List of Twitter users is now completely redundant to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and duplicates its content. Aside from being misleading as if its a list of anybody who users twitter. The subject can basically be covered in the other article and I think a redirect is most appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(comments made while this discussion was hosted at Talk:List of Twitter users) P.S. I also oppose largely because this is being done without following protocol. Just two days after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users closed, this attempt was made to delete this article. After I restored the article with an explanatory edit summary, this merger proposal was initiated without following procedure. I.E.,

1. There is no template at either List of Twitter users or Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, while both should have either {{merge}}, {{mergeto}} or {{mergefrom}} templates
2. Failing announcing the discussion with the proper templates all discussants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users should have been contacted. Since this is a second attempt to delete the article that all of those users were concerned about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note TTT. Have accordingly placed tags and also moved this discussion on this host page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if all the AFD discussants were notified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

& what am i getting in return? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The satisfaction of helping us achieve a proper consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction!?! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sebastian9654. Peer reviewers: Justinezeonu, Shivanshpatel312.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (merge List of Twitter users here)

• Yes: Please at least do that. We don't want same stuff in tables and paras. Someone might make a poem or .jpg and upload it soon. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For the same reasons I outlined at the AfD. ("At this point, the article seems unlikely to grow beyond the few people (celebrities and politicians) who have articles about their use of Twitter...so it seems logical to have the info about their use of Twitter in an article about the use of Twitter by celebs and politicians.") Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, in either direction. Any part that isn't already redundant can be added or left out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as an interim step until consensus can be established that most of this is pointless and meaningless recentist fluff which has no more place in Wikipedia than an article about who used to post on Usenet or who used to have a MySpace page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have nothing new to add here. I already showed my support of this in the List of Twitter users AfD. Statυs (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As I commented in the AFD, this articles are pretty similar and I think this one is a better way to handle it than the list. Robofish (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. this and the section that follow are virtually the same (copy-pasted somewhat) as the list that was AfD'd ("Text from Lady Gaga on Twitter, Justin Bieber on Twitter, Barack Obama on Twitter, and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter; with some original prose giving it context" --Uncle G.'s edit summary) Why do we need the same stuff on 2 or 3 pages? Makes no sense. (I'm new here, so I'm literally asking — why?). Merging it the other way around is counterproductive, both for reasons given in my AfD comment ("As it stands, the name implies that it's a list of every Twitter user ever and that's just silly. But if we rename it then the name becomes similar to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and the two will basically have the same function.") While, as BDD points out, it's more correct to use List of Twitter users, I'd rather be not confusing than correct. So that's my wall o' text about this. CarniCat (meow) 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely correct, there is (was) far too much duplication. What happened was the note section was copied from the Twitter accounts individual pages, which were then copied into the use by famous people article. It should have been trimmed earlier, but nobody (myself included) got around to it. Having said that, I have trimmed it per Tony's suggestion the list talk page (although not exactly, and it can still use some improvement if anyone were inclined). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If it turns two of these into one, then it's an improvement. I don't care about the name, but to see the table nestled into an article of prose would be good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the best solution. However a criteria should be set for whom to be listed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, without prejudice on "where".Cavarrone (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of List of Twitter users: The list will either be not exhaustive or too fluid (if you say just the top n twitter users). Since merge is the alternative placed out there, I'll take it pbp 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, and should have been done long ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into List of Twitter users

