User talk:Uanfala/Archive 12

• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Archive 12

Page mover granted

Hello, Uanfala. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, Uanfala!

Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well. Nice fireworks! – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourraea alpina; titles for monotypic genera

Articles covering a monotypic genus and it's only species should use the genus name as the title, not the binomial. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. This isn't consistently followed for some animals groups (fish, beetles), but is very consistently followed for plants. There is an exception when the genus name needs disambiguation, which makes it rather complicated. It would've been better in my opinion to use the binomial as the preferred title in cases of monotypy, but that's not how things ended up (another consideration is that editors working on fossil organisms cover all species in an article about the genus, and many fossil genera are also monotypic). Plantdrew (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the advice in the guidelines and I've been following it so far. In the case of Fourraea alpina I chose not to for two reasons. There appears to have been some uncertainty over whether the species should be in a genus of its own, and given that the current views may change again, I thought we would have a more stable article if it were cast as being about the species. And there's also the fact that the corresponding articles on the other Wikipedias are all about the species, so if ours was instead about the genus then we would have to to either make do without interwiki links or connect the article to the "wrong" Wikidata item.

I believe that considerations like that should generally outweigh any benefits of the currently preferred system, but I don't know much about what those benefits are. What are they really? Sure, genera have shorter names, which makes for more concise titles, which is always good. But doesn't that convention effectively elevate a more or less arbitrary human construct (a taxonomic rank) over what is arguably a given, existing out there in the world (the species)? – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Plantdrew, I see that you have had the page moved. – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from TrangaBellam

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan § Proposed merge of Trakhan dynasty into Gilgit-Baltistan and History of Gilgit-Baltistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for cleaning up the mess I made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 18 😳. You said in an edit summary that you didn't know how I managed to do it, so if you're interested here is the answer. I was writing my comment when I thought of something I wanted to check on another page. If I'd been editing on a computer I would have opened another browser tab to do it, but I was editing on my phone, where I find it more convenient to just work in one window. So I copied the content of the page I was editing, went to check the information I wanted on another page, then went back to edit the deletion review page again, and started by pasting in the text I had copied. Fine, except that I forgot I had been editing just a section of the page, so instead of clicking the link to edit that section I clicked the link at the top of the page, to edit the whole page. That meant when I pasted in my newly edited version of the section I'd been editing, instead of pasting it over the old version of that section, I pasted it over the whole page, wiping out everything except that one section. So there you are. Whether you will be interested to learn that or not, I don't know, but once again thanks for putting it right, which is the most important thing. 😊 JBW (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why! I thought it could be a glitch in an editing tool or something of that sort (which would have neede looking into, hence the ping). Well, these things happen. Thank you for the explanation! I think I once did something similar (pasting into the wrong section), but that was in mainspace, so the result was worse. – Uanfala (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scotched English

The article Scotched English has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, essentially an attack article on that one Scots Wikipedia editor.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, I don't have any strong interest in this topic (my only involvement was moving the page from the draft namespace). I don't have any sources up my sleeve, but the topic looks potentially notable, or at the very least it's noteworthy. The article does read as a sort of meta-commentary on the Scots Wikipedia, but it's not an attack page, and it's certainly not directed at that one infamous admin: the Scot article, of which this is a translation, has existed in more or less its current form since 2005 [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I was just putting this message on the talk pages of any involved users. I suppose 'attack page' was hyperbolic - now that I look at the original Scots page, it seems like what I thought was a personal jab at the user was just a poor Scots-to-English translation. Thanks for the info. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mind the message at all: I appreciate being notified and I think that is a good practice. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sayyan

If I remember correctly, that was part of me mass redirecting a list of ~400 or so geostubs, the vast majority of which were not notable (sourced to lists). Before starting, I looked at many articles in the list, none of which had sufficient sourcing for GEOLAND. While I did also take a cursory look at each article with AWB before saving, evidently I didn't catch that this article had more sources. Therefore, I have no objections to your revert here :) since then I haven't run any other mass-redirections with AWB and am not planning on doing many soon; if I do, I'll certainly check more closely. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. Thank you for the explanation! – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dab descriptions

No worries about your note re: Chandi (disambiguation). MOS:DABENTRY can lead to gray areas with Avoid descriptions that simply repeat information given in the link. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit in the guidelines isn't the most helpful. I've started a discussion about it. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Maithili is not written in Devnagari.

