Talk:Anonymous

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anonymous page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Requested accept

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous → Anonymous (disambiguation) — Anonymous (group) is ranked 1st in a google search:anonymous, Anonymous (group) significantly more traffic, and the strong correlation between page views of Anonymous and Anonymous (Group) suggests most people are searching for anonymous group. Smallman12q (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (group) → Anonymous

Uhhhh....no. — AjaxSmack 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I get a rationale for the oppose?Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, If I hafta. Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:RECENTISM/WP:BIAS. No evidence that the "group", with its limited temporal and spatial relevance is the primary topic. Anonymity and the slough of other entries at Anonymous are together more important encyclopedically. — AjaxSmack 00:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; if anything, Anonymous should redirect to Anonymity, but the disambiguation page is fine too. Powers ^T 00:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose "Anonymous" is an English word, used as a penname, used as many different group names, including the group you mentioned. WP:RECENTISM, WP:Systematic bias - Internet bias; 4chan is not the world, despite messing up Time Magazine's poll. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AjaxSmack. — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The DAB should stay where it is. However, agree the current disambiguator is misleading and should be changed... most readers would assume it's a band name. Interesting article, BTW, but has many other issues. Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. A prime example of why we shouldn't use Google and/or page traffic as the basis for a page move. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep the pages where they are. If anything, agree with LtPowers (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; obvious recentism. I specifically also agree with LtPowers about what the situation should be. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update it in today's day and age this article is outdated Reallytrustfulperson (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (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. TJRC (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]