Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

Elden Ring mention

Just wanted to ask if the inclusion of the Elden Ring tidbit (latest edit as of now, by @Latios:) is really necessary. It doesn't add information about the acquisition and seems more like a personal anecdote from Musk. This does not seem like encyclopedic material to me, but I'm open to hearing the arguments. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me, given it describes Musk's mood immediately following the acquisition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Walter Isaacson

Does anyone happen to have access to the Walter Isaacson book? That could potentially have lots of additional insight into the acquisition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as proposed, as Ligma joke is a better or "equally acceptable" target; the alternative target warrants a new proposal. Klbrain (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Rahul Ligma into Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Rahul Ligma received a short period of coverage when it happened at the end of last year, and since then has received no WP:SUSTAINED/WP:LASTING coverage. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it is better covered in the context of Musk's acquisition of Twitter. This article is within the readable prose size, so a merge would not cause article size problems. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging participants of the deletion discussion mentioned below: @Piotrus, Presidentman, CT55555, WngLdr34, Dingolover6969, Rlink2, Shooterwalker, Red-tailed hawk, Hemiauchenia, Tallard, Cielquiparle, HighKing, and Jclemens. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "deletion of discussion below"? Tallard (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Those editors pinged were participants of WP:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ligma, which is the deletion discussion that I mentioned below on 01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC). ––FormalDude (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Notified: WT:WikiProject Freedom of speech, WT:WikiProject Journalism, WT:WikiProject Comedy, WT:WikiProject Internet culture, WT:WikiProject Internet. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose why would we merge fiction into a BLP when the fiction has at best tangential connection to the article subject? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • There was significant support at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ligma to merge the article here. While the character is fiction, it was a very real prank that triggered debate amongst Twitter employees about whether or not expected mass layoffs had already started and saw Musk receiving criticism for joking about firings. I'm not saying it should all be merged here, in my opinion it just deserves a brief mention. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, i have changed my vote. I dont think we should merge the whole article, but am not opposed to it, so gave changed to a weak yes. As for mention, yes for sure! merge weak yes, mention strong yes would be my updated position as it seems it is quite related to the musk acquisition event, as just a one time thing. I think I would prefer to keep the existing article and add a mention here. But dont feel super strong on this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no current mention of the character on this page. If you want a second round of trying to delete it, you should go there and nominate it again. If you believe Rahul Ligma deserves a brief mention here (no other editor has thought it has), you could add that along with a See Also to the C-class article that is of interest to the Comedy and Journalism projects. As page creator. BBQboffin (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support because this is what I would have wanted. Rahul is not notable and does not meet that definition. A one time prank is not notable Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I definitely get where you're coming from, I see the logic; but I think it would, basically, just be far less ergonomic for the reader were the two pages to merge. Dingolover6969 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support based on my reasoning at the AFD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kablammo should also be pinged as a participant in the previous deletion discussion. BBQboffin (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. There's enough coverage to mention it somewhere, but the lack of sustained coverage means that (absent length concerns) a dedicated separate article for it seems WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems reasonable to keep these as two separate articles; the article on the character, as it currently stands, is well-sourced and in much more detail than would be covered here. Rather than removing the well-sourced details and condensing it, it makes sense for a more robust article to exist on the character. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think Rahul Ligma is well sourced at all. If you remove all the sources of which there is no consensus on their reliability, you'd lose half the article. It's overly detailed and full of trivial content. Our best option is to take the few quality RS and use them in a brief mention here. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge, per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SUSTAINED. This only received coverage for a few weeks, and that's not really what encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about. Of course we can theoretically turn any news cycle into an article, but those policies explain why we shouldn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Point Of Order: Per WP:PROPMERGE: Mergers that are controversial, potentially difficult to carry out, or where at least one affected article is either rated Class B or higher or is over 100K in size will need assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages. As the Twitter Acquisition article is over 100K bytes, is Class B, and the merger is controversial it is clearly a "Class 3" merger. One of the procedures for such is to Notify the talk page of the appropriate Wikiproject to get knowledgeable people to comment on it. For Rahul Ligma that is Comedy, Journalism, Internet Culture, etc. but it does not appear to have been done. I would respectfully ask the nominator to withdraw his proposal, and if he so desires, to re-propose following the procedures for a Class 3 merge. BBQboffin (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that's a recommendation rather than a requirement. Either way not worth restarting this discussion over. Relevant WikiProjects now notified. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support A one-off prank and since then a total lack of sustained (or any) coverage. A merge/redirect is a good suggestion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Many of the Support comments mention the notability (or lack) of the Rahul Ligma character, which is a moot point. The AfD was closed as "No consensus" after an extended Keep/Delete/Merge discussion. Some are repeating the same arguments which didn't win the debate; those of us on the other side could just as easily do the same, but that's not why we're here. The proposal at-hand is to Merge some or all of the content from Rahul Ligma here, and I would like to add two additional reasons for my opposition:

1. WP:MERGETEST asks question, Will a merge require the removal of encyclopedic content? and here the answer is a resounding yes. The 18,565 bytes of information from Rahul Ligma will necessarily be emasculated to a few paragraphs (perhaps under "Attempted withdrawal"?) which would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia for readers who would have found the deleted content useful. Per WP:MERGETEST, we should oppose this merge.
2. Rahul Ligma is part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Comedy and that's where it should stay. If your !vote is for "Support", ask yourself honestly, Is the Twitter Acquisition article improved by adding crude penis jokes to it? I don't think it is. But if "Support" wins and Ligma-Johnson comes here, any editor who tries to delete the crude humor will be accused of going against consensus. So think about what you're voting for. It's not just to delete the Ligma page, it's to reserve a consensus-approved sanctuary for the content here. Not too late to change your vote if you shot yours off prematurely. BBQboffin (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: BBQboffin (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Comment/Question. For those considering a merge, why merge it to this article rather than to ligma joke? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  That didn't exist when I proposed this merge, but it does seem like an equally acceptable destination. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seems even better to me. I support this in case anyone wants to propose this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:01, 16 November 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.

I've started the discussion of the new proposal at the intended target talk page: Talk:Ligma joke#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war

with InfiniteNexus, but the previous version and placement of that edit is better soibangla (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How so? You can't just say your preferred version is "better" (WP:IJUSTLIKEIT). Please provide specifics, and I will try to meet in the middle. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

it becomes a non sequitur when placed at the bottom of the preceding paragraph, it is a completely different topic, and it removes the long quote in the ref. did you see it? soibangla (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to leave one or two sentences as its own paragraph, which is why I merged it with the previous one. The quote is unnecessary as this is nothing controversial, and the full text is available for free via the archive link. If there are only certain parts of an edit that you object to, please only revert that part rather than the entire edit, per WP:MASSR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

it is a non sequitur when placed there and I included a quote from a paywalled source so readers don't need to take it to an archive. the quote is important. "generally not a good idea to leave one or two sentences as its own paragraph" is irrelevant. I learned that by 4th grade. whatever, do what you want soibangla (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We like to be consistent within articles. That's why if a certain batch of citations uses spelled-out MDY dates, so should the rest of the article; if an article uses American English, the entire article should be in American English. If you think paywalled sources should have quotes, then we ought to the same to the ~100 other paywalled sources that also require readers to access the archive link in order to read the full text. If you think the paragraphs should be shorter, then we ought to make all of them shorter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite a WP:BOLD revision that editor is doing! Maybe wait a bit and see what's what after the dust settles. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 07:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split of Twitter

There is a proposal to split Twitter. This article is unaffected, but you may still be interested. Please see the discussion at Talk:Twitter § Survey. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)