Talk:X (social network)

Survey

• Oppose move and propose one-year moratorium. Let me preface this by noting that hardly anything has changed since the last RM, and this will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. We are now on the 13th RM to move this page to "X", not counting separate attempts to move its sister article Twitter under Elon Musk. This is soon to become an annual tradition until one side wears out.
  The first point of WP:CRITERIA states: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change. By the company's own admission: "Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through the Twitter.com domain; users around the world continue to refer to the platform as Twitter and posts as tweets [...] Twitter is one of the world's most recognized brands [...] consumers and the media consistently refer to X Corp.'s core product as Twitter and its posts as tweets [...] the continuing popularity and use of Twitter is readily apparent and often the subject of reporting". The question of whether "X" has superseded "Twitter" as the most common name used in reliable sources is also not as clear-cut as the nominator makes it sound: where mentioned, "X" is often qualified with "formerly known as Twitter" or a similar phrase, a clear indicator that "X" has yet to establish itself as a widely recognizable name on its own that rings a bell with most readers.
  Secondly, WP:NAMECHANGES is a subsection of WP:COMMONNAME that merely clarifies its definition in the context of a name change; in other words, it is a supplement to an existing policy, not a separate "rule" to be viewed on its own. Quoted out of context, it appears that NAMECHANGES is telling us we must move an article if reliable sources [...] routinely use the new name; in reality, it merely explains how to evaluate sources when identifying the COMMONNAME after a name change. However, this is not the only consideration we give when determining the common name of a subject, and certainly not the sole determinant of the most suitable article title. Focusing only on a single PAG while disregarding others would be narrow-minded and poor judgment. Further down the page, WP:NATURAL provides a key exception to COMMONNAME — and by extension, NAMECHANGES: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. This is corroborated by WP:NCDAB in even stronger wording, ranking "natural disambiguation" as the most preferable form of disambiguation above parenthetical and other forms of disambiguation: When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. The "apartment" vs. "flat" example here shuts down the nominator's claim that "natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject — not using a whole different word or name" as objectively false.
  Hence, in terms of disambiguation, there is no question that "Twitter" is far superior to "X (social network)", and it is also more WP:CONCISE by 2 words and 11 characters. That means "Twitter" wins in at least three of the five CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, and concision. These CRITERIA are the guiding principles behind all of Wikipedia's naming conventions, so when in doubt, they take precedence above all; WP:IAR tells us to use WP:COMMONSENSE rather than attempt to blindly attempt to follow "the rules" without regard for their intent. If we blindly adhere to NAMECHANGES to a T while contradicting its underlying principles as expressed by CRITERIA, what good is an article title that is "commonly" used by reliable sources but unfamiliar and therefore unhelpful to readers? What is the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia? Finally, there is substantial precedent for using a former name that continues to be vastly more commonly recognizable than the official name as the article title, including: Kanye West ("Ye"), Turkey ("Türkiye"), Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"), Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"), Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"), Ivory Coast ("Côte d'Ivoire"), Facebook Messenger ("Messenger"), Department of Defense ("Department of War"), etc. The examples listed by the nominator are edge-case outliers, not the norm; some of them are not comparable here because their former names were never well-known to begin with, or the new name has indeed overtaken the old one as the most commonly recognizable, while others probably warrant additional review to ensure we are applying our PAGs consistently. The AP Stylebook is irrelevant because we do not follow external style guides, and certainly not those whose primary goal is political correctness.
  InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  • "The first point of WP:CRITERIA states: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change."

  Incorrect. Please refer to the Google Trends data above.

  • By the company's own admission: "Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through the Twitter.com domain; users around the world continue to refer to the platform as Twitter and posts as tweets [...] Twitter is one of the world's most recognized brands [...] consumers and the media consistently refer to X Corp.'s core product as Twitter and its posts as tweets [...] the continuing popularity and use of Twitter is readily apparent and often the subject of reporting".

  X Corporation is not a reliable source. Irony and subpar legal defense does not factor into considerations of whether to move an article or not.

  • Further down the page, WP:NATURAL provides a key exception to COMMONNAME — and by extension, NAMECHANGES: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred.

  See the sources above. The vast, vast majority do not even make a (formerly Twitter) reference.

  • When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. The "apartment" vs. "flat" example here shuts down the nominator's claim that "natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject — not using a whole different word or name" as objectively false.

  Proper vs. common noun, and it's not like one is newer than the other.

  • Hence, in terms of disambiguation, there is no question that "Twitter" is far superior to "X (social network)", and it is also more WP:CONCISE by 2 words and 11 characters.

  "Blabla" is more WP:CONCISE by one character; we should rename the article to Blabla instead. Or no, we shouldn't, because Twitter is quite obviously regarded as a historical term by WP:RS.

  • That means "Twitter" wins in at least three of the five CRITERIA: recognizability,

  No, Trends data.

  • naturalness

  No, outweighed by complete absence of "Twitter" in WP:RS and proper noun and actively marketed product status.

  • and concision

  Well, it does win in this one out of five categories.

  • What is the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia?

  Certainly not to cling to a long-dead name after the reliable sources and common language has abandoned it.

  • These CRITERIA are the guiding principles behind all of Wikipedia's naming conventions, so when in doubt, they take precedence above all

  I agree, and seeing as Twitter fits 1/5 of those CRITERIA, we should move to X (social network).

  • Kanye West ("Ye"), Turkey ("Türkiye"), Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"), Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"), Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"), Ivory Coast ("Côte d'Ivoire"), Facebook Messenger ("Messenger"), Department of Defense ("Department of War"), etc.

  That is what those are referred to in reliable sources and common usage, as the old names. This is not the case for X.

  • and certainly not those whose primary goal is political correctness.

  There are many who would make similar claims about our very own encyclopedia. Nonetheless, its political leanings in other aspects are irrelevant to the conversation at hand. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Reliable sources and common language has [sic] abandoned it. Clearly, they have not — otherwise, the Google Trends data that you seem to think is infallible would have shown a flat line for "Twitter". You are exaggerating when you claim that the use of "Twitter" has fallen to zero, and you seem to be under the impression that "reliable sources" only means "online news articles". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fallen to basically zero in reliable sources*

  • and you seem to be under the impression that "reliable sources" only means "online news articles"

  Those very same articles are published offline, too, without the reference to Twitter. Also, I am under the impression that generally reliable sources are what is catalogued at WP:RSPS. Even going by Google Trends, the fact that Twitter is lower than X is indicative that it is no longer the preferred term in common parlance. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I am under the impression that generally reliable sources are what is catalogued at WP:RSPS. You would be mistaken, and if you were under this impression while drafting the nomination, then that is yet another flaw in your analysis. Please review WP:RS for what is defined as a reliable sources, and then read WP:RSPIS to see what that page actually is — certainly, not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. For starters, the nomination completely ignored scholarly sources, and a simple search on Google Scholar yields plenty of results. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you're going to point to a Google Scholar, you'll need to do some actual work. Just clicking your link yields results that are overwhelmingly from prior to the name change. I tried sorting to look at more recent articles, and of those that I sampled, all used data sets from pre-Musk Twitter. Dustinscottc (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Include* what is cataloged at WP:RSPS. For how eager you are to point out flaws in 'my' analysis, you have not responded to any other point in my reply.

  Scholarly sources are not the best indicator of WP:COMMONNAME. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  You said: “In this regard, "X (social network)" clearly fails because the vast majority of readers are likely familiar with the name "Twitter" as long as they have been around for the past 20 years, whereas the same cannot be said for "X", which remains a fairly recent name change.” I notice that you don’t provide a citation for this claim. That’s likely why the guidelines require us to look at what reliable sources have to say, not a poll of readers. But even if this were true, isn’t this true of every company or organization that changes its name? And if that’s true, wouldn’t that basically neuter the Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE guideline? Most of your points are in direct tension with that guideline. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Dustinscottc: Given that this reply was submitted two minutes after the initial move request, it was almost definitely written previously and stored as a reply for the exact moment this draft was published. It might have been written at a time when Twitter was undisputably the commonly used name. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I spent three hours writing this last night, based on the draft that has been publicly visible for several months. I was ready to post this reply at 00:00, but the nominator for some reason needed an extra two minutes to copy-and-paste the rest of the nomination in a separate comment, and then you posted a duplicate request, so I had to wait until one of you reverted yourselves before posting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not that it matters for the substantive arguments here, but I copied and pasted the rest of the nomination as a comment to avoid having a super lengthy request on the RM page. But if you spent three hours on this response, why didn’t you respond substantively to the arguments in the request? You are making the same arguments that you have been making for months, all of which depend on outright rejecting WP:NAMECHANGE in favor of what you think general principles dictate. You acknowledge this by arguing we should not follow NAMECHANGE to a T, but then you cite examples where reliable sources have not adopted the new name. If you are going to respond to this request, please do so by actually responding to this request and acknowledging the significant evidence, much of which, contrary to your assertion, has changed since the last RM, or at least was never really demonstrated or acknowledged then. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I did respond to the arguments in your request: I noted that NAMECHANGES was not the sole determinant for the best article title, that sources have not completely abandoned the use of "Twitter", that we should not place total weight on what appears in online news articles, that blindly following NAMECHANGES may not be what is best for readers, that NATURAL supersedes NAMECHANGES, so on and so forth. I also think it's ironic that you accuse me of spending three hours on a nothingburger when you had months to prepare this request and yet all you could come up with was "NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t see anything here that doesn’t essentially amount to that you disagree with NAMECHANGES. You don’t like the policy. We get it. But you need to have a better reason than trying to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation for disregarding it. You say we shouldn’t place total weight on online news articles, but you have failed to provide other sources. You mention that sources have not completely abandoned the use of “Twitter”, but there is no policy, standard, practice, guideline, etc., that advises that a name change should wait for total abandonment of the old name.

  So yes, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, NAMECHANGES, because that’s the policy that applies, and you’ve shown no good reason to disregard it. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have explained why we should consider other PAGs in this case in addition to NAMECHANGES. NAMECHANGES only works if following the policy aligns with other the PAGs on WP:AT. And yes, trying to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation is a very good reason to disregard it. I don't see any wording on WP:AT that suggests COMMONNAME or NAMECHANGES must override or take precedence over NATURAL, CONCISION, or any of the other PAGs on the page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  So why haven't we moved Turkey there country to Türkiye so that we can avoid a parenthetical for Turkey (bird)? Dustinscottc (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Apples to oranges. Turkey, the country, has been determined to be the primary topic of "Turkey", so it needs no disambiguation. It is turkey the bird that requires disambiguation, and yes, natural disambiguation would be preferable to parenthetical disambiguation according to WP:NCDAB; however, no such natural alternative exists for the bird, because there is only one name for the bird that is commonly recognizable, so we have no choice but to use parenthetical disambiguation. Furthermore, even if Turkey the country was the one that required disambiguation (which, again, is not the case), "Türkiye" classifies as an obscure name as described in WP:NATURAL; "Twitter" obviously does not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t follow the logic here. “Turkey” can refer to both a bird and a country. It’s a real stretch to presume that a reader is going to see “Turkey” and automatically assume you’re talking about the country, so I don’t see how including a disambiguation for one but not the other is helpful. I also don’t think it’s obvious that Türkiye is an obscure name while Twitter, at least as a name that refers to the website that is now branded and marketed as X. If someone sees a news article about a social media platform called “X” that makes no reference to Twitter, or sees the website itself, and wants to know more about it, they will be looking for “X”. Seeing an article called “Twitter” is confusing to someone who doesn’t already know the history of the platform. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  sorry this is going to be really annoying but what's "PAG". I found it difficult to search this page for clarification for this acronym usage here. ~~~ skakEL 10:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  That would be Policies and Guidelines. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, the claim in "By the company's own admission" ignores the context. There is a group that tried to launch a "Twitter" page, similar to the former one, claiming that the X corporation has renounced to the trademark. There is a trial over that, and the linked text is X's defense (who, obviously, will try to explain that "Twitter" is still in use, so that they do not lose it). Not only it is a biased source, it is almost as if they were saying so under duress. That link should be ignored in this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  You said that last time, and I'll repeat my rebuttal: unless you're suggesting that X Corp.'s legal team lied, which would be a grave accusation, it doesn't matter the context. Nixon was also "forced" under duress to produce the "smoking gun" tape. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Context always matter. For example, how many people still access the site from the "www.twitter.com" page? That info is relevant for the legal case that discusses the trademark, and so the defense mentions it, but it is completely immaterial for a requested move within Wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Support. IdanST (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Support split. This article should remain "Twitter", only cover either before the acquisition by Elon Musk in 2022, or before the rebranding to X in 2023; Twitter as a historical social network that launched in 2006; and because Twitter was and currently is one of the most-recognizable brands. Whereas "Twitter under Elon Musk" would change to "X (social network)" - reflecting/covering massive changes to the social network following Elon's acquisition and rebranding (e.g: Grok, ownership of X Corp (company that owns X/Twitter) transferred to another one of Elon's companies).

