Talk:Meta Platforms/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Entrance singage picture

https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebooks-zuckerberg-kicks-off-its-virtual-reality-event-with-metaverse-vision-2021-10-28/ This is a link from Reuters that shows an unveiling video of the new signage out front of their corporate headquarters and the currently posted "entrance signage" picture on the Meta's Wiki Page is no longer the correct picture, I'm just putting it out there if someone wanted to discuss it to change that picture. I see the name and company logo was changed promptly just not the road sign picture. I would prefer not to be contacted about it I'm not a wiki editor really, just a reader giving a suggestion. Have a good day! Jamesjjohnson18 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Change Facebook inc to Meta inc BigPigCG (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Already  Done. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy excuse me but why there is comma (,) after "Meta"? Mehedi Abedin 19:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mehediabedin: Since the company previously was called "Facebook, Inc.", the assumption seems to be that the naming will be similar. But I don't know for sure and I haven't made the move. We probably need to wait a bit for official registers to update to the new name. Regards SoWhy 19:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Historical uses of the name, subsidiaries, lawsuits, stocks, &c should all remain unchanged if in context a discussion or quote was about Facebook. Facebook-the-platform (which many of these references are about) is still called Facebook, its Irish subsidiary is still Facebook Ireland, &c. Please don't use search and replace :) – SJ + 19:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I could see us using "Meta Platforms" or some other title here. Meta (company) should also be fixed, as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of that term is now clearly this company. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  It also looks like Apple is at Apple Inc. (no comma), so maybe we should follow that precedent here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  I imagine WP:NCCORP applies here. Are the full details about the name change available? – The Grid (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just to reiterate the refs I've already provided in the main article (with the caveat that they're WP:PRIMARY): The state of Delaware's corporation records indicate that the company under file # 3835815, which was named "Facebook, Inc." up until shortly after the announcement this afternoon (certificate of incorporation showing the number and previous name), has now been renamed "Meta Platforms, Inc.". (Unfortunately I can't link directly to a record, you have to search by number or current name.) — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 20:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the information! I would be more for "Meta Platforms, Inc." even if Meta will be used as shorthand. – The Grid (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  IMHO, "Meta Platforms" (without the "Inc.") would be sufficiently unambiguous on its own, and more in line with other companies whose names don't coincide with the name of another entity, e.g. Netflix. Alternatively, since it's unlikely the full "Meta Platforms" name will be used much in practice, I would be OK with "Meta (company)" (once we can reliably establish it's more notable than the current Meta (company)).— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 20:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook was formerly owned by "Facebook, inc", and Mark said the parent company will be updated to "Meta" however, the application will remain "Facebook". Since the parent company was named "Facebook, inc", i think "Meta, inc" (with a comma) would be right Motlatlaneo (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below. Also, this article should be moved (to either Meta (company) or Meta Platforms) as soon as possible because "Meta, Inc." is completely incorrect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Meta Platforms or Meta Platforms, Inc. per https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680121000071/fb-20211028.htm should be fine indeed. Nemo 10:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Considering we don't know whether "Meta, Inc." is the real name, maybe we shouldn't use it. There is already Meta (company) and there are countless technology companies called Meta (without even considering those who didn't bother to register a trademark), so per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) plus WP:QUALIFIER, WP:SMALLDETAILS and (by analogy) WP:NCPDAB I think the only appropriate title at the moment is probably Meta (company, founded 2004). Nemo 10:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 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: SNOW close as oppose. There is clearly not going to be any consensus for this specific move proposal. As far as some people supporting a different move target, this is for a different discussion to handle. Feel free to start a new move discussion but this discussion is becoming too convoluted to also handle that question, especially since there are a couple of different proposals. