Talk:Tweetbot

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

Apps Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps 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.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status
Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

Past or present tense?

With the news confirmed that Twitter has effectively banned all use of third party clients and there being chance of that being reversed, is it worth all articles about notable third party twitter clients being rewritten to be in the past tense, since they are now unusable? — CitroenLover (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSTENSE says:

By default, write articles in the present tense, including [...] products or works that have been discontinued.

so I think "Tweetbot is" is still the correct tense going forward. That said, if it's removed from the iOS/Mac app stores (which seems likely soon), I think it would make sense to update the second sentence to "The application was available". DefaultFree (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy with that, although it seems a bit pointless to say something in the present tense when clearly, the app will no longer exist [and has been confirmed as ditched by its developer]. It's unlikely that Twitter will reverse its policies, so with software articles, it would be more sensible to write the entire page from past tense, but I'll defer to the standards on this. -- CitroenLover (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting reverted to 'was'[1][2][3], despite a MOS:COMMENT pointing to MOS:TENSE and this talk page. I'm giving up on policing it unless others feel that MOS:TENSE applies. DefaultFree (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]