This was a comment in regards to a move request from Twitter to X (social network). Five criteria that WP:Article titles assesses are:
- Recognisability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognise. This is more difficult to assess due to a lack of reliable source material but worldwide Google Trends data suggests that while use of "Twitter" has declined slightly, the decrease is in proportion with changes in active users commonly presented in the media. The use of "X" in the past five years have remained the same. Even in the US-specific data presented above, the total use of "Twitter" is also still significantly higher than the increased use of "X" alone. Based on this, it could be assumed that "X (social network)" does not yet meet the recognisability criteria. However, both waiting for "X" to reach recognisability levels previously enjoyed by "Twitter", or assuming that it ever will, is WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. In addition, recent media using "X" still has clarification in some form, obvious or not. The conversation here is extremely skewed by particular demographic groups that may be significantly more knowledgeable on the topic than the wider population. Wikipedia doesn't always use the article titles that an entity identifies as, based on a large subset of precedent. While there has been a somewhat increased use of "X" in the media recently, Twitter has significantly higher historical usage, brand recognition, consistency with related articles (e.g. X suspensions anyone?) and current search trends. The move request was created far too soon after the URL was changed for many of the factors that could be used to assess recognisability to be properly assessed.
- Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. This again brings forth the issue of whether the people in the discussion are reflective of the wider population, the answer to which is obviously not. "Twitter" has played a significant cultural factor in recent modern history. Almost everyone regardless of demographic factors has heard of Twitter, even those who don't know what it is. This is not the same case with "X (social network)". While the Wikipedians here may disagree, the wider population is a completely different demographic to most Wikipedians (especially here) and - supported by global Google Trends data - "X (social network)" lacks the simplicity, common use and natural disambiguation that WP:Article titles expects. Recent increased use of the term in the media alone cannot account for naturalness and this is yet another example where "X (social network)" fails the test.
- Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. "X (social network)" already fails this check because it uses parenthesis for clarification, which is not the case for "Twitter". Without the use of clarification, "X" is an extremely ambiguous subject. It is literally not precise and cannot be easily distinguished from other subjects without it where "Twitter" does with ease. Facebook and Instagram are precise, "X (social network)" avoids natural disambiguation while being the same topic as "Twitter". "Twitter" is precise, a term that is unique and extremely specific compared to "X (social network)". Twitter doesn't need disambiguation and when compared to "X", is always about the social network. Explanatory parenthesis is the opposite of precision and this is another criteria where "X (social network)" doesn't meet WP:Article titles. Moving the page is giving a company special treatment due to its size and notability rather than following the same guidelines that ever other article title has to follow. "Twitter" describes the entire platform, past and present, and "X" doesn't have the precision needed for the article to move without being split. It is not consistent. Based on the same special treatment given to "X", "Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)" should be moved to "Beyond, Inc.", yet there isn't a sizeable proportion of Wikipedians advocating for it. Perhaps because we have stronger feelings towards the social network than for "Beyond"? That's bias.
- Concision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. My thoughts on this matter are going to be in addition to what I have discussed so far because unambiguity is literally in the description. Twitter is a single word. Everyone already knows what it is. Aside from significant changes in management, X hasn't changed enough from Twitter and having an article about what is still Twitter with a non-concise title is more marketing consistency than about encyclopedic tone. "Twitter" as an article title is easy to search for, read and refer to. "X (social network)" is not a more concise title, where "Twitter" is still an acceptable article title. X is not yet the "everything app" that perhaps may justify a move in the future, though then it may end up splitting anyway, but X is currently still colloquially Twitter just with a new logo. Aside from significant change in management, employees and company policies, they are both the same social network platform and based on the Google Trends data, almost everyone still refer to it as such. The clarification "(social network)" is redundant when the article title is "Twitter" so it is more concise and has better natural flow. This is another area "X (social network)" as a title totally misses the mark.
- Consistency: There is a very large number of article titles that, under the same conditions, still have the article title be the most commonly used name because it is WP:COMMONNAME. There's also the issue with consistency with other articles. If "X" is so much more WP:COMMONNAME, why not move "Twitter suspensions" to "X suspensions"? If they are the same topic, why not move "Twitter controversies" to "X controversies"? If "X (social network)" meets the above criteria, why not move "List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter" to "List of mergers and acquisitions by X"? Based on everything I have said so far, splitting the article is the only effective compromise because there is a very real possibility that there may never be an article called "X (social network)" as we go round and round about whether the title will ever meet WP:Article titles better than "Twitter". The title "X (social network)" lacks historical consistency and requires a separate article (or an excessively large subsection) about "Twitter" for the "X (social network)" article title to be consistent. That's literally the only reason I've been supporting separate articles so far. X is very notable, I'm not denying that, but Twitter is more so. If there has to be a page move today as things currently are, not splitting the articles won't make sense, because "X (social network)" doesn't meet WP:Article titles and any support for moving the page is already against precedence.
- Splitting is more a compromise than anything. If Google changes its name tomorrow, should there still be an article called "Google" or should an encyclopedia erase the brand, which has significant historical notability, in favour for whatever is next? Preserve or demolish? What is Wikipedia? For me, based on everything I have said so far, its either keep the page as is or split the article. Split by my definition is not writing two separate articles about the same social network, but what content each page will have is not something that I would like to determine myself. I have no interest in the subject matter other than to not have a loud minority dictate whether Wikipedia's guidelines should or shouldn't be followed. Splitting is nothing more than a compromise for which I have no interest in working on myself. I'm sure someone with more interest can write an effective essay on what it should include, as clearly there are many, and I'm sure it would be less about a former company but more about a period of time as per Masem's comparisons with Viacom.
- This is a long and opinionated rant so I'm sure there are plenty of mistakes and just because I'm opposing the move or favouring a split right now, it doesn't mean a lack of willingness to support moving the page in the future under different circumstances.
Comment on the need for parenthetical disambiguation
It would be very difficult to build consensus right now without parenthetical disambiguation as it would result in two articles about the same platform. If no consensus is reached, the only alternatives are to wait for an unknown period of time longer to move Twitter to X (social network) or wait for more significant changes to the platform. Twitter (2003-2023) changes the context of the article to a period of time in X's history, allowing for an article for X. If Twitter can't be moved to X (social network) and X (social network) can't be separate because of duplication, its the most effective compromise to allow for an article for what is a notable topic in itself. Waiting for X to become as a more common name for Twitter is predicting that it ever will, which is original research and WP:CRYSTALBALL. While there has been a change in ownership, branding, content algorithms, executive board, workforce layoffs, workplace culture, sharp decrease in advertisers, pivot from a predominantly ad company to paid subscriptions, corporate policies, market share, API restrictions, user moderation, change from short tweets to up to 25000 character posts, long-form videos, mass removal of old user accounts as well as a general desire to erase any mention of Twitter; we don't create a new article whenever private equity buys a fast food chain, sells off assets and its profits decline. We should either move Twitter to X (social network), which will take time and may continue to face opposition, or have a separate article for X (social network) by using the Viacom (historical period) precedents. The brackets can always be removed in the future if X becomes the everything app that Elon Musk seems to want it to be, marking a significant deviation from what Twitter has historically been. For now, the brackets are needed because it hasn't seemed to have happened yet and Wikipedia doesn't make predictions.