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC) SoWhy 10:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Meta, Inc. → Facebook, Inc. – Per WP:COMMONNAME, it is premature to rename this to Meta, as the only coverage that has used this name is articles about the name change itself. A similar debate was had at the Kanye West page, which hasn't been changed to "Ye" yet, for the same reason. 2600:1012:B05D:7959:B50F:F5D3:6C20:1763 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Most people know Facebook as the service, and that name isn't changing, only the name of the company that owns it, and this becomes very similar to the Alphabet/Google situation. As long as the page leads off that Meta, Inc. was Facebook, Inc. until October 2021, and is still the parent of the Facebook social network service as well as Instagram and WhatsApp, it is fine. The Kayne West/Ye thing is different as there's only one Kayne West of question there. --Masem (t) 21:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Masem: Ytpks896 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now but revisit once the dust settles and we know the company's new common name. The best title may be Meta Platforms as suggested above. Certes (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  On reflection, support move to "Meta Platforms" now. We don't yet know whether it's the best title, but it's clearly an improvement. Meta, Inc. is a different company. Certes (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest alternatives: Oppose move back to "Facebook, Inc." per Masem, however as discussed above, contrary to initial assumptions, it turns out the actual new legal name is "Meta Platforms, Inc.", not "Meta, Inc.", so this should really be moved to either "Meta Platforms" or "Meta (company)" (the latter only if there's consensus on moving the existing Meta (company) article elsewhere, which might require a separate discussion). — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 22:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly Support move to "Meta Platforms", as @Stickguy suggested. SWinxy (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose and support alternative move per @Stickguy to Meta Platforms for now (letting the dust settle before a complex move is initiated) at risk of crystal-ball gazing. The only option it seems clear won't be the common name in future is Facebook (or variations thereof) as it is ambiguous and other options for denotation now exist. Also, other companies rarely have common names with "inc." in unless that is the current legal name (neither is true of Meta, Inc. or Facebook, Inc.), and natural disambiuation is preferred over parenthesis. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Meta Platforms. WP:NCCORP suggests we should leave out the Inc if not necessary for disambiguation. However, WP:NATURAL (which takes precedence because it’s a policy) says we should prefer natural disambiguation over parentheses, so I would strongly oppose Meta (company). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to Meta Platforms per @Stickguy Abrilando232 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Meta Platforms per above. This is a compromise between an IP editor who want to reverted to old name and others who want to keep the newly name. At least one RS now referring the company as "Meta Platforms" instead "Meta inc." AP because the suffix inc. tended to discouraged for writing the corporation with few exception. The actual name of the company is Meta Platforms inc. 180.254.166.10 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I support "Meta Platforms", since AP is authoritative, also per points made above, especially in the first reply (User Masem). I hereby retract my move request. 2600:1012:B05D:7959:B50F:F5D3:6C20:1763 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Masem:Yeungkahchun (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Masem said it best. BOTTO _(T•C) 01:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and Agree with the explanation of Masem. