Talk:CFF

Requested move 25 November 2025

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. Not moved, all opposed and author reconsidered move request (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

---

CFF → CFF (disambiguation)CFF (disambiguation) – Swiss Federal Railways is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as evidenced by Wikinav . CFF should thus become a redirect to Swiss Federal Railways (where a hatnote would be added) and the dab page moved to CFF (disambiguation)CFF (disambiguation). An equivalent shuffle has recently occurred for SBB, as discussed at Talk:SBB (disambiguation) § Requested move 17 November 2025. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, the clickstreams here are actually markedly different than SBB. Yes, we can find it at the top of the list of identifiable clickstreams, but it's only 21 in a month, there's 10 filtered clicks, and 135 total views. That's not actually enough evidence of a primary topic. You should examine the other statistics and sources and present a more coherent case. --Joy (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. There doesn't seem to be a way of determining how many of the 135 incoming views resulted in outgoing views (as opposed to readers who didn't click on any of the links on the dab page) but it does seem likely that 21 outgoing isn't enough for the more likely than all the other topics combined criterion of WP:PT1.

Of all the destinations on the CFF dab page, only Celebrity Family Feud gets comparable pageviews to Swiss Federal Railways; the next most popular are the Croatian and Curaçao football federations. However, none of these pages' wikinav data show any incoming views from CFF so it's impossible to tell how many readers arrived there via the abbreviation.

Notwithstanding, I'd suggest that the main rail operator of a major country has more long term significance than a game show spin-off or the football bodies of two minor nations, and thus meets WP:PT2. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that this sort of usage pattern doesn't actually demonstrate the plausibility of the primary redirect for the average reader. Yes, the rail operator topic has that readership, but just like with other cases we do not know that that entire readership corresponds to people who strongly associate the term 'CFF' with it.

And in turn we are even less sure that there's so few people who do not associate this term strongly with that topic, so much so that we don't need to worry anyone would be surprised if they looked up CFF and landed there.

I should also mention that we need to include incoming redirects in the incoming view stats (something WikiNav doesn't do). Per Pageviews, that's 159 total views in October. So the ratio is even worse. Even if we were to assume that literally all the filtered clicks were to the same rail operator topic (unlikely, but whatever), that would have been 31 compared to 159, only about 20%. If about 80% of readers land at this list and can't or won't find the operator or indeed anything else, it's hard to claim there is a primary topic.

Just to make sure, I checked the archives in case October was some sort of an outlier. But what I found was even worse:

clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv:

• CFF Flicker_fusion_threshold link 10
• total: 10 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-09.tsv:

• CFF Flicker_fusion_threshold link 12
• total: 12 to 1 identified destinations

So in August and September, there weren't even enough identifiable clicks to the rail operator topic from CFF to make the cut, yet there were some to the vision science topic.

I don't know how to compare those topics by significance. But the other one certainly seems like a scholarly topic.

On the other hand, these were the statistics at SBB before the recent RM there:

clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv:

• SBB Swiss_Federal_Railways link 287
• SBB SBB_(band) link 26
• SBB Serbia_Broadband link 19
• total: 332 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-09.tsv:

• SBB Swiss_Federal_Railways link 265
• SBB SBB_(band) link 37
• SBB Serbia_Broadband link 10
• total: 312 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2025-10.tsv:

• SBB Swiss_Federal_Railways link 260
• SBB SBB_(band) link 34
• SBB Serbia_Broadband link 12
• total: 306 to 3 identified destinations

That was with these monthly views: 378 in August, 351 in September and 327 in October. So ~76%, ~75% and ~79% identifiable clicks from the get-go. Even in the presence of other measurable topics, it was that high. --Joy (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your very detailed analysis. So it all boils down to whether either the Swiss railways or Critical flicker fusion have sufficient long term significance (as meanings of the abbreviation CFF, not in their own right) to meet WP:PT2. I'll leave a note on the latter's talk page too, but on reflection you're probably right that there is no primary topic for CFF. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Swiss Federal Railways and Talk:Celebrity Family Feud. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Flicker fusion threshold. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Three-letter abbreviations can refer to many different things and should not have a single entity designated as the primary topic unless their usage becomes widely recognized on a global scale. No one outside the region is likely to know that "CFF" stands for the "Swiss Federal Railways". Wikipedia is meant for a global audience, not to serve a specific country or region. Cfls (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.