  Even though Twitter and X are the same thing, I consider the X platform as a successor to Twitter, albeit inheriting Twitter's features/design/interface but with massive changes as stated above that feels like a different/separate service inheriting the original (yet I still call X "Twitter", like almost everyone else, even though Twitter was rebranded to X, due to how Twitter's brand being most-recognizable over the years before the rebranding).

  Renaming "Twitter" to "X (social network)" may need/require a ton of disambigs/renames of pages/articles related to Twitter (e.g: List of Twitter features, History of Twitter, Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk), some of those are protected from moving/renaming since years ago. Renaming the "Twitter under Elon Musk" article to "X (social network)" may solve the problem. Think of Musical.ly that was later acquired and rebranded/merged into TikTok. SuperMario231 64 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move and propose one-year moratorium propose ten-year moratorium propose permanent moratorium, unless name changed again propose one-year moratorium, until name changed again propose two-year moratorium oppose any moratorium. It has now been three years, and this is getting ridiculous. As I have contributed to the above move request draft, everything I could hope to state as argument is already there: "X" has replaced "Twitter" in both reliable source usage and common usage, with (formerly Twitter) article disambiguation being virtually extinct. It is ridiculous, then, to maintain the claim that "Twitter" is the WP:COMMONNAME. OmegaAOLtalk? 00:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is me being pedantic here, but you can't "propose" a moratorium that's already been proposed. Glad we're in agreement that there needs to be a moratorium, though. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  But isn't my moratorium on a different basis than your moratorium? That's why I used 'propose'.. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  You changed the wording of your comment after my reply. Please do not do so without using strikethrough, per WP:REDACT. Also, oppose a permanent ban as it contravenes WP:CCC and is against the spirit of collaboration. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  It says 'commonly best practice' and the reasons for that do not apply here, as the context remains unchanged. Please do not edit others' comments without their consent. OmegaAOLtalk? 04:59, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move and propose 10 year moratorium, I'm partial to InfiniteNexus' argument but 1 year is not enough.

Cognsci (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

10 years is paltry. Perhaps 100 years would be more suitable. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I am frankly astonished that this article is still titled "Twitter". Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move, Support split. I am still of the opinion that Twitter pre-X should remain Twitter, and that the social network as it is now (X) should be its own article. While the software and foundation are fundamentally the same, there is enough of a perceivable difference between how Twitter operated and X operates that it could be considered a different platform entirely. If there isn't enough support for a split, then I oppose the move and support a moratorium. GSK (talk • edits) 01:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  "support a moratorium" for what length do you support a moratorium? Cognsci (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Minimum of one year. GSK (talk • edits) 01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  A split isn't being proposed. It would be helpful if you explained the reasons for your opposition to the move itself. Dustinscottc (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  A split might not have been proposed, but it is an option. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  A split would require significant work to disentangle the two articles. A proposal for a split should have drafts of the proposed articles ready to go. That can still be done after a move, so it’s not incompatible with the present proposal. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you oppose the move if a split is not possible? OmegaAOLtalk? 02:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Because I feel that Twitter should remain an article detailing the history of the platform up until Musk bought it and renamed it to X. Twitter under Elon Musk exists too, I think that would make a better article for post-Musk changes, and that article should be the one renamed to X (social network). This is one issue that I don't think we will agree on. GSK (talk • edits) 18:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  History of Twitter exists as well, I believe, and I think the conflict between the camps is really which article should be renamed X (social network). I do however think that Twitter changed much more in the pre-Musk period than the post-Musk period; it was originally a website that "served to answer the simple question: what are you doing?", by letting you post one liner status messages. The site was objectively a completely different platform right before the Musk purchase than it was in the first year of its existence. Musk, meanwhile, hasn't even changed the user interface one bit. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I slightly disagree with this assessment. According to the nomination above, The need to follow established policy should settle the matter, but retaining “Twitter” after an official name change that is subsequently adopted by a majority of reliable source is also inconsistent with how similar issues have been handled with other article subjects. There are countless examples of companies, brands, and venues whose articles are now known by their new name despite a comparatively long history under another name[.]

  My reading of that section is that the nomination is opposed to a situation where we have an article on Twitter up until October 2022 and an article on X that is up-to-date, despite that being how it works on a variety of articles. (PK-WIKI has provided examples below this involving Byzantium, Constantinople, the baseball New York Giants, and the Seattle SuperSonics and I have provided the example of the Oakland Athletics in my vote to this proposal below.)

  It the goal of this nomination was to first move Twitter to X (social network) and then split the article into a copy called Twitter that was restricted to the end of 2022, then I wouldn't mind the move. But I don't believe that is the goal here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Point of contention

  Note that WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly requires that the name change to what the reliable sources use “when discussing the article topic in the present day”. Therefore, the length and significance of the history of the article topic under the prior name are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is use by reliable sources in the present day to refer to the topic in the present day.

Addressing this argument, I'm not sure the titling policy is that mandative. A portion of WP:NAMECHANGES that you left out says "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change."

But extra weight is not absolute weight, right? The subject was officially known as Twitter during the period it rose to popularity, and held the name for 17 years. I think that if the policy were directly mandating/requiring a change to the point of other considerations being irrelevant, it wouldn't mention "weight"ing. So

17 / 20

the length and significance of the history of the article topic under the prior name might carry enough weight to offset recent developments. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Split After reading much more discussion, I think it there is a solid case to split the article in two, like PK-WIKI has proposed. The rebrand is sharp delineation point, with a Twitter page representing the service up to June 2023, and X (social network) representing it from then to the present. Today, it much clearer since 2024 RFC that X has established enough of a unique, distinct history from Twitter to treat them as two separate subjects. There are numerous reliable sources talking about the changes that have occurred, from rebranding, reorganization, the moving of headquarters, firings of employees, etc. Furthermore, I oppose any moratorium because this may impede the splitting. HenryMP02 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If the policy were intended to slow down moving articles when the article subject had its name for a long time, it would certainly say something to that effect. But looking at other recent name changes, the duration of the old name is treated as almost entirely irrelevant. See, e.g., Scouting America Dustinscottc (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You've been going on for months about how you feel the previous Twitter moratorium was unjustified, so I'm sure you understand how I feel about the BSA move. However, two wrongs don't make a right, especially since our PAGs have been properly applied on every article except for a small handful that you cherry-picked in your nomination. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Which is it? Should we set aside policies to pursue some broad notion of “intent”, or do we generally properly apply polices? Because I do think that policies have generally been properly applied to name changes. And there are no examples of articles about entities that were not moved if (a) underwent a name change, and (b) reliable sources subsequently consistently used that new name. Or, at the very least, no one has pointed to any articles that fit that bill. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Properly applying policies means ensuring that the intent of such policies are being followed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I failed to mention before this discussion was opened that the second WP:NATURAL-related counterargument that is listed in the rationale of this RM (that [n]atural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to refer to an article's subject) is flawed. This is for roughly the reason that @InfiniteNexus ended up pointing out. In fact, not only is that claim disproven by WP:NCDAB, which InfiniteNexus referenced, but it is also contrary to WP:NATURAL itself, which provides a third example ("Elevator" versus "Lift") that apparently was missed. Better points would include arguing that "Twitter" qualifies as being an obscure name under WP:NATURAL – this is similar to what the first WP:NATURAL-related counterargument seems to be suggesting, but I would not necessarily recommend that it be emphasized because it may imply that "Twitter" should be removed from the lead sentence of this article, a position that I doubt would draw any significant support – and pointing out that, because WP:NATURAL does not state that natural disambiguation must be used wherever possible but merely notes that it is sometimes preferred, this may be a case in which it is not preferred given all of the other reasons that are listed in the rationale of this RM. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 01:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  How is the situation here anything like "Elevator" and "Lift"? Dustinscottc (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think what is meant is "Lift (conveyance)" is to "X (social network)" as "Elevator" is to "Twitter".

  This example directly negates the notion in the proposal that Natural disambiguation refers to when you can add additional words to naturally refer to an article's subject - not using a whole different word or name. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  But this is a totally different situation. This is an entity that has changed its name, not a thing that has different names based on regional variation. Twitter is the old name, not an alternate common name. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Twitter" is an obscure alternative name for "X"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus: That case could at least be made. It would be a better argument than the obviously invalid one. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support split (but how do that split and the related pages should be discussed first). While the DNA of X is the same as Twitter, it very clearly a different beast than Twitter which a whole host of different reception and controversy over it. A split should be done to keep Twitter pre-Musk's involved as a historical element, with X as the current updated service. But again, this is not a simple split and plans for how to do it need to be done. That said, absent the split Oppose move as Twitter is still frequently used in regards to the service even if its "X, formally known as Twitter" language. Masem (t) 01:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please address the facts as supported by something other than your own feelings or observations as they apply to WP policies and guidelines? This will not be a productive conversation if people are simply chiming in with their vibes-based view of how frequently one or the other name is used. I'll also point out that whether "formally known as Twitter" is included in a source is not really relevant to whether RSs have adopted the new name. Adoption of the new name does not require complete disavowal or non-acknowledgment of the old name. Dustinscottc (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Twitter is still frequently used in regards to the service even if its "X, formally known as Twitter" language.

  This is not actually true - as you see, X is mentioned more in both reliable sources and GTrends. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. Sure, X may be mentioned more, but Twitter is not absent nor a minor use. Its still there. And I'd rather see a natural split happen over a move (which essentially will still get the X article anyway), it just is easier to work from the split starting point than move, and later ask about a split. Masem (t) 03:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  We already had this discussion at Talk:Twitter/Archive_13#RfC:_Is_X_a_different_service_from_Twitter? where users disagree with the notion that "Twitter" and "X" are different platforms/services, so a split proposal will most likely fail. Some1 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, consensus can always change, but as noted in the last sentence of the FAQ, we have indeed already had three discussions on this, all of which have rejected the notion that Twitter and X are such radically and fundamentally different products that they should be covered entirely separately. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The same reason we're having this requested move is the same reason why asking about a split now is reasonable: consensus can change. A lot has happened with X during the move moratorium that it is completely reasonable to bring up splitting at the same time. Masem (t) 12:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NAMECHANGE gives no indication that an old name needs to completely fall off before changing the article name. Nor is that the actual practice (e.g. Scouting America). If a source makes 30 references to X and one to Twitter, then X is very clearly the common name. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think you'll find out very soon that we place greater weight to "what best follows the intent of PAGs and most benefits readers" than "what best follows the exact wording of PAGs irrespective of the context". I've told you this many times, but you just keep circling back to "OK, but NAMECHANGES says so". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  "I think you'll find out very soon"

  Are you seriously threatening an editor? OmegaAOLtalk? 05:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  ??? InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The best way to know the intent of a policy is by its words. But setting that aside, I don’t think having an article about a website that carries none of the branding associated with the name of the article helps readers. Which is why NAMECHANGES exists — because it reflects what is best for readers. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move, as per proposal (also OmegaAOL's rebuttal to InfiniteNexus). While some points are better than others (ex: we don't follow AP stylebook, we follow the MOS), ultimately the vast majority of sources now call the platform "X" without saying "Twitter", which is by far the biggest player here. While "Twitter" will always be in normal people's vernacular, it would be incorrect to call the page name that given that it's been 2.5 years since the name change, usage of the term Twitter is declining, and reliable sources call it "X". Frankly, I think "X" is a stupid name for a platform specifically because it requires disambiguation (and it also sounds like a porn site), but for the best of Wikipedia we should rather have a disambiguated title than an incorrect one. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not an "incorrect" name. "Twitter" still only has one meaning. In fact, the company recently sued another company for attempting to infringe on its trademark, asserting that the Twitter name is not "dead". InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Twitter does have one meaning (if the move goes through, it'll always redirect to the new page), but it isn't the term that reliable sources use anymore. I meant incorrect in a conclusion sense; it would be "incorrect" to say that Twitter is the common name used by sources, given the points in the proposal.

