RM once the moratorium expires. I am still respecting the moratorium, and I have provided other valid reasons as to why I support this change that are not the former.
OmegaAOLtalk? 07:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how many editors have weighed in on and even edit-warred over this exact thing, I don't think that messy discussion above produced anything coming close to constituting an overriding consensus. Consensus is not a vote, and some weight must be given to previous discussions and the long-standing state of the article. It's certainly bad form to put notices everywhere about how this now the consensus when it's clear you directly favored making this change. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Dylnuge.
  • constituting an overriding consensus I am not over-riding anything. A discussion on this particular topic has not been held before. This is not an over-riding consensus.
  • Given how many editors have weighed in on and even edit-warred over this exact thing I was actually very careful to check for requests like mine and there weren't any. Just about moving the article, or spinning it off, etc. This is actually the less controversial change because there is actually precedent for not moving an article, while changing its first word to the new name of the subject.
  • Consensus is not a vote I actually mentioned this fact in my poll: Support or oppose below. Reminder that consensus is not counted by vote
  • some weight must be given to previous discussions Yes, I completely agree with that statement.
OmegaAOLtalk? 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence and the title aren’t the same thing. The fights over the title cannot be form the basis of concluding a consensus or a lack thereof on the first sentence. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. OmegaAOLtalk? 14:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this exact thing I was referring to the lead sentence. The archives for this page are large, so no harm in not knowing there were past discussions, but see Talk:Twitter/Archive_11#Changing_the_lead_sentence., for instance. It's also worth noting that consensus doesn't require talk page discussions and it is normal to reach consensus through editing alone; the first sentence was fought over a lot before settling into its current form.
It is inappropriate to claim a consensus on wording from a discussion with low participation, add a bunch of notices in an attempt to codify it, and edit war over keeping your preferred wording. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was more than a year ago. Consensus can change. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war is not undertaken by only one person. Is not the opposing side also enforcing their ideal without any form of consensus, let alone our minor one? OmegaAOLtalk? 06:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I disagree with your statement that MOS:BOLDALTNAMES applies here. I'll put an (obviously) incomplete list of articles where the bolded part of the first sentence is not only not the article title, but in some cases the article title isn't even bolded in the first sentence at all: Ariana Grande, Kanye West, Lady Gaga, and more.
There is nothing in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES that requires the article title to be presented first in the lead - much less that it is required to be bolded (though in this case bolding Twitter in the first sentence is appropriate). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this; it is much closer to usage in most sources these days (when they even bother to mention the former name at all). Crossroads -talk- 22:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between this page and MS NOW? And why I think the current "consensus" and the moratorium are no longer valid

[edit]

Genuine question. This page is still named Twitter, even though the social network changed name to X over two years ago.

Meanwhile, MSNBC was moved to MS NOW after 18 hours.

Separately, a number of the reasons given for not moving this page to X (social network) or whatever are clearly now no longer the case or are invalid:

  • WP:COMMONNAME - A majority of WP:RS use X as the name, not Twitter. A small number of them may state "X (formerly Twitter)", but X is still the primary name used. See examples: BBC (1), BBC (2), Variety, Reuters, NBC News, CNN, ABC News US, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, so on and so forth.
  • WP:NATURAL - I don't even think this argument is reasonable. Natural disambiguation, as I read it, 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').
  • WP:MORATORIUM - First of all, this is an essay - not a policy or guideline. That's made clear at the very top of the page. There's also no basis for a moratorium. The essay states that "[...] administrators closing the discussion may, based upon sentiments expressed in the discussion or an express request, impose a moratorium on future efforts to repeat the failed proposal for a period of time". There were no sentiments, nor express requests, in the most recent move request which triggered the moratorium. Therefore, the moratorium should be removed.
  • On my observations, a number of users have been straight-up unreasonable and acting like petulant children. Saying "idc musk bought it its still twitter" (or, for that matter, "its x now not twitter so change the name") is not an actual argument or position. Unfortunately, it seems some admins have taken petulance and turned it into consensus in some instances. I had a WP:ESSAY up on this earlier but I can't find it any more. Regardless, there's no use plugging your ears and not listening to people.

