Talk:Threads (social network)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Change tense?

Now that Threads is live, should article be updated to remove most future tense references? Sawitontwitter (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done it seems. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 23:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Screenshot

I would like to add a screenshot of the Threads app to this article. The file may be found at this link [1]. I made a good attempt at getting this to fit under fair use, but I am still relatively new to non-free uploads, so if there is an issue please let me know. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Did we both have the same idea? Seems like you uploaded your own version. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, uploading a screenshot is something I wanted to do since the app was released. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider adding my screenshot as well? As it shows the mobile interface of the Threads app. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 23:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There was some discussion on the unofficial Discord server. I'm going to change the screenshot to my image, which is of the mobile app. If it turns out to be a issue, then we can talk about it here again. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 02:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Threads template

Would it be a good idea to have a Thread template which can be used within an article with Thread app link? (which can be forked out from the Instagram template) The name "Template:Threads" looks like too general for that. Maybe Template:Meta Threads or Template:Threads by Meta maybe suitable as well? To utilise the username fetched from Wikidata, the same property value P2003 may be used as well as Threads username is linked up to Instagram username. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 05:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible non-compliance with Manual Of Style.

There may be possible non-compliance with the Manual Of Style in the article. Under the section 'Appearance and features' and sub-section 'Platform availability', in the 5th sentence there is a contraction used (isn't), but the Manual of Style advises against the use of contractions. So if others agree it should most likely be changed. 90.128.41.172 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Features are inncorrect

Currently the article states that "Threads and Instagram accounts share the same username, profile picture and name, with users only able to change these details through Instagram." This is incorrect as profile pictures can be changed within Threads without impacting the user's Instagram profile. Tylerthechanger (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks. The Engadget source supports what you were saying, too. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

“prompting users attempting follow voices such as”

might intend to be “users attempting to follow”. Rbychicksand (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. I thought I had fixed that already, actually. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Some restructure

Anyone else think this would be better if we removed the "Statistics" section entirely and changed the criticism section to a broader "Reception" section? Does anyone really care about mentioning who the most followed accounts are for instance? Even the user growth over time, is already somewhat mentioned elsewhere, in terms of its rapid initial growth that was found notable by several media outlets (NY Times and TIME, for instance). For a "Reception" section, there have been at least a few reviews of the app, for instance in the Guardian and a few others. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Timeline for Threads Development?

This article notes that Threads started development in January 2023. However Facebook launched an app called Threads in 2019 (https://thenextweb.com/news/instagram-launches-threads-chat-app) Furthermore, TechCrunch in 2021 refers to a "Twitter-like threads feature" (https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/02/facebook-is-testing-a-twitter-like-threads-feature-on-some-public-figures-pages/) for Facebook in one of its articles. A July 2021 article from Interactivity.la notes, "Instead of inspiring longer posts, Facebook threads could be used for live commentary on an event such as an awards show. Or users could post updates to their existing posts in a thread, rather than updating the original and making an edit announcement. Given that Facebook is testing this feature with public figures, perhaps its intended use is to streamline news sharing."( https://www.interactivity.la/en/2021/07/13/facebook-tests-a-twitter-like-threading-feature-on-some-public-figures-pages/ ) .

Was that a completely different Threads? ResearchBuzz (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That version of threads could be worth including in the history section as a brief mention, since it's by the same company. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I vividly remember using the old Threads app which shut down in 2021. The Verge confirms its development and 9to5mac confirms its shutdown. I think we should definitely include it somewhere. Limmidy (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I just added this to the beginning of the History section with a bunch of references, and noted the variations in the official long forms of the apps's names (original vs. new). —Pippinitis (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms and concerns

There's been criticism that the Threads logo contains "Mark of the Beast" or other biblical imagery. That's not my view, but it's definitely a criticism that's gaining traction on social media. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@57.135.233.22 Give a reliable source - not social media - and it'll be added. Couruu (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have a pungent conspiracy theory odor to it...[2][3][4] From some of the chatter, it may as well be called "Mark of the Pube". —Pippinitis (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Name

Threads is an extremely generic name which was already rejected/withdrawn as trademark for likely confusion. Various sources are using the name "Instagram Threads". Nemo 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I recommend using the page move request template. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The long forms of the app name that appear to have been officially used to date are "Threads from Instagram" for the 2019 version of the app,[5][6] and "Threads, an Instagram app" for the 2023 version of the app,[7][8][9] but I think the commonly used name by media reports (just "Threads") is fine for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippinitis (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive tags

@ElijahPepe: I appreciate your efforts to maintain verifiability, but the tags you're adding are a bit too excessive. Per Wikipedia:Tag bombing (which is an essay), the number of tags should be kept at a minimum. For example, there is no need for a "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone" tag when there already is a "may need to be rewritten" tag. In addition, "better source needed" tags placed in the article are also unnecessary since there is a "listed sources may not be reliable" tag at the top. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: I've cleaned up the criticism section from poorly sourced and undue statements and claims. Looks okay? Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Excessive Invisible Comments