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and weak support move to Meta Platforms. Per both WP:NATURAL and WP:NAMECHANGES, we should use the most common name used in secondary sources. As I have not seen many reliable sources use the name "Meta Platforms", I would prefer a move to Meta (company) instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Meta (company) currently refers to a defunct augmented reality company that was founded in 2013 and bankrupt in 2019. 180.254.166.10 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm aware, but Facebook/Meta is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, especially given the fact the other company is dead. Once this article is moved, that article should be moved to Meta (defunct company) — there is currently a move discussion on that article's talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose They are no longer Facebook Inc. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't necessarily apply here. WP:NAMECHANGES is the goto policy here. A quick google search does show the majority of reliable sources (excluding the pages reporting the change itself) are calling the company "Meta".--Rockchalk717 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: there are seperate articles for the company's services, see Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram. With view to Google, we have an article for Alphabet Inc., same thing. --Villem (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment it appears that Donnellan0007 has unilaterally moved the page to Meta Platforms, Inc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and reversed that, it is inappropriate to move the page until this discussion is finished. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I heard in news that Mark Zuckerberg changes its company brand name to Meta. Fade258 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, indifferent to Meta, Inc. vs. Meta Platforms, Inc. though leaning towards just Meta, Inc. or possibly Meta (company) as our secondary sources appear to just use "Meta". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move to Facebook Inc, which is no longer the company's name. As shown by a recent SEC filing, the name is Meta Platforms, Inc. Chrisclear (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose retaining the name Meta, Inc., which is also incorrect. The name of the company is Meta Platforms, Inc. Chrisclear (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Would prefer the article to be named Meta Platforms, Inc., which is the correct company name, or alternatively Meta Platforms. Meta (company) is problematic because of the use of parentheses, and because of the existing article by that name. Chrisclear (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and secondary sources (not primary sources like SEC filings) don't support "Meta Platforms, Inc." or even "Meta Platforms" as it seems most sources are referring to them as just "Meta". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Exactly, see WP:NAMECHANGES. Also, editors with page mover rights can easily take care of the existing Meta (company) article, so that's not a cause for concern. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • If the use of commonly recognizable names was the only consideration, then it follows that Meta would be a far better choice than Meta, Inc.. However Meta is problematic because of the existing article by that name. However the use of commonly recognizable names is not the only consideration. Meta, Inc. fails to meet the naming criteria of precision and naturalness. Chrisclear (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) As InfiniteNexus noted, an existing article name is not a concern. That being said, Meta would be inappropriate this early as we'd basically be replacing the dictionary definition, and we haven't even done that with Apple, Inc.. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree that Meta is inappropriate. However Meta, Inc. is imprecise, unnatural, and simply incorrect. Chrisclear (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose since Facebook is renaming their platform name to Meta. There are not going to be called Facebook anymore. Cwater1 (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The company name already rebranded yesterday as "Meta". SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Meta Platforms for now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move back to "Facebook, Inc.", that name was deprecated yesterday. Support move to "Meta Platforms" or "Meta (company)" as "Meta, Inc." is not the proper name of the company. IceWelder [✉] 08:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per masem, Facebook company is different from their product, Facebook (website). Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Facebook, the company is different from Facebook, the service. Both of them are vastly different and should not be combined together. Jun Ian (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC +8)

