Talk:CBD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Possible meanings[edit]

Isn't it also a disorder? --Mjbauer95 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a comutity

I removed "Customer and Deposit System Development". I do not see a "CBD" in it. If it really belongs on this page, it should be restored and have an article. Zaslav (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2019[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CBD → CBD (disambiguation) – So that CBD can be redirected to Cannabidiol, which is the primary topic by several orders of magnitude (judging by pageviews). Kaldari (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: - Given the amount of articles on the CBD page, it seems prudent to have a requested move discussion before this page move takes effect rather than just a technical request. I personally have no strong views (I just assist at RM often). The primary topic argument has been made here pretty strongly looking at page view stats. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (was Strongly support, but changed vote on ideological grounds who doesn't believe in WP:PRIMARY, at least in part, and would prefer to see the disambiguation article occupy the URL without a parenthetical qualifier in all cases). 'Nuff said. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: So you're saying you just don't care if the vast majority of people who are searching for "CBD" are looking for information about Cannabidiol? Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kaldari:, oh, interesting, you can use ping in curly braces to tag someone besides u or, what I was doing, typing out the full user tags. Thanks. But yeah, consider my rationale and oppose somewhat of a semi-soft oppose for the rationale provided by @BD2412:. I don't find disambiguation pages to be too troublesome. Just look down for what the category it's related to and locate the Wikipedia article of relevance to you. I've actually stumbled upon some interesting unrelated articles via disambiguation articles. There seems to be a tendency among many Wikipedia users who rely too heavily on Google search result stats and page views in basing their !vote for or against a page move/merger/split, etc. Ideally, I think we should be agnostic to things like that have a more rules-based system similar to Library of Congress Subject Headings and such. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Friendly pings @Colin M: and @BarrelProof: -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CBD means "Central Business District" in Asia. Look in books and newspapers and don't assume. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The number of page views that Cannabidiol receives is irrelevant. The fact that people are viewing that page does not automatically mean that they associate the acronym "CBD" with the word "Cannabidiol". What evidence is there in the real world that this is the case? It is possible to do a test on this disambiguation page, by replacing the existing links to the various page targets with temporary links or little-used redirects, and seeing how much the usage of those new links jumps once they are implemented. That would tell us with certainty whether people were typing in "CBD" with the expectation of finding a specific target. bd2412 T 04:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very rarely should TLAs get PTs. Pageviews are interesting data, but cannot be used for concluding anything. If someone wants to use "CBD" to access Cannabidiol, they should use google, not the encyclopedia content listing by title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. First, I don't think that a 20-fold difference in page views is completely irrelevant, but it can be misleading sometimes. A much better statistic to look at would be counting the number of people who click through to the various topics from the disambiguation page itself. If one topic dominates by that measure, then it would be a much better indication that the topic is primary (but even then, there can be recentism-type issues, although I don't think that's much of an issue here). I don't know if there's any way to actually measure that, but it would be interesting to look at. Even if "CBD" often refers to "central business district" in certain parts of the world, it seems an unlikely thing to search for. On the other hand, keeping all TLAs as disambiguation pages isn't totally unreasonable either; are there any exceptions, or has there been any discussion about that in the past? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible to test this using the WP:DABTEST method alluded to by BD2412 above. There are certainly examples of three-letter-acronyms that don't go to dab pages. A few that come to mind: FBI, CIA, WWW, IRS, LOL, NBC. If we're going to call those 'exceptions' to a rule, then it's a very weak rule indeed. Colin M (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The pageview stats are very compelling here. The only piece of information needed to seal the case is how strongly associated is 'CBD' with Cannabidiol. I believe the answer is 'very strongly associated'. I wouldn't be surprised if >90% of readers looking for information on this topic would use the search term 'CBD' over the full name. Heck, I think there's even a decent argument for renaming Cannabidiol to 'CBD' per WP:NCACRO: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. (Though I'm not suggesting that rename should be decided as part of this RM.) I don't have any survey data on this, but I think the majority of people who are familiar with the term 'CBD' do not know the full name that it expands to. Here's some related data from nytimes.com (I chose them only because they have a good search interface - I would expect directionally similar results from other RS aimed at a wide audience):
    • A search for "CBD" "cannabis" "cannabidiol" gives 54 results.
