Talk:Anonymous

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)

Anonymous → Anonymous (disambiguation) — Anonymous (group) is ranked 1st in a google search:, 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)


 * Anonymous (group) → Anonymous


 * Uhhhh....no. —   AjaxSmack   22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I get a rationale for the oppose?Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose; if anything, Anonymous should redirect to Anonymity, but the disambiguation page is fine too. Powers T 00:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per AjaxSmack. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose. Keep the pages where they are. If anything, agree with . -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; obvious recentism. I specifically also agree with LtPowers about what the situation should be. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ''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
I want to update it in today's day and age this article is outdated Reallytrustfulperson (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)