Talk:Tweet (social media)

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Media Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Duplicate draft

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]

I think Tweet (Twitter) is a better title. Should the draft be moved to that article and Tweet (social media) be a redirect to that? SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 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]

media attachments nor mentions in replies

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]

X or Twitter

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]

Requested move 3 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved because nobody supported. (non-admin closure) History6042 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet (social media) → Post (social media) – It isn't called tweeting anymore. It is now a post. Interstellarity (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is an article about a particular website. The common name for what is done there hasn't changed, and "posting" to social media is not at all limited to what happens on this specific site. The social media sites TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram, for example, all explicitly refer to what is done on those sites as "posting", and adding messages to discussion boards or entries to blogs is "social media posting" as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A social media post is much broader a topic than a tweet. Tweets are still often called tweets, and this article is specifically about posts on Twitter/X. SWinxy (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A post on social media is a much broader subject than a Tweet, and probably deserves an entirely separate article. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Tweet (Twitter) instead. This is an unusual circumstance, but because the term "tweet" is exclusive to the Twitter-That-Was, I see no better option. O.N.R. ^(talk) 12:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that broadening the article may appeal, but it seems too narrowly focused for this to happen at this time. I thus oppose the original proposal, but I support the above counterproposal. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 20:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as posts are a much wider feature than Twitter/X. "Tweet" is still use in common parlance for posts on X. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given 'twitter' is still the common name i seriously doubt that 'tweet' isn't—blindlynx 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the common name is still tweet, even if the site isn't called twitter anymore. Tweet (Twitter) otherwise seems acceptable, and would make sense for historic and contextual purposes. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A post on social media is a much broader subject than a tweet. Mia Mahey (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Post (X)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Post (X) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19 § Post (X) until a consensus is reached. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]