Jump to content

Talk:Meta (augmented reality company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

For those who wish to help contribute:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The f18hornet (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Section on Allegations of Theft of IP

[edit]

The section on alleged IP theft looks like a violation of Wikipedia's rules regarding self-promtion. Only one of the links is from an independent source and a lot of statements are clearly not from a Neutral Point of View. For the time being, I am going to remove this material. However I would like encourage further discussion on this talk page as to whether this content belongs in the encyclopedia and how it can be made more balanced. (Lucas(CA) (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Move page for disambiguation

[edit]

Now that Facebook Inc. has been renamed Meta, Inc., we should rename this page to avoid confusion since it is no longer the only "Meta (company)". This page also refers to a company named Meta that was involved in the "metaverse", like Facebook, so coming up with a new article title may be tricky. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2021

[edit]
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 Meta (augmented reality company).

Consensus was clear that the article should be moved away from Meta (company). The next issue was an appropriate move target. Most editors were against the original proposed disambiguator of (defunct company). (augmented reality company) received the most support after the relist, with many editors changing their original votes. Although Meta Inc. (formerly Facebook) develops AR products, it is not primarily known as an "augmented reality company" so there should not be confusion between the two. Leaving Meta (company) to redirect here, but this can be discussed in a separate RfD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meta (company) → Meta (defunct company) – Disambiguation from Meta, Inc. (formerly Facebook). PolarManne (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote - Parallel metaverses: Facebook’s name change is challenged by Arizona retailer Meta PCs. With my IP lawyer's hat on, that looks to me like a try-on - trademarks and goodwill are restricted to specific goods and services, and I can't see the overlap. However, good luck to them if their limited goal is simply to extract some money out of Zuckerberg. Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Would there be a technical or semantic problem with naming this article Meta Company per [2] but naming the other one Meta (company), apart from endless confusion? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that both entities are known as Meta, and they are both companies. When the FB company got its new name, that article would have probably been renamed Meta (company), but for the fact that the subject of this article already had that name. See for example how it was done in the French, Dutch and Hebrew articles. So while it was named Meta Platforms to provide for natural disambiguation, you can see that the whole point (and consensus) of the RM here was not to retain the old name, precisely because it would still be confused with the FB company. On a slightly similar note, when Jacob Brown (Texas soldier) was created, it needed the disambiguation because another more storied soldier with that name, Jacob Brown, already existed. But the latter is also known in reliable sources as Jacob Jennings Brown, so per the FB example, I suppose the article should now be renamed as such, while the former might be able to lose its disambiguation. After all, the large city of Brownsville, Texas was named after the Texas Brown. But in our case, there is no way we can leave this as Meta Company in any form, since those should now be reserved as redirects for the far more notable FB company. StonyBrook (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: By the way, I also thought of Meta (New York company) along these lines, but unfortunately this company eventually moved in right next door in San Mateo, California. I don't think we're quite ready to add disambiguating suffixes based on city and state. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Meta (augmented reality company). Chisme (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: There is already a clear consensus that the page should be moved. Several editors have not expressed a firm view as to where it should move to; just that it should move. Meta (defunct company) was proposed, however there appears to be consensus that it is too imprecise. Meta (augmented reality company) was also proposed, and whilst some editors felt that there may be confusion as Meta Platforms has VR products, more editors felt that this was not so much ambiguity as to cause confusion. Overall, I feel there is consensus for the move of Meta (company) to Meta (augmented reality company) at this time (although this consensus may change following the relist). However, I do not feel that there is yet a consensus as to what should happen to the page Meta (company) following the move; certainly not one so clear that I am comfortable to close the RM discussion at present. Therefore, I have relisted the discussion in the knowledge that it may be closed at any time following the relist should the closer find sufficient consensus (and a closer is well within their rights to find that there is already sufficient consensus). Further discussion, particularly in relation to the outcome for Meta (company), would be helpful. Please don't hesitate to ping me with any queries, or should you feel that a clearer consensus has emerged; having considered it already I would be more than happy to close this discussion in the future if noone else does in the meantime. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, (and this may be a little twee, so forgive me) I did want to note how wonderful it was to come across such a clear, considered, respectful, and policy-based discussion. This is how consensus building should look! --Jack Frost (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One option is to move Meta (company) to somewhere, probably Meta (augmented reality company), leaving Meta (company) to redirect there by default. We can then take Meta (company) to RfD, perhaps nominated jointly with Meta (Company) and half a dozen redirects such as Meta, Inc. which currently target Meta Platforms. Certes (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the default redirect here of Meta (company), only because it is not a good enough search term. But disagree with Rfd, since it is to my mind a potentially good place to park Meta Platforms in the future. All other similar phrases, including Meta, Inc. and those not already created, should redirect to Meta Platforms. StonyBrook (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed "defunct company" disambiguator. In 2019, after being advised that "(defunct)" was not MOS compliant for broadcast station call signs despite having become common practice in the topic, I opened RMs that ultimately moved more than 100 pages to new titles and resulted in a priority order of suggested disambiguators. I agree that Meta (augmented reality company) is probably the best we can do, which is unfortunate but unavoidable given the industry overlap (you should see some of the RMs in my field for more "best we can do" of this flavor!). Some words from User:SMcCandlish during the broadcast stations RMs stick with me today—especially given that one references this kind of topic area: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that we don't have bio articles named things like "Xerxes Y. Zounds (deceased)", or company articles like "XYZ Corporation (defunct)", or bands like "The Primitives (disbanded)", or a product like "ABC Biscuits (discontinued)".

  • Move to Meta (augmented reality company) per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. "AR" is not a common enough abbreviation to use. It's important to remember that precision is a higher priority criterion than concision, especially in a disambiguation. The purpose of a disambiguation is to inform the reader they're at the right page and help them pick the right page from a disambiguation page; it's not for typing out, so it being a bit long (but not longer than necessary) is no issue. It also matters that anything non-biological that is defunct may become un-defunct at any time. We don't use this term in disambiguations for good reasons, especially since it's only a matter of time before something else with the same base name and category (another company in this case) also becomes defunct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Meta (augmented reality company) for many arguments above, as long as they is not successor company for Facebook, Inc. Someone adding unsourced content or rumors regarding the existence of Meta (2013-2019) as predecessor to current Meta Platforms. 114.125.232.24 (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to Meta (augmented reality company), as its more precise and less ambiguous. --FeldBum (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following relisting, I affirm support for Meta (augmented reality company) out of the options I suggested above. Narky Blert (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Meta (2013–2019 company). This makes it fairly clear that it's not Facebook, is precise, and won't need further updates if some other Meta became notable e.g. in the period 2015–2023. User:GKFXtalk 00:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this would make it clear, since Meta/Facebook has been around during that same time period. Even though the name has been changed, it is still the same company. StonyBrook (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Facebook cannot be called Meta

[edit]

Stop splitting hairs. Facebook are acting unfairly by dint of being a richer company that thinks it can wade in and do as it wants. Meta Company, whatever it is that they do, are the rightful owners of the name and basically Facebook should just do one. 92.40.168.12 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

I have retargeted Meta (company) and Meta (Company) from this page to Meta (disambiguation)#Businesses as redirects from incomplete disambiguation. Certes (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meta_(augmented_reality_company)&oldid=1209019227"