For the record, I would be considered 'left-leaning' (if you believe in that 'political scale' BS, which I don't) - but it's hard for this website to shake the perception of bias it has when there's such clear differences between the treatment of one business's rebrand versus the other. Luminism (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally contesting that move right now on that article's talk page. The move was wrong. Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bias. The page hasn't changed due to bias both among editors and the few administrators who view this talk page. The moratorium was incorrect, and I encourage you (or anyone else) to challenge it via due process. OmegaAOLtalk? 01:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, not everything is a conspiracy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a conspiracy. It's painfully obvious. I am a social progressive and elon hater myself but we can't oppose the broad consensus of reliable sources and what not. OmegaAOLtalk? 04:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the article should be called "X" instead of the former "Twitter", and I think the reason why it's still called Twitter is because of WP:COMMONNAME being used as an excuse for people to spread their personal views/opinions everywhere.
If you still want to call X Twitter, then I wouldn't mind that but maybe keep your subjective opinions off an objective fact site like wikipedia, as it could still damage the credibility as a reliable information hub to read and learn things from.
TL;DR: The page should be called X instead of Twitter as that is what the sources call it, and the only reason why it's still called Twitter is because of editor Bias.
Semi-related but I only support WP:COMMONNAME when the executive person (President, CEO, Prime minister, etc) involved explicitly calls themselves by that said Common name (Like for Taiwan, I see the official accounts call themselves by X on official accounts and websites, but Erdogan and the Turkish people of Turkey desire for their country to be called "Türkiye" and in this case, Elon Musk would want the majority of sources to recognize his platform as "X.")
GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the name should probably be changed but I think the moratorium is ultimately a good thing. It lets the topic get some cool down and also allows time to elsewhere prepare a thorough case for why the name should be changed, rather than a slew of poorly done requests that just lead to frustration and ultimately backfire. Crossroads -talk- 22:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"About this account" feature and foreign interference in political discourse

[edit]

The above is a list of sources considered WP:GREL. Currently, I added to Twitter#Malicious and fake accounts a basic description of the feature, but did not mention it supposedly showing many political accounts being foreign-based,.

In November 2025, Twitter began displaying various information on user accounts for transparency such as location, history, and username changes to combat bots and other malicious accounts.

Per the sources, it seems that Engadget, The Register, and The Indian Express only discuss the feature itself and are technology-oriented.

The Verge does discuss the political nature of this a bit in the first article by mentioning the social media outrage, but in the second articles, attributes it more to inaccuracies rather than foreign interference (though with some nuance). The Jerusalem Post mostly talks in regards to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which per the perennial sources list should be treated with caution, though they do dedicate three sentences to right-wing and MAGA accounts.

IMO, since any claim along the lines of "Twitter reveals many accounts on American politics are operated by foreign nationals" is extraordinary per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I don't think there currently is enough sourcing thus far. John Kinslow (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Useable sources The Guardian, UPI Masem (t) 01:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are great sources! I would be fine if a line or two was added regarding MAGA X accounts, though ideally attributed to "liberal influencers such as Harry Sisson" John Kinslow (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this make more sense to be in the Twitter under Elon Musk article? ~2025-33494-05 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a nomination for this news at In the News but the discussion was shut down in just 11 minutes! Some folk want to keep this quiet...
FYI, I tried testing the feature myself and found that the WMF's location is shown to be Germany. I suppose this is due to the influence of staff like Erik Möller.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small changes to ‘for you’ feed on X can rapidly increase political polarisation

[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In their own words...

[edit]

From [1]:

Pages 15–18 then spends nine paragraphs listing examples of continued use of Twitter to refer to X, both by the general public and the company themselves. We must thank them for doing all the work for us!