Maithili is not written in Devnagari.It always writes in Tirhuta script.Devnagari use in Hindi language not in Maithili.Adi Kavi Vidyapati "The Great Maithil Poet" was also write s in Tirhuta script.And in 21st century we writes Maithili in tirhita like মৈথলী Vikas Sharma223 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. But you know that you'll need a reliable source before adding that to the article. – Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Northern Indo Aryan languages

Hi, it is regarding this recent edit. Would you kindly take a look at it (relevancy (Mahabharat), redundany and all), as well as the article as a whole. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Grierson did indeed speculate on the Khasa connections of modern Pahari speakers. I don't think the IP is incorrect in their citations, and the topic of ethnicity and history is in principle relevant to the article. But if the only thing we're going to report on this topic is wild speculation, then we're better off not reporting anything at all. – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 41.114.213.20 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

To what do I owe this honour? – Uanfala (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

This edit was disruptive. Please self-revert. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the extreme brevity in my edit summary. However, I don't get your point about the precedent. Should that be taken to imply that the TfD can now be used to sanction the creation of separate doc subpages for all of the the other navboxes, of which there appear to be over a hundred thousand? – Uanfala (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit that you reverted was the incorporation of an existing /doc page that I moved from {{Solitaire/doc}} as part of a not-yet-completed merge of {{Solitaire}} with {{Patience}}. Sometimes editors who implement merges and moves forget to merge subpages. I don't know why I redirected the page instead of moving it to preserve the history; I think I may have botched this one. I can see how this one could be considered an edge case, so I'd be OK with flagging it for deletion instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I care much less about {{Patience}} than about the language navboxes, so I won't object to anything you choose to do with it. It was the "precedent" bit that I disagreed with: the documentation here was forked out into a subpage by an editor who did that as a matter of course for almost any navbox they chanced upon. If that TfD gets treated as a precedent, then we're no longer be able to say "no thanks" to such edits, and we'll be forced to accept any such subpage that anyone has the whimsy to create. This results in a first mover advantage, effectively turning WP:BRD on its head. And that's not how we're supposed to operate. – Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

