Talk:Meta (prefix)

New contemporary usage

It seems to me that there is a new usage of "meta" as its own word that is becoming quite common. "Meta" describes a joke or a concept in a popular art that steps outside the narrative and addresses the audience on a different level or from a different frame. The simplest example is when a character breaks the fourth wall. Or if a dialogue between two characters makes sense to the audience because of knowledge the audience has from outside the story, but would be nonsensical to the characters inside the narrative, it can be referred to as being "meta."

These are sort of off-the-cuff definitions and examples. I'm sure there has been higher-level thought put into this by smarter people than me. But I think that this usage deserves coverage in wikipedia, because I hear it more and more frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B85B:35F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed my comment from this section, which was mostly just agreeing with the above poster, as I think that there is already an entry (Meta-fiction, Meta-narrative, or Meta-reference) that covers this contemporary usage well. CeraWithaC (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed "CHANGE" from greek meaining of the word.

"change", was placed in the greek definition. it may be a contemporary usage of meta. But not so in the original greek.

--Steamerandy (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Use as a stand-alone word

We need to cover use of meta as a stand-alone word. This appears to have originated in the early hacker community (hacker in the sense of 'consummate and adaptive programmer', not 'system cracker') in the late 1960s and 1970s, probably also involving the university mathematics and philosophy crowds, since there was significant overlap. This is documented to a limited extent in The New Hacker's Dictionary (a.k.a. The Jargon File in its online form). It doesn't necessarily establish earliest usage in this manner, which might come from philosophy journals or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed Image

I'm not sure what the Sierpinski triangle has to do with Meta. The caption only says that it is an example of Meta, but doesn't elaborate. I'm removing this image, hope this doesn't offend anyone...Amitushtush (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2023

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. And the dab page will be moved to base name. The discussion here largely focused on whether or not the prefix is the primary topic, and I find consensus that it is not. While convincing arguments were made that the prefix could be the primary topic in terms of long-term significance, we also have to consider the usage of a term in determining a primary topic. WP:PT1 as written says {{xt|A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined}} (emphasis my own). There does not appear to be a usage more common than all the others combined and thus this appears to be a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Meta → Meta (prefix) – The readership interest in Meta Platforms dramatically exceeds that of this prefix, and the company operates as "Meta" (since 2021). If there is a WP:primary topic for "Meta", it is not the prefix. If someone has a suggestion for an alternative disambiguation term (considering the recent practice of using "meta" as a stand-alone word, as in "That's really meta"), that seems worth considering; however, the article does not currently discuss that usage (at least not in the lead section). I don't have an opinion about whether Meta (disambiguation) should be moved to Meta or if Meta should become a "primary redirect" to Meta Platforms or if Meta Platforms should be moved to Meta. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move, as the prefix has far more long-term significance. O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Mixed. Neutral on moving Meta (disambiguation) to Meta. The company is what many readers are looking for but the prefix does have a much longer-term significance. Oppose moving Meta Platforms to Meta or making it redirect there or vice versa. Certes (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment does not express an opinion about the request in the RM itself, i.e. whether or not to rename the article about the prefix. Do you have an opinion about that? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, all relevant pages would be named Meta, but of course that's impossible. Renaming this article (about the prefix) is a necessary evil if we move something else to Meta or make Meta redirect somewhere else. There's no merit to moving this article per se, but it may be justified to free its title for the dab. Certes (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing to support following a reminder below that pageviews are 30:1 in favour of the company. We serve readers better by offering them what they want rather than what we think would be good for them. However, moving the company to the base name would still be a step too far. Certes (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Huh? The prefix is obviously the primary topic with the most long-term significance. Invoking Meta Platforms is textbook WP:RECENTISM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly a RECENTISM effect, but the ratio of readership interest is huge, so the vast majority readers are clearly being led to a different topic rather than the one they are seeking information about, and this has been true for years. Maybe Meta Platforms shouldn't be considered primary, but definitely the prefix shouldn't be. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and move DAB to basename. Of course long-term significance goes to Prefix, but Meta is also one of the biggest companies in the world right now and dominating page views. There's no clear PRIMARYTOPIC now or going forward, so maybe disambiguation page at base name makes most sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Should Apple be moved to accomodate Apple Inc., and Avatar be moved to accomodate Avatar (2009 film), then? The company and the film dwarf their undisambiguated counterparts in terms of pageviews. The answer is no, because WP:RECENTISM and WP:PT2 were written exactly for these cases. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  A relatively obscure word prefix is not at the same level of interest, familiarity and importance as a commonly eaten fruit. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Uhh, meta is not "a relatively obscure word prefix"... Metaphysics, metabolism, metaphor, metadata, metamorphosis, meta-reference, metaverse, metahuman, ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Infinite. There's a reason we have DABs and hatnotes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support but move the DAB to the base name. There is no clear primary topic and while the prefix may have more long-term significance there is no indication the place in Italy comes from the prefix though that place probably has little significance in English. Meta Platforms has 275,681 views compared with only 7,356[[1]] for the prefix. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is a classic WP:RECENTISM argument. Newer things are of course going to get significantly more pageviews that older ones. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that the prefix is still the primary topic for this term with respect to long-term significance. The hatnotes seem sufficient for disambiguation purposes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation, oppose primary redirect. There is no primary topic IMO. Responding to an argument above: Compared to topics like Apple or Avatar, Meta is less obviously deserving of an encyclopedia article, so I don't think the long-term significance is enough to ignore the obvious pageview discrepancy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word is not always a prefix. Would be open to other suggestions, I do believe it needs to be bracketed since Facebook (the company) changed its name.
  MarkiPoli (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Relisting comments. This is close, with consensus leaning towards move, but, there are some issues. I've done some history merges to correct discontinuities in the article histories. The page history of the disambiguation dates back to September 2002, making it older than the articles. The page history of the article(s) dates from September 2004. Oftentimes I find that the concept with the oldest page history is at or belongs at the base title. Meta was put up for deletion in September 2022, which is another factor pointing towards no primary topic – legitimate primary topics are not generally subjected to deletion discussions. I say article(s) because wikt:meta is a word (an adjective or a noun), while wikt:meta- is a prefix. There have been articles about each form, which were restructured into a combo article (I history-merged separate segments into a single page history). At various times, the Meta article has been about "the word or prefix", "the word", or "the prefix". This discussion needs to decide what the scope of the article is. If the scope of the article only covers the prefix, and not the word, that points to moving the page to Meta-, because "meta" is the word and "meta-" is the prefix. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  It was put up for deletion because it was accused of being a dictionary definition, not because it was accused of being non-notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reasons already raised above. The term is certainly not obscure, and though it is used as a prefix it also is a term, one that represents a significant and widely-used concept that (like apple) is primary over the recently renamed technology company. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation, given the large number of meanings of the word, "Meta". BD2412 T 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Longterm significance is also a criterion, not just pageviews. The prefix has much more longterm significance, and Meta may very well rebrand again at some point. This would be exactly the same as moving apple out of the way to accommodate the company. Just no... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:31, 26 November 2023 (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.