Talk:X.com (bank)

Transcribing from Spanish Wikipedia

It's apparent that someone has been rewriting the site's history on the English version in order to remove any mention of anyone other than Elon Musk. It would be great if someone could bring some of the information on the Spanish version of this article onto the English version. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 12:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not really what is going on here.

I'm assuming you're here due to this video Quite frankly, so am I. However, diving into the history of the page, there was an older version focused mostly on Thiel from 2005, which was replaced by a stub redirecting to the paypal page in 2006. The Elon centered replacement of that redirect is from 2017.

I'm guessing no one has taken the effort to correct the page on that, and frankly, I'm not likely to do so either, at least, not for now. Wild dog94 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter's Page should be merged with x-corp

Twitter Incorporated no longer exist in the US as of April 15th 2023 . it is now x corporation 2603:7080:8800:9C30:F673:5ABD:B5C:6534 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@2603:7080:8800:9C30:F673:5ABD:B5C:6534 these are two separate companies entirely, whilst they share some upper management and name they should not be merged. Reocha97 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 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: moved. Given that X.com now refers to multiple subjects, consensus is that this disambiguation is necessary and appropriate. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

---

X.com → X.com (bank) – Too easily confused with the now more relevant X Corp. and Twitter after its rebranding Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with X.com being replaced with a disambiguation page that links to X.com (bank) and Twitter. Twitter is clearly still the common name for the latter entity (even the site itself still uses Twitter all over the place, e.g. ). It's also worth noting this article has had a huge spike in traffic since the branding change (), though it's difficult to say if that's people looking for information about Twitter or if they're actually looking up information about the bank since it's come up in coverage of the Twitter rename. Given that X.com now redirects to Twitter, it seems safe to say that the bank alone isn't the primary topic anymore and disambiguation is useful. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per nom Don’t Get Hope And Give Up 06:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and create a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation of the base name. Even if Musk were to (mysteriously) reverse it right now, the current rebrand from Twitter to X.com has received enough attention to clearly displace the bank as a primary topic. Glades12 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:ONEOTHER, there is not really any actual reason to do this when the hatnote exists. If this was rephrased as a discussion about redirecting X.com to Twitter than I could see myself supporting it, but as it stands this change doesn't actually make any difference for people looking for Twitter at all (compared to the hatnote) and will only lead to anyone looking for the original X.com having to click one more time. Is it really worth it to the encyclopedia to add one click for no real navigational benefit? casualdejekyll 21:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  In plain English since I feel I've over-relied on guidelines for this one: This move does not change the number of clicks someone would have to do if they went to the page X.com looking for the article Twitter. Instead, it keeps that the same, while increasing the number of clicks someone would have to do if they went to the page X.com looking for the article currently at X.com. Therefore, I oppose the change because it makes navigation harder, not easier. casualdejekyll 16:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per casualdejekyll Glide08 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per reasons stated above. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. The problem is that it's hard to say it's the primary topic in terms of longterm significance. For all we know, the site could be rebranded in another month or two if the name fails to gain traction, leading to it falling out of the zeitgeist. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:ONEOTHER wouldn't be relevant here as X-COM, X Corp., and X (company) would also be able to be linked to the potential dab page, as would X.Org which would be in the see also section. Happily888 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I re-affirm my oppose - you're STILL adding clicks. The current system has *less clicks* than this, even taking this into account. casualdejekyll 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per @Happily888 Beat7769 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom Abo Yemen✉ 15:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom AgeOfPlastic (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and others above. X.com refers to multiple subjects, and the potential DAB of the name would prove useful to readers for navigation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 20:54, 2 August 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.

X.com as a dab page?

So, I've made the original name into a disambiguation page, but reverted myself immediately out of fear that the consensus would be against it. Thoughts? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus did it. I didn't see that there was indeed consensus to dab above. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Logo?

Is someone able to add the X.com bank logo here? Mobilustener (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@ 122.155.63.115 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/d/db/X.COM_1.svg is the logo - can this be used? Bespeak (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2026

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. WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cfls (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

---

X.com (bank) → X.com – X (social network) and X.com refer to two different products. If somebody was looking for the X page and happened upon X.com instead (unlikely), they would have to perform a single click - on the hatnote - to get to the X (social network) page; this is the case now, too. The current state of affairs only serves to make things more complicated for people who want to go to the X.com page. This is also the intended purpose of Template:For, which is used extensively on Wikipedia. OmegaAOLtalk? 04:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. If anything X.com should redirect to (for now) Twitter but I think for now the status quo probably serves readers best; there's no way the defunct online bank is primary over the social network's domain name (and XCOM honestly has some claim on this as well). Skynxnex (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: no primary topic. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:ASTONISH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose and very speedy snowball close. This is an obvious non-starter. X.com is not this bank. Check that URL yourself if you don't believe me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. Greedycell (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YOU. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per all above. This seems really premature considering there is a similar move discussion at Talk:Twitter and that readers looking for X.com are more likely searching for the social network presently using that domain than this defunct bank company. The article is sufficiently disambiguated, and the DAB serves our readers well to locate what they are looking for. The assertion that X.com and the X social network are separate is dubious at best. The staggering views of the DAB do seem to indicate there is a large influx of readers searching for that term, but that would be a discussion for the social network and DAB articles, not here. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:58, 14 February 2026 (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.