  We'll see how the suit turns out, but X Corp itself is a bit biased when arguing that they haven't abandoned their trademark. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move as per proposal. Well established that X is the common name now (despite how terrible I personally think it is). pcuser42 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move Reliable sources nowadays refer to the social media platform as either: 1) X or 2) X, while mentioning that Twitter was its former name. Using the sources from my January 13 comment above in another section, major media outlets, when reporting on the recent Grok AI images controversy that occurred just last month, refer to the platform as only X, without using the word "Twitter" at all:

  New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/world/europe/grok-ai-images-x-elon-musk-uk.html

  BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy875j28k0o

  The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/10/elon-musk-uk-free-speech-x-ban-grok-ai

  NPR https://www.npr.org/2026/01/12/nx-s1-5672579/grok-women-children-bikini-elon-musk

  Reuters https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musks-x-sues-music-publishers-over-alleged-licensing-conspiracy-2026-01-09/

  NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/international-pressure-builds-x-musk-grok-deepfakes-rcna253639

  Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-ofcom-investigation-grok-ai-deepfakes-11345837

  CBS News https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-x-elon-musk-grok-ai-sexualized-images-fake-nudes-starmer/

  ArsTechnica https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/uk-investigating-x-after-grok-undressed-thousands-of-women-and-children/

  CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/09/grok-app-should-be-suspended-from-apple-google-democratic-senators.html Some1 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose a split because having separate pages for Twitter and X (social media) will just confuse readers into thinking that these are two separate platforms and that one became defunct, etc. when that's not the case at all. And proposals for a split should really happen after this RM concludes. Some1 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose No new significant reasons to move that weren't brought up in previous move requests. All of the valid reasons for opposing a move in the previous RM, which are that there are still reliable sources that use "formerly Twitter" when referring to the current platform, and that sources that don't use that wording should be taken as a reason to split the article instead of moving, still apply. The nominator appears to be WP:CANVASSING to try to reach a consensus in their favor. It is unlikely that this RM will reach a consensus to move. Greedycell (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  References to “formerly Twitter” are historical references, not references to the subject in the present day. From WP:NAMECHANGES “If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well.”

  I also didn’t canvas the vote here. And even if I did (again, and I cannot stress this enough, I didn’t), the remedy for that is not to ignore the request.

  So far, all of the opposing editors (except the first), make only vague references to prior arguments, completely ignoring the points raised in the proposal. I encourage whoever closes this discussion to disregard comments that do not contribute substantively to the actual points being made. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please provide any proof of this supposed 'canvassing'? The editors mentioned there had previously consented to be included on that list, including me. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move, and it's about name. It should have already been renamed a long time ago. The presence of editors that still support the current name in the face of so much evidence is concerning. Cambalachero (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Evidence that previous RMs have determined to be insufficient to warrant a move. Greedycell (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The situation is substantially different than in previous discussions, at least with respect to the evidence actually presented. News sources have almost entirely stopped including “formerly Twitter” in run-of-the-mill stories about something someone said on the website. Prior RMs also did not go into detail regarding why “formerly Twitter” isn’t relevant to the WP:NAMECHANGES guideline in the first place. There is a significant amount of information included in this proposal that has not been presented in previous proposals. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  8 out of 11 sources listed in Talk:Twitter/RM draft October 2025#X Outage January 2026 use "formerly Twitter". I highly doubt that News sources have almost entirely stopped including “formerly Twitter”. Greedycell (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Your own incredulity isn’t a source. There are multiple sources listed in the proposal. Of those, the AP, Reuters, the New York Times, NBC News, Politico, PBS, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Times of Israel, News Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Time, the Jerusalem Post, the Hindu, Gizmodo, ProPublica, the Huffington Post, the Hill, Ars Technica, Forbes, Engadget, CBS News, Al Jazeera, ABC News (Australia), and ABC News (America) all have precisely zero mentions of “Twitter” in the body of the article. A few had “Twitter” in historical contexts (e.g. CNN mentioning Musk removing Twitter’s moderation tools from when it was officially Twitter), but most others that are on the list above that I didn’t mention just now I left out because I didn’t want to get around a pay wall. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I get that proposals can be bias, but it is recommended to be factual. If you are saying that all of those sources no longer use Twitter, then that is a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand your comment. Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. Links to all those sources are in the supplemental portion of the proposal. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. This is what I wanted to confirm because I am 100% certain that is false. To be specific, you might be correct that some of those sources have stopped using Twitter, but not all of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  You know, rather than assume I'm lying to you, you could check for yourself. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  That wasn't an assumption. This is why I want to make sure I understand correctly since my rebuttal will take a good chunk of time to compile and I would be annoyed if my time was wasted in a misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  You said you were 100% certain that was false. That's not skepticism—that's opposition to the idea that it might be true. And that's the problem. You can't be 100% certain unless you check. And some people seem to be opposing a move based on what they believe rather than on the facts that have been presented. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  You can't be 100% certain unless you check. Well, I should be fine then as I currently have 35 articles that I have confirmed mention Twitter for one reason or another. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you’re just collecting random articles that mention Twitter, you are misunderstanding both what I said and the point of the citations we’re talking about. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh right, my comment below never included the Reuters link in the end, so here was that: US startup seeks to reclaim Twitter trademarks 'abandoned' by Musk’s X

  But I am curious how you checked this because of how many articles I have gathered so far. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think you may have lost some of the context. The proposal lists the following sources:

  • BBC, Business Insider, Variety, The New York Times, South China Morning Post, Sky News, Rolling Stone, Reuters, AP News, NBC News, Politico, PBS, DW, The New Yorker, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, The Times of Israel, TorrentFreak, NewsNation, The Guardian, LA Times, TIME, The Jerusalem Post, The Indian Express, The Hindu, Haaretz, The Globe and Mail, Gizmodo, ProPublica, HuffPost, The Hill, Ars Technica, Forbes, Financial Times, The Telegraph, Engadget, WIRED, The Economist, CNN, CBS News, Bloomberg, Axios, ABC News Australia, ABC News, Al Jazeera

  Those links represent a broad range of reliable sources. Of those listed links, my comment above called out 27 of those 46 sources that literally do not mention “Twitter” anywhere in the body of the article. The remaining were either historical references (e.g. the CNN article) or articles that I could not check because of pay walls. When this collection was posted a few weeks ago, I was able to verify that 100% of them primarily refer to X.

  An article about a dispute regarding the TWitter trademark is obviously going to mention “Twitter”. That tells us nothing about whether reliable sources refer to X when discussing the topic in the present day. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Here is how I am following things. You listed 46 groups that you appeared to claim that they don't use Twitter anymore. I said that would be a problem if that is what you are claiming. You made it crystal clear that Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. You told me I should check rather than make assumptions, I told you it wasn't an assumption, and now you are saying what sounds like a different thing here than Yes, all of the sources that I listed in my comment above refer to "X" without referring to "Twitter" in the body of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, you’re misrepresenting what I said. The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter. Of course I wasn’t saying that, for example, the BBC will never again write the word “Twitter”. Of course they will—-in the context of articles about when the website was called Twitter. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter. Well that is very crystal clear for me, so thank you for clearing this up.

  Of course I wasn’t saying that, for example, the BBC will never again write the word “Twitter”. Of course they will—-in the context of articles about when the website was called Twitter. Ah, I wasn't meaning anything like future-proofing. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  First 50-ish articles have now been noted below. I will try to keep working on it over the next few days. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  With that out of the way, what is the specific claim that you are making here regarding the sources? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Zero out of 46 sources in "Use of X vs. Twitter by reliable sources" add the Formerly Twitter label, and those sources are newer than the ones you just quoted. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Zero out of 46 sources in "Use of X vs. Twitter by reliable sources" add the Formerly Twitter label, and those sources are newer than the ones you just quoted. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The sources I quoted are new enough? Greedycell (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Even assuming as much, add those sources to the list of 46 sources that do not mention Twitter and you still have 49 sources that don't mention the platform and 8 that do? OmegaAOLtalk? 05:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  And out of all those 57 sources, none refer to Twitter as the primary name. This is not cause for keeping the article at "Twitter". OmegaAOLtalk? 05:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  And out of all those 57 sources, none refer to Twitter as the primary name. That is not an argument that wasn't brought up in the previous RM. Greedycell (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  And 49 out of those 57 sources do not mention the word "Twitter" at all. This was not the case in the previous RM, where almost all sources mentioned "formerly Twitter". OmegaAOLtalk? 05:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good for the previous RM's, then, but this is not the same evidence as the situation has drastically changed from that time. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  And in my opinion those previous RM were wrong, too. But now is a good moment to set things right. Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move to X (social media) or X (social netwrok) etc. per WP:COMMONNAME IMO; going by Google Trends and news source articles since late 2023, the majority (not all) of them now use X on its own. Btw I spent ten minutes just finding out where in the world I should vote in this wall of text, also some dude way above me tried to make their brick of text more visible by making the background red (or did another editor put it their because they are supposedly canvassing?). I ain't reading all that bruh. This is why people laugh at Wikipedia, and from the parts I did read, I can see why. Anyways, I want to join the party and proudly get laughed at in screenshots of this thread on Depths of Wikipedia and MAGA Twitter (yes I still call it Twitter), so here is my brick of text regarding British news sources:
  • BBC News has 40+ results for X (specifically the social media platform, I checked and verified) in December 2025 and January 2026, with the last article of theirs to use the name Twitter being this one all the way back on 17 November 2025. According to The Economist's text search function, the last time they used Twitter is in an article on 3 November 2025. In contrast, they use only X a few times, as in articles on 13 January 2026, 15 January 2026 and 28 January 2026 just to list a few examples of where the social media website is named on non-paywalled text. There are the topic categories for X / Twitter on The Guardian, Metro and Sky News, and you yourself can gloss and text search the latest articles to see that almost all of them use only X on its own. The headlines for the Financial Times https://www.ft.com/x-corp seem to only use X, but I do not have access to the contents of their articles. Now, there is one exception that I will mention for the sake of Wikipedic accuracy I know we love: The Independent appears to alternate between using X, Twitter and the classic X (formerly Twitter) garbage.
  • Not super reliable per se, for many reasons, but on Google Trends for 'worldwide' search volume, “X account” surpassed “Twitter account” in November 2024, and far surpassed the latter in August 2025. “Elon Musk X account” has been slightly but consistently above “Elon Musk Twitter account” since August 2024.

❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 06:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what is up with the accessibility of this thread. I have no clue what the red/yellow background is doing there behind the replies - it's an eyesore. I also had to search for a place to reply, because the original move proposal didn't have the "Reply" button.

