Talk:Blue check
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available o
 | The content of Twitter Blue verification controversy was merged into Blue check on 22 October 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | On 26 February 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Twitter verification to X verification. The result of the discussion was moved to Blue check. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JenPatt87. Peer reviewers: Reham321, Alexstonehill.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Some articles that not yet cited
the following articles have not yet been cited, but may be useful to future editors looking for more information (I may come back to edit this list later, by the way, and welcome others to edit this section as well):
- https://mashable.com/article/twitter-memes-unverified-verified-hack/
- https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEW.2019.00006 / https://doi.org/10.1145/3292522.3326026 (two different versions of the same underlying research)
- https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0475
- Not a source, but Blue plaque
Article title
Thanks for creating this page, Yitzilitt! I had looked up Twitter verification before and seen that it was a missing topic, so I'm glad you're plugging that hole. Make sure you integrate it into the encyclopedia by linking to it from Twitter, etc. Also, I'm sure there are lots of interesting fun facts about it, so it'd make a good potential WP:DYK candidate (you'll need to nominate within 7 days).
Regarding the title, I think Twitter verification would be more appropriate for a few reasons. It doesn't need to be disambiguated, is more formal/professional while still being intelligible to casual readers, and allows for a slightly broader scope. Would you consider moving the page? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 6 March 2021
- 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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Blue check mark (Twitter) → Twitter verification – The new title wouldn't need to be disambiguated, is more formal/professional while still being intelligible to casual readers, and allows for a slightly broader scope. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support, the current title is unnecessarily specific and a little bit WP:JARGONy, and it needs disambiguation, unlike the proposed article which is clear, concise, and unambiguous. —El Millo (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and per the above. BD2412 T 00:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose "Blue check mark" and "blue check" are well-understood as being the common name for this; a Google test brings back hits from many sources. The parenthetical (Twitter) could be cut, as Instagram uses a similar symbol that could be documented on this page as well. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support - The article is about Twitter verification. The name is less ambiguous, clearer, and more WP:PRECISE. "Blue check mark" is often used to refer to the verified users themselves (usually in a disparaging manner, ie: "oh look, another blue check mark showing their ignorance of how much groceries cost" or "yet another case of a blue check mark publicly supporting terrorism") and not in reference to the process of user's accounts being verified. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support, clearer, more accurate, and follows WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and WP:CONCISE. HouseBlastertalk 14:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Rat verified
Should we mention #RatVerified post-Musk acquisition? It was a fully story in NYT and a less significant one in TechCrunch. I think that it should be mentioned as motivated by the frustration of the check mark change, as opposed to "well this also happened" with no explanation on why it happened. Thoughts? SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
"Blue check" and "blue tick" as epithets
The term "blue check" is colloquially used to describe a certain class, personality and political profile, although which profile that was changed after the 2022 reforms. It was mainly meant in a pejorative sense both before and after. Is this phenomenon worthy of inclusion? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Mandira 213.172.134.206 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The article name should be changed
Article name should change to X (social media) verification. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested Move @Twitter
You are invited to join the discussions at Talk:Twitter § Requested move 9 February 2026. Some1 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Requested move 26 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: moved to Blue check. Overwhelming consensus on alt. proposal (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie(talk) 04:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Twitter verification → X verification – The name of the social network this applies to has been moved to X (social network). UltrasonicMadness (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Blue check per my comments at the previous RM. 162 etc. (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Blue check or Blue check mark per 162 etc. More natural and less awkward than "X verification"; not to mention, it's not even really a verification system anymore but more of a premium subscription. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to X Premium either. 9ninety (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support a move to Blue checkmark, as it is more commonly used and easier to understand than Blue check. OmegaAOLtalk? 03:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- If this article is to be moved to Blue check or a variant thereof, it should at least touch on how such checkmarks are used on many other social media sites similarly to how X does, or at least used to, similar to Hashtag (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). If the article is solely about X's use of them, the title should reference X specifically. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agree, and I noted this in the 2021 discussion as well. Content from articles such as Account verification and Instagram#Verified badges on Instagram could be merged here. 162 etc. (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose X uses a different verificatoin system than Twitter and the article should be split. Guz13 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- Move to Blue check or similar like "X (social network) verification" SuperMario231 64 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support WP:CONSISTENT with main, weak support Blue check alternative. DankJae 21:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Should include other "blue check" usages and not be solely Twitter/X.
This page is entirely dedicated to the blue check badge on Twitter/X. I suggest that the page be renamed appropriately. (Perhaps Twitter/X Blue Check.)
Many organizations have used a blue check badge since at least the early 2010s, if not the 2000s. That use has accelerated in the 2020s. Examples of blue checks for verification include Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Telegram, Quora, and BlueSky. Other well-known uses include Roblox, Gmail, Google Local Services, Pinterest Verified Merchants, Yelp Verified License, Lyft, and Uber. Many popular dating apps use this as verification of authenticity, including Tinder, OkCupid, Match, and Bumble. There are many other uses that are more obscure to the public, but used for B2B verification, like Alibaba and FashionGo.
In short, "blue check" is a generic concept that is generally used for proof of premium status or authenticity, although the details differ by company. Having a "Blue check" page that refers exclusively to Twitter/X's blue check appears incorrect. As such, it would make sense to move the current page to one that is explicitly about Twitter/X. If there is an editorial purpose for a generic "blue check" page, it should focus on the general zeitgeist of the mythical blue check, and how it became a general signifier of "authentic" within recent years. The controversy around Twitter/X deserves some mention, but not pages upon pages.
Given this, I suggest a rewrite to dial back the drama about Twitter/X, and instead focus on its use over time by many companies. Jacobsor123 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.