Module:TwitterSnowflake can automatically determine the date for a tweet from its snowflake id, {{cite tweet}} already uses that functionality (I'm aware of the edge cases, I don't think they apply here).

Can this template be made to automatically fill in the `date` parameter, if not included, with the same logic? Additionally, the snowflake date calculation logic is useful in {{cite tweet}} because it'll error out if you manually provide a date that isn't within some offset of the calculated date (implying an error in transcription, invalid date, or potential misinformation).

As an almost complete aside, I would like to propose that `|number` be used as an alias for `|id` so that it is compatible with `{{cite tweet}}` which supports the former but not the latter. Mahmoud (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this topic in cite tweet talk, but seems that this would be the more appropriate place to propose, given the template claims to display "all relevant information about the tweet". Unfortunately, given popularisation of Community Notes, this is no longer the case for tweets with notes attached, hence suggestion to include a context parameter that can include a note attached, to include all relevant information.

For reference sake, I mean like this with the Readers added context part, given tweets with notes attached aren't displayed without them. I otherwise think it's only fair to describe this template as displaying "most" of the relevant information, rather than "all" at this point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For tweets before Twitter was changed, isn't using the new "X" logo anachronistic? For example, at Lea Salonga#Voice, that tweet is dated 2013, a good decade before the "X" logo was used. Shouldn't it instead display File:Logo of Twitter.svg? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, given the anachronism, and that this undiscussed change constitutes 17.7% of all the instigating editor's contributions, does anybody object to the undoing of these changes pending discussion (WP:BRD)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the undiscussed addition of the new logo (done without an edit summary even) pending further discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the Twitter logo as no consensus has emerged here to use the X logo. This fits with the emerging consensus at Talk:Twitter that X will be considered a separate service. Rendering tweets posted prior to 2023 with this logo preserves historical accuracy. An option here for post-2023 posts (so to speak) is adding a parameter to display the X logo instead, and creating a convenience shortcut with that pre-set as {{X post}}.  — Hex • talk 12:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could have the image and link automatically set based on the date param, which would mean all the posts from after the change would update without any manual intervention. Something like the following:

{{#switch:{{After| {{{date}}} | 23 July 2023}} |1=[[File:X logo 2023.svg|18px|link=X (social network)|alt=X logo, a stylized letter X]] |[[File:Logo of Twitter.svg|18px|link=Twitter|alt=Twitter logo, a stylized blue bird]]}}

Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some test I've implemented the above. See X (social network)#Other changes for two before and after tweets as an example. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy!! Great work.  — Hex • talk 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you please update Template:Tweet/doc to note this new behavior?  — Hex • talk 13:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already added it to the description for the date param, but I'll see about adding an example demonstrating it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently creating an article and I sought to include a quote box from Truth Social. However, it does not appear as though this template supports changing the image or otherwise removing any of the Twitter or X branding. I suggest that a post template be created that this template may invoke with Twitter-specific parameters in order to support non-Twitter posts. It is not inconceivable that an article is created in which a non-Twitter post would be the topic of discussion; for instance, if president-elect Donald Trump were to dismiss a cabinet member in a post on Truth Social, or if he were to create a post that received similar traction as Covfefe. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed @Tantomile, was drafting something in July at {{User:Tantomile/SocialMediaPostTemplate}} (I like checking where files are used), but I think what it shows is that if we're going to advance the {{Tweet}} template into we need to think about automating any parameters that are different for each. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for pinging me on this. i forgot about that because i was away from the wiki for a while. It's basically a copy of the tweet template that allows for people to select a custom site. I also made it so you can override the "@" in front of the name to cite something like Bluesky or Reddit where usernames don't start with @. If nobody minds, i think i'm going to move it over to Template:SocialMediaPost. Tantomile (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that, I might hold off if I we're you, As I said above there's a lot of manual entry that's going on here which may be confusing. Ideally, you'd have a parameter for social network and then it would pull all the necessary data for that site in. For example the current tweet template automatically formats a {{cite tweet}} reference, and a new template would preferably do a similar thing. Having it automatic also makes it easier to change when needed, instead of trying to change it on all the transcended articles. I think when you've got this many variables we need to start thinking about using a WP:MODULE, but that's not something I have any knowledge about how to get going. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post over on VPT about this Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. {{Social media post}} is now in mainspace and I've nominated it for deletion because it replicates all the problems with this template. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at the recent TfD and just about every other section of this talk page, the whole concept of this template is a blatant violation of MOS:QUOTE and WP:NOTPROMO (giving Tweets a special appearance when literally every other form of media just uses {{Quote}}). Generalising the template to something like {{Quote social media post}}, which is agnostic to the underlying platform, would at least improve the situation. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Joe Roe, I'm not seeing these conversations you mentioned either on this talk page or at TfD. Would you mind linking those? Also, could you expand on how this violates MOS:QUOTE and NOTPROMO? Tweet is a dictionary word and it makes sense to denote where a statement was made rather than bundling it all under the quote template. The template itself does not contain any promotional twitter branding, it just adds the ability for a photograph of the person and the username they posted their statement under to be displayed. Tantomile (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it just adds the ability for a photograph of the person and the username they posted their statement under to be displayed Which makes it worse than the {{tq}} template. There is no reason to make tweets appear different than any other quotes. Polygnotus (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It contained the Twitter or X logo until two days ago, when I removed it (WP:NOTPROMO). It also copies the layout and format of a tweet, whereas MOS:QUOTE—which is what we follow for all other quotes from all other forms of online, offline, textual, and non-textual media—says formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions.