    • Dropping "CBD" from the above query adds 15 results. Dropping "cannabidiol" adds 32 results. In other words, there are twice as many articles that use "CBD" without the full name, as there are articles that use the full name but not CBD (one example of the former)
    • Of the first 10 articles returned by the original query, 7 use "CBD" in the title, and 0 use "cannabidiol" in the title. Examples: "Is CBD Helpful, or Just Hype?", "Why is CBD Everywhere?", "Cannabis Companies Push F.D.A. to Ease Rules on CBD Products".
In the event that the proposed move fails to find consensus (and it's looking likely that it will not), I would support a WP:DABTEST, as mentioned by others above. I expect it will give strong evidence of Cannabidiol being the PTOPIC. Colin M (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE giving credibility to this method, it is entrenched in the pageviews/click rate perspective that is at odds with following usage in quality sources. Pageviews are interesting, but an encyclopedia is a scholarly document that is only as good as its sources. Abandoning sources in favour of clickbait is the wrong approach. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Wikipedia:Recentism. Using Google trends to compare searches for "central business district" vs. "cannabidiol" shows steady interest in "cannabidiol" lower than "central business district" until sometime around 2012 or 2013, when it became a more popular search term. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives two criteria for determining a primary topic: usage and long-term significance. Where the two criteria are in conflict, "consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic." With that in mind, keeping this page as a dab page makes sense, with two topics given prominence over the entries it "may also refer to" until/unless robust consensus determines a primary topic. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Just plain Bill: That Google Trends comparison is worthless since the vast majority of people searching for information about cannabidiol will be using the acronym, as most people don't even know the real name of the drug. Interest in cannabidiol has likely been higher than central business district since at least the early 2000s, but this is hidden due to how people search for it. Long-term significance favors cannabidiol, as it's been used as a prescribed medicine since at least 2005 and certainly isn't going anywhere. We are doing our readers a serious disservice by making prominent medical information hard to find. Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That Google Trends comparison is far from worthless. It may not be dispositive all by itself, but it is a chunk of information contributing to the overall picture.
We are doing our readers a serious disservice by making prominent medical information hard to find.
OK, "serious disservice" carries an aroma of hyperbole, as the kind of concern that often goes along with motivated reasoning. The same could be said of "prominent medical information". What prominence it may have is a relatively recent thing; it is less prominent and more recent than HIV, for example, which only came to the attention of the medical community in 1981 or so. In some views, that is recent. We can't know how prevalent the use of CBD remedies will be in twenty years.
"hard to find" is the kind of assertion it is difficult to make with a straight face. It is literally the first entry on this dab page.
