Talk:Twitter

Editing tweets

Does the article mention this anywhere, and if not, where should it?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Would be worth a mention in the 'Tweets' subsection, provided there's already proper coverage of it. I heard it was being beta-tested but is a full rollout confirmed? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll post the exact details.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Something that I didn't think about: Twitter Blue is referenced in a later section, so it is not to be assumed that anyone reading the article in order has seen it. I could try linking to the section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The edit feature is mentioned under Twitter Blue. Although it's possible that eventually it would be allowed for more users. My source said it could take 10 years.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Starlink Access

Musk discussed terminating free Starlink internet access he has provided for several months, and asked that the U.S. government fund access for Ukrainians. As of 10-26-2022, he had decided to continue providing free access. I believe that the article should be edited to reflect those statements. As it currently reads, those distinctions aren't made, and it gives the appearance that Musk was going to terminate all paid-for service to the area.

Please update the article to more accurately convey what has occurred with regard to Starlink access. 68.103.51.244 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitter new owner changed

The new owner of Twitter is now Elon Musk and most of employees got fired. Terminatorlord (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Owner is Now Elon Musk 42.105.164.54 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Twitter is owned by Twitter, Inc.. Elon bought Twitter, Inc. and is listed as the owner there. Terasail^[✉️] 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Twitter/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Multiple orange tags have persisted on this article. The "Society", "Technology and security", and "Appearance and features" sections in particularly are woefully out of date, and many sections either go into excessive or not enough detail. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of the 4 tags in the article, 2 were added less than 29 days ago and 1 was added without explanation. I don't see anything egregiously excessive at first glance. - LilySophie (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Not enough detail" shouldn't be a reason for delisting; the coverage just needs to be broad, not deep. I have no opinion on other issues, or whether this article merits delisting. DFlhb (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe It has been 18 days since this was opened. Any further comments? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does not mention Stan Twitter, and Black Twitter is only mentioned as a See also link. I know this article is long, but I think those two subjects deserve one or two sentences. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi ElijahPepe, this GAR has been open for three months. Please keep or delist the article (although with an important article like this I would have recommended a community reassessment). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

2001:569:7D7D:2400:2C57:60DA:D0F2:C36 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC) owner of twitter is Elon musk

 Not done Twitter is a service offered by Twitter, Inc.. Musk is the CEO of that company, not the service. --Masem (t) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Details relating to the company should be moved off here

This article should be about the service and service only, and while it is necessary to touch on, for example, Musk's acquisition, that should be presented as changes to the service Musk wanted and is now looking to implement, and does not need any further details of the acquisition. I would likely do this myself by this weekend. Masem (t) 00:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; the whole section is currently out-of-place. DFlhb (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

“Content moderation controversy”

The “Content moderation controversy” subsection needs to be rewritten. In its current state it is sloppily written and quite clearly critical in Wikivoice of its subject. Asperthrow (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If people put as much effort into [anything else] as they do adding random WP:RECENTISM cruft whenever any news reporter says anything, 80% of our articles would be featured-quality. Does no one see how silly it is to discuss a rumor (or a Musk "hype" tweet), mention criticism of Musk's "proposal", mention the next iteration of Musk's proposal, then the criticism of that new proposal, on repeat? What are we doing here? DFlhb (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t agree more. Asperthrow (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Article is too long

Note: this is also relevant to the GA Reassessment above.

This article has prosesize of 96kB. It is therefore WP:TOOBIG. This issue predates the unrelenting attempts to add Musk-related info. Editors should focus on removing cruft, and scrutinizing WP:DUEness and relevancy. Not everything that's been published in reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Adding the relevant tag. DFlhb (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Clearly we want to acknowledge that Musk bought Twitter, Inc., and intended/has since introduced planned changes to Twitter, but the deals of the acquisition are way beyond necessary here. Masem (t) 12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Get out the weedwacker. Facebook is similar size. Too many editors read something interesting about a subject and mistakenly believe that it's automatically encyclopedic solely because it comes from a reliable source. We need more good editors like the two of you to quickly catch and remove nonsense edits like that. Stoarm (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm flattered; and Masem very much deserves that compliment.

Since these are far from the only article with issues, I think it may be necessary to address this systemically. I've posted two proposals to the Village Pump (I count products and services as "company-related"). I doubt I'll have much time to help on this page, but editors who try to improve these articles face too much of an uphill battle; these articles likely have a far shorter half-life than articles on other subjects. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There's two key guidelines already in place: WP:RECENTISM in that short-term elements should not be elevated over long-term factors. And that we generally discurge "controversy" sections per WP:CRITS. This is not to say that a controversy section about Twitter isn't legit, but it should be well known, long-term ones and not those created from a short-term burst of negative feedback. Masem (t) 13:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are both essays, no? DFlhb (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, both essays, but they are considered generally valid. They are good reasons for trimming a lot of content. Masem (t) 14:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The best candidate for size reduction is no longer the acquisition section, but the Society section; if anyone's interested in tackling it, I'd suggest removing routine news coverage (what some journalists wrote), removing undue stuff (the Twitter poetry?), and basing it on scholarly sources. Finding highly-cited papers and major cultural trends (like Twitter becoming essential to political campaign) and covering them here (while removing most of the rest), will far be more effective than trying to make what we currently have more concise. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter, for better or worse, is one of the major influences on society, today, at least in the English-speaking world (and this is English-language Wikipedia). Most of the content in this article IS important. While I agree that the "Twitter" article is too large, most of the content IS important enough for a Wikipedia article.

Consequently, rather than simply taking a lazy, reckless "weed-whacker" approach to the problem, sections of this article should become Wikipedia articles of their own, under the same title (or nearly the same) as in the current parent article. A summary of the original section should remain, under its own title, with a link to the new "main article" containing the details.

If this was a 90K article about peanut shells, simple deletions would be appropriate. But this is about one of the principal political and social communications venues, and influences, of the 21st Century. Not something to toy with out of procedural fussiness.

~ Penlite (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's still several sections written "as it happened" and are too detailed in events when they can be reduced to high-level factors. Particularly in the controversy aspects. This is not "important" content for the level that WP should cover. Masem (t) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaisery (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by YangyangF (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

2FA outage

I feel like the 2FA outage from a while ago deserves a mentiom in the Outages subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iofr (talk • contribs) 12:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent Employee Mass-Unemployment

Very recently, a reported 75% of Twitter Employees have volunterily left twitter. Im curious on how we could add this into the article, as Im sure theres news publications of this. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There should be a ton of sources since, well, Twitter was basically dying last night so news places were going crazy. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is information that should be covered at Twitter, Inc., though a brief mention of this can be included here. Masem (t) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Need Clarification

@ User : LilianaUwU, why my edit was reverter even though I had given proper citation? I am okay with my edit being reverted but need to know the reason why the edit was perceived as disruptive? 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi It's mostly a manual of style thing. Other users aren't noted as having lots of fake followers, as it's a given that they all do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Can you split the section of these years? Here it is though:

From: 2014-2020

To:

• 2014–2017
• 2017-2020

This is the request I made for it to be edited. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? the 2014-2020 section is already not particularly large, why split it in half? Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you agree with this addition even though it is not large? -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:DD9D:F980:1B2C:6117 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)