Talk:Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 

Requested move[edit]

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)

AnonymousAnonymous (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)

  • 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.  — 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 LtPowers (talk · contribs). -- 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.

anonymous??? what ??? attack fb??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.128.21 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)