So I open up the visual editor and it's spammed with invisible comments – doesn't seem like there's consensus for all caps comments saying "THIS IS FINE" or "ONE SOURCE UNLESS DUBIOUS". Pretty sure these violate MOS:COMMENT on how these should not direct editors to not perform certain edits unless there's consensus (and it doesn't seem like there is for everything). Can we seriously review all of the invisible comments here? I removed some of the most glaring as of writing, but we should really review what in tarnation is going on here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed most of them. FunLater (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Reinsertion of poorly sourced and potentially irrelevant tables

Jasp7676, the creator of one of the tables, decided to reinsert two tables without explanation, so I am bringing this here to the talk page. The first seems to be original research from the Threads website itself, and doesn't cite any secondary sources. The second table, which lists the number of users, seems rather unnecessary. Both tables could be summarized and written in prose form. I am posting this here to see what other editors think. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the table of user growth, since it's at least well sourced and should be stable by now. I think we should remove the table of most-followed accounts. It doesn't have a citation, and it seems like a large maintenance burden to keep it up-to-date.

However, I do think it's helpful to give a rough sense of the network's scale and what it means for high-profile accounts. Maybe we should have a sentence like "As of July 9, 2023, Kim Kardashian was the most followed individual on Threads with X followers, compared to Y followers on Twitter and Z followers on Instagram" ? If we can find a reliable citation, of course. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first table should be removed; it can be re-added later when a reference is available.

And the second table feels out of place right now, but could be useful to demonstrate the growth if put in another section. FunLater (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say having the most followed accounts table is important, with other platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc having them on wikipedia. Although it has required some maintenance in the last few days the list has stabilised significantly. As threads is now a major social media platform with over 100 million users there should be some sort of ranking/list showing the most popular accounts - as there is with all other major social media platforms. Jasp7676 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

But we don't have a source, so it's not a reliable table. We may have missed some accounts.

Wikipedia:No original research exists for a valid reason. I can't support keeping it until a reliable source has a list. FunLater (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The articles for YouTube and Tumblr don't have tables summarizing their most popular channels/profiles. I don't think this is an established best practice for social media pages. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is ChatGPT "app" an error?

The New York Times say, Threads has "taken the crown as the most rapidly downloaded app ever. It easily outstripped ChatGPT, the chatbot, which was downloaded one million times within its first five days, according to OpenAI, ChatGPT's maker." Are they talking about the IOS app, or is this an error? Is a web app an app? If so, what does the one million "downloads" refer to?

Currently, this Wikipedia page says, "Threads amasses thirty million users, becoming the most rapidly downloaded app and surpassing the record set by ChatGPT." FunLater (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is a mistake, I just made an edit to fix this confusion Panamitsu (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you :) FunLater (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Right now the page says that Threads overtook ChatGPT as the "fastest-growing platform", which strikes me as unclear. For example, is iOS 16 a "platform"? The sources seem inconsistent about whether they're comparing Threads to the ChatGPT phone app(s) vs the ChatGPT service as a whole, but I feel like we should stick to comparing mobile app downloads, since that's a clear category with reliable citations. Other categories like "platforms" or "software that you have to create an account to use" seem fuzzier and less citable. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most-followed Threads accounts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most-followed Threads accounts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Threads accounts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Most-followed users

I've created a page "List of most-followed Threads App accounts". I took data from ThreadsStatistics.com and verified accounts' followers on Threads.net. The information appears to be reliable, although it's worth noting that the rankings can change rapidly (since the social network is new).

However, the editor has requested secondary sources to confirm the accuracy of the list. Are there any suggestions on how we can validate and cross-reference this data? Onikishov (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Onikishov I think there is currently no way to verify this. Sources just simply don't exist yet. We should wait until a website like Socialblade adds Threads to its site. Socialblade is what pages like List of most-followed Twitter accounts uses. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Website doesn't work

Why doesn't https://www.threads.net/ work? Firefox won't open it and Chrome displays a barcode. Is there no way to use Threads from their website? There are apps for Apple and Android, but I don't see any app for Windows. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't work on Firefox, and the website is read-only through the direct link to the profile: threads.net/@instagram works.