I've already accepted that there is a non-zero chance that Musk or those in his orbit will tweet out this discussion, and I don't think I'm looking forward to it. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're seeing a red or yellow background behind certain comments, it's because you have the user script User:Headbomb/unreliable.js activated, and the comment includes a link flagged as potentially unreliable (such as Twitter.com). I just checked both of your common.js pages, and that is indeed the case. Sorry to be blunt here, but I would suggest that editors at least know how the scripts they have installed work before making uninformed comments such as some dude way above me tried to make their brick of text more visible by making the background red or it's an eyesore. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! It indeed is that, hovering over the text for a couple seconds shows "generally unreliable source" EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 18:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move - Current title works without a long parenthetical disambiguation. ^Falling_Gravity 07:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Alas, it is inaccurate. Paranthetical disambiguation only applies as a consideration between two names with otherwise equal weight. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  "It works as is" is almost always true when it comes to these types of discussions. That shouldn't stop us from making Wikipedia better. No offence, but I believe it is a very unproductive mentality. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 18:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES and evidence provided in the nomination, and also strong oppose split. While there's clearly been a shift in the tome and policies of the site, reliable sources do not treat this as a new entity, they invariably say "X, formerly known as Twitter", at least up until the point where everyone knew there'd been a name change. I'm not seeing much policy or evidence-based reasoning in the oppose and split !votes above, it looks like wishful thinking to me, not reflecting the actual sourced situation on the ground. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. It's high time to let WP policy, NAMECHANGES, kick in and to change this article's title to its new (and growing older) present name. It might not be a necessity; however, I think it would be okay if a new article about the old Twitter were to be expertly scribed for those who wax nostalgic and for posterity. I also would support a 6- to 12-month moratorium to disparage any further formal discussion to revert back to the former name. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As I have said before, this article should REMAIN at Twitter and be a HISTORICAL account of Twitter as a company before it was bought out by Elon Musk. Twitter as a historical entity is standalone notable. There needs to be a separate article for X, so Twitter under Elon Musk is better off moved to that title, as the current title implies it is somehow temporary when there is no sign of that being the case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. Contrary to unsubstantiated claims by opposers, "twitter" is nowadays almost never used. Nom has clearly shown reliable sources use "X". Vpab15 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The social network is called X, and is called by that name by everyone at this point. It's a dumb them but it is the name. I do think that perhaps the article can be split between the two eras. Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Suppport. The common name evidence presented above is overwhelming. Jessintime (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. While Twitter is still a fairly common name that may pop up internally at some points (much like Macintosh), X is the proper name and increasingly becoming the common name. While I'm all for descriptivism, the rename is official and has gained traction among the masses, as journalism has adjusted. "Tweet" is a sticky term, but its use is no more important to this issue than "favorite" still popping up for what is now called a "like" on the site formerly known as Twitter. Redirect to "X (social network)", then call for a moratorium on moves. Hist4ian (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support, WP:NAMECHANGES, and we really should not need to be on RM number whatever this is to rectify this. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment You raised this RM immediately after the moratorium expired. This isn't a coincidence; you have outright stated that this was your intent. This, alongside the canvassing accusations, rings alarm bells to me. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 13:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why does that raise alarm bells? Dustinscottc (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a problem; it is publicly known that Dustinscottc has been drafting an RM since October. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Twitter under Elon Musk should have been renamed to X (social network) long ago.  — Hex • talk 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. I've spent the last few days reading over the RM subpage, and I have to agree that now, X is the WP:COMMONNAME. Sources before the name change do not count toward WP:NAMECHANGES, and most recently published sources use X as the correct name. Times have changed, and we can't stick with the old name forever. HurricaneZeta^C 15:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move, and no split. It's time, and 'Twitter' has accurately been the common name but is now becoming antiquated. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move, unfortunately. Whether we like it or not, X is now the name by every metric except "what I want to call it". JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. "X" clearly is the WP:COMMONNAME now. Few sources still refer to it as Twitter without writing something like "formerly known as Twitter", thus acknowledging that Twitter is no longer the common name. And no split is necessary because it is still the same website, works the same way, has the same data and user base. --Angbor (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per other opposers above, although I do understand the WP:COMMONNAME rationale from supporters. ^EF⁵ 17:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move Gone are the days of Twitter! "X" is the common name now, and although the parantheses makes it much more clunky than the smooth "Twitter", it is what it is. jolielover♥talk 18:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support I find it strange how Wikipedia has lagged behind so much in making this move; just because “Twitter” is shorter doesn’t change the fact that the name “X” has been used very consistently across the overwhelming majority of news sources. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 18:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  I also oppose the split. Although the platform has changed since its acquisition, I don’t think it merits an entirely different article for old Twitter. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 19:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is the right stance. Support move to X (social network) Rushtheeditor (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move, per others above. I also took a look at how Wikipedia's in other languages handle this. Of the other languages in the top 10, only Spanish and Portuguese still use Twitter for the name of the article. Japanese, German, Russian, French, Italian, Chinese, and Polish all use X in the article name. Patken4 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is a bit misleading. (Nope, I misunderstood here.) A number of projects in other languages have a separate Twitter article, with zh:Twitter (Chinese) and ja:Twitter (Japanese) being prominent examples. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  How is it misleading? All those languages have articles for X, which is what this discussion is about. The fact that some may have articles for both, and that there could be a split, is a separate discussion. Patken4 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

   Self-trout: I goofed and misunderstood what you meant by only. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not so much misleading as it is irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, not the International Wkipedia. We only consider the most common usage in the English language, and we are certainly not bound by what other wikis do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  As also a wikipedian from zhwiki, I can tell that: That zh:Twitter page is infact the Twitter history until 2023, while the current X (Social Network) on zhwiki is the current status beyond 2023. Which infact, this is the solution of Spilt. Awdqmb (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support split, per logic presented by other users. I can understand the logic behind a move given the large number of sources refering to it, but in any case, the article for the company as it currently stands should not be called Twitter. GrandDuchyConti (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment – I notice that many supporters are focusing entirely on COMMONNAME/NAMECHANGES while ignoring the existence of WP:NATURAL, WP:NCDAB, WP:CRITERIA, and other PAGs that provide exceptions to COMMONNAME/NAMECHANGES. I urge all editors to consider all of our PAGs described on WP:AT and WP:DAB, not just one. COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  You already raised this in your explanation above. There’s no need for a separate comment reiterating what you’ve already said. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support I agree "X" is now the common name and should use this title even if it requires a qualifer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Primarily support a Split that results in one article X (social network) and a past-tense article either Twitter or something like Twitter (2006–2023) (with "Twitter" as a disambiguation page). This path is supported by WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:DETAIL, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:SIZESPLIT, and WP:CONTENTSPLIT. There is a massive, documented change in ownership, culture, engineering, userbase, and name between Old Twitter and X. The best way to cover this on Wikipedia is via two articles, one for the SMS-based 140 characters early Twitter that grew into 2010s public company Twitter, Inc.. And another article for the post-takeover, renamed, private social media company owned by Elon Musk. With many links between them of course, Wikipedia:Summary style sections that quickly cover the other era of the company, and with "X" and "Twitter" as WP:BOLDALTNAMES in the leads of both articles. This type of split has well-established precedent on Wikipedia:

• Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul
• New York Giants (baseball), San Francisco Giants
• Seattle SuperSonics, Oklahoma City Thunder

The way I would accomplish this is by using current Twitter as the past-tense article. And moving and using Twitter under Elon Musk as the base of the new X (social network) article.

Failing a split, I guess I reluctantly and strategically support move of Twitter to X (social network). The reason is that I think it will be easier to re-create a past-tense "Twitter" article after the move. Let things settle down, then cooler heads will hopefully see the wisdom in two article to describe the two fundamentally different eras of the company. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not have a main article named X with separate history articles for before and after? Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 21:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose moving to "X" anything. ☩he one, Babysharkboss2 21:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Why? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  As User:SuperPianoMan9167 said, you are respectfully not contributing much to the discussion. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 12:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move. To be clear, I think not moving to X was absolutely the correct call when this first happened. X is ambiguous, Twitter is an iconic name, media routinely used both "X" and "Twitter" at the same time to clarify, the social network itself still referred to "Tweets", etc. More generally, Musk is a... mercurial... guy. It was absolutely a reasonable possibility that he'd just change the name again on a whim. However... it's been three and a half years. twitter.com now redirects to x.com . People have gotten used to X-the-social-network and it no longer always requires the "formerly known as Twitter" disclaimer. Take a look at France’s Raid on X Escalates Trans-Atlantic Showdown Over Social Media, a news article in the New York Times from just this week (hardly a source Musk would consider friendly). "X" is in the title and subtitle, and the prose says "French authorities raided the Paris offices of Mr. Musk’s social media platform X". The word "Twitter" does not come up in a CTRL-F. It's time. It seems that the name change is here to stay, and reliable sources have adapted. SnowFire (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  The argument isn't necessarily that X is now the common name (I agree it is) but whether it should be considered one continuous company with former Twitter. It is clear that when the company was bought out, it changed drastically and irreversibly. I don't believe that the historical Twitter article should be overridden by X, and there is a perfect article to describe the current X, Twitter under Elon Musk, that could simply be moved to X instead. While the two platforms have similar backends and interfaces and retain older messages, the change in management is big enough to require a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  History of Twitter already exists. I'm not opposed to renaming it History of Twitter (2006–2022) and renaming Twitter under Elon Musk to History of X (2022–present) and/or creating as many other spin-off history articles as desired. But IMO there should be a parent article for the social network as a whole during its full history, which is this article, whatever it's called. If some of the Dorsey-era Twitter details are moved into a history article, that's fine, but it's not quite a full split. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  History of Twitter can also stay the same, as it's implied to be talking about the former pre-2022 social network, a new "History of X" page shouldn't be necessary given it has such a short history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  If some of the Dorsey-era Twitter details are moved into a history article, that's fine, but it's not quite a full split. Hmm, interesting. For sports teams, you usually see a split when a team relocated where both the old and new keep the same copy of details with the new article getting updates. My understanding of a move is that we would just move this from Twitter to X without creating an old copy. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Split for the same reasons as PK-WIKI. "X" refers primarily to "Twitter under ELon Musk", while "Twitter" is still commonly used by folks referring to Twitter prior to its acquisition by Elon Musk. The evolution of the social media platform seem sufficiently seperate to warrant a split. Casspedia (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Do Not Change Redirect that to Twitter

Most reliable sources say "X, formerly known as Twitter, …"

There was even a | Reddit post about it.

Examples of this being the case includes:

| GEO TV Article on February 10th, 2026, | this India Times article within the first paragraph, and | mentioned in this Michigan Times article as the title and in the text.

It is clear that across the world, it is still used as that and culturally is connected to X. Twitter is clearly the common name and the whole reason news sources do that is because Twitter is the what it has been known as for so long.

Reader of Information (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

A reddit post from 2 years ago, an article of February 10 that can be read on February 9... I don't think I need to continue. Cambalachero (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know think the GeoTV article is very useful but I don't understand your date point. It was already 10 February for nearly 3 hours in Pakistan where the source seems to be based by the time Reader posted so there's nothing particularly weird about the date, it was just a very recent source when posted. It's perfectly normal and expected that the date line of a source will be based on their local time. For example, MrBeasts's tweet shows as 10 February 6:18am for me in NZ. Any NZ source writing about Mr Beast's tweet is likely to have a date of 10 February or later. The fact it may still be 9 February for Cambalachero, or UTC is irrelevant and doesn't indicate there's something wrong with an NZ source.Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You don’t think an article from Pakistan that has nothing to do with Pakistan posted at 3 a.m. Pakistani time is weird? It’s a press release. It was scheduled to post. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't what Cambalachero commented on and it wasn't what me reply addressed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, I agree because Twitter is just misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSPARK (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@LSPARK: Just to let you know, this isn't in the Survey section, so this will likely not be considered towards a consensus. You might want to add a formal comment in that section for consideration. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, can you do that for me? Thanks. LSPARK (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I've moved this comment chain as requested. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move per WP:NAMECHANGES: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. Seems quite clear and straightforward, and a compelling and detailed case is made above that it applies here. "Twitter" is nowhere near as commonly used to deserve consideration as an alternative.

