Talk:Anonymous
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anonymous page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
| This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| On 25 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Anonymous (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Requested accept
[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)
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)
- 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)
- Could I get a rationale for the oppose?Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 20 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.
Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)
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)
Requested move 25 March 2026
[edit]- 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: not moved. Consensus is that there's no primary topic. (non-admin closure) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 07:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Anonymous → Anonymous (disambiguation) – We have two options here:
- Option 1 Move this disambiguation page to 'Anonymous (disambiguation)' and then retarget 'anonymous' to 'anonymity' per WP:RPRIMARY because that's considered to be the primary topic with that term with 4,681 pageviews, because the other use of the term 'anonymity', 'symmetry (social choice)', with only 56 pageviews, isn't considered to be well known outside of economics and social choice, or
- Option 2 Leave the article title as it is, a) because 'Anonymous (hacker group)' has 37,457 pageviews, many more than the primary topic article 'anonymity'. PK2 (talk; contributions) 03:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- or b) because there's no primary topic with that term despite both statistics and situations. -- PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Option 1: the concept of anonymity has had a far broader impact that can't be measured in pageviews. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- To be fair, someone trying to look up the concept of anonymity is most likely going to search "anonymity" and not "anonymous", are they not? ―Maltazarian (talkinvestigate) 18:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Option 1: the concept of anonymity has had a far broader impact that can't be measured in pageviews. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose both, no primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose both, the hacker group has good claim as primary by page views and the concept similarly by long term significance. Neither is overwhelmingly indicated and it seems best to leave as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose both There does not seem to be a primary topic here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- How can you oppose both? Although structured weirdly, the nom is just asking support/oppose for the proposed move. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- OP has proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2", and I oppose both. "Option 3", of course, is the status quo; that is what we should be staying with. 162 etc. (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't Option 2 just the status quo? Am I missing something? Srnec (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh you're right, and yes that's structured weirdly; I'd somehow interpreted Option 2 as suggesting a primary redirect to Anonymous (hacker group). 162 etc. (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't Option 2 just the status quo? Am I missing something? Srnec (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- OP has proposed "Option 1" and "Option 2", and I oppose both. "Option 3", of course, is the status quo; that is what we should be staying with. 162 etc. (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
edit request, another film called Anonymous
[edit]Under Anonymous#Film and television, please change
- Anonymous (film), a 2011 film
to
- Anonymous (film), 2011's fictionalized version of the life of Edward de Vere
- Anonymous, an alternate title for the 2016 crime thriller Hacker (film)
- *[[Anonymous (film)|''Anonymous'' (film)]], 2011's fictionalized version of the life of Edward de Vere
- *''Anonymous'', an alternate title for the 2016 crime thriller [[Hacker (film)|''Hacker'' (film)]]
Thanks. Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --~2026-13788-02 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)