The claim it "certainly isn't going anywhere" may be credible, but crystal balls are notoriously unreliable for predicting the future, and are not a basis for writing Wikipedia content. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:61F4:E3D4:44C8:DC85 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 19th Century Google Books search does find an 1877 use-case, but the term was more commonly used as an angle in geometry. The 20th Century search finds more use-cases for Central Business District. Give this one some more time, as with current legalization efforts, Cannabis is trending, but more time need to confirm the staying power of this usage (is it a fad?). wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given that Cannabidiol is 1 word and "Central Business District" is 3 I expect that the abbreviation is more likely for the 3 word term. Single words are less commonly abbreviated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Speculative nonsense. In jurisdictions where sale of cannabis products is legal, the abbreviation is very much in use, both spoken and on labels. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, we might expect that an obscure, polysyllabic technical term is more likely to be abbreviated than a phrase consisting of everyday words. Anyways, we can do better than just speculating. I presented some search results above from the New York Times showing that Cannabidiol is very commonly abbreviated. In that particular publication, the term 'CBD' appeared in a dozen headlines (in each case, referring to cannabidiol), and 'Cannabidiol' appeared in 0. Colin M (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Central Business District is probably the only recognised meaning in NZ where it is used in mainstream media and on some street signs. This may also apply to other parts of the world.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible data redirects[edit]

To gauge the traffic through this page to some prospects for primary topic, redirects for use just on this page could be created, such as CBD (cannabinoid), and the traffic checked in a month or three. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2023[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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CBD → CBD (disambiguation) – Per https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=CBD which shows that Cannabidiol easily meets WP:PT1. In June, over 90% of outgoing traffic from this page was to Cannabidiol, while WP:PT1 only requires >50%. I see that there was a similar move request 4 years ago, but we didn't have traffic stats then, just Google Trends and pageview stats. (Plus people probably weren't buying CBD products at gas stations in Kansas 4 years ago.) Nosferattus (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose What about Central business district? Primary, I think not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Central business district only gets about 8% of outgoing pageviews. Nosferattus (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your interpretation of WikiNav is correct. There were ~1.25k outgoing views of the proposed primary topic out of a total of ~2.3k incoming views, which is ~54%. It's already the first link in the list. So what would be the explanation why you want to send out ~46% of readers to potentially read something off-topic to them, and have to click a hatnote to navigate back? Why do you think so many of them are not clicking but really would be best served by reading about that topic? --Joy (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy are you saying that WikiNav is not calculating the percentage of outgoing views correctly? That would be concerning. older ≠ wiser 10:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's just that the graph of outgoing views, nearer to the bottom, is analyzing within the set of outgoing views. The graph that compares incoming and outgoing views, at the top, is a different analysis, within both sets. I see a lot of people focus too much on the former, without paying attention to the latter. --Joy (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: 39% of those incoming pageviews don't have any referrer, indicating they are probably bots. If we subtract that from the 46% of visitors that don't clickthrough, that means only 7% of human visitors are coming to the disambiguation page and not clicking through. My guess is most of them are looking for Cannabidiol, but don't recognize it under that name, so they simply give up and leave. It's clear from all the data we have (Google Trends, pageviews, and WikiNav) that Cannabidiol is overwhelmingly the primary topic, even considering incoming pageviews. I hope you will reconsider. Nosferattus (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that all traffic with empty referer is probably bots is not necessarily true, there's numerous reasons why referers can be empty. --Joy (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Already in 2019, the evidence was very strong based on page views alone. But this is a no-brainer now based on WikiNav. ~90% of people go to Cannabidiol from the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 10:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ~90% of people who click a link in the clickstream go there. That's not even close to ~90% of people who see the disambiguation page. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But what are we to make of entities that view the disambiguation page and do not click any of the links? As far as I'm concerned, this means absolutely nothing in that ascribing ANY intent to such views is pure speculation. For all we know, these views may be coming from data-scraping bots configured to mask that they are bots. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the problem with that argument is that we don't know whether a similarly relevant amount of the outgoing clicks are fake, either. --Joy (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that's true, though I don't have the tools to dig deeper. The issue is primarily with incoming views coming from referrer = 'other-empty' meaning either they came from older browsers that do not handle referrer header field correctly or they are somehow masking the referrer. In the actual datasets, you would be able to see the pairing of referrer to outgoing page -- but that level of detail is not presented in these summary tables and graphs. It would be interesting to see what percentage of 'other-empty' incoming views stop and how many are connected to an outgoing page view.
