This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do fake followers count? eg, half of Trump's followers are fake. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 22:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universally accepted definition of a "fake follower". כארומיל (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is for Twitter to decide, who his legit follower and who is fake, not for us. --CabbagePower (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many websites to gain followers on multiple platforms it's just that the are not going to keep up with ur post ant all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C00:BF36:D1C0:7AFC:6879:BF8E (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sa 2409:40C4:11:2DFE:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list-class article contains the names and material of living people so I placed a BLP template.

References[edit]

Someone removed tags with the edit summary "This page is enough have single source because it's only list". That is not even a remote rationale anywhere in the Wikipedia universe and a "list-class" is still considered an article. Please do not remove tags without addressing the issues. Otr500 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the tag complaining about primary sources: the whole list is now sourced to a single secondary sources, and all links to individual Twitter accounts have been removed. I did not see a BLP tag, and I don't think there are any BLP concerns, as all these people are WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, and the article doesn't say anything personal or controversial about them, only listing a factual count of followers. Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 12:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks as it did help with a problem. Sometimes it is possible that less can be a whole lot more. It is really not a tag of "complaining" but a call to issues being raised. Also, being a public figure does not provide relief from sourcing criteria. Contentious claims do not have to be "controversial" but can be "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable", more simply just debatable, or even exceptional, and not just derogatory.

I have raised an issue and you are at least dealing with it. However, tags are not always some ominous sign of article failure but simple a sign there are obvious issues needing attention. I didn't place a BLP tag because my issues in this case are BLP articles (or related) being primary (or self) sourced only, calling attention to this, and noting (BLP template) the article is classed as a BLP or BLP related. I feel this is being overlooked on Wikipedia.

You have solved one problem, --but-- created a second one. The solved problem was more serious for notability (Wikipedia:SPIP) but now we have an article that can use more references. It is alright to solve a problem and at the same time simply change a tag instead of just removing one, to say maybe "Moreref", as it lists an article in the category "Articles needing additional references". Would you not agree the article could now really use more references? Maybe you have the time so seek out some of these?

The second reference is headlined for Katy Perry (not bad to source exceptional claims), the sub-title supports Justin Bieber and Barack Obama, and further content supports Taylor Swift and Rihanna. This is five names out of 50 having more than a one source. This also gives notability concerns as WP:GNG states, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". By-the-way, Katy Perry is listed in two articles you supplied. Providing there are no objections to the sources you have opened the door to use a primary (or self-published) source, such as Tweeter, on her. Since you have been receptive in addressing an issue I will move on to see how this transpires, and will check back in later, as I have other proverbial rats to chase, such as checking in on List of most-followed Instagram accounts. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we remove "monthly change" column? No one seems to be monitoring the ups and downs of follower count of elite twitter accounts anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CabbagePower (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-followed_Instagram_accounts

On the list of most-followed Instagram accounts, no one have problems with direct links to the Instagram accounts. Why are direct links to Twitter accounts not allowed here?

--CabbagePower (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:External links policy states that links to external sites "should not normally be placed in the body of an article." Such links should be removed from the Instagram most-followed list as well. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ResoluteKim: Your recent edit about Twitter gaining back a few million followers made me wonder that perhaps they did not appreciate seeing Trump closing in on their audience! — JFG ^talk 02:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: If true it would be an irrational action taken to delay the inevitable, namely that the president is very likely to surpass Twitter in following at some point, with or without fake accounts ResoluteKim (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: @Prefall: The purging of "fake" accounts is understood, but it's a bit disconcerting that Twitter's own account first dropped from 11th to 16th place in ranking on July 12, then shot up (in one day) to 13th place on October 11, and now less than a month later, on November 9, drops back to 16th place. Why the crazy volatility? ResoluteKim (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting note. No idea why. At least the recent return to 16th place keeps our information about the July drop correct. — JFG ^talk 08:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My OCD feels the same way lol… Anyway, if Twitter likes to scare shareholders, then I’m sure we’ll see more instability of this kind ResoluteKim (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kumar has openly proclaimed that "I will be faithful And bear true allegiance To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Queen of Canada Her Heirs and Successors". He has defected from India. He has further LIED OF HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP^[1].