There you have it — they said it themselves: "Twitter" is the COMMONNAME, and will remain so for the forseeable future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a reliable source per WP:LAWBRIEF. Second, and more importantly, some persistent use of a name, particularly a trademark, is not the standard under WP:COMMONNAME. That standard is “the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources).” If Wikipedia were to keep an article at a company’s or brand’s old name so long as the company protected its trademark in its old name, WP:NAMECHANGES would be practically meaningless, as companies routinely protect their old marks, even after a name change. But that policy requires use of the new name if reliable sources routinely use the new name when discussing the topic in the present day. They do. Dustinscottc (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that by their own admission, millions of people continue to use "Twitter" to refer to "X", either because they continue to think of the platform as Twitter or are unaware of the rebranding. The first criterion of WP:CRITERIA says that an article title should be a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, not to mention the WP:NATURAL advantage. Therefore, "Twitter" is superior to "X" in terms of recognizability (and naturalness). InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there’s any doubt that “millions” of people use “Twitter” to refer to “X”. But even if we take at face value that the four million people who arrive at X by going to “twitter.com” are doing so because that’s how they refer to the site (rather than, say, because they have not updated their bookmarks on their browser), that’s for million out of 129 million active users. I don’t think 3% of users constitutes “most”.
Reliable sources no longer even include “formerly Twitter” when referring to X. A natural disambiguation doesn’t work if the name is completely different than the name used by reliable sources. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, paragraph 33 on page 19 claims over 400 million consumer searches for 'Twitter' per month. If you navigate to the nine paragraphs I mentioned earlier (beginning on page 15), paragraph 25 acknowledges that millions of consumers continue to refer to X as Twitter and refer to posts as tweets [...] both the media and X Corp. itself refer to the social networking platform as 'X (formerly Twitter)'; paragraph 30 discloses that third parties also use the Twitter Marks with the permission of X Corp. [...] and consumers and the media consistently refer to X Corp.'s core product as Twitter and its posts as tweets; and paragraph 31 admits the continuing popularity and use of Twitter is readily apparent and often the subject of reporting—both on television and in the media. For instance, the popular Netflix television show Running Point starring Kate Hudson joined in the conversation this year, with consumers aptly agreeing with Hudson's co-stars that they'll 'never stop calling it Twitter'. News reports have also reported on the continued brand presence and importance of the Twitter name to X Corp. and its X platform in articles such as 'One year later: Why 89% of brands still call it Twitter', and '2 Years After Elon Musk's X Rebrand: Why 55% of Americans Still Call It "Twitter"'. Like I said, they basically did all the research for us in support of "Twitter" remaining the common name after the rebrand. I don't think you would get very far by arguing that "Twitter" is no longer a recognizable name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All interesting facts. None provide strong evidence that Twitter is the name most often used in reliable sources. No one denies that a significant portion of users and media figures still sometimes refer to X as Twitter. That's not the standard. If it were, Wikipedia would have articles for the Sears Tower, MSNBC, the Staples Center, etc. If you're going to insist on using an unreliable source, the least you could do is use it to support the actual standard. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are outliers, not the norm. If we're playing the "OSE" game, there are plenty of examples to the contrary: Kanye West, Turkey, Dunkin' Donuts, Blackwater (company), Grauman's Chinese Theatre, Facebook Messenger, History Channel, Ivory Coast, Boy Scouts of America, Angel Studios, Business Insider (until they changed their name back because their rebrand didn't stick), Department of Defense, Kennedy Center, etc. I didn't respond to your "unreliable source" argument earlier because it was textbook WP:WIKILAWYERING (and by the way, the link is to an essay, which has no official authority), but since you've mentioned it again, I'll bite: nobody is advocating for this law brief to be used as a citation on actual Wikipedia articles, nor to take its words as gospel; it has the same level of "reliability" as a primary source, which was my whole point: even the company themselves acknowledges the lasting common usage of the name "Twitter". Furthermore, if you are under the impression that we are required to use the most common name in all circumstances, I advise you to review WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A natural disambiguation typically applies to cases where a word can be added outside of parentheses to the common name or where one of the names is nearly as common as the other but the more common name creates ambiguity. For example, we don’t fall back on “quicksilver” for the element mercury just because there is also a planet called Mercury.
Some of your examples illustrate this point fairly well. If avoiding a parenthetical disambiguation were as important as you’re making it, we could avoid the disambiguation between the bird and the country by calling the bird “Turkey” and the country “Türkiye”. Millions of people use Türkiye to refer to the country in English, but the majority of English-language reliable sources use “Turkey”, so that’s the name of the article.