    In any case, the main point is that it is speculation to ascribe any significance to the count of viewer that do not proceed to an outgoing page view. This discrepancy between incoming and outgoing views is common across disambiguation pages whether there is primary topic or not and I don't see any basis for interpretation of this difference in incoming vs outgoing views. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: Why would the outgoing clicks be fake? Bots don't click on links (or use web browsers for that matter), they harvest them from the page source and then scrape them directly. And even if the clicks were fake, it doesn't make sense that bots would only follow the first disambiguation link and nothing else. Nosferattus (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The contention was that data-scraping bots masking themselves would be doing this, but then the best way to mask is to actually emulate user behavior and follow links with referers, and we can't recognize them. --Joy (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is due to bots or something else is really irrelevant. The main point is that there is no basis to use that difference between incoming and outgoing views as having any significance. We simply do not know. A data point that we do know is what pages users visit after viewing the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's just not logical. You can't disregard one part of a data set and then blindly trust the other part of the same data set. If we simply do not know, then surely we... simply do not know? :) Seriously, how do you know that some significant portion of browsers and search engines don't just drop the referer headers? --Joy (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but the main point is that incoming views really don't matter with regards to outgoing views. older ≠ wiser 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name some other examples of this discrepancy between incoming and outgoing views across disambiguation pages? I've been watching a lot of WikiNav lately based on WP:D's alerts, and it's not at all obvious to me, because I've been consistently seeing cases where the percentage of outgoing mapped to incoming is much closer to 100 than to 54. --Joy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is 100 to 54? Where does that come from? For July there were 1.7k incoming and 1.4k outgoing. A note indicates there were 2.3k incoming and that these are presented with the label of 'filtered' elsewhere in the page the (source, destination) pairs have 10 or fewer observations. For example, if you look at the sources of traffic, the total page views is given as 2256 (or ~23k); however, if you add the figures in that table for incoming traffic, the total is only 1,666 (or ~1.7k). The 'missing' 56 page views are all less than 10 from any one source. In any case, the calculation of outgoing page views percentage is not based on either incoming pageview figure. The percentage of outgoing page views is exactly that. It is based solely on the existing data for outgoing page views. There is no accounting for page viewers that do not proceed to an outgoing page and any attempt to ascribe any intent to them is speculative.
    I'm actually a little confused as to what is at issue here. Is it the difference between the incoming and outgoing page views? Or is it the difference between the reported incoming and the actual incoming page views? older ≠ wiser 19:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For some examples, picked more or less at random (using the rounded figures from overview):
    Many dab pages have fairly low pageviews. Looking at a few dab pages likely to have high pageviews:
    For comparison, CBD had 1.7k incoming and 1.4k outgoing (82%) or using the actual incoming view of 2.3k (60%). There is wide range of differences between incoming and outgoing. And again, my main point has always been that we should not be speculating about why viewers arrive at a disambiguation page and do not proceed to an outgoing page. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The incoming pageviews for the disambiguation page are irrelevant to establishing the primary topic. And even if they weren't, the discrepancy is 82% or 61% (unfiltered), not 54%. So even if we used Joy's methodology, 54% of the people visiting the disambiguation page click through to Cannabidiol, so even in the worst case scenario, it still passes WP:PT1. Nosferattus (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please just pay more attention to what WikiNav pages simply say. Right now on the CBD page: The actual number of incoming pageviews received by CBD is 2.3k. However, any (source, destination) pair with 10 or fewer observations was removed from the clickstream in order to maintain anonymity. The pageviews from these removed observations are referred to as "filtered" elsewhere on this page. Ignoring this long tail causes us to focus too much on the top line numbers and probably ascribe way more weight to them than is actually happening. --Joy (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the point is that we simply do not know why people (or entities) might view the page and not proceed on to any outgoing page. In my opinion it is irrelevant. I do not see any basis for using speculations about why this happens in determining whether there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this possibly unrelated to the determination of primary topic, if the whole point is to improve navigation, and you can't actually prove it would improve it because we're not seeing what would happen to all the 'lost' traffic? --Joy (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a what if that we simply do not know and ascribing any sort of navigational purpose to readers or entities who choose not to navigate to any page is pure speculation. older ≠ wiser 11:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But *you* are the one engaging in a speculation on why they don't proceed, by making the decision that just because someone is not proceeding, their navigation does not matter for the consideration of primary topics. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever reason anyone (or any entity) might have for not proceeding is something we simply cannot know. The only thing that we do know is what pages they do proceed to view. older ≠ wiser 10:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bkonrad: It is clear at this point that Joy is sealioning us. Even after showing that 54% of ALL 2.3K visitors to the disambiguation page click through to Cannabidiol (which is an absurd way to show WP:PT1), they still claim we are ignoring the numbers. There is no point arguing with them further. Nosferattus (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that. Joy is diligent and thoughtful regarding disambiguation pages and I have great respect for them. More often than not I agree with their positions, but in this case we differ. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if they are diligent and thoughtful or not... Joy, what percentage of visitors to the page CBD click through to Cannabidiol? What percentage of outgoing traffic from CBD goes to Cannabidiol? Do either or both of those statistics meet WP:PT1? Nosferattus (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, it's inappropriate to question diligence and thoughtfulness, this is not conducive to WP:CONS. I'm afraid we've gone past WP:AGF here, I'm not really interested in furthering this sort of a flamewar. (All the factual questions have been discussed in other subthreads anyway.) --Joy (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you being so combative? There is no trolling involved in saying that a single month's reading of incoming to outgoing ratio being 54% is insufficient to prove that the standard of WP:PTOPIC is met. It would barely be indicative of the usage criterion being met, let alone the other one, which we appear to be blithely ignoring as well. This kind of a selective usage of guideline text to promote one way of navigation over another is not proven to be helpful to the average reader and we should avoid it. --Joy (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: I apologize for being combative. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Nosferattus (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Supported by data and by common knowledge of use of the term CBD e.g. in newspaper headlines. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a WP:RECENTISM argument. "Newspaper headlines" are not the sole means Wikipedia uses to determine a primary topic, as it is not solely popularity influenced. Longterm significance and encyclopedic importance must also be considered. CBD is commonly used to refer to central business districts the world over, even if they aren't enjoying a burst of popularity due to a dietary fad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: I've lived in several different countries and never heard "CBD" used for central business district. I know Australia and New Zealand use it. Where else? Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosferattus, Central business district seems a pretty simple starting place for seeing where it is used, including in some of the world's most populous nations like China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Melcous (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Melcous: That article describes the central business districts in those countries. Except for a few exceptions, it doesn't say that those countries use the term "Central Business District". And since none of them are English-speaking countries, it seems very unlikely that they all use the term. Nosferattus (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not here to argue, but I do think 300 million people on the subcontinent might not love being dismissed as "not English speaking" :) Melcous (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Central Business District, Singapore. English-speaking enough? – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per the long-term significance of Central business district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No real consensus here, needs some more participation. – MaterialWorks 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the long-term significance of Central business district, used in numerous countries. Personally, I also found the use of incoming and outgoing page views above confusing and unconvincing. Melcous (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:PT2. We have to consider PT1 and PT2, and I find it hard to believe that this will be more significant in the long-term than Central business district, or at least it is too soon to tell.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the long-term significance of Central business district. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CBD means Central business district. Red Slash 05:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The WikiNav data indicates that outgoing viewers are looking for cannabidiol by a ten-to-one margin, which is about as decisive as it gets for this sort of page. (I continue to disagree with Joy's interpretation of ingoing vs. outgoing views for the reasons explained by BarrelProof and I here.) And these numbers aren't surprising: cannabidiol is almost exclusively referred to by the public as CBD, whereas viewers looking for central business district are more likely to type just that. I appreciate the long-term significance argument, but cannabidiol has outpaced the competition in terms of pageviews for as long as records have been kept, so this is hardly an ephemeral case where readers' interest will soon wane. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose, considering the WP:RECENTISM of the fad of marketing CBD where cannabinoids have recently become legal. BD2412 T 00:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recentism on the subject of cannabinoids and long term significance of CBD as Central Business District. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Primary topic if there is one would be Central Business District. Many would not know of any other meaning. Andrewa (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CBD&oldid=1173336895"