Talk:List of most-retweeted tweets

Untitled section
How is number one the most retweeted tweet? I just saw a tweet with not 3,000+ but with 800,000+ (as of June 13, 2018) https://twitter.com/RyanSesselman/status/1005510675286896645. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walle637 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The numbers are in thousands.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 999.5k at the time of this message. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

new tweet emerged
https://twitter.com/connerhallmark/status/1067629337522823168 this one now makes it into the list, but I'm too lazy to change it myself, so someone who cares - please do x) Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/matsu_bouzu/status/1152533522638204928 this one ranked 3 or 4 I think

new teet
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1216437138625003522 .80 million likes (10:34, 13 January 2020 (PST)) so far and still going up quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.34.164 (talk)
 * Think you meant thousand. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Most liked
What happened to the most liked tweet list? PigeonsPlayingChess (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * List of most-liked tweets? gobonobo  + c 00:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Redundant?
Isn't it a bit redundant to have a "Link" column when the tweets are already linked in the "Tweet" column? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Gobonobo added the Link column and removed the external links to pic.twitter.com. The list of most-liked tweets uses links to pics, and there's no reason for the lists to look different. Do you think I should add them again? -- Ivanacccp (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Unsure about restoring the pic.twitter.com links (don't know how I feel about them on the most-liked list either, or if there's an existing precedent of some kind regarding them hence his removal), but I do think the "Link" column should be removed. It's so odd to have them duplicated separately like that. If there's an issue I'm sure someone will come along and offer an explanation at some point. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and ,
 * I thought the pic.twitter.com links were cluttering up the ends of the tweets and were redundant to the links in the references. Just in case they were providing a way for readers to easily navigate to the tweet itself, I added the column. I'm entirely fine with removing it. How would you feel about giving the 'notes' section its own column? I currently need to mouse over the little letters (or scroll down) to understand the context. gobonobo  + c 05:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * isn't that how notes are supposed to function on all articles though? I don't think it's difficult for readers, esp as it's indicated in the pgraph above the table that that's where the details are. I think adding a notes column would only serve to clutter the table with more text. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, too much clutter was my worry. Also it seems good to have the layout match the most liked tweets article. I'd be interested in getting consensus to remove the pic.twitter.com links on both articles, but it leaves the problem of blank spaces where the tweet solely consists of pictures. For the Chadwick Boseman tweet, do you think it be overkill to include the text from the second picture in the tweet column? Maybe in brackets?  gobonobo  + c 18:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering about that myself when I saw his tweet added to the table because all that's there is the pic.twitter link. I don't see a problem with adding the text to the table as long as 1) it's not a wall of text, 2) it's not like it's included elsewhere in the table so it wouldn't be redundant, and 3) there's no way to know what the announcement says unless you open the tweet itself so adding the text should be okay imho. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the full text, but it seemed like a wall of text, so I've used a truncated version. It seems weird as well that the tweet is attributed to Boseman. It came from his account, but was posted by his family. 19:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Truncated version looks much better. Perhaps we should just remove the author parameter then? Is there any documentation regarding when a tweet isn't written by the actual person but comes from their acc? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The author parameter was omitted on the tweet ref for this reason. It makes sense to change the author on the Posted by column, but in the case of shared accounts should I put the people who wrote the tweet then? (i.e a BTS member's name instead of BTS). If theres a consensus then I'll delete the links to pics on the most liked tweets list. -- Ivanacccp (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying out just the Twitter handle. His name is linked in the notes. I think 'family of Chadwick Boseman' would also work there. gobonobo  + c 20:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using the BTS members' names where we know who the tweet was sent by. I think the Boseman tweet is the only one that doesn't have text. Support removing the links to pics. gobonobo  + c 20:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both, pic links removal and member names if that looks better. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! It does look better. We should also remove the Link column. And I think Chadwick Boseman's family or Family of Chadwick Boseman works better because seeing the empty space will just prompt people to add Boseman's name again. -- Ivanacccp (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the links column. I'm pleased with how this looks. Thank you both. gobonobo  + c 23:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/chadwickboseman/status/1299530165463199747 should be in this list
This tweet has 2.2m retweets, so it should go on the list. dont know how because i don't edit wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastRaptor38085 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The tweet has 3.1 total retweets (rts and qrts) and it is already on the list at number 4. -- Ivanacccp (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

MrBeast has a new tweet that has surpassed several on the list and should be added. This makes him another individual holding multiple positions on the table.
Another giveaway tweet, this time $10k each for 5 people. Already nearly past 1m, verified higher than several tweets on this list

https://twitter.com/MrBeastYT/status/1342491135093207044 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.13.88 (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Include Both 'Retweets Only' Column and 'Retweets & Quote Tweets' Column
I think it's important for the chart to distinguish between the number of Retweets a tweet has and the number of combined Retweets and Quote Tweets it has, as these are two separate metrics and the numbers can vary significantly. A Retweet, as defined by Twitter's own [https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/retweet-faqs#:~:text=A%20Retweet%20is%20a%20re,re%2Dposting%20someone%20else's%20content. Help Center], is,

"a re-posting of a Tweet. [...] Retweets look like normal Tweets with the author's name and username next to it, but are distinguished by the Retweet icon and the name of the person who Retweeted the Tweet."

That's it. That's what a Retweet is. And that's what this list is about. That is not the same as a Quote Tweet, as Twitter defines this feature by stating, "The Quote Tweet feature allows you to Tweet another person's Tweet with your own comment added". Since this is different than a Retweet, it should be differentiated in the chart. Twitter's Help Center also differentiates a Retweet from a Quote Tweet by saying, "From the Tweet detail page, you’ll be able to see how many Retweets of your Tweet there are, in additon to how many Quote Tweets there are", indicating that they are two separate metrics. One obvious difference between the two features is that a Retweet is a straight up re-post of a tweet identical to the original, while a Quote Tweet is essentially a reply to the tweet with the original tweet linked to it. Another difference is that users can only Retweet a tweet once but can Quote Tweet it as many times as they want. Not only does a Quote Tweet LOOK different than a Retweet, but it serves a different PURPOSE than a Retweet. If this article is called "List of most-retweeted tweets", shouldn't the chart identify the tweets with the most Retweets, rather than solely combining them with Quote Tweets? It doesn't matter if other publications don't make a distinction between the two metrics, it's our job to provide accurate information to the public, and that includes differentiating Retweets from Quote Tweets. I'm not trying to get rid of the combined number, I simply want people to see both. –MattStan10 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously a rt is different from a qrt because one includes added commentary, but ultimately they're both rts, and the original tweet is not modified. None of the publications or even Twitter itself differentiate between the two types of rts when compiling lists. You can't even see qts at a first glance on the Twitter timeline, which uses the combined number. I don't see how adding them adds any real value to the ranking, aside from being a fun fact. It might be confusing for people not familiar with how Twitter works. Even if we included them, I'm against modifying the ranking to only take pure rts into consideration, cause that'd be an arbitrary decision made by us, but it wouldn't be replicated anywhere else, not even Twitter's official curated lists. Sounds like WP:OR. If the metric is always the same across the internet, why would we change it here? That's what I think, but I'm open to ideas! Not trying to be hostile. I just don't think it makes sense to modify how the list works. - Ïvana (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ivana on this. The main factor against what you're proposing is that neither Twitter nor secondary sources treat the data as separate, so for us to do that would be exactly as Ivana said above (and in cmmts from her prior edit summaries when you started changing the page). Differentiating rts and qrts offers no additional value to readers. It's just unnecessarily splitting hairs. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)