Others of your sources illustrate the add-a-word-to-avoid-ambiguity approach. Angel Studios avoids ambiguity by adding a word to the brand name. Not coincidentally, that also matches the official name of the business (minus the “inc.”). It’s the same story for Facebook Messenger, Dunkin’ Donuts, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, and the History Channel. They are all variations on the current, official, and common name with some additional or slightly altered words to avoid ambiguity. Ivory Coast is simply the English translation of Côte d’Ivoire, which indicates a preference for English translations in article titles when the translated name is common.
None of those cases apply here. Twitter is simply the older name.
You did cite some cases where the older name applies, but again, those are starkly different circumstances. The Department of Defense and the Kennedy Center examples are also inapposite. Neither of those underwent an official name change as those names are set by Congress and, likely mostly because of that fact, major news outlets and other reliable sources have not begun to use “Department of War” and whatever the Kennedy Center is purported to be now.
I’m not sure why you included Boy Scouts of America, as the Wikipedia article is entitled “Scouting America”, despite “BSA” and “Boy Scouts of America” having much longer histories than Twitter and despite the fact that I’m sure if you polled a random sample of Americans, most who are familiar with the organization would refer to it as “BSA” or “Boy Scouts”, while a substantial number of people would be unaware of the official name change at all.
The only somewhat on-point examples you provided are Kanye West and Blackwater, but neither are analogous to the change we’re discussing here. Blackwater’s notability overwhelmingly arises from its involvement in the Iraq War, almost all of which was under the name “Blackwater”.
In the case of Kanye West, I think the name hasn’t changed for similar reasons as apply here, which is simply that the new name is stupid and acknowledging the name change requires an awkward disambiguation. However, there’s also much more evidence that reliable sources continue to refer to “Kanye West” not only in the first reference, but throughout the article. That has not been true of X since shortly after the rebranding, and it is less true now that almost all news sources have dropped the “formerly Twitter” from articles.
The name needs to be the name that is most used in reliable sources, a claim that is neither made nor proven in X’s trademark complaint (which is, I reiterate, not a reliable source). Dustinscottc (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to make this argument (preferably in condensed form) in a hypothetical future RM, but I and likely many other editors would disagree with your assertion that the examples I listed "don't apply here". There's nothing in WP:NATURAL that says the alternate name must be a variation on the current, official, and common name with some additional or slightly altered words to avoid ambiguity, nor that simply the older names are not allowed. Thank you for alerting me to the BSA article, which was unilaterally moved a couple weeks ago without an RM; I have reverted the WP:BOLDMOVE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
f you believe my assessment of your examples is incorrect, feel free to say why. Otherwise, you are basically arguing that WP:NATURAL doesn’t categorically prohibit using an old name despite a new name having become the WP:COMMONNAME, and so we must use the old name. You are treating WP:NATURAL as a command to avoid using a parenthetical disambiguation at all costs, and ignoring WP:NAMECHANGE, which requires using the new name if it is adopted by reliable sources. Dustinscottc (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would explain why, but since this is not an RM, I do not think that would be productive. But indeed, WP:NATURAL doesn’t categorically prohibit using an old name despite a new name having become the WP:COMMONNAME — it quite plainly states that if a title is naturally disambiguated, it is generally preferable to parenthetically disambiguated titles even if the latter is more common. Where does it mention anything about former names? I would also disagree that "X" has surpassed "Twitter" as the COMMONNAME, and would again point to the first point of WP:CRITERIA. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally preferable" is much weaker language than "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". And just because a policy says something isn't prohibited doesn't mean it is therefore mandated. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to say this, but you are once again attempting to use a technicality in a PAG to support your position, and there's no way to sugarcoat this critique (this is not to "shut down" discussion, as you asserted, but to demonstrate why this is not a sound argument and invite further discussion). First of all, I would like to point out that PAGs are never mandatory, and WP:IAR tells us that if following PAGs to the letter would produce an adverse effect, common sense should prevail. Secondly, WP:NAMECHANGES is a subsection of WP:COMMONNAME and should be read as a supplement to that section; the entire section discusses how to determine the common name after a name change and does not mention NATURAL at all, so there is no contradiction. (I think you've pointed out some ambiguity in the current wording of NAMECHANGES that could be refined, as it seems to suggest the name most used by reliable sources "should be used as the article title" when it should really say "should be considered the new common name", but the meaning becomes clear if you look at it in context.) There are always exceptions to every PAG, and WP:NATURAL states that an exception to COMMONNAME should generally be made if a naturally disambiguated alternative is available. You're picking on the word "generally" here to assert that it is weaker language than NAMECHANGES, but I would argue that is not the case. The word "generally" is there because, as I noted, there are always exceptions, so every PAG only applies "in general" whether this word is explicitly included or not. Thus, there is no conflict here because NAMECHANGES merely supplements or clarifies COMMONNAME, and NATURAL provides an exception to COMMONNAME, so the latter trumps the former unless you can offer a good reason to invoke the IAR exception to the exception. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're flipping the rule on its head. There is no need to invoke IAR because there is no rule mandating the use of a name that is used far less frequently in reliable sources as a disambiguation when that name is nothing like the common name. I've already explained why this is the case, and you have explicitly noted that you don't want to rebut that explanation, and you continue to claim that my invocation of the standards for these circumstances is a "technicality". Further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Dustinscottc (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that there is a rule mandating the use of a name that is used far less frequently in reliable sources as a disambiguation when that name is nothing like the common name. In fact, I agree that NATURAL is not a hard-and-fast rule that "mandates" the use of naturally disambiguated alternative titles, the same way COMMONNAME is not a hard-and-fast rule that "mandates" the use of the name most used by reliable sources. Both of these PAGs merely document the established consensus of the community, which is that the most common name should generally be used as the article title unless an exception should be made; one of these exceptions is if that if the most common name requires parenthetical disambiguation, then a naturally disambiguated alternative should generally be used instead. Your rationale to make an exception to the exception (i.e. to ignore NATURAL) is that the naturally disambiguated alternative does not resemble what you believe to be the more common name, but where do you see consensus (in the form of PAGs or precedent) that this must be the case? In your previous comment, you took advantage of the ambiguity in NAMECHANGES's wording and the presence of the word "generally" in NATURAL to assert that the former trumps the latter; this is a misinterpretation of PAGs, whether deliberate or otherwise, and I find it troubling if you continue to believe it is an invocation of the standards for these circumstances and that I am merely leveling baseless accusations against you with malicious intent. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did suggest that there is such a rule, and you continue to do so in this reply. By insisting that I’m pushing for an “exception to an exception”, you are treating WP:NATURAL as a mandate while in the same breath insisting that you’re not.
”Twitter” is not a good natural disambiguation of “X”. It is unlike any of the examples you provided or any of the examples in WP:NATURAL in that all it’s doing is retaining an old name. But there is already a consensus regarding what to do with a name change, which is change the name of the article if reliable sources adopt the new name as the common name. Which has happened. Overwhelmingly. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually check the document you linked before starting a discussion about it? Are you even aware what is it all about?
The startup "Operation Bluebird" claims that by rebranding itself into X, X Corp. has lost the trademark on "Twitter", "tweet", and the blue bird. They intended to launch a new social network, "twitter.new", that looks like the Twitter of old. So X Corp. filled a lawsuit, starting the "X Corp vs operation bluebird" case, mantaining that they still make active use of the Twitter brand. What you linked is X Corp.'s defense in the case, their arguments to retain the trademarks.
So, first, it is a primary source. It can only be used to detail the arguments of X Corp in the case, if we start an article about it, and nothing more. And second, it is not impartial over this topic. Of course that they would overdetail the strenght and active use of the trademark, with as much emphasis as they can place without falling into exagerations or lies, because that's what the case requires them to do. Cambalachero (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are suggesting that the evidence presented in the lawsuit has been falsified, which would be a serious charge, these are merely facts — why does it matter what prompted their disclosure? Of course, given that it is a primary source, we cannot use it in actual Wikipedia articles. But the fact that the company itself acknowledges that "X" continues to be widely referred to as "Twitter" is noteworthy for discussion, and assuming that the company is being truthful (and there is no reason to believe otherwise unless they have shady lawyers), it is further evidence that "X" continues to be widely referred as "Twitter". So it is a very good alternative name for "X" that satisifies multiple WP:CRITERIA. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The defense is only trying to settle that "Twitter" is still being used, that's what they need to do to hold the trademark, not that it is being used equally or more than "X", that's immaterial to the case.
To draw a comparison: "Captain Marvel" used to be a character from Fawcett Comics. They had to cease publishing it for many years because of a lawsuit, and when the trademark expired because nobody had used it for many years, Marvel Comics called dibs and created their own Captain Marvel, securing the trademark for themselves. They may have lost interest in that character at one point, because of superhero comic market dynamics, but then they introduced another Captain Marvel, and another after it (nowadays it's Carol Danvers, the one from the films), so the trademark stays at home. As for us, as you can see the Captain Marvel page is a DAB page, even if the trademark is firmly in the hands of Marvel Comics. Meaning: Wikipedia policies on who gets to have which name, and real-world policies over that same topic, are not necesarily the same. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the story behind Captain Marvel's naming rights. But we're not concerned with the purpose of presenting this evidence to the courts, we're concerned with the evidence itself. That evidence suggests that "Twitter" continues to be a commonly recognizable name used in reference to "X"; the circumstances in which this evidence came to light are irrelevant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]