inre DAB pages

Hello, do you realize you're doing a mess? I don't necessarily disagree with some of your arguments at the talk page, but the key point is that one day after the RFD was closed and the closer created the page you have turned a disambiguation page into a dictionary definition... per MOS:DABENTRY DAB pages should have a list of individual entries for each topic, not a broad statement linking them all together in a single sentence. This is basic WP:CIR (and also common sense, as you can't write "X may be" and then give just one option). I don't want to go to ANI, but as long as I don't want to edit war on this, if you don't self revert yourself or fix the page according to the MOS, I'll be forced to go there. --Cavarrone 16:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't substantially changed the page Communist holocaust: it still provides navigation to most of the entries previously listed, just with the minimum addition of context. You know, disambiguation pages aren't exempt from the core content policies. If common sense is going to be brought into the picture, then I believe it suggests that the encyclopedia shouldn't contain obvious nonsense, even if that nonsense is nicely formatted. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, this reply is mindblowing. I don't see how a bullet list of entries is "obvious nonsense", this is how disambiguation pages work for years in WP. You can add the bare minimum of context in the relevant, bulleted entries, but what you are making there is doing a synthesis and turning what is supposed to be a DAB page into a little unsourced stub (and no, the fact that it "provides navigation" does not make the page a DAB page, almost every page in WP provides navigation and has multiple internal links). --Cavarrone 16:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean, it's not nonsense to glibly state that "Communist holocaust" refers to Holocaust trivialization, or that it's another name for the Holodomor? – Uanfala (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not really sure to understand what you want to say here... but if context is the issue, please take a look at Elite (disambiguation), as an example of DAB page which gives the readers the basic context for each one of its entries, without turning the DAB page into an article. Are you able to do something like that? --Cavarrone 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See, this version of the page makes 6 different claims about what the phrase "communist holocaust" refers to. The most obviously nonsense claim is that it refers to Holocaust trivialization. Most of the other statements are problematic because there's either nothing in the linked articles to support them, or when there is, it is within the context of particular fringe theories, whose views we can't present in Wikipedia's own voice. – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're basically contesting the RFD outcome (I don't get why you don't discussed your opposition to a DAB page in the RFD since you participated in it, but that's how it went). Then, assuming you are right (and you are partly right and partly not IMO) I don't see how your version has solved or even improved the situation btw, all the context you've added is calling the double genocide theory fringe and referring to the mass killings under communist regimes as "certain". As I've written above, would not be even better having an ordered list of entries, where you can add a bit of text (even more text than now) explaining the context when/if necessary (eg. as you correctly made with the Holocaust victims § Leftists entry)? Cavarrone 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why you are making fake and False editing on Maithili language Article?

I noticed that you whenever I try to make correction on Maithili language Article you always make fake and False editing on this page. Can you tell me Why you are doing this unwanted change? I belong to a Maithil family and also speak Maithili language and Know everything about Maithili than you. You always try to show that Script of Maithili is Devnagari but we never use Devnagari for written Maithili.Tirhuta is the Original script of Maithili used from Ancient period to Current time and also have many proof and evidence which is showing Tirhuta is the Original script of Maithili. And you also remove dialect of Maithili I don't know why you are doing this.But it's very unfair and cheap thing. Dialect is mentioned because if anyone want to know our Maithili language so they can see the Dialect of Maithili. Enough! Just think, if I will make any fake or false editing to your mother tongue so what will you feel? Can you tolerate me? Answer is No. So why you are playing with my language? Stop behaving like this and stop reverting your false editing. I hope you will improve yourself and never did this type of cheap thing. Thankyou. 2405:204:130B:F9FD:FCCD:1A62:6DA:698D (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

In principle, how do you tell the difference between what is true and what is fake and false? You're obviously not going to simply accept the opinion of a random person on the internet. What you'd do instead is consult a reliable publication on the topic. That's the point of two of Wikipedia's most important policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You really should have a look at the first couple of paragraph of each of them, otherwise nothing else will make sense to you here.

On the Maithili article, the sentence at the top you're so determined to change is meant to be a summary of the relevant section of the article. That's Maithili language#Writing system. Here is its current text:

Beginning in the 14th century, the language was written in the Tirhuta script (also known as Mithilakshara or Maithili), which is related to the Bengali script. By the early 20th century, this script was largely associated with the Mithila Brahmans, with most others using Kaithi, and Devanagari spreading under the influence of the scholars at Banaras. Throughout the course of the century, Devanagari grew in use eventually replacing the other two, and has since remained the dominant script for Maithili. Tirhuta retained some specific uses (on signage in north Bihar as well as in religious texts, genealogical records and letters), and has seen a resurgence of interest in the 21st century.

References

What you're doing with edits like this is taking a text based on good sources and changing it so that it says the opposite of what these sources say.

Similarly with the dialects: if there's going to be a list in the infobox, it will need to match the content of the article's dialects section, which in turn should be based on good sources. – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Bego Turks

Instead for delete the Article, a change of the name should be ok like Turks from Ada Kaleh, because any Turkish group from Greece have there own Page, have a Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Greece Why then for the Turks from Ada Kaleh it is not ok to have there own Page? Turks from Ada Kaleh was allways different as the Turkish-Tatarian-Muslim Roma Population from Dobruja in Romania. The Population from Ada Kaleh was different in the Background and History as in Dobruja. I give so many Sources about Turks from Ada Kaleh in the Article, so why should be the Article delete?