Opposition based on favoring a split or something to be done with some other article is irrelevant. The topic of this article is this social network that exists today. The name of this article must be based on sources about this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support split (Oppose move): Twitter as it existed has been notable since 2007 and has been notable enough for words related to it to appear in dictionaries: Britannica, Cambridge, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, etc. This already suggests that an article for Twitter on its own makes sense. Regarding things during the moratorium, the company has admitted to Twitter still being recognizable: [X Corp.] says that users continue to refer to X as “Twitter” and posts as “tweets,” while some websites still display Twitter’s bird-shaped favicon when linking users to X. The lawsuit adds that as of December 11th, 2025, more than four million users accessed X through the “twitter.com” domain. (...) Even the company know how recognizable the former name is to people. (WP:Recognizability) One of the more telling things of that is the description on the Apple App Store, Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter) (...) .
  Despite this, I am wiling to consider PK-WIKI's proposed split. It does help that I am aware of how we are handling the Athletics, a baseball organization that was formerly the Oakland Athletics and that plan to become the Las Vegas Athletics. As can been seen, the first two links are standalone articles with the third being a redirect to the current process so far. That and we still have Twitter under Elon Musk floating around. If this can end the contentious of this topic, then I am for it. (As an aside, I am for a 12-month moratorium on just move discussions if this fails given that this was posted the literial minute the last one ended.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Since there appear to be claims that sources have moved on from using Twitter at all, here is a list proving the opposite: --Super Goku V (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Super Goku V: This does not show a diversity in sources; there are 5 sources in this list, whereas the X-only list cites 46. Even if this was a list of 46 different sources, that is still a 50/50 split between articles which use X as the sole name and articles which use X as the sole name, with a single explanatory reference to Twitter. I think the evidence is clear. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  It took me hours already to get through those sources. That is why it says Part I on it. The evidence in the nomination isn't fully accurate. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, my apologies then for not seeing the 'Part I' note. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  No problem. It looks like I am not even going to bother with a Part II now based on the below, so your original comment is fair that there is only 5 sources overall. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's clear you've put a lot of time into this, but I'm afraid you are attacking a straw man and misrepresenting the argument from the nomination. I haven't gone through your entire list yet, but of the dozen or so that I have, every single reference to "Twitter" is a historical reference. The standard from WP:NAMECHANGES is not whether reliable sources have started to pretend that the old name never existed—it is whether reliable sources have adopted the new name when referring to the subject in the present day. This was stated in the nomination. Dustinscottc (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve now been able to look at all of these and have confirmed that nearly all of these citations use “Twitter” in an unambiguously historical context or are about the trademark. The articles bring up Twitter in the context of Musk’s purchase of the platform (when it was named “Twitter”), people associated with the company before the sale of to Musk (again, when it was named “Twitter”), controversies that occurred on the platform when it was named Twitter, platform rules that were in place before Musk acquired the company (and when it was named “Twitter”), or a legal dispute over the Twitter trademark. There are a few sources, mostly NBC News, where there is a simple “formerly Twitter” is thrown in at a seemingly random point in the article, including some where the old name is noted for the first time after several references to “X”.

  In short, these are all instances where the source is not “discussing the article topic in the present day”. As explained in the proposal under “Sources still make references to X, formerly Twitter”, single references to the old name in “formerly Twitter” do not indicate present use of the new name, but these examples are all even weaker than those kinds of references because they are (nearly) all references to the old name made in explicitly historical contexts. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  The sources, as in the specific linked articles, do not mention Twitter in the body of the article. This demonstrates that those publications no longer feel it is necessary to clarify that X used to be called Twitter.

  This is what I understood your position to be about the sources; that they no longer were clarifying that X was Twitter. This is why I talked to you the last two days so that I made sure that I understood the exact reason the sources were used in the nomination.

  As I said earlier this week, it was going to take me awhile to compile everything (and I still am not done) and that I didn't want my time wasted.

  So to hear that I am misrepresenting the argument really burns me Dustinscottc. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant, but I guess not. Of the 40-some-odd news articles included as links in the proposal, the news articles from the sources I listed did not include “Twitter” in the body of the article. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear and you spent considerable time trying to rebut that, but even if I had meant that literally none of those publications ever mention “Twitter” for any reason, I don’t see how rebutting that moves the ball any in resolving the RM. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support move as most WP:RS now use the current name of the platform, which is X. Additionally, the name Twitter itself is now often used as a shibboleth to express dislike towards Elon Musk as described in this article, meaning that X (social network) would be a better WP:NPOVTITLE. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  You raise a good point. I'm not sure I agree 100% with this characterization, but it often reads as a deliberate choice when sources use still 'Twitter'. This is a reversal from the early days, when early adopters of 'X' were often explicitly endorsing the new direction under Musk or occasionally were critics seeking to draw a distinction from the platform's 'glory days'. Even if it does not always reflect a non-neutral POV, use of 'Twitter' in 2026 stands out and raises questions about the source's intent. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've also heard the name Twitter being used out of habit in conversation, similar to someone using the old name for a local shop that has changed hands or has otherwise been renamed (see McColl's), though there is overlap with the usage described in my original post in the case of Twitter. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  You mention WP:NPOVTITLE, but I am questioning whether you read it before doing so. The entire section talks about how non-neutral names are permissible provided that they are commonly recognizable, so that doesn't really help your case. Furthermore, it's not a conspiracy — no one has advocated for using "Twitter" as the article title as a protest against Musk, and you should not insinuate this to be the case. People can interpret Wikipedia article titles however they want. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  My reading of WP:NPOVTITLE is that Twitter, especially now, is not so established as the name that it would override WP:NPOV concerns surrounding its usage as a primary identifier, certainly not to the extent of Alexander the Great vs Alexander III of Macedon, especially since most WP:RS use X as the primary name, sometimes mentioning the past one once.

  I did not intend to suggest a conspiracy as such was taking place but reflecting on the usage of the names X and Twitter generally. For instance, previous RMs often have at least a couple of posts WP:CRYSTALBALLing about the name reverting to Twitter in the event of Musk giving up ownership of the platform - this being at a point when it had been called X for a year - and other users simply stating that they will personally never stop referring to it as Twitter, in some cases invoking a dislike of Musk when doing so. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Those who cautioned that the name change may not stick weren't the ones looking at a crystal ball, it was those who speculated that "X" would overtake "Twitter" as the common name when it had only been called X for a year — far too early to make such a determination. Those who cite personal preference as their rationale for supporting or opposing a move will be discarded per WP:NHC. Regardless of where this page title ends up, it will be entirely because editors are following our PAGs, not an endorsement nor insult to Musk. Like I said, people can interpret Wikipedia titles however they wish. For this reason, I disagree that "Twitter" is, on its own, non-neutral term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I will add that I oppose splitting the page into pre-Musk and post-Musk eras as it is the same website with the same accounts (minus the few banned under Musk's ownership), posts and other associated data including likes and favourites. If there was a merge or a migration of accounts from one platform to another pre-existing one, a split would make more sense, but that's not what happened in this case.

  I will concede that splitting the article in different ways may be a good idea due to its size as of writing (>300,000 bytes). UltrasonicMadness (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move as I think enough time has passed since the rebranding and now most news sources and people refer to it as X not Twitter. GWA88 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support It took some time but sources are using this name enough to satisfy our WP:NAMECHANGES policy. Oppose spit, there's already a History of Twitter and I'm unsure what further value we would gain from a separate article detailing pre-Musk Twitter.LM2000 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Enough time has passed that this is now the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. This is getting WP:YOGURTish. Come on. Are we just going to keep doing this move request for all eternity? BTW I would support X (Twitter) as an IAR compromise. Red Slash 16:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  As best I recall, Wikipedia practically never uses an article title of the form "Topic name (alternative name)". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. It would be a sui generis solution. Red Slash 17:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is a perennial topic of discussion at Associated football (per its FAQ), and that article ultimately settled for an uncommon-but-natural disambiguation over an awkward parenthetical. And I mean, you can't get any more "uncommon" than "association football", a name used by virtually no one, so naturally disambiguating this article with a widely recognizable former name, "Twitter", is far from egregious or unusual compared to how numerous other articles apply NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Associated football is a classic example of adding a word for a natural disambiguation, which is not the sort of thing that is occurring here. If we weighted the WP:AT criteria as you have suggested doing, "soccer" would have won out as more natural, concise, and precise as "associated football". But we don't, because across the English language, especially among those most interested in the topic and in most of the RSs writing about it, "football" is the dominant term. The article title reflects the greater weight given to the common name. So yes, given that Twitter is no longer the common name, keeping that name would be both egregious and unusual. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. "X" is the name of the service and has been for almost 3 years. An article with the name "Twitter" should persist as the history of Twitter before it became X. The X article should focus primarily on the current iteration of the service, i.e. what is currently referred to as Twitter under Elon Musk. —Samvscat (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• oppose move support split and merge into Twitter under Elon Musk they're functioanly two diffent things at this point—blindlynx 12:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  What makes you think they’re functionally two different things? Twitter evolved more along its lifetime until Musk’s acquisition, which did change some things, but barely modified the UI. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 23:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Twitter under Elon Musk: Company layoffs and restructuring; "X Hiring", a job search system; Grok; X Premium; X Money Account, a planned banking feature; Changes to moderation, including the weakening of policies to restrict hate speech and transphobic attacks; Removing the report system; The various account reinstatements in late 2022; The various suspensions also in late 2022; The changes made to labeling state-affiliated media; Requiring verified accounts to pay for it with what ended up becoming X Premium; etc. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: May I remind you that Twitter was originally a service to post one-line status messages through SMS? OmegaAOLtalk? 03:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  You may. :P My understanding has been that Twitter started to move away from that around 2008 to 2010, but left the ability to still do so in. I believe the feature was removed after Elon took over, but there was apparently a vulnerability that was discovered. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think the feature was removed slightly before the Musk takeover... my point was that the service itself changed significantly more in the Twitter period than it has in the X period, making a split on those bounds meaningless. OmegaAOLtalk? 04:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Those don't change the core of the platform, though; posting, DMing, replying, reposting/retweeting are still the same, while many still call X posts "tweets". The core of the platform has remained the same. You wouldn't call Minecraft a different game after it moved to Microsoft, although many things have changed. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 04:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes - even the user interface is the same. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but at this point it seems like this is more of a Athletics situation.

  (Minecraft isn't a good example for me as I know there is a PC version and a mobile version and two(?) console version that are all different from each other to my understanding and I have no idea which ones are from before Microsoft took control, except that the PC one was the original.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Before Microsoft, there was Java (the original PC edition), legacy mobile edition, and legacy Xbox 360 edition with the latter two being developed by 4J Studios and the former being developed by Mojang. Nowadays, we have Java, still just for PCs, and Bedrock, which runs on PCs, phones, and consoles. Microsoft hasn't phased out Java due to the certainty of massive user backlash and abandonment if they even attempt to do so, although they have been trying to push Bedrock over Java for a few years. (Bedrock is also heavily monetized, unlike any of the pre-Bedrock platform editions or Java)

  Minecraft is still one article. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Gotcha. On a separate tune, what if you took a hockey team in the west and had them ride a 90 minutes plane? You would get the Utah Mammoths, a team that has only played since 2024, but is the former assets of Arizona Coyotes. Sometimes we have two articles for the same overall subject. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V: I don't think the case is the same here. The Mammoths are an entirely new team that just absorbed the assets of the Coyotes; X is just a rename of Twitter, itself renamed from twttr. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  A large part of the notability of Twitter was its iconic "tweet" verb, 140 character limit, hashtags, third-party accounts and API, bird theme, SMS lineage, etc. The article about Twitter needs to dedicate a ton of space to these unique and novel features and how they developed over the years, per reliable sources. Detailed descriptions of these things are all WP:DUE for inclusion in the Twitter article.

  All of that is gone now in X. Describing those Twitter features isn't needed in a dedicated X article, beyond perhaps a brief mention and link. Instead the X article should probably focus on things relevant to the social network X owned by Elon Musk. But if the article is a combined Twitter + X article, now both must be included and the article is much larger, less focused, less readable, and worse as a result.

  That's why a split would be so valuable. The name + ownership change provides a specific clean break that allows each article to focus on what it is/was. There is of course some amount of overlap; summary-style descriptions and links to the other article are a better way to tell the full story of Twitter/X rather than trying to cram both into the same article. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  These changes happened gradually - the 140 character limit was changed to 280 in 2017 and the SMS service was discontinued in April 2020. Musk bought the platform in 2022, and the rebranding away from the bird theme and "tweeting" along with the API controversy happened the following year. I'm not sure about hashtags specifically as I don't personally use this particular platform under any name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Right, all of these things were introduced and evolved during the Twitter era. Then removed during the transition and ownership change. They have no real relevance to the current social network X and can thus be split off into an article dedicated to the particular features and culture of pre-Musk Twitter. The X article would have a section that summarizes this transition and links back to the Twitter-specific article. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  The features I mentioned were removed well before the leadership change, and the site continues to evolve afterwards (e.g. X Hiring in 2024). The leadership change itself is one of many steps, if a significant one, in the platform's history. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Support move/rename, strong oppose split Over the past few RMs I've voted neutral on a rename, but have made it clear that was on the circumstance that we don't treat Twitter and X as separate entities. They are not separate entities, and I'm surprised to still see that argument being used. All sources make it clear that they're the same website, usually by calling it X (formerly Twitter). This time, it seems a lot of the oppose votes specify that they're opposing on the grounds of splitting, which is a huge no. I support moving this page to X (social network) in the hopes that this ends the split arguments, as this time it seems there are currently more supports than opposes, unlike the past RMs.

