Talk:Twitter Blue verification controversy

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was merge to Twitter verification.

Requested move 24 April 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: merge to Twitter verification. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Blue verification controversy → ? – Article title does not suit the contents. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you please provide a better explanation for this. It seems fine to me. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers three separate controversies: the initial Twitter Blue verification debacle, the state-affiliated media controversy, and the recent removal of blue checkmarks. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Twitter Blue verification controversies would be a better title? Esolo5002 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second controversy ("State-affiliated media label controversy") has nothing to do with Twitter Blue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Twitter verification. Newly-created orphan article, which, while well-written, probably runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. 162 etc. (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Twitter Blue and expand scope so that it's not solely the controversy. Saying that the events starting April 20 are notable but the entire idea of letting people pay for verification isn't is missing the forest for the trees. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Twitter verification where it is already largely covered. This article is a WP:CFORK. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter verification does not cover this article in nearly as much detail. This article is covered by 6 paragraphs in "Twitter verification", while this one covers it in 22. Merging the articles together would create an article that is weighted heavily towards the controversy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first five paragraphs (not counting the lead) are from other Wikipedia pages. I doubt we need 22 paragraphs to discuss the topic anyway. There is a lot of editorialized content from strenuous writing that can be removed. CNMall41 (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I excluded those from the count. You're going to need to elaborate on that "editorialized content" part. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 07:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is overly detailed as if we are introducing everything from the sources (editorializing instead of summarizing) when we do not need it. There are three paragraphs dedicated to impersonation attempts which seems excessive. Are we going to list every impersonation attempt that makes the news? Once this move request closes I will be more than happy to take a closer look. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twitter verification per above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

tiktok.com/@jahid_gaming_8_9 103.138.202.105 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]