--Nalanidil (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nalanidil, I haven't looked into it and I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted. I simply moved a discussion out of the wrong venue. You can read the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bego Turks, they should give you an idea for the reasons why people have been arguing for deletion or merging. You can of course also continue participating there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleting the article makes no sense at all. As I wrote above. Nalanidil (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

But, delete it...no problem. Nalanidil (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Dissension DAB

I just wanted to flag that when you changed Dissension to a DAB & created Dissension (Magic: The Gathering), you didn't update the image rationale for File:Dissension expsym.svg which resulted in a bot pinging it as a WP:NFCC violation. I updated the image rationale so it lists Ravnica as the article. When you change article titles from X to X (series name), please double check to see if the article has an associated image & update there as well. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you've fixed it, thank you for that! I didn't move any pages though, I simply expanded a redirect into a dab page, and it never occurred to me that the redirect may be linked from a free use rationale. That's something new to look out for in the future! – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Spider eater

Hello, Uanfala,

I restored this page because of the Deletion review, so that you can see the entire page history along with the CSD tag for deletion that was placed on the page. I hope it helps resolve things at the Deletion review. I just wanted to let you know because memories can be different from edit history and with the page deleted, this can be difficult to verify. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RM has ended

The RM at Talk:Universal resurrection#Requested move 13 February 2022 has endend on 30 March. This is related to your RfD closure at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Resurrection from the dead. Do you plan to edit your closure with due to the RM's results? Veverve (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no, I thought I'd happily left all that behind. So...as far as I can see, the only further input into the discussion since I closed the RfD was a brief comment by In ictu oculi and the final close of the RM. Do these two have bearing on the RfD questions? I don't see any, do you? Give me a nudge if I'm missing anything here. Or did you have in mind the mention of the RM discussion as still ongoing? That could be changed, sure, but the effect is going to be largely cosmetic. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Misspellings and typos in redirects

Your input re redirect "Hittite Empir" [2] sparked my interest in "Roman Empir" [3]. I didn't invoke you in the discussion, and I don't seek your interest there. But your post did get me thinking, regarding redirects, about the difference between a misspelling and a mere typo. Cheers _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your comment there is spot on! I've been thinking for a long that that we need a Guide To The Creation Of Good Redirects, and considerations like this is precisely what needs to go into it. – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

admin

Hi Uanfala, have you considered becoming an admin? You are a seasoned editor (to quote the description at your autopatrol request) and have sound knowledge of policies and guidelines. I see you haven't requested anything for yourself except for the page mover right, which was granted at the start of the year.

While participating in the Gordon Boulevard RfD about inter-language links in a DAB, and searching for relevant discussions, I happened to see your comment in multiple places that you are limited by your lack of access to deleted pages, and have to rely on log entries and Wikipedia mirrors. Adminship will help you contribute more efficiently. Jay (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that could definitely make some things easier. If there were a way to simply ask for the ability to see deleted pages, I'd do it straight away. But running for adminship seems to take some time and effort, probably more than I'm willing to dedicate to it; and the results aren't guaranteed: I know I've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way over the years, so there's going to be a decent amount of opposition.

