Talk:Plonk (Usenet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk header[edit]

Well, I ballsed that up, this is supposed to go in the internet slang bit.

Quality standards?[edit]

I mean...this isn't the best article I've seen on Wikipedia, but what's wrong with it, exactly? Happypete 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In particular because, in the minds of most people, plonk means "bad wine", and not Usenet slang which not many are aware of at all. (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand why plonked in ex. 2[edit]

Not so on-topic, but why did the guy plonk the other for saying that no ramps were used in building the great pyramid? This should be made more clear.—King Bob324 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also British millitary slang for "Person of Little Or No Knowlege" -Plonker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biguglyandy (talkcontribs) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that's a coincidence. There is no sign of this acronym in ise that I ever saw and I'm the one that used it in 1989 in the first documented instance.

it really was the sound my boss made throwing a disk drive in a garbage can, it made a very doistincitnv noise and that's exactly what i had in mind when I typed what I did in 1989 on usenet.

I'm british and the only other plonk i've heard of is the bad wine that gets called that. i wans't at the time familar with any other usage of the word despite having grown up in britain and watching british tv.


btw, need to update link to "" from it's old address. your reflist stuff isn't obvious as to how to edit it.

Requested move[edit]

I propose that this article be moved to a name more suitable for its subject, and this namespace be used for a disambiguation. There is little evident reason plonk as a usenet jargon should be a primary topic, and unless some WP:RS is discovered, I have doubts the article would pass an AFD. For a primary article Plonk or Plonk (wine), there is RS such as OCW.[1] Anyone have opinion on this? MURGH disc. 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Plonk has a worldwide and historical usage connected to wine. The usenet usage is very recent and limited in audience. At worse, a disambiguation page could be primary but the wine usage does have longevity and scope in its favor. AgneCheese/Wine 20:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As above; had never heard the Internet slang use, and it wouldn't surprise me if it stuck because its use as slang for wine was already well established. Tomas e (talk)
  • Support disambiguation page - actually, I'm more familiar with the usenet use rather than the wine slang. I don't believe the primary article should be based on longevity, but rather on usage. And as far as I can tell from personal experience, the word is used more often in its usenet context than it is for wine. Therefore I disagree that the wine version should be the primary topic. So I would support a disambiguation page, rather than having "plonk" go to one article or the nother. I also note that only two mainspace articles link to this article; one has the context of wine, and the other has the context of usenet. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the move and starting a DAB then. MURGH disc. 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No Reference to Stephen Potter?[edit]

I realize this is about plonking in a usenet context, but surely it relates to the term (in some way) as coined by Stephan Potter's (hilarious) book, Lifemanship..? In the chapter "Lifemanship Primordial II: Expert Management", you "plonk" a (rather obnoxious) expert as a way of "stopping flow". He describes it primarily as a tone of voice one adopts to more or less shut up the expert; the conclusion is where it seems to fit in with the usenet expression: "In any case, [plonking] stops flow...". A kill file certainly achieves that end.

At the very least it might be that Potter's use of the term contributed to its spread. E.g., someone used it first not knowing about Potter, but others picked up on it (wrongly) as an example of Potter's version of plonking.... Just a thought.

Many editions of Potter's books exist; all four "upmanship" books are sometimes released in one volume. My version is The Complete Upmanship, ISBN: 0-236-13042-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


The person who winds up in a sufficient number of killfiles is said to be (in danger of becoming) a 'net.ghost'. There is a (general) reference to the 'net.-' prefix in the Jargon File; otherwise, I am unfortunately not able to find any reference to this term, nor even find an instance of its use in a search of Google Groups, though I recall seeing it used several times on Usenet. -- (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plonk (Usenet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


User:Nneonneo has removed an illustration (a fish with the word Plonk! on it) that has been on this article since March 2009. I agree that it was useless - a cutesy jokey image that added no information - and should have been tossed long ago, but since it's been part of the article for 9 years, I thought it was worthy of discussion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, I was being WP:BOLD here. I figured it wasn’t going to be too controversial, since I tried (and failed) to see if the image was somehow notable first (e.g. if it had been used in a famous flame war or something). I don’t harbor any animosity towards the weird fish, so if someone feels strongly that it should stay, I’d be ok with that. nneonneo talk 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
For context, the picture in question is Image:Plonk.png. nneonneo talk 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it was perfectly reasonable to remove the picture - no problem. But when something has been around a long time, sometimes it gets a fan base! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
(minor comment) It was added by User:MoiraMoira in [2], removed five edits (and six months) later [3], and re-added by three months after that in [4]. Less than 50 revisions to this page have been recorded since 2009, so I suspect very few editors even traffic this page. nneonneo talk 01:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)