For the record, when I say "split arguments", I mean treating Twitter and X as separate websites, since they're obviously the same website with a by now 3 year old rename. I am fine with separate pages for the history of Twitter/X, so separate pages of "History of Twitter (2006-2022)" and "History of X.com (2022-present) are fine. However, one of either "Twitter" and "X (social network) must be a redirect of the other. In this case, I support making Twitter the redirect and X.com the page name. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I support X (social network), as X.com refers to a defunct online bank co-founded by Elon himself. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that "one of either "Twitter" and "X (social network) must be a redirect of the other" is your !vote/opinion and not an actual requirement. Our content policies would allow for the current social network to exist at X and a WP:SPINOUT / WP:SPINOFF article describing the previous iteration to exist at Twitter. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I probably should have used the phrase "should be a redirect" instead of "must be a redirect". If we do a Spinout/Spinoff article (which I don't mind doing to reduce bloat), I would strongly oppose naming any of them simply "Twitter". None of the arguments that Twitter is a separate website are convincing, and all sources I have read treat them as the same website. The company pages are already split, which is fine since that's the core issue of why people feel differently about the website pre-Musk and post-Musk, but the website itself is not suddenly entirely different because of an owner change. So let me rephrase what I said using more specific language: One of "Twitter" or "X (social network)" should be a redirect of the other, and if there is a WP:SPINOFF article, the other name being used as the redirect (in this case "Twitter") should never be used as the name of said spinoff unless accompanied by additional identifiers (i.e. history of) to make it clear that there is not a defunct separate website. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a strong case that Twitter should be a disambiguation page. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't even consider a disambiguation, but that can also work. Just not a fully separate page. The disambiguation should list X (social network), Twitter (company), and any history/userbase pages we spin out for bloat reasons. But again, Twitter itself should not be the name of any full page should this RM succeed. We should not confuse readers by making them think they are separate websites when the majority of sources agree they are the same. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move Common name reigns supreme.★Trekker (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  There seems to be overwhelming evidence above that the common name has changed. You'll need to provide evidence showing it has not. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, per WP:COMMONNAME. It should have been moved a long time ago. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. Strong oppose split. It's time. Evidence is overwhelming that sources refer to the platform as 'X' in the present day. This has long been the case, frankly. Merriam-Webster has even redefined tweet to reflect this change. I find the support arguments quite persuasive. The arguments for a split are not grounded in any reasonable assessment of consistent, mainstream description by independent, reliable sources. One can find statement along the lines of, "it's a different company under Musk". These are not meant to be taken literally but do express meaningful changes in policy and the culture on the app. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Keep Twitter as a primary redirect here if moved. This platform is still the primary topic for "Twitter" and the article Twitter, Inc. should remain at that title (unless there's some other reason to change, which can be discussed there). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:AT. Twitter remains the most recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent name for the subject as compared to X (social network). The reason reliable sources continue to simply use "Twitter" or "X, formerly known as Twitter" because the name Twitter remains the most recognizable to their readers (and ours). I also oppose split as that will only lead to duplication. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  • The reason reliable sources continue to simply use "Twitter"

  This is absolutely untrue.

  • or "X, formerly known as Twitter"

  Less than half use that.

  • recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent

  X surpasses Twitter in all but criteria 4, concision. I implore you, please read the evidence presented in the move request before forming an opinion. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have read it. I have also reviewed the more than 50 articles that still use Twitter provided above by Super Goku V. I have also done my own search of reliable sources and continue to find many cases that use Twitter, especially internationally, were it appears publications are less beholden to U.S. corporate interests and less fearful of Musk's bullying. The general society still calls it Twitter regardless of what some billionaire with a new toy thinks. Twitter is the COMMONNAME for the subject and exactly what WP:AT tells us we should use for the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Those articles provided by Super Goku V are all discussions of Twitter in a historical context. They are not references to the social network in the present day. If you have done your own research, it would be helpful for you to provide it. Your comment also exhibits a significant bias, which I'm sure will be taken into account when this request is closed. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Did you also look at the Google Trends data that proves X is the COMMONNAME?

  Super Goku V provided 5 unique sources, whereas here there are 46.

  The American media is not 'beholden' to Musk.

  No article, anywhere, including in Super Goku TV's list uses primarily Twitter.

  As proven by Trends and publishing houses, the general society calls it X. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Coffeeandcrumbs In addition, the RM cites several non American sources such as The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, and Al-Jazeera, all perennially reliable. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  As a ten minute check: The Times of Israel: The social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, is now one of the most effective tools for spreading antisemitism in history, a report from (...) Jewish groups have complained for years about rampant antisemitism on X, which billionaire Musk acquired in 2022 before he changed its name from Twitter; Jerusalem Post: A new X/Twitter feature revealing the application store country registry and location of social media accounts has raised concern about foreign influence and the authenticity of users engaged in polarized online debates, including the Arab Israeli conflict and antisemitism; Al Jazeera: X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter and owned by Elon Musk, has launched a new “transparency feature” which provides a greater level of information about accounts, including the locations of the users behind them.

  All three have not stopped using Twitter and would be on my list if I had continued with it. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I can similiarly find multiple instances of the sources you have cited using only X. OmegaAOLtalk? 06:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move. It's time to leave the old name in the past. The evidence is indeed sufficient enough to prove that X has become the dominant name in modern times. 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also oppose split, as X and Twitter are not separate entities. I agree with Myceteae's complaint about the !votes supporting a split. 1isall (talk | contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support split Twitter name still have legacy, as several user still keep their account after Elon's acquisitions, and several people still referecing that platform as Twitter. X in other way is Elon's idea and just takeover all the legacy Twitter had. My suggestion is Twitter contain history of thing before Elon's acquisitions, and X as thing that comes after Elon's acquisitions.--John123521_{t c} 15:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding several users still keep their account after Elon's acquisitions, that's an understatement. Literally all users who already had an account and didn't consciously delete their own accounts or get banned (both of which can, did, and still do happen at any time) kept the exact same account after Elon's acquisitions. Because it's the same website with a rename. All posts, likes, and dates pre-Elon remain the exact same too. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Same" site, totally different management, employees and policies. The rename would never have happened if they didn't want to signify a "clean break" with previous Twitter, as it would've been far cheaper and easier to keep using Twitter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Totally different management, employees and policies. These very reasons is why the company that owns Twitter is currently given two separate pages, Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. The different company has little bearing on the fact that the actual website has the exact same UI, functions, internal data, and content. A "clean break" does not change the fact that the end product is not significantly different to the average user. Again, we should not deceive readers that there was a separate website where data had to be manually imported by users, and the separate company pages are sufficient to explain the management/policy change. Too many sources say "X (formerly Twitter)", or use the two names interchangeably in the same article, for Wikipedia to disregard and call different sites, and the ones that only say "X" is an indication of the new name catching on, not that they're different websites. The 2022 company switch is already listed in the infobox (and there were also 3 different companies between 2006 and 2007), so readers will be able to understand when the supposed "tipping point" happened by reading the infobox. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  And who are those "several people", exactly? Cambalachero (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I went back and looked at another move request where there was a lot of debate; Sears Tower to Willis Tower Talk:Willis_Tower/Archive_2#Requested_move. This debate was opened up right after the official name change in July 2009. Even 17 years later, there are still reliable sources that refer to Willis Tower as formerly known as Sears Tower. There are also still people who call it Sears Tower today, and always will especially Chicagoans. The debate about the Willis Tower name change was eventually closed on trying to define what COMMONNAME meant and how to interpret it. A lot of articles that mention "Twitter", will have X as a standalone in the title or first few paragraphs and then later on in the article mention that X used to be known as Twitter. Most people, even if they still call it Twitter, won't be confused if you tell them you saw something on X. Patken4 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I assume this is one reason Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE frames the necessary condition as whether reliable sources have begun regularly using the new name, not whether they have ceased to use the old name. The more “official” name aligns better with people’s expectations of an encyclopedia, which allows people to look up something they encounter in real life. It may be that some people never picked up on the name change, so reliable sources may continue to clarify for some time. But if I see a sign in the street that says “Willis Tower”, I should be able to look that current information up in the encyclopedia. Redirects help in both directions, but I think most people would expect the encyclopedia entry and the entity in the present day to match. Either way, Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE covers these circumstances specifically, and more specific rules generally take precedence over more general rules. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  Although I think a case can be made for Willis to be moved back to Sears (the first sentence literally says formerly and still commonly referred to as the Sears Tower, LOL) — and, as I noted previously, this is one of the few outliers compared to dozens of contrasting examples — enough time has passed for most people to be familiar with the new name "Willis Tower". Most people, even if they still call it Twitter, won't be confused if you tell them you saw something on X? I'm not sure I can confidently say that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Several users are making speculations about the reasons behind the "formerly known as Twitter" comment that sources sometimes make. If we're going to speculate, here's mine: pages require a minimum text length for an article, which is easy to achieve for actual news stories, but not so much for "this guy said something on X". So they usually bloat such articles with a lot of redundant and unneeded info to reach the minimum... and "formerly known as Twitter" adds some valuable extra characters to the count. Cambalachero (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per InfiniteNexus. Nothing has changed since the last time came up - Twitter is still the COMMONNAME for the website and the title that will have the longest and most enduring recognition.Katzrockso (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  > Twitter is still the COMMONNAME

