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.