• Oppose not considered as reasonable statement of changing name back again. Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an article about the company, not the product. I see no rationale in having it named Facebook, Inc when that isn't its name. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and rename to Meta (company) per InfiniteNexus. Meta Inc. is simply incorrect, and while Meta Platforms is the official name of the company, it does not seem to be the common name. StonyBrook (talk) 09:25, 29 October 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.

This page should be moved to "Meta Platforms, Inc." or Meta (company) or something else

"Meta, Inc." isn't the name of the company. This article title is just wrong. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:20, 29 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, as WP:SNOW given the unanimous and substantia support, and the factual inaccuracy of the current title that participants noted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Meta, Inc. → Meta Platforms – Facebook Inc. is now called Meta Platforms Inc. [1] Meta, Inc. is a different and non-notable company. [2] The legal status suffix of a company (Inc.) is not normally included in the article title (WP:NCCORP). Certes (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as noted by the nominator, the company's name is Meta Platforms Inc., so naturally an article name change to Meta Platforms makes sense. Chrisclear (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Other suggestions: "Meta (company)" instead of "Meta Platforms", as I searched on a browser, the most recognizable name is Meta not Meta Platforms. The name of the logo is Meta also, and not Meta Platforms.Ctrlwiki (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Meta is the common name but has another primary topic, so we need to disambiguate. Meta (company) could work but is still ambiguous, and we normally prefer to use natural disambiguation. Certes (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • There is a current nomination for that article, whether the name Meta (company) will change to Meta (defunct company), or not. As I see, the majority of all user who voted in that nomination is supporting the possible changing of names, if that happens, then we can apply the current name of that article, here. Ctrlwiki (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is so uncontroversial that I think the nominator should move the page without waiting for a consensus that is already obvious. --RaphaelQS (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's WP:SNOW that we need to move this page somewhere. The best title is less obvious. Certes (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. "Meta (company)" is an unideal alternative. SWinxy (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support as I noted above in the previous move discussion, Meta (company) is the WP:COMMONNAME used by reliable secondary sources. See WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom Abrilando232 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Per others 185.135.96.2 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support name the article "Meta Platforms", and give an explanation "commonly styled as Meta" in the header, as we do in so many other articles. --91.64.37.35 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I think it's safe to apply WP:SNOWCLOSE. – The Grid (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really care if it's moved to Meta Platforms or Meta (Company) or even reverted back (for now) as Facebook, Inc., just move it away from the incorrect (and a name also used by a different company) Meta, Inc.. - 49.147.69.72 (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support It seems entirely illogical to use Meta, Inc. when that is not even the company's name. Someone prematurely moved the article without doing their due diligence. The company's name is Meta Platforms so there should be no argument for why the article should have any other name. (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and previous comments in sections above. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 15:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support, prefer Meta (company) as Meta appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, but the current name is clearly wrong. Not entirely sure why the prior discussion wasn't allowed to play out... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support as the company is not named Meta, Inc., it's Meta Platforms, Inc. cookie monster 755 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'd also like to add, the name is more informative; "platforms" is an accurate way to describe the entity that owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, and in our digital "trustbusting" era, is either fodder for regulators or a tacit acknowledgement of and bid to normalize the arrangement. Either way, in addition to being an accurate label, it's an informative one, which aligns with Wikipedia's mission. If a vaping company rebranded as "______ Health" (on the basis of vaping being healthier than smoking, which may actually be false), it would be an example of an uninformative renaming, and I would only support the renaming of the page on the basis of accuracy. I have nothing good to say about Facebook generally so I'm not biased toward calling the company what Zuckerberg wants to call it, but I do think "Meta Platforms" is better for reasons in addition to accuracy. 174.193.213.53 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 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.

Request to change the intro paragraph

If we mention mapillary and giphy in the intro, then Instagram, Whatsapp, and Oculus VR should be named there too. The latter three are much more notable. Alternatively remove mapillary, and giphy, and messenger from the into paragraph, and just list subsidiaries later in the article. But at the moment, the impression is given that the most notable subsidiary of Meta is a GIF website, which is very wrong.--91.64.37.35 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe they were removed inadvertently by an editor who was trying to clean up the first paragraph. They've now been re-added to the lede.— stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks stickguy. --91.64.37.35 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Regex caution

It is not appropriate to make regex changes of every Wikipedia occurence of Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms, in this article or elsewhere. It would be inaccurate for the Mark Zuckerberg article to state "Zuckerberg founded Meta Platforms in his Harvard University dorm room." And WP:NOTBROKEN says "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken." Please use caution when making any such edits, and open talkpage discussions beforehand if in doubt. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

However, it is appropriate to change some occurrences of Meta, Inc. to Meta Platforms (or to Facebook, Inc. or Facebook where more appropriate). As Meta, Inc. is an unrelated and non-notable company, such references probably are broken. Certes (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Meta Headquarters 1 Hacker Way Menlo Park.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Meta Headquarters 1 Hacker Way Menlo Park.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 49.147.69.72 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

Change the line:

{{distinguish|Meta (company)}}

to:

{{Redirect|Meta, Inc.|former company legally known as Meta Co.|Meta (company)}}

Note that it is stated as Meta Co., as stated in a Bloomberg article about its closure. - 49.147.69.72 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Reverted. "Meta, Inc." is not the correct name of this company, and the official website of Meta (company) indicates that its legal name is "Meta View". InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook Vs. Meta

In the article, when should the name Facebook be used, and when should we use the name Meta? Should we use the term Facebook for events before the name change to Meta, or should it be done more like changing Eliot Pages's page from Ellen Page to Eliot Page? (having it say Meta with a foot or saying "then Facebook")