People have raised these issues repeatedly since the template was created:

• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#Box_styling
• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#"Verified"_sign_doesn't_belong_in_Wikipedia_articles
• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#"via_Twitter"
• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#Font
• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#Does_this_template_have_to_have_verified_badges?
• Template_talk:Tweet/Archive_1#Necessity_of_a_template_specifically_for_a_tweet

It was also the reason I nominated it for deletion at TfD so I'm unsure how I can link that more specifically for you.

Since there was not consensus for deletion, this should be renamed to something generic like {{Quote social media}} and made into a simple wrapper for {{Quote}} or {{Quote box}} to conform with WP:NOTPROMO and MOS:QUOTE. – Joe (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your original message implied that this was something that has been recently discussed. You've linked 2 conversations from 3 years ago, 1 from 4 years ago, and 3 from 6 years ago. Your RfD is from 10 months ago and the consensus was to keep the template (9 people said keep, 3 said to rework it, and 2 voted to remove). I disagree with your decision to remove logos on the grounds that the source of the post is often relevant information that should be included, and I think that that should also be decided by an RfC.

Overall, I Strongly Disagree with you reworking this template at this time, as there is no recent or relevant consensus for you to do so in this manner. Tantomile (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I neither said nor implied that these discussions were recent, nor do I think that's relevant. If by "reworking" you mean that I removed the corporate logos and slightly changed the colour of one piece of text, MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR and MOS:LOGO are guidelines—sets of best practices supported by consensus [that] editors should attempt to follow [though] occasional exceptions may apply—so I didn't expect that addressing bright-line violations of them would require prior discussion. Several participants in the TfD also expressed support for removing the imitative styling and/or 'genericising' the template even though they opposed deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For years, tweets have commonly been included in articles using the Tweet template, which allows for the tweet's content to be displayed within the article in an easy to digest format. The template allows for the name, handle, and photograph of the tweeter to be included with the quote of their tweet. It provides important context to the quote in an easy to understand format, allowing for people to quickly understand that this was a twitter post, rather than a quote from somewhere else. Twitter is commonly used by celebrities, political figures, and other notable people to disperse information quickly and directly to their followers. Twitter's tweets are unique, short messages, so the source of the post is often relevant information, especially when a tweet has a major enough impact on an entity that the tweet itself is notable enough to end up on a Wikipedia page.

Their have been some discussions about the relevance of this template in the past, and an RfD was held in May 2024 with a consensus to keep it as it was at the time.

Option A: Remove all Twitter/X branding from template but keep overall format the same

Option B: Rework template to be like a normal quote

Option C: Keep template with Twitter/X branding restored Tantomile (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tantomile: Did you have time to review the guidance at WP:RFC before starting this? They are only supposed to be used when attempts to resolve issues through normal editing and discussion, and if necessary through dispute resolution, have failed. They should also have brief and neutral introductory statements and usually the question and/or option is discussed by parties to a dispute beforehand. I don't think any of that happened here. Could you please consider closing this to avoid using other editors' time prematurely? – Joe (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADRFC, should be closed. Polygnotus (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]