This page currently says: "Additionally, there is a web front-end that enables users to access profiles and posts, although it lacks the capability to log in and view the app's timeline." FunLater (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Turn off Enhanced Tracking Protection if you have it enabled. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Appearance and features

Should this section have something about missing / forthcoming features? For example there isn't currently a way to search for topics and trends (just for users)? Also support for ActivityPub protocol is promised but not available yet. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/07/introducing-threads-new-app-text-sharing/ 82.70.85.182 (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best to stick to the current features, and not list features that may or may not become available. This would perhaps be different for software with scheduled releases, such as some Linux distributions, where you know upfront what features the next release will bring. But in this case, where it is just presented as "soon we’ll be adding ...", I'd say just wait. (Perhaps "soon" we'll be adding something to this page as well.) MichielN (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use copyrighted screenshots

@Zoomheroxdpro: The image you provided under the Screenshot section in the infobox does not abide under fair use laws in the US. Even if it did, you uploaded it to Commons, which doesn't allow fair use images at all. I won't edit war with you, but I recommend self-reverting. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 07:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove the "may need to be rewritten" template

I don't see what issue the template is referring to. The article seems fine to me. FunLater (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean the writing isn't perfect, but I don't see it as being that bad to require a glaring tag at the top. I'll take a quick read of the entire article and remove it if there's nothing too unencyclopedic. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The only real problem I could find was with some parts of the lead, which I've corrected. Since the tag states that the entire article would need to be rewritten, which from what I can see wouldn't be necessary, I'll remove the tag for now. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Threads (social network) → Threads – The word "Threads" is currently redirecting to a disambiguation page. Otherwise, it would be useful as a common name. 2001:4451:824F:B700:25A0:6908:BDA4:19D (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's too soon to say that the new social media platform is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd also like to say the name of the platform is very generic, and so it'd have to be quite popular in order for it to become the primary topic. Maybe we should revisit this in a year or two? Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "threads" is way too generic to refer to a single social network. JIP | Talk 13:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's simply too son and premature. Keivan.f^Talk 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - judging by how the trend is going on Threads_(social_network)#Userbase, I fail to see this or any other Thread(s) topics primary. Threads (1984 film) may be closest to Primary but probably should not be moved either. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – The word "Threads" is too generic, so it's best that it redirects to the disambiguation page. FunLater (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, no PRIMARY. SNOWCLOSE.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, The word is too generic for this to be the primary page. Bkatcher (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, no PRIMARY. SNOWCLOSE. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Relevance of Predecessor section

There is zero relevance that the previous use of the Threads name has to the current app. It's taking up too much space for a trivial mention. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Do any sources even describe it as an earlier "version" of the current Threads app, rather than an unrelated app with the same name? If not, I think it deserves a sentence or two at most (e.g. "Meta had previously used the name Threads for an earlier messaging app, which struggled to gain users and was discontinued in 2021.") Ghosts of Europa (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant as prior usage by the same company (Meta / Instagram) of the same trademark / brand. Please see the previous discussion here. —Pippinitis (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The AfD for the article on that topic resulted in contents of that being merged to here. — Karnataka ^talk 07:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Afd for the previous app. —Pippinitis (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Is "hostile takeover" a neutral term

I'm new to engaging in these conversations, so please bear with me.

I came across this phrase and was wondering if "hostile takeover" is the right neutral term to use on Wikipedia?

"On April 14, 2022, business magnate Elon Musk attempted a hostile takeover of the social media platform Twitter." Sifhg (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Based on the sources and description provided at the "Twitter" section of Elon Musk's own page, I think so. Hostile takeover is a business term and not inherently judgemental in any way. Twitter wasn't selling itself off to Musk in the initial month(s) when he wanted to buy, and it seems he wasn't originally trying to negotiate, rather buying up stocks quickly. "In response, Twitter's board adopted a 'poison pill' shareholder rights plan". Certainly it could accurately be called a hostile takeover (attempt) then. My own assessment aside, at least one reliable source (the one given in this Threads article) describes it as one. The later phases of the takeover weren't hostile, quite the opposite in fact, Musk became the one resistant to follow through for much of that. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Responses -> all criticism?

An editor tagged the Responses section as undue as it contains "all criticism".[10] However, the subsection about Intellectual property dispute doesn't fall under that and the rest of the section is short and reasonably sourced, so if I don't see a response to this, I will remove the tag. —Pippinitis (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure: I feel like the Intellectual property dispute subsection is pretty critical too. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What's critical about it? It's just straightforwardly stating that there's an intellectual property dispute alleged by Twitter, followed by the response from Meta. —Pippinitis (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Web version?

The article currently says:

> The application is available on iOS and Android devices, while a web version offers limited functionality.

This seems to be based on the article Does Threads have a desktop web app?, which says:

> there is a basic front-end where you are able to access posts and profiles on Threads, you cannot view your timeline, or log in.

But this is not true, or perhaps least not true any more, right? When I go to https://www.threads.net/, I see no way to access Threads from my desktop browser. Thue (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is available if you go to https://www.threads.net/@zuck for example. Also, Zuckerberg said that the web version will be rolled out over the next few days, so this sentence will be changed anyway. HxD (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This article may not need to be rewritten.

There's the template at the top of this page that reads: "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions". It's unclear to me what the problem(s) are. FunLater (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed it a month ago, yet it was re-added for some reason. I didn't see any problems then, and I still don't as of now. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Thank you. :) FunLater (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Native Windows app

Threads doesn't offer a native Windows app, so it should be removed from the list of native clients in the infobox. HxD (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)