Talk:MDY

MDY → MDY (disambiguation) – Suggesting to convert this to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the date format. The other meanings seem relatively obscure. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Leaning oppose. Doing some searches for "MDY", it seems unlikely to me that the date format is more likely than all other possibilities combined to be what a user is looking for. I'd support this move if we had, for example, clickstream data showing that most users are navigating from the dab page to the date format article, but it looks like the page doesn't get enough traffic to show up in the clickstream data. Colin M (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • In a web search for "MDY", the only two of the four listed meanings that really show up at all are the date format and the SPDR. We don't have an article about that particular SPDR, and the SPDR article doesn't mention "MDY" at all, and only mentions the corresponding SPDR as one entry in a long list with no explanatory information. In my opinion, it thus clearly fails MOS:DABACRO / MOS:DABMENTION / WP:DABACRONYM. Also, I believe the prevalence of the SPDR in web searches is due to commercial interests rather than general readership interest. The average person is familiar with the MDY date format but is not familiar with that particular SPDR (or even with SPDRs in general), and the guidelines say that the SPDR should not be listed here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • The average person is familiar with the MDY date format but is not familiar with that particular SPDR (or even with SPDRs in general) Not sure I believe this. Keep in mind that we as Wikipedia editors spend a lot more time thinking about date formats than an average person! I'm sure the average person has seen a date like 10/31/2022, but I don't think they would recognize "MDY" as a reference to that format. Ultimately, I think all candidate topics have a weak claim to primariness, which is why I support the status quo.

    Regarding whether the ETF should be listed, it's tricky. I think keeping it is supported by MOS:DABMENTION (see this discussion for a good explanation of the distinction between mentioning a topic vs. mentioning the ambiguous term in relation to that topic), but you're right that MOS:DABACRO suggests removing it. Though before removing it on that grounds, I think it would be better to just add a mention of the acronym to the article. Colin M (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

    Fair enough, although I still think the SPDR meaning is pretty obscure, and as a mere entry in a lengthy list, is not very encyclopedic content. And if we're going to add the "MDY" ticker symbol into the SPDR article, I hope we would add the ticker symbols for all of the listed SPDRs, not just that one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Update: I found the relevant SPDR in the List of American exchange-traded funds, which includes ticker symbols in the list, so I updated the blue link of the DAB page to refer to that instead of the SPDR article and thus resolve the MOS:DABACRO / WP:DABACRONYM problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. I had only ever heard of the date format, but that topic apparently doesn't get the attention of a majority of readers (the dab got 38 views in August [1], but as shown above, no link on the page gets the minimum of 10 clicks a month necessary for inclusion in the clickstream dataset). – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:01, 13 October 2022 (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.