Also, I already end up spending a lot of time on "admin" work (in the ordinary, non-wiki, sense of the word). If I were to become an admin, I'm sure I'd get drawn into spending even more time on that, and so less time on everything else here. Like the stuff that I enjoy more, or the big projects that I think are important (and that I always seem to put off for later with the excuse that there's "admin" that needs doing) – these don't require any permissions at all. That's one reason I've almost never asked for any – that pagemover request I did in a moment of weakness ;) – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look like the RfA process requires single-minded devotion while it is on, and may make you look at Wikipedia from different perspectives. Those who got their adminship in the good old days haven't got to experience that. On your misgivings that adminship is going to take the fun out of editing or of non-admin "admin" work, I believe nothing much is going to change. You might pick and choose an area at a time in parallel, that you wish to familiarize with, short-term. One more responsible admin will be an asset to the community. Jay (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would vote oppose for your own benefit ;) –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you TheManishPanwar (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've earned that, but thank you! – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Kishtwari language page

Hi Uanfala, sorry to bother you. I am leaving this message as a user Jarnail zoravar singh ki jai has been making since several days unsourced changes to the Kishtwari language page through anonymous ip addresses. Can you have a look into it as you are quite a regular editor on that page. I told him while he left me a quite displeasing message on my talk page few days back that all changes made need to be sourced which he seems not to understand. Imranqazi90 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP's objections come off as a bit crazy, but their position isn't entirely wrong. While it's true that Kishtwari has commonly been counted among the Kashmiri dialects, this view is definitely not universal. Siddeshwar Varma, for example, placed it within his "Dardo-Pahari", a group intermediate between Kashmiri and Western Pahari, and that view was repeated in Kaul's 2006 Pahāṛi and Other Tribal Dialects of Jammu.

The article definitely needs a rewrite and expansion: it's strange that it should still be mostly based on Grierson, given that there are newer, much more in-depth, sources (in addition to the above, there's also this recent dissertation). I've been thinking of doing it at some point, but I don't know when I'll be able to find the time. Anybody interested in taking up that task? – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic pride

A personal post, since this might be to caustic for a comment in the Project talk page. Maybe just leave these things as they are: as living proof that boastfulness is an innate characteristic of the subject described...but oh, no we don't want to cater to stereotypes. And how will we ever convince gatekeepers to refrain from (unvoluntarily) catering to stereotypes. Don't worry, I will answer (and support) you later in the Project talk page in a more serious vein :) –Austronesier (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah :)

Similarly, these can function as markers of low article quality, right? I find the whole situation a bit sad though: when an article goes at such length to emphasise how great the nation is, this usually indicates a strong inferiority complex. You're never going to see such content in the articles about the English or the Japanese. – Uanfala (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Marwari language

HI, it is regarding these changes. Would you kindly verify them. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not again. They're making more unsourced changes in a minute than we can review in an hour. You can just revert them on sight. The one for Marwari may turn out to be correct though: this indicates a language with the name is spoken in Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sneaky forum-shopping by Uanafla. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiNav

How do you use this for a redirect? If I ask for analysis of a redirect, it provides data on the target, not the redirect itself. There is no help or instructions and I don't see a way to override that behavior. Thanks. MB 19:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It can't do that, unfortunately. The data in the WP:Clickstream, which is what Wikinav visualises, doesn't distinguish between destinations reached directly and ones that have been arrived at via a redirect. The good old pageviews do make that distinction though: so, for example, the data for Germans includes only the views of the exact title, with views recorded separately for German people or German (people) [4]. Little tricks can sometimes be used, what specifically are you interested in finding out? – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Disregard that. I was looking at the RM discussion for SS (disambiguation). WikiNav indicates that over 80% of the clicks on a link in the dab are for Schutzstaffel, which is a good indication that it is the PT and correct target of SS. Am I interpreting that correctly? If so, what is the table at the very bottom that shows 2153 outgoing views - I'm confused by 1.49%. MB 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Now I see, 1.49 is the % of traffic to Schutzstaffel, so that is not really important for this discussion. MB 23:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that table shows the same sort of information that's displayed in the first chart at the top (you can hover over the "pipelines" in the chart and you'll see the same numbers). Yeah, 80% is definitely indicative of a primary topic. Also, it's almost certainly an underestimate, because the dab page isn't at the primary title (so the figure doesn't include the readers who type "SS" and are happy at being taken straight to Schutzstaffel, as they have no reason to then visit the dab page). – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)