Yesterday I added this to the entry:
anonymous
And it was reverted. Why is that? We have entries for Internet slang terms like pwn, noob or leet. This usage of the word "anonymous" is just about as common as those words are, being used all the time on just about every website I know that allows anonymous posting (notably the many 4chan-style image boards). So why wouldn't it merit being mentioned? Fyrius 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you mean the adjective section. Well, mea culpa. But that doesn't affect its worthiness of being mentioned, nor does the incompleteness of the entry. (I don't blame you though - I know vandal hunters are often a bit overzealous, especially with anonymous contributions.)
So the only problematic issue is the lack of references. I'm afraid that finding those would be a bit difficult, particularly because the communities wherein the term is used are often too dynamic to refer to. I believe image board posts typically last somewhere between a few days and a few hours. But on the other hand, I see noob has been accepted without any references too, so...
The plural on the other hand is easy to supply. It's usually pluralized with a regular plural, making it anonymouses. I've also seen the quasi-Latin plural anonymii, but that's not so common. So with that added, and with some example phrases thrown in, the entry would become:
{{en-noun|anonymouses}}
{{lb|en|Internet slang}}
A person who posts anonymously.
Fyrius 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen anonymouses used to refer to more than one anonymous, only anons (and that too is rare). Should we go with the proper English plural form or the real one? 76.190.152.7 04:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand why "anonymous" doesnt have a noun entry--71.111.229.19 17:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
"Without consideration of prestige, title, rank or background"; synonym "on the merits". This doesn't seem distinct from the usual sense (nameless), i.e. IF you consider something without a name, you MUST consider it on its merits. But that's not a sense of the word itself. Equinox ◑ 03:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense: (comparable, figuratively) Lacking individuality.
Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Previously, it had IPA /əˈnɒnəməs/ and rhymes -nɪməs. Of course, this is inconsistent, so I went ahead and changed it to rhyming with -nɒnəməs. Just pointing it out. MGorrone (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This talk page shouldn't have the categories that it currently has. Should it? --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)