This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
I've come across Draft:Tweet (Twitter), which has basically 10x the info here. Please merge the contents here and place the appropriate tags. Pinging draft creator @SWinxy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we prefer common nouns to proper nouns in parenthetical disambiguation as much as possible. See WP:NCDAB. The two capitalized "Tw"s in such close proximity within each other also looks a bit awkward to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the draft shouldn't be moved. This page was created in 2021 (as a redirect), whereas the draft was created in 2023; the page with the older history is typically retained. A HISTMERGE isn't possible due to the parallel histories, so our only option is to copy-and-paste the draft's contents and then tag both talk pages appropriately ({{merged-from}} and {{merged-to}}). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Alright. I just want my edits to appear in the page history ;w; SWinxy (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... it looks like the timestamps on the two pages don't actually overlap with each other, despite being edited concurrently. I don't know if a WP:HISTMERGE would still be approved, but you can try requesting it if you'd like. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't requested a histmerge in a while. I hope it's possible 🤞 SWinxy (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nit: there were actually two revisions that overlapped between the two pages. Since they were both by you and relatively trivial I just deleted them entirely and performed the merge anyway. I am personally not convinced that this really deserves its own article to begin with, but that's irrelevant now. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg pppery you're amazing. I didn't think it was possible! SWinxy (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Character limit" section, it says "Twitter announced that media attachments (images, GIFs, videos, polls, quote tweets) nor mentions in replies would no longer increase the character limit". I feel like the wording here is a bit awkward and confusing. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a disagreement in this article on whether or not to call the site formerly-known-as-Twitter Twitter or X. The article name is Twitter, and X (social network) is a redirect to it. There have been six move discussions according to Talk:Twitter, all resulting in the page not being moved. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, not how we refer to it in other articles, but it's generally the case that people write the common name for something. The contentious rebrand, a decade and a half into its existence which firmly established its name in pop culture, is annoying. We have three options: call it Twitter, X, or both.
Some publications from the past year+ have fully called it X (e.g. WaPo and NYT), while others still say "X, fka Twitter". I think X is a stupid name, so I'm vehemently against calling it simply "X" in the article. I'm down with calling it both, with a preference to saying Twitter before X because 'Tweet' and 'Twitter' are of the same bird-themed lineage. Pinging involved: InfiniteNexus, SuperMario231 64, Di, Matbla7, and TheMasterMind321. SWinxy (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that it may be appropriate to say X once, like "Twitter, officially known as X" for clarification, but to refer to it as X throughout the article doesn't really make much sense to me because X is not the name that most people recognize. X is the official name, but not what people call it, similarly to how we say Statue of Liberty rather than the official name (La Liberté éclairant le monde). Plus, if we called the website X in the article, for consistency we would have to follow the rebrand and say "posts" instead of "Tweets", since they are officially not called Tweets anymore. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tweet" is already a former name, so saying "a tweet is a post on X" would be anachronistic. While it isn't a requirement to use the actual title of an article when linking to said article, that is the usual practice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
