Talk:Meta (augmented reality company)

Untitled
For those who wish to help contribute: — Preceding unsigned comment added by The f18hornet (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/17/meta-pro/
 * http://blog.laptopmag.com/meta-pro-glasses-hands-on
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/meta-shipping-its-vr-glasses-2014-9

Section on Allegations of Theft of IP
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))

Move page for disambiguation
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 &bull; talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 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 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)

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)
 * Support a move to somewhere, as this company is clearly no longer the primary topic for the term "Meta (company)". I'm unsure of the best title.  It's hard to disambiguate by industry, as Meta Platforms (ex Facebook) has VR products.  The company seems to be referred to only as "Meta", "Meta Company" and (in SEC filings) "Meta Co".  See also Talk:Meta, Inc.. Certes (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move not sure where though and don't have a reasonable suggestion of the top of my head.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support While the renamed Facebook, Inc. company currently refers itself as "Meta Platforms", in the future they will soon called as just "Meta", which is not sucessor of this defunct company. If it goes, create Meta as dab page. 180.254.166.10 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Certes, no longer primary topic for the current title. ~  BlueTurtles  &#124; talk  05:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If not "Meta (defunct company)", then "Meta (2013–2019)". Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 08:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move to Meta View something with the date in it per 2A00:23C8:1986:B001:6D42:F374:C26C:C62D NapoliRoma below. – Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 09:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move to some other title, per above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support due to this company not being the primary holder of the name Meta. Ironically, the two other companies bearing this name, Meta Platforms and Meta (academic company) (or Meta Solutions) are both Facebook/Zuckerberg controlled. StonyBrook (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As two ten others have said, I agree that moving this page to Meta (augmented reality company) is a better disambiguator than simply Meta (defunct company). StonyBrook (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move, but not to "Meta (defunct company)", as that is as ambiguous as the current title. Instead, I would propose that this page be moved to "Meta View", as that is the name of the current owners of the company, and is also the name used on the company's Twitter page. 2A00:23C8:1986:B001:6D42:F374:C26C:C62D (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a great title for this page, but "Meta View" is was the best suggestion so far. Certes (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think Meta View describes this company well at all. As mentioned below, the acquisition company is now known as something else entirely ("Campfire"). In the case of Vivitar, a notable but defunct camera company, the article still carries the same name even though its intellectual rights were bought by the non-notable company Sakar International. StonyBrook (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Meta View as they are the current holders of the assets of Meta (company) and is the least ambiguous page name suggested so far. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Meta (augmented reality company) per WP:PRECISE. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Side note: Would also support changing the redirect of Meta (company) to Meta Platforms (assuming Meta Inc. is moved there) as that is the likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this last statement. For the same reason, I recommend creating Meta Company, Meta company, Meta Co, Meta Co., Meta co and Meta co. to redirect to Meta Platforms as well. StonyBrook (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Meta Company and Meta Co are the exact legal name of the company described in this article, so they shouldn't redirect to a different company not called that. At least they should redirect to Meta (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This might have been correct two weeks ago, but notice that these redirects were never created then because they weren't needed. But ever since the Facebook thing happened, it is very plausible that someone will now type the the words Meta and Company into the searchbar. And I believe that there is no longer any doubt about what these two words, in all of their forms, are pointing at. As far as Meta itself goes, your addition of the hatnote there pointing to Meta Platforms was spot on. StonyBrook (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a move somewhere, though there's a zillion companies called "Meta" or with "Meta" in the name, so we need a more specific disambig than "defunct company" - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support so that Meta (company) can redirect to Meta Platforms instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the move, but not to "(defunct company)". "Meta View" seems reasonable. --NapoliRoma (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, for want of a better disambiguator, for now. I oppose "Meta View" unless those suggesting first extensively rewrite the article to make it more clearly about both companies. Llew Mawr (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Meta (defunct company), as it is no longer the primary topic. Chrisclear (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Meta (augmented reality company) as per growing consensus below. Chrisclear (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is about the company that existed from 2013 to 2019. Meta View is inappropriate, because it is a different company to Meta. Chrisclear (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Meta Vision, possibly, since that's the domain name listed in the article? Not R (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per others. — ctrlwiki (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Move to Meta (defunct company) and make Meta (company) a disambiguation page with Meta Platforms, Meta (academic company) and Meta (defunct company). --Villem (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dab page, we already have Meta (disambiguation). Per MOS:LONGDAB, I see that there is no problem having a long dab page, and this one isn't even quite so long already. Furthermore, anything with "Meta" and "company" in the title should redirect to Meta Platforms, the primary topic. In the small likelihood that someone would bother to type parentheses into a searchbar, the Facebook company is most probably what they would be looking for. StonyBrook (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Meta View. Meta (defunct company) is too ambiguous. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meta (augmented reality) would be another possibility per Category:Augmented reality but the current title is clearly too ambiguous anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Other possible titles are Meta Co and Meta Company. Both appear to be used as the company's legal name in SEC filings.   Certes (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, but with suggestion - Meta (company) is now known as Meta View. That page could easily be moved from "Meta (company)" to "Meta View." The slight concern I have with the proposal to move it to "defunct company" is that it still has the name "company" in the title and could possibly still confuse people. Just MHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone mentioned above, the article isn't primarily about the company (that used to be) named Meta View; it's about the 2013 company named Meta, that actually has some historical notability. Meta View is the company that acquired their assets after they went defunct (and is now named "Campfire" -- something Bloomberg missed.  Probably because they based their reporting on the Wikipedia article, before it mentioned the new name :-)).
 * To sum up: in 2013 there was a notable AR company named Meta; in 2022, there will be a completely different notable AR company/subidiary/brand/whatever named Meta. It may be that the best solution after all is to name this article something like "Meta (2013 AR company)".--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "Meta (2013 AR company)". The current Meta View d/b/a Campfire has very little in common with the subject of this article: they bought some assets but do not share management, etc. Megabyte405 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful summary. Indicating the year(s) seems like the most durable approach at this point. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 05:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see two problems with the above suggestion. 1). Facebook, a subsidiary of the primary Meta company, had its IPO only one year earlier than 2013, which could lead to confusion between the two. 2). Per WP:TITLEFORMAT, ambiguous acronyms such as "AR" should be avoided. Regarding the argument that both companies have a connection with augmented reality, I think most people would assume that the Facebook company is about a lot more than that aspect only. StonyBrook (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Meta (augmented reality company) to be WP:CONSISTENT with Meta (academic company). Meta (company) should then be redirected to . I would also oppose moving to Meta View, Meta Co, or Meta Company. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there's a big problem at Meta Platforms, to which Meta, Inc. currently redirects. It has no hatnote indicating that any other company except this one exists called Meta. There is no ongoing link to the disambiguation page Meta (disambiguation) that lists other companies. For some reason it is ?controversial? to indicate the existence of any other company except the one in this article. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've boldly changed the hatnote. Meta, Inc. is the name of a different company but, as long as it redirects there, we need to handle it. Certes (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Meta (augmented reality company). Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meta (augmented reality company). The fact that Facebook has done stuff in AR does not mean that the average person would call it an "AR company", so I don't think there is a realistic risk of confusion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here, at least to my mind, is that Facebook does have a specific AR brand (Oculus (brand)), which is very similar to the former Meta's product, which they have announced they will be changing to "Meta".--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One way to solve this problem would be to rename the article Meta (Gribetz company), after its founder Meron Gribetz. - StonyBrook (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @StonyBrook: That's an interesting idea, though "Gribetz" out of context is so obscure that someone looking at a link would be left wondering what exactly a Gribetz is. Your suggestion reminds me that some encyclopedias are much more verbose in their disambiguating suffixes – for example, search the Encyclopedia Britannica for "Tony Brown" – and would have no qualms about naming an article Meta (company founded by Meron Gribetz). But I'm guessing we have a guideline somewhere about keeping the parentheticals as short as possible. Minh Nguyễn &#x1f4ac; 19:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONCISE. Now, a gribetz company might be a company that manufactures gribetzes, but when capitalized, as in Meta (Gribetz company), it would be resolved as company founded by (Meron) Gribetz. StonyBrook (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't do things like that because it's the inverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect: presumption of specialized knowledge on the part of all readers. It would also be inaccurate if Gribetz were not at least 51% owner (if he's not the majority shareholder, it's not hist company).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to somewhere. Oppose move to Meta (defunct company) per WP:PRECISE. That qualifier is vague. Support any of move to Meta (augmented reality company), Meta View, or similar. Oppose turning Meta (company) into a DAB page. Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles is an error category which WP:WIKIGNOMEs work to empty.
 * 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)


 * Would there be a technical or semantic problem with naming this article Meta Company per but naming the other one Meta (company), apart from endless confusion? – Minh Nguyễn  &#x1f4ac; 18:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#x1f4ac; 18:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Meta (augmented reality company). Chisme (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  and half a dozen redirects such as  which currently target Meta Platforms. Certes (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support a move to Meta (augmented reality company), as its more precise and less ambiguous. --FeldBum (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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
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)

Redirects
I have retargeted and  from this page to Meta (disambiguation) as redirects from incomplete disambiguation. Certes (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)