Thanks for your time! CuriousCat618 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it feels weird to me the way it refers to events from last year with "Meta", when that didn't exist. Is there a Wikipedia style guide entry for corporate name changes? ToastyKen (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where this is documented, but all references to the corporate parent should be "Facebook" up until October 2021, and after "Meta". We document as historically recorded. Also remember that "Facebook" the social media network that is owned by the corporate parent is still Facebook, so that adds a potential layer of confusion. --Masem (t) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think The title should be Meta, but the contents for Meta should be in seperate sections. If we change all the text that says facebook to meta, it will cause confusion and make no sense at all. E.g add a "history as facebook section", or "rebranding to Meta" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnDoxa (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Facebook app name is staying the same. The company that owns the Facebook app changed their name to Meta.Cwater1 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Meta did not announce anything in 2012, because there was no Meta then. The company was called Facebook, Inc., and we should use that name for past events up to this week. Ground Zero | t 02:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica scandal

Why is there no reference to the Cambridge Analytica scandal in the US and the record-braking FTC fine Facebook Inc. had to pay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.77.231 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with the implication that it should have reference to this. CT55555 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC) PS there is an article all about it here, it's just not linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

Why does the article say Meta did this, Meta did that before it was Meta?

And there's even a photo of the "Meta" headquarters in 2014.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an error and should be promptly corrected. See the #Regex caution section above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section

I added a criticism section with one noteworthy item, which was later undone by another user, pointing out that "There's a separate article for criticism". I'm aware that there is a separate Criticism of Facebook, but that's on the top of the "Criticisms and controversies" section inside the Facebook article. I believe a Criticism section in this article is justified for criticism expressed against the metaverse company post rebranding, but I'm open to discussion. LifeDancePro (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems redundant because regardless of its focus on Facebook, it's still criticism about the company as a whole. – The Grid (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a criticism section. I don't have a strong feeling about it, as obviously this is complicated. But famous criticisms of "Facebook" before Oct 2021 were mostly criticisms of the holding company as much as they were the product so the idea that the holding company of Facebook is now unconnected isn't realistic. That said, I think criticism about the naming is recentism and any section should be more about the major newsworthy stuff that will stand the test of time such as them influencing elections, promoting genocides and all the Cambridge Analytica stuff etc. CT55555 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: incoming redirect

Meta, Inc. redirects to this article. There are several other companies that are frequently called "Meta" . This should be taken into account.

Please change:

{{distinguish|Meta (company)}}

Not to be confused with Meta (company).

to:

{{Redirect|Meta, Inc.|other companies|Meta (disambiguation)}}

"Meta, Inc." redirects here. For other companies, see Meta (disambiguation).

As "Meta (company)" is only one of the other companies, there are others.

-- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this is controversial. It is standard practice to hatnote ambiguous incoming redirects, especially since this one isn't the name of this company. I also don't see how this helps, since it doesn't point any incoming readers to other corporations called Meta, as there is no indication that such subjects exist, except for the current "Meta (company)" article, if they are not looking for either Facebook nor that "Meta (company)". "Meta (company)" already appears on that disambiguation page, as does Facebook. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

We should take Meta, Inc., and possibly Meta (company), to RfD once the Meta (company) RM closes and we know the potential targets. Certes (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Meta (company) could become a redirect to Meta (disambiguation) in that event. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with the IP that an RfD may not be necessary. Changing the redirect target of Meta, Inc. and Meta Inc. (plus Meta (company) once that RM is closed) to Meta (disambiguation) § Businesses seems like an uncontroversial no-brainer. Does anyone objects to this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I would keep anything with Meta Inc and Meta Co redirected here, which is now the primary topic, with an added hatnote to Meta (disambiguation) § Businesses to cover all of the rest. I would include Meta (company) as a redirect here, because I would even support an RM to this name, which I believe is the next best thing to Meta itself. StonyBrook (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. My point above is only that there's no need for deletion. Redirects can handle whatever other names people are likely to enter for these topics. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute about the company name Meta

Apparently there is dispute with the "Meta Company" about the name Meta, which Facebook reportedly attempted to acquire but failed: https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/meta-company-sues-facebook-for-allegedly-stealing-its-name/ar-AAQrBxM - including claims of pressure and trademark infringement.