  A few people have been saying this, but no proof has been provided; guys, if you have 50 news articles that only use "X" and 50 articles that use "X" but mention "Twitter" once at the start of the article, "X" is the common name. This is a useless line of argument. OmegaAOLtalk? 13:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per commonname. Also, wikinav data shows that only 0.3% of Twitter's views came from the x.com dab page and X (disambiguation) didn't even crack the top 2 incoming pageviews.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move per COMMONNAME. Reliable source media outlets have shifted to calling it "X" without qualification. (That they qualified that it used to be Twitter for two years was not because that's it's common name now but because news outlets routinely handle this for changed names where users may be familiar with the old name. That was time-limited and AP, others are no longer doing this.) The new name is in increasingly common usage in TV interviews (and, anecdotally, among people I hear in everyday life). The time has come. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move per COMMONNAME. It's literally been years since the name change. As the nom states, most news outlets use the name X right now. If we keep using "Twitter" we are dwelling on the past. The platform is called X and it will be called X. Twitter is gone.rayukk | talk 10:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• At this time, I do not believe any of the proponents of the move other than the nom have substantively engaged with our conventions for titiling articles with disambiguation required. As pointed out by the comment from Gluonz among others, the nom's understanding of WP:NATDAB, especially the point of when you can add additional words flatly contradict the text and examples of NATDAB. Given such deficits, I see no prima facie reason to revisit the titling of this article as proposed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm having trouble following your argument. It looks like you're saying that because I have (in your view) misstated WP:NATDAB, the whole proposal is somehow invalid. I don't think I've misstated WP:NATDAB because I've tried to limit it to the context of an article whose subject has undergone a name change. I don't know of any article that deals with a need for disambiguation due to a name change keeping the old name to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation. That's my point. But let's say that's wrong--how does that undermine everything else about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE? There is no command to avoid a parenthetical disambiguation unless there is absolutely no alternative, so I'm not sure how WP:NATDAB overcomes all of the other reasons to change the name. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I acknowledge your surrebuttal to Gluonz's comment that you've repeated here exists, but I fail to see why it being used prior to a name change is of any help to your case. NAMECHANGES, the primary plank of these move requests, affords us to give extra weight to names post–name-change, it does not mean we give negative weight and exclude entirely any names used prior to a name change. There is no policy-based basis for excluding prior names when deciding the article title, and the arguments I've seen so far for doing so appear to be contrived and pretextual in the rare instances where they even exist. As for NATDAB "overcoming" reasons to move, there is no such thing required. It is up to the proponents of a move to propose an appropriate (superior) disambiguation as needed. There is no possibility of moving this to the base title (X) so any move proposal which fails to engage with NCDAB (or invents a novel and rather tortured reading thereof) is ex facie defective. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  You’re giving far too much weight to WP:NATDAB, and you’re underselling what WP:NAMECHANGES actually says. The former requires balancing a number of factors, some of which are a judgment call. It does not command any particular outcome. The latter, while also not strictly commanding a particular outcome, is much more straightforward. It says that we give extra weight to reliable sources, but then clarifies how we do that by saying that if RSs adopt the new name, then Wikipedia should as well. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter how much weight I am giving to NATDAB, because it is up to the proponents of a move to propose an appropriate disambiguation, and said issue of disambiguation has largely been unaddressed, which in my opinion is patently absurd, since if nobody wants it at the base name (X) the title clearly requires disambiguation. I could make zero mention of NATDAB and place zero weight on NATDAB and still contend that I do not believe the proponents of the move have appropriately addressed the issue of disambiguation, because other than their (your) poor discussion of NATDAB they have done so not at all. In fact, I am willing to have all comments, yours and mine, relating to NATDAB in the specific struck by WP:MUTUAL if it would make this more straightforward for you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Y'all are free to call for the usurpation of the title "X" (no disambiguator) if you wish instead, but I don't really see how it's unstraightforward to point out that "X" and "X (social network)" or X-with-any-other-disambiguator are in fact different titles, so I really don't know how to express this more clearly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  “X (social network)” is appropriate because it includes the common name, is not overly long, and is not ambiguous. “Twitter” is not a good natural disambiguation because that is no longer the common name and it is entirely unrelated to the current common name. I’m really not sure what else you expect from an explanation. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would be perfectly satisfied if you focus the conversation exclusively on what is and isn't a good disambiguator without interjecting your false comments on natural disambiguation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support Usage has shifted firmly towards X ime Mach61 15:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move to X (Twitter) as an alternative that has elements of both. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Again, Wikipedia practically never uses article titles like that, with a disambiguation term that is just an alternative name for the subject. Personally, I would be opposed to such a name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support It's the common name, it's the official name, it should have been moved years ago, and the argument will only become stronger over time that the current title is outdated, inaccurate, and ever more embarrassing. TocMan (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support split, strongly oppose move Twitter and X (that is, Twitter under Elon Musk) are radically different enough to where the two articles should be separate. The ownership, governance, content, and functionality significantly differs to where multiple parts of the article are required to distinguish between Twitter and X which comes across as almost as clunky as the act of calling it "X" in the first place, and serves to cause unnecessary confusion. It also may be worth mentioning that the name X was already taken by a notable organization almost forty years prior. It's not our responsibility to correct Musk's laughable naming decision, but an effort should at least be made to make it less consistently confusing as far as the encyclopedia itself is concerned. — rae^5e <talk> 15:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not our responsibility that Musk chose a clunky name, but it will be our fault if we treat them as separate websites just because a handful of editors blatantly ignored the sources. See the section I created covering recent sources that interchangeably use the two names, confirming that secondary sources indeed treat them as one. Even a previous discussion included a consensus that sources treat them as the same website, and that should be our deciding factor, not editors' opinions. The governance and company are already separate pages from this one as Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. I'm not understanding where you or anybody are seeing that the content and functionality are even "significantly" different. All content pre-Musk remained fully intact unless the user deleted their own accounts, which can happen independently of Musk, and there is almost no difference in functionality whatsoever. I made my account in 2020, and there is not a single difference in UI or functionality compared to then and now. If you squint you could say content is different because "people quit using it to protest Musk or joined because of him", but in this case we should make 1920s Disney a separate page from 2020s Disney because very few people alive back then still work for Disney nowadays, which would be a terrible idea, just like how splitting X/Twitter would be a horrible idea. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• We need to change the name to X. It has been used formally for over 2 years now. We don't live in some democrat fantasy land to still call it twitter Bgboi179 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. The name used in sources today is definitely "X" and obviously only going to lean more towards "X" unless the name changes back again. ALittleClass (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support of move to X instead of Twitter at this point as WP:CCC. This one took a long time, but the usage of Twitter seems to have finally fallen to be more and more a historical artifact and less and less of the current, best title for the article on the official name of this messaging and networking site. I would have opposed some of the earlier requests to change this title, but now is the time to actually do this as evidenced by the overwhelming weight of consensus above, as well as the sources, COMMONNAME, and other policy justifications. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose of move but Support split. Per rae^5e's arguments. QRep2020 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I believe it has been past time to do this. Unless something drastic occurred, the shifting trends of usage will always be in favor of X over Twitter for the future ahead. Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. While “Twitter” remains the most common name in colloquial speech (see WP:SLANG), we should switch over because most reliable sources have begun calling it “X”. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 15:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  My other comments notwithstanding, I must also object strenuously to the implicit claim that "Twitter" is primarily colloquial given that there have been plenty of usage in scholarly journals. Indeed, 10 121 have been indexed by ProQuest as published in the last 12 months. I would though, again decline to figure out an appropriate disambiguator and assess the relative prevalence thereof as I consider that to be not my job but the job of those who wish to support the move. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Although they were published in the last 12 months, the few sources I see that only mention Twitter use data from before 2022, like in this one (2008-2021) and this one (2020), and this one (2009-2010). Other sources also almost always mention the name X. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 04:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't believe I've implied otherwise, but to be explicit about it, I believe that X also being used is perfectly consistent with my comment regarding "Twitter" not being used exclusively or mostly in a colloquial register, and I explicitly decline to survey relative prevalence with any alternate disambiguator (e.g. "X (social network)" or "X (Twitter)" or "X [whatever else]") as Not My Job. Best. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move. "X" is now the common name. Guz13 (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Keeping the old name now seems increasingly artificial. A redirect from Twitter to the new title will be well sufficient. Ur frnd (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. X is now the common name in reliable sources. Redirecting "Twitter" to X will both avoid confusion and reflect how the platform itself operates. Onyxqk (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move, oppose split. It's painful, but it's hard to argue with evidence presented by OmegaAOL the X is more commonly used name now, in common usage. I doubt there are many people who will be looking up "Twitter" and get confused when the first sentence on the Wikipedia page says "X, formerly known as Twitter." In the present moment, X is more used by everyone except us. Per the idea of a split, I think a redirect is enough. If people are looking for information on pre-Musk Twitter, they can find it in the article for X; giving it its own page seems cumbersome and unnecessary. This isn't a musical.ly case where something got absorbed and so ceased to exist; Twitter, unfortunately, became the horrible place that is X. Aven13 09:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Aven13 I know this is beside the point, but please refrain from expressing yourself on Musk and X. It is not relevant or beneficial here and Wikipedia as a whole is not the place to do so. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 09:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Lekritz Fair point, won't happen again. I do think politics are relevant, though; it's inexorably tied to how people feel about this name change. One of the survey answers immediately above mine is "We don't live in some democrat fantasy land to still call it twitter" (Bgboi179), and statements like that (and, more precisely, backlash against statements like that) certainly slowed down the renaming of this article. Aven13 10:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Aven13 You made my point better than I could. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move per COMMONNAME. The fact of the matter is that most reliable sources say "X" rather than "Twitter" -- that is what really matters. But X is also the name of the company now and its in the branding and has been for a few years now. It's not unusual for companies to change names and Wikipedia follow suit. X is basically as recognizable as Twitter now, even if people still muscle memory Twitter into their search bars. It's not appopriate to appeal to sources before the name change either. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I don’t think it’s necessary to have two distinct articles just because of a name change. If Elon had kept it Twitter, nobody would be suggesting two different articles. They are still the same company. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you, but the companies X Corp. and Twitter, Inc. are separate articles on Wikipedia. Do you disagree with this as well? Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 04:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, they should be separate. There’s a distinction between a service (in this case a social network) and the actual company. It appears that Twitter, Inc. and X Corp are like actually different entities—not just changing of hands to Elon. Like, Twitter, inc literally doesn’t exist now (correct me if I’m wrong). Also, they can conceivably have different products (e.g. Twitter, Inc used to have Vine as well as Twitter the service). X/Twitter (service) is the same thing owned by two distinct entities. R. G. Checkers ^talk 04:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  @R. G. Checkers Are you suggesting having three articles: X Corp., Twitter Inc. and X (social media)? Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 05:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree Ever since the name change, literally most sources call it X. Strong agree here. Robloxguest3 (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I actually came to this article (and noticed this discussion) after watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ZG_xWYLzI who jokes at the top of the show "our main story tonight concerns twitter, or as it's been called since Elon Musk purchased it a few years ago - twitter" I know that's just a joke on a news/comedy show, but it gets a laugh because it is still known as twitter.

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been stated by @InfiniteNexus @Greedycell and @Bait30 (who I thought was especially convincing (and concise), plus others. PopCultureMakesMePop (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hah, me too. I hadn't noticed this RM until I saw that John Oliver video in my YouTube feed, and then decided to check back on this matter which I've been monitoring since I closed the previous discussion. I'm thinking I need to concede that Twitter is not a former name, at this point it's a common, current, alternative name. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Not according to usage in WP:Reliable sources, which is what such assessments are based on. Neither John Oliver nor his audience are reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

... Did you not see the Google Trends data, showing X to be more popular? John Oliver caters to only his own audience and structures his material for that audience. Hardly reliable. OmegaAOLtalk? 08:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Using a comedian to make a judgment call is poor reasoning. Guz13 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support move as X is used in the majority of recent RS. Open to split giventhe differences between pre-Musk Twitter and Musk's X. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support move. From a Wikidata mainly contributor, we have X titled as such with aliases for Twitter and a few other references at Wikidata item Q918. This is not a insurmountable technical problem. It is clear there are experienced, motivated Wikipedians ready to make the changes necessary. It may also be helpful to note the inter-Wikipedia language pages on the Wikidata page. There is a good mix of X and Twitter and X (Social network) or similar. I suspect whatever the consensus on en Wikipedia will flow to the rest, given X is an American company. It may also be worth noting that the longer this debate drags on, the more confusing Twitter will be to younger people and new users who only ever knew and signed up for a site called X. Finally, I do not support a split. My mind goes to when Beats Music became Apple Music. Apple bought Beats mainly to jumpstart their foray into music streaming (coming off the iTunes Store purchases). This, however, is distinct because they shut down and migrated users to a new platform, with Twitter -> X, users, employees, assets, and the rest remained the same entity only under new ownership and a new name. An interesting saga to be sure, but one that can be covered in the history section of a X article. -- GA Kevin (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose because "(social network)" is inadequate, misleading, non-neutral POV disambiguation. X is actually an anti-social network which allows, and arguably actually promotes, anti-social behavior. I would support X (Twitter) because "(Twitter)" is the most common form of disambiguation used by reliable sources. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  It isn't a anti-social network, in fact it is more social due to the fact that it censors less stuff (although not like that is good) Robloxguest3 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  I believe it is social network because of the structure, not because of the use or consequences. Mastodon is also titled this way for similar reasons (distinguishing from the mammoth-like animal, the Mastodon.) -- GA Kevin (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I think this comment illustrates that we’re past the serious debate portion of this RM and it’s time to close the discussion. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fellow readers, you may chuckle at this but it is these very justifications basically that have prevented the article being moved for the last 2 years. OmegaAOLtalk? 08:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support WP:NAMECHANGES. I think enough time has passed and everyone needs to put their personal feelings to one side. "X" is commonly used as a name for this platform at the moment and I think the precedence for such a move has already been set by MS NOW. Keivan.f^Talk 20:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. If this were anything else, it would be a non-controversial move. When a company changes its name, the article gets moved. Musk is a divisive figure but our general distaste for Musk shouldn't govern our approach to the article. --B (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Extra Info

• Info comment For those interested, I had a Python script go through and categorize all of the titles of the references used in the article, to get a rough proportion of what names were being used in the article's sources (Twitter, X, or Both). Here are the results. (included is the raw output so you can spot classification errors - regex is hard! )

HenryMP02 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated, but worth saying a non-insignificant amount of those references were published/accessed pre-name change. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this data does much for the name change question without dates. Obviously, material written before Elon Musk announced a name change will not refer to the new name. Dustinscottc (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the two comments above. I prefer to see links to actual articles, and preferably articles published within the past three months. Some1 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

To provide a link, WP:NAMECHANGES doesn't count sources before the name change, so this can be a red herring as obviously a source about Twitter's founding from like 2015 isn't going to use X. HurricaneZeta^C 15:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES gives "extra weight" to sources after the name change. Though I agree with your point that sources written before the change can't use the new name. HenryMP02 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The whole report is pointless. The references used on the Wikipedia article are not a good sample (besides the presence of sources from before the renaming, there may be multiple souces from a same publisher, and reliable publishers who have not been cited). The tites are worse, a bad sample of an already bad sample, as the title alone may not follow the same rules as the news piece itself (I mean, all those sources should mention either Twitter, X or both; the idea that 90 of them do not use either one seems ludicrous). I would prefer to remove the table or hide it in the collapsible box, as it is it's a giant Red Herring. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As it stands, this report provides little assistance in determining whether the article should be renamed. Its statistical value would be limited even if time-trend analyses were sensibly derived from publication dates. But given the extended period since the platform's rebranding, it would be reasonable to expect the article title to reflect this by using a more neutral formulation, such as "X (formerly Twitter)". — Epipelagic (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• This is largely irrelevant since a great many references are from before the name change. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated, but should not it be worth mentioning that most of these were published before the renaming? Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 15:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing concern

More information The nom gave a satisfactory explanation HenryMP02 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC) ...

