Talk:Prod (slang for Protestant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree with this article, I live in the West of Scotland and we'll use "prod" as short for protestant - it's generally not an offensive term. I've used words like "Prod" or "Proddy" around protestants who are friends of mine and they have never taken any offense, infact they'd probably call themselves a proddy. "Billy" or "Hun" would probably be more offensive, but "prod" I'd say is slang - not slur.

Contents 1 Too right.It is not offensive. 2 Proposed deletion 3 Copyedit 4 2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

[edit] Too right.It is not offensive.

It is not offensive to call a Protestant a Prod. I often describe myself as a Prod. I often use the term 'Taig' when referring to Irish Papists. - (Aidan Work 06:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Which is highly offensive and would see you in rather hot water if used in any form of official capacity. --Kiand 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Taig in itself is not an insult - its more in the way it is used. You're probably aware that the nickname came about from the once-common surname Teague/McTeague (etc). --Mal 08:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

It looks like a revert war although no one wars for it. Somebody already included information about the deletion process and I removed it as unecessary self reference. Later on someone else came to the article and without reading history included the information again. And it was removed by fourth completely unrelated person. It does seem unecesary. Let us discuss it here please.

My oppinion: althought sometimes those information can be useful (when used with selfref template) I do not think this is the case. Imagine somebody out of wikipedia who searches what word Prod means. He is not interested about Wikipedia comunity or our processes. So I think that first line of the article should not be about us. Anyone interested about us can simply look into community portal or search in wikipedia namespace. I vote for non including it here. --Jan Smolik 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would support inclusion of a link, as it seems like prod has developed into the unofficial wikislang for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. While it is a bit self-refential, I've already searched "prod" three or four times forgetting that it isnt mentioned here. youngamerican (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What happened to being non-self-referential as a general rule, though? --Kiand 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I usually agree, but our main policies seem to have such references. Maybe we should wait until it is in full force, but I believe that have a ref here would do more good than harm. youngamerican (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I also agree that providing a link to WP:PROD would be helpful. I have many, many times in the past typed in afd only to get to a disambiguation page that sent me to WP:AfD. Prod probably causes the same mistake; a link here would be helpful. Pepsidrinka 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am the guilty party who added the link, and I confess I did not check the history first. I included as I had just spent a fair while trying to find WP:PROD and struggled (having not remembered the WP:PROD shortcut). Since WP:PROD is looking like it may become an important route to deletion I felt it useful to have a link there. I used as my basis the fact that articles for 'category' and 'stub' have links to the relevent wikipedia policy page, but, with hindsight, that may not be a valid basis as those pages are disambiguation pages, not an article. Anyway, I think it is useful inclusion, so I vote to have it there. Kcordina 09:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have it; it serves the same purpose as any other dab header, of getting people where they want to go. It's no more self-referential than a POV tag: slightly, but it serves Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• From a survey reader: No the article should not contain a link to proposed deletion. PROD is not an obvious abbreviation for "proposed deletion". Those that are knowledgable enough to use such shortcuts should know to prefix the shortcut with "WP". Otherwise a more sensible redirect would be from proposed deletion to Wikipedia:proposed deletion - this redirect already exists. I am not heavily devoted to this point of view but it is my point of view. Cedars 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cedars. This redirect would likely not be helpful to general readers, and is much more of a self-reference than the POV tag is. This is because the POV tag serves an encyclopedic purpose related to the specific article (by warning that the text is not considered NPOV), while the WP:PROD link only serves a purpose for editors of Wikipedia. NatusRoma | Talk 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok to have the dab line at the opening of the article. However, if one wants something less self-referential, a Prod (disambiguation) page could be created that would refer not only to the Wikipedia policy but also to the Wiktionary entry (Wiktionary:prod). Barring creation of that dab page, I will shortly added reference to the Wiktionary entry to the existing dab line. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I have re-written this article to remove inaccuracies. Feel free to comment. --Mal 08:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)