...this seems to be worthy of inclusion. 84.64.92.108 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Meta (company)?

An earlier discussion resulted in the current page name as an improvement over "Meta, Inc.", which was factually inaccurate. This subsequent discussion resulted in an unrelated Meta (company) getting moved to Meta (augmented reality company) and Meta (company) becoming a redirect to Meta Platforms. This makes it possible for Meta Platforms to be moved to Meta (company), since there's little if any mention about keeping Meta (company) as a disambiguation page. Meanwhile, this article's title is being cited as the justification for labeling d:Q380 "Meta Platforms" rather than "Meta" in English.

I personally would be in favor of moving this article to Meta (company), because "Meta Platforms" is neither the company's legal name nor its trade name, but rather a simplification of its legal name. (After all, that's why this article was mistakenly moved to "Meta, Inc." right after the announcement.) At a glance, "Meta Platforms" is seeing some use, but seemingly less prominently than "Meta" in nonspecialist publications so far. As a typical example, [3] uses "Meta" in the headline and "Meta Platforms" in the first sentence. I think this is different than, for example, "Apple Computer", where that company actively went by "Apple Computer" even in its logo for a time. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened with Meta. Before I formally request a move, have I left out any important considerations?

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We usually prefer natural disambiguation, i.e. using an alternative name rather than a parenthetical qualifier. WP:NCCORP prefers the current title to the full Meta Platforms, Inc. There's also the complication that Meta (company) referred until very recently to a different company, and may have incoming external links; in fact there's a case for retargetting it to Meta (disambiguation)#Businesses. Many Wikidata item labels differ from Wikipedia titles. If someone wants to change the Wikidata label, they can go ahead without moving any Wikipedia pages. There's no need for the Wikidata tail to wag the Wikipedia dog. Certes (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Much as I would like to have this article moved to Meta (company) myself, Certes seems to be correct here. From the example in Wikipedia:Article titles § NATURALDIS, the French language article could have been parked at French (language), but it wasn't. The policy clearly states that natural disambiguation is preferred, just so long as there is common usage of the term, even if that usage isn't as prevalent as the disambiguated one. StonyBrook (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the article can better emphasize that "Meta" is the primary name for this article, despite the article title having "Platforms" as a natural disambiguator. It's understandable that a Wikidata editor would attempt to match the label in English to the English Wikipedia title, minus any parenthetical. Attempts to remove "Platforms" from labels have been quickly undone based on this misunderstanding. Aside from Wikidata, some Wikipedias also unnecessarily disambiguated their article titles out of deference to the English Wikipedia. In contrast to French, it's conceivable that editors will gravitate towards linking to Meta Platforms as is, rather than Meta. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit notice

Would this talk page benefit from an edit notice or other prominent heading indicating that Wikipedia is unable to unblock or otherwise improve readers' accounts on Facebook, Instagram, etc.? Certes (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Date is 4 February 2004 but its written 4 January 2004

Date is 4 February 2004 but its written 4 January 2004 2405:201:600A:804B:1D59:3C9:1C97:2B21 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

facebook redirect is misleading to the older generation making them vulnerable to cyber attacks or personal data leaks additionally im sure this violates their copyrights to amount to copyright infringement additionally it should be stated how unethical and unprofessional it is to exploit flaws in the coding for personal monetary gain, and possible defrauding of many non profit organizations

these things should be stated in bold in an area that the user may see it right away without any confusion Megafake (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 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. Storchy (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ajit Mohan

On behalf of Meta India executive Ajit Mohan, I've submitted a draft article at AfC as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my conflict of interest (which I've also disclosed on the draft's Talk page), I will not publish the article to the main space and ask independent editors to review for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability before going live. For this project, Mr. Mohan provided feedback to ensure accuracy of the entry, which is based on reputable secondary coverage. I am happy to address any questions or concerns that may arise during the review process. Might someone here be willing to take a look? Thanks in advance for your consideration and help. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cw3956 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cw3956 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Meta's AI-powered audio codec

Would EnCodec be worthy of its own write-up? It seems like a major development from the company, though I'm not entirely sure what it could be classified as - product? Service? Or simply a standalone page in the audio codecs category with details on it? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@ASpacemanFalls I think it could be mentioned as a service rather than a standalone product. Because it seems more like a research and development project to me. NORTH444 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Diem and Portal?