• Support The original proposal is preferable to maintaining both articles, though I'd actually rather see them merged the other way, into List of Twitter users. "Celebrities and politicians" is either an arbitrary grouping or a weaselly way of saying "notable people," which is prohibited under WP:LISTNAME. Note that the same policy also means "List of Twitter users" isn't supposed to be about all Twitter users (as I argued during the AFD; mea culpa). --BDD (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A more inclusive name that is flexible in the face of unforeseen challenges. I admire the accuracy of the "politicians and celebrities" grouping as having nailed the current set of Twitter users, but what if an organization, for example, becomes popular? I suppose it would be possible to change it back, but I would prefer to do it right the first time. Anarchangel (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Not completely redundant, there is the one at the bottom. They should be added to the main list, notes trimmed per TTT above, and moved to list of accounts instead of users. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added Fiksimini to the list again, complete with ranking (7,975 for those who are interested). As there are two Twitter accounts on here that do have articles, and are not celebrities or politicians, merging the page to Use of Twitter by celebrities, politicians, advertisers, and Indonesian amature writers does seem highly impractical.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For all non-celebrity, non-politician Twitter users there is an article Twitter usage. You may include these one lines with their ranks in there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alternatively, we could have a list of Twitter accounts that have Wikipedia articles, wait a minute, we do! --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, why these "Horse ebooks" and "Fiski Mini" listed anyways? They rank 344 & 7975 resp. Would we be having all above 7975 too? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As it is a list of Twitter accounts, they are listed because they are Twitter accounts with Wikipedia articles. No we would not have all above 7,975, which is the point I am trying to make on the other talk page, we should set the criteria as accounts with articles, not a random top 10, top 20, top 567, or whatever. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So that article page is just like a category, which also exists. Here, on this article you can enter Twitter usuage of other people too who aren't notable enough to have their own article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • First, this isn't the same as a category, as it has more information. Second, I don't know why you think that I want to include every Twitter account in this list as I have said at least four times (including the comment that you are directly replying to) that this list should be restricted to accounts that have Wikipedia articles, and not just any random Twitter account that has been mentioned in the press at some point in time. If you aren't going to read my comments, I would appreciate your not replying to them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... as well as accounts, used by notable people, that are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. If you are not going to actually read my comments, I would appreciate your not replying to them. --George Ho (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick, would not adding them increase chances of future merger proposals? --George Ho (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I follow you. Basically this list, as it sits now (after my trimming per Tony's suggestion), is a listing of Twitter accounts that have articles on Wikipedia. The accounts have one (maybe two) bullet points about the account, the ranking, etc. If you are suggesting that the account that Drew Carey is buying for $1,000,000 could be included with the same sort of information, my answer is: yes it could. Personally I don't want to see it because my opinion is we should only have accounts that have their own articles (that is five times now), but that is just my opinion on the matter and others may see it otherwise. I know you do, and that's fine. I don't own this list, and if it is decided to include accounts that have received significant coverage, but not enough for a stand alone article, than I have to live with that. And I can. Quite frankly, I don't really care one way or the other if this (or the other) article is kept, deleted, merged, expanded, or whatever. I just gave my opinion, and that is what it is, my opinion. I am participating in this discussion to state what I think should happen, and clarifying on the misconception that I think that every person on the Bondi tram who creates a Twitter account should be listed here. That's all.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not entirely sure that this is the better one of the redundant articles to get rid of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the articles in this list don't quite fit the scope for the new list (Fiksi Mini and Horse ebooks, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What Crisco 1492 says: You can talk about Kevin Rudd's use of Twitter but per the manual of style regarding lists, he could not be ON THE LIST because an article about his Twitter usage would likely be non-notable. Ditto with Matt Moran, whose twitter usage was covered in a number of Australian news articles. --LauraHale (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Back then, merging two articles were reasonable, but I have doubts that it would resolve anything. Right now, List of Twitter users have been improved, and it has two non-celebrity accounts. This page needs cleanup and article renaming, but merging would be chaos. I'm thinking about adding Drew Carey's Twitter account into this page and the list, but I need support from people, and the Carey thing will be dealt with later. --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Considering there are two Twitter account articles on the list that are not celebrities or politicians, I think it's inappropriate to merge. The List of Twitter Users (with a requirement of only listing those accounts that have articles) is the appropriate top-level article for the subject. Meanwhile, this article goes into much further detail specifically for celebrities and politicians and their relationship to Twitter. It is not a list and nor should it be, because it's focus isn't to list such accounts, but to discuss how twitter is used by celebrities and politicians in a notable fashion. Silverseren^C 11:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this must be kept, at least fill out the top 10 users which were previously listed and add some information which doesn't exist in the other article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Examples of pop celebrities have been removed while this article has been renamed into "Use of Twitter by the famous". --George Ho (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know: I've seen arguments of similarity between two articles that justify supporting a merge; these do not help me either support or oppose this proposal. If either one has not been created, we would have not been here discussing this issue. This article is about celebrities and politicians using Twitter. The other table-format list could have news-covered person using Twitter, famous or not, but both look mergeable at their conditions. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion as of year. I'd be inclined to rename this to Twitter in popular culture and politics, and then leave the list of users as a separate thing. Expand the scope of this article to make it broader. I nominally think they are two separate things but I'm disinclined to edit this myself right now to try to make that a feasible option. --LauraHale (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]