The nom gave a satisfactory explanation HenryMP02 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: in this diff, User:Dustinscottc pinged 24 editors regarding this RM, on a subpage for the pro-name-change side. Is this WP:VOTESTACK? HenryMP02 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC) While I'm not sure about the others, I put myself on that list. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Just in case, I put {{Not a vote}}. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 02:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC) After further reading, that diff was from 3 months ago. If he were to votestack, he would've pinged everyone again. Given how there was a 6 month moratorium that just ended, it's safe to assume that those pings were just for workshopping that subpage. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 02:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Exactly this. Dustinscottc (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Me as well. OmegaAOLtalk? 02:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Nope. I pinged those users for assistance in drafting the RM back in October. It makes no sense to ping everyone who was ever involved in discussions over the proposed move when the explicit intent of the subpage was to draft a complete proposal to move. Inviting people opposed to the move would have largely defeated the purpose of preventing yet another round of back and forth arguments. The pings were in conjunction with a message on the talk page announcing the sub-page so that anyone interested would at least be aware. Given that months transpired between the pings and the actual RM, it's hard to see how I could have been votestacking for a proposal that was three months in the future. Dustinscottc (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC) The issue isn't when the pings occurred, but how they were targeted. You selectively pinged editors to favor your desired outcome. That fits the definition of WP:CANVASS regardless of whether it occurred closer to drafting or the RM itself. The fact that the subpage was framed as pro-move does not exempt you from neutrality concerns when notifications are sent to a curated audience. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC) All the editors who I know are on that list added their names themselves, including me and u/EatingCarBatteries. I can't speak for the others but I assume that the case is the same. I highly doubt the intention was to ping. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Have a look at the diff. 22 editors, not 24 - my mistake. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Ah, I see. However this was many months before the move request, and none of the concerned editors have responded thus far, except me and EatingCarBatteries. It is acceptable to ping editors to collaborate on a move draft, which is what was done. (also, it's 22, not 24) OmegaAOLtalk? 05:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC) I sure did selectively ping editors. But I wasn’t calling them to an RM. I was seeking contributions to a sub-page that explicitly had a specific point of view. I wasn’t asking them to “vote” in a discussion, and any potential “vote” was still months away. So, no, it’s not WP:CANVASS. But if you’d like to complain about me to an admin, go right ahead. The remedy is still not to disregard the discussion in this RM. I should add that the selectivity was not based on the editor’s point of view, but rather whether the pinged editor had previously said something that I thought was useful to the draft. Obviously my criteria tended to bias a specific point of view, but as I recall (again, this was more than three months ago) I included some people who were neutral or even had been opposed to a move in the past. Dustinscottc (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. HenryMP02 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC) I raised this concern a month ago; however, since I noticed that the possible canvassing occurred many months ago, I decided it wasn't worth drilling into. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Close

Ratio of editors supporting:opposing

I know this is WP:NOTAVOTE, but it's still interesting to see that, unlike any other rename or split proposal in the history of this article, there are far more people voting to move the article than to split or to keep combined (the ratio of move to split/keep is 20:7). I think this shows that the situation has changed quite a bit in the last year.

For those editors who would claim this is a result of WP:CANVASSING, note that none of the 'canvassed' editors have participated in this discussion as of yet. OmegaAOLtalk? 06:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Freedom of speech, WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Websites, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject United States, WikiProject California, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Kinda surprised that they were not notified from the start. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Bay Area Task Force?

What does a company headquartered in Balstrop, Texas have to do with the Bay Area?? OmegaAOLtalk? 02:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

OmegaAOL, are you joking, serious, or making a point that the Bay Area Task Force part is outdated? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The latter. OmegaAOLtalk? 03:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the California WikiProjects are still interested in the article, then I guess it is what it is. Similar for the apparent disinterest from any Texas related WikiProjects. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, I actually think this very renaming might be the nail in the coffin that makes the California WikiProjects disassociate from this article. OmegaAOLtalk? 07:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@OmegaAOL I'm late here, but the script that does this notifies all the wikiprojects that have banners at the top of this article, below where it says This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. HurricaneZeta^C 21:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I know, it's just surprising thay the Bay Area wikiproject maintains interest in this article. OmegaAOLtalk? 23:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you are getting very close to bludgeoning territory and I would advise you to stop. Esolo5002 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This was just an innocuous observation. No call for concern. I also think there is a widespread misunderstanding of what bludgeoning means on Wikipedia but that's besides the point.OmegaAOLtalk? 12:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

"I think this shows that the situation has changed quite a bit in the last year" is clearly an argument. You have responded to almost all of the comments opposing your postition. Your opinion is known. Let others speak. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't mean for the post to come across that way, so shall I remove that last sentence? OmegaAOLtalk? 16:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The RM has been open for less than a day. Any discussion of numbers and proportions is still highly premature. Cambalachero (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP&redirect=no

Forumshopping. This counts. Reader of Information (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact we are on our 13th RM on a single topic is crazy.

People seriously need to wait like two years before doing another one. Nothing is going to change overnight and at this point, it's going to be considering what is that policy that forces a decision? Agh. Anyways. That policy. Reader of Information (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It is crazy that it has taken 13 RMs to get to a point where people are willing to accept the name change. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If we move it, people will be unhappy and start an RM. If we don't move it, people will be unhappy and start an RM. This will never end. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When, not if, the page is moved to 'X (social media)' that will probably end the RM deluge. For a long time it was 'too soon' for the move, but now, as I mention above, the name Twitter is becoming antiquated (and is likely there already). Once that occurs there will likely not be a serious RM to return the former name. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You are assuming that the previous RMs had a wrong outcome. It very well could be that this RM succeeds, but only because the RS landscape has finally shifted enough to justify it. StereoFolic (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Booth can be true.. I'd argue that a move has been needed since late 2024. OmegaAOLtalk? 20:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It has already been nearly a year since the last requested move. In any case, the systematic stonewalling of change regarding this article's name is a problem. When more than half of X related published articles do not contain the word "Twitter", using the legacy name reflects poorly on what is supposed to be the world's most up-to-date encyclopedia. OmegaAOLtalk? 05:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't "supposed" to be the most update to date, merely free. one only needs to look at the thousands of articles with outdated tags to see that. regardless i too do like the idea of spliting the article into pre X and post X. we do this with some mergers(like when Square merged with Enix to form Square Enix), Datsun being the old name for Nissan might be a better example. Akaibu (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to it in the context of traditional encyclopedias which usually have editions published every few years. OmegaAOLtalk? 10:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:YOGURT is very applicable here, unfortunately. Red Slash 23:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

The fact that it takes so incredibly long for -adult- Wikipedia editors to agree or disagree that a social network changed its name more than a year and a half ago is the height of bureaucracy. Whether I watch the news, read it, or whatever, X is always formally used. This discussion has gone too far, in my opinion. A split is best because there's a before and after Twitter. Twitter as we once knew it no longer exists and will never return. Philosophically, that's the transience of life and everything that exists. And that's okay. Coldbolt (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not a sign of immaturity among editors or the failings of a bureaucracy. Twitter was Twitter for over a decade, and it is now officially X. There are multiple (rather contentious) problems with this decision on a surface level that have gradually developed over the past few years, not the least of which was the initial refusal of news sources to refer to it as such, which has all but subsided at this point. Whether the current state of affairs justifies the article being moved or split to X or similar is being decided upon right now in a very reasonable manner, and that is not a bad thing; there is nothing to lament over here because it is simply a civilized discussion, a debate. I think that complaining about such a discussion isn't productive, it contributes nothing, and remarking that it is some amusing example of the "height of bureaucracy" is a rather hypocritical display of your own immaturity. — rae^5e <talk> 19:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikpedia is a WP:LAGGING indicator. We do not set trends; we follow them. And we do not look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Still ongoing discussions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 07:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of making things worse, I must say that all the meta-commentary about the process in the middle of the RM does not help matters. Some discussion of prior RMs is highly relevant to the present discussion and, even beyond that, many of the frustrations are valid. But the walls and walls of extra text don't help build consensus and don't make it easy for a closer to determine if there is any. (This isn't solely directed at the editor who started this section.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it is getting pretty ridiculous. If people say it's a different company then it should be split. Guz13 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Too many sources use both names interchangeably to split, and some sources are starting to prioritize "X"

X/Twitter had an outage earlier today, and there are multiple sources showing that both names get used interchangeably in articles (not just "X (formerly Twitter), but also using "X" in one sentence and "Twitter" in another sentence in the exact same article). The split votes saying that Twitter and X are "different websites" are not supported by sources. The majority, if not all, of the below sources are all unique sources independent from one another, all of whom seem to agree that X and Twitter are indeed the same site. All of the below sources are also from earlier today, February 16, 2026, so they all indicate that recent sources do not consider them to be separate websites.

1. APP: Why is X down right now? Is Twitter back up? Some report issues
2. Mens Journal: Is X (Twitter) Down? Social Media Platform Facing Major Outages
3. AOL: X down: Twitter not working in major outage
4. Mashable: Was Twitter down? What users reported: Thousands reported problems with X this morning.
5. Cincinnati.com: Is Twitter down? Users report issues with X. Here's what to know
6. Yahoo Canada: Is Twitter down? Updates on X outage on Monday, Feb. 16
7. Indy100: Is Twitter/X down? Elon Musk's site suffers outage
8. The Independent: X down: Twitter not working in major outage
9. Economic Times: X outage today: Is Twitter down and when will X be back up?
10. Mirror: X down LIVE: Twitter suffers worldwide blackout as Elon Musk's app crashes

About half of these sources list "X" before "Twitter", and the other half list them the other way around. Before considering these as weakening move votes, there are some sources that only use "X" in the title, but mention its former name "Twitter" in prose:

1. Variety: X Goes Down: Social Media Site Not Working for Thousands of Users Worldwide ("X, the social networking site formerly known as Twitter, was yet again suffering from technical problems Monday preventing users from accessing the service.")
2. CalCalistech: X down: Social network back online after suffering major global disruption ("Social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, suffered outages globally on Monday.")
3. USA Today: Is X down? Thousands of users report issues with social media app ("At 8:30 a.m. ET on Monday, more than 41,000 users reported issues with X, formerly known as Twitter, according to Downdetector")
4. Daily Commercial: Is X down? Users report issues with social media app on Presidents' Day ("On Monday, Feb. 16, 2026, or Presidents' Day holiday, over 40,000 X users reported issues with Elon Musk's social media site formerly known as Twitter")
5. India TV: X witnessed short outage in India and this could be the real reason ("X.com, formerly known as Twitter, was down for a while in India, from around 7PM IST to around 7:30PM IST.")

And here's some that exclusively calls it X:

1. Forbes: X Back Up After Several Disruptions Monday.
2. Times Now News: X Down Right Now? Users Say App, Website Not Working
3. Toms Guide: X was down — here's what happened during the massive outage
4. Mint: X down in United States right now? Over 41,000 users report disruptions - Check current status here

I do still support a move, but that really comes down to how most of the oppose votes are also split votes, which contrary to the RM initiator I find to be extremely weak rather than "strong". This is not akin to a sports team changing locations and name, because to my knowledge sources don't consistently liken sports teams to their old location to the same frequency they liken X to its old name. They are the exact same website excluding owners, and this fact is supported by sources. The tipping point for going from status quo to rename is that now some sources are starting to only use "X" in the tile and only mention "Twitter" in prose. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 I wholeheartedly agree that coverage supports move and, even more clearly, strongly refutes the 'split' rationales. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 on @Myceteae, an editor with which I have disagreed in the past, but I agree with them here. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 16:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)