The main article states "The following table lists the top 50 most followed accounts on Twitter, with each total rounded to the nearest million followers, as well as the profession or activity of each user, and their country of origin."

For the millionth time, the page asks for COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, not citizenship. Yet you have repeatedly decided to ignore this rule and make up your own. Your personal feelings and frustrations in this matter are completely irrelevant. Respect other editors and don't act like a dictator. Time to move on with your life. Wish you the best. ResoluteKim (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's worth semi-protection given the number of vandalism on this page? Wykx (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wykx: What do you have in mind? If there were a way to eliminate the possibility of using decimals in account totals, that would be nice for starters. ResoluteKim (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ResoluteKim: Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Wykx (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wykx: Personally, I would agree to that. Seems we're running out of options. ResoluteKim (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the number below Barack Obama's photo to 119 million Is not Boris (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --TheImaCow (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears @Trump followers now > @Gaga, re-rank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:400:37C0:3C44:1CCE:BC52:3826 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rive919 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Removal of Donald Trump from the stats. Reason: Banned for life from Twitter Handle: @RealDonaldTrump

Trump is removed from the list RudolfRed (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So im sure we have all seen that he has been banned fron twitter indefinitely, but does he still belong on this list? Should he still be on this list but with maybe a *asterisk* or something noting this is how many followers before his ban? Batman088 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elon now has 45.4M Followers (still increasing) on twitter and should be ranked 28 Byegates (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 54nd60x (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me that the request is to move the existing entry for Elon Musk to rank 28. I am re-opening this. I don't access Twitter as a matter of principle, so I cannot verify the request. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 46,050,106 followers. h 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The list should be updated in its entirety, instead of just for one account as numbers of followers change over time for all accounts. Ideally it should be done closer to the end of the month, as there is a monthly change column. – robertsky (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page expecting some disclaimer for Donald Trump, and I feel there should be something there maybe... Master106 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four accounts are featured with photos in this entry:

• @BarackObama #1
• @justinbieber #2
• @cristiano #5
• @narendramodi #11

Any reason why these four, instead of something like top 3, 5, 10 etc.?

Also can't help noticing that all four are male, coincident, intentional, or subconsciously misogynistic?Tuskla (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://people.com/music/ariana-grande-deletes-twitter-account-shares-christmas-wishes-on-instagram/ original page: https://twitter.com/arianagrande — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Anonymous (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does the country column mean in the chart? Is it country of birth or country based out of? Rhianna was born in Barbados but is based out of the United States. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I know that according to WP:External links, the Account name column cannot link to the twitter account.

However, I'd like to add a Ref. column that links to the twitter account as a reference. I feel this will be useful to readers of this article and does not violate WP:External links rules.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Rank	Change	Account name	Owner	Brand account	Followers (millions)	Occupation	Country	Ref.
1		@BarackObama	Barack Obama		133.4	44th President of the United States	United States	[1]
2		@elonmusk	Elon Musk		121.8	Business magnate, engineer, and owner of Twitter	United States	[2]
								(etc ...)

What's the consensus?

Thanks,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Kvwiki1234 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I added Rihanna to the gallery at the top of the page, as she's the only one of the top 6 users with over 100 million followers missing. It was reverted by Ïvana on the grounds that she's not the first anything. You could argue she's the top woman of color, the top Barbadian/Carribean. Or maybe the gallery should just limit the list to the top 5, or those with over 100 million followers, or some other arbitrary criterion. Left like this, I don't see the significance of having Narendra Modi as the top Asian account, and not Neymar for example as the top South American, and so on and whoever the top African, Australian,... (if we're doing it by continent). Fjmustak (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: Then the footnote/picture description should mention that she's the first x thing, to mantain consistency with the other ones. Simply saying Rihanna has this number of followers looks off to me, which is why I reverted it. But yeah I agree, top 5 probably makes more sense. Otherwise that section would probably grow indiscriminately to include people just because they belong to a specific category. - Ïvana (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article make mention of the fact it's extensively reported that a majority of Elon Musk's followers are fake (ie bot accounts)? — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]