With Diem being long sold to a different company and Portal now being officially dead, does it make sense to remove them from the products line-up? Maybe we could add a discontinued label to them. What do you think? NORTH444 (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sut6777 (article contribs).

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—Smokewol (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to have been correct (I've tweaked them a couple degrees of longitude to correspond more closely to the center of the complex). If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Instagram story additional features

You can use time saw on Instagram story this feature can also used on what's app . So you can. Try it and I hope you r success and this feature is like all Instagram user 2402:3A80:1CF8:FCF0:B756:E77B:5F27:AFE7 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

Attribute "Key People" does not have link to Wikipedia page for "Mark Zuckerberg" for CEO. Neelamwikiv2 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the name is already linked (in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Marne Levine is no longer the Chief Business Officer of Meta.

She should be removed from the key management section. 2A00:23C7:A105:CD01:2825:23A4:6CDC:A26 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"doing business as Meta"

This is not supported by the cited source, and a company operating under a straightforward form of its actual name isn't "doing business as," anyway. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed until we have a source that actually says "Meta" is Meta's DBA name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Zuckerberg controls, nay, owns 13% of Meta

Zuckerberg may only 'own' 13% of Meta, but his control is apparently much greater. Basically, although other people may legally 'own' the majority of it, legally, in practice, they don't control it. In effect, they are more like bond holders than owners - they get a share in any profits, but they don't have much control.

"Facebook, which is now Meta, has a dual-class structure, meaning that average shareholders own one type of stock, Class A, while Zuckerberg and a small circle of insiders hold another type, Class B. Holders of Class B stock get 10 votes per share, while Class A holders only get one vote " -- https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mark-zuckerberg-cant-be-fired-as-meta-facebook-ceo-2022-11?r=US&IR=T Ben Aveling 09:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Information Related To This Article

Hi, there I have some information that I want to share with the audience of this page. This Information would be very useful for the readers. Please allow me to share that information with readers.

Regards, Aron Puth Aronputh (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Check out WP:EDITREQ and, if you have some valid additions, enter a request to edit the page. Alternatively, once your account is in good standing with enough edits, you will be allowed to edit this page. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Meta § Requested move 16 November 2023

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Meta § Requested move 16 November 2023. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

102.30.177.224 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 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. — 64andtim (chat • see here) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2024

Add article from Robi AI, as reference for Meta AI llama model launch. 62.89.1.18 (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Meta's name was stolen from another company. Mark Zuckerberg sent a request to buy the name "META" from this company. They declined. Mark then stole the name anyway and used it, using his money to dismiss the smaller company. Thats how this despicable company opperates. It doesn't need laws, it just takes what it wants. 49.195.6.46 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reception"

"Reception" is not an appropriate section name.

Unqualified, "Reception" as the name of a section in an article about a conglomerate means, on its face, "reception of the conglomerate".

Rename to "Rebranding Reception" or some such. 2603:3024:1818:4800:DC86:2F45:2F8B:466E (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on August 27 2024

Add "Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged in a letter on Monday that Facebook faced pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain content, particularly related to COVID-19. This admission came in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, over a year after Zuckerberg had already supplied the committee with thousands of documents as part of its investigation into content moderation on online platforms."

RS' here: Reuters Financial Times Time

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8B7E:CCC1:3647:9A04 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Zuckerberg's revelations

[4] (The Guardian), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc.; there are many reliable sources about this, e.g. The Guardian. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there an edit you are particularly advocating for? And I'd also point out there are plenty of analyses suggesting this "revelation" isn't all that revealing... [14] [15] [16]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

React

Why React not in the list of Meta products? -GogoLion (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)