Talk:VDL

I believe that the following initialism should be included in this page, but it was removed without explanation or justification by SemperBlotto, given this user's propensity for this type of behavior, I am starting a thread on the subject here. If there are particular reasons why this initialism should not be included, I would like them to be identified here: KlappCK 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Visible Diaper  Line: Derived from VPL.


 * Can you provide any evidence for its use (not mentions or definitions). There's nothing obvious on the first few pages of Google book hits. SemperBlotto 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Google Books hits, I did not realize that appearance in Google Books is a hard requirement for inclusion in Wiktionary. That said, if one uses Wikipedia's use-mention distinction criteria and Wikitionary's criteria for inclusion, it appears to me that this definition appears to meet the Wiki criteria: its use is widespread and it is used to convey meaning in at least three independent instances spanning more than a year.KlappCK 17:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take this extended period of silence as encouragement to try the edit again before going to dispute resolution.KlappCK 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We are still waiting for you to provide evidence. SemperBlotto 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence of what? What does it take to placate you?  What evidence are you using as justification for repeatedly reverting my edit?  All I am asking for is a clearly explained rational for excluding this term per wikimedia guidelines.  I do not want to take this to dispute resolution.  I would like this to be a teachable moment for either or both of us, not a dispute over the relevance of Google book hits.KlappCK 15:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

See below - From Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion SemperBlotto 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * “Attested” means verified through
 * Clearly widespread use,
 * Usage in a well-known work, or
 * Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
 * I don't see how it meets "widespread usage" as you claim. Just a small handful of Google Web hits and nothing in Books. Equinox ◑ 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that we may have different interpretations of what "widespread usage" means. It is used to convey meaning, with or without definition, on multiple pages dealing with (infant) child-rearing, incontinence, and diaper fetishism, which, to me, satisfied the meaning: what other community would you have using the term?  I would also note that Google returns 1790 results when "'visible diaper line' VDL" is entered into the search engine.  Supposing for a moment that you would even concede my points, if they are still not enough, then I concede my argument and we can close this discussion (at least if/until the initialism sees more widespread use).KlappCK 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, diaper fetishism is such a small and little-known subculture that no term specific to it could pass on the "widespread usage" rule alone. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get it. You need to provide evidence, not just tell us where to look. Add a citations page (see Citations:hydrogen as an example) or provide quotations of a similar format. SemperBlotto 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has a citation to support this definition, I suggest this discussion is closed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have to supply a representative list of examples at a later time. Have you actually looked at any of the articles (even on the first page of results) when you searched for the term and initialism?  I really don't care to waste my time quoting a dozen different articles just to have someone tell me that my sources are inadmissible.  Here is but one example from the infant-rearing community: http://noteverstill.blogspot.com/2009/06/vdl.html.  The entire article meanders around the subject somewhat, so you can focus on paragraphs three and five.  This author, like many others in this "category", if you will, of users of the term, doesn't go on at length about the subject, so if this article doesn't pass as "use" of the term to you, then I am likely fighting a losing battle; otherwise, there are at least a dozen more articles like this one that I can list off at a later time.KlappCK 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting "I really don't care to waste my time quoting a dozen different articles just to have someone tell me that my sources are inadmissible." Alright then, don't, that's why I said let's consider the matter closed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us try to refrain from being asinine, okay? In case I wasn't clear on my meaning, I do not want to spend hours of my life trying to find a dozen examples of relevant use only to find that those are irrelevant examples due a misunderstanding on my part.  The apathy the Mglovesfun was apparently reading into my earlier statement, is mistaken, I have already spent this much time, why would I stop without clear resolution?  Allow me clarify, here is one example of use (in my opinion) from the aforementioned page:
 * That's how pajamas are sold, nice and tight, but it looks a little funny in the middle of the day. I entertained myself by becoming increasingly concerned about VDL: Visible Diaper Line. No woman likes to show her lines, right?...I am a lover of tushie waddles, and I was ready to admire her tushie, sans-VDL, of course, as she, too, wiggled into school.
 * If this isn't a clear example of use to the rest of the community, then I honestly do not understand what use is, and need clarification.KlappCK 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being 'asinine', as you put it. I mean I was agreeing with you for one thing. Secondly, where is this example from? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant no offense. I suppose we had a misunderstanding.  http://noteverstill.blogspot.com/2009/06/vdl.html KlappCK 16:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't consider blogspot durably archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay...what about the content?KlappCK 17:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what about it? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is what I was talking about earlier with you. Look at the context of the conversation.  I gave this link and citation as an example of use versus definition.  You have stated (your opinion?) that the blogspot is an unacceptable source, but is the content itself an acceptable example of use conveying meaning?  That is what I want to know.KlappCK 18:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it conveys meaning, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming SemperBlotto and Equinox or on board, I'll see if I can find a few more "permanent" webpages. Any suggestions?KlappCK 18:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Web pages are almost never permanent sources in CFI terms, because they aren't "durably archived". See especially (which explicitly mentions the Wayback Machine, which is the best "Web archive" I know of). I just don't think this can pass; it seems to be modern, rare slang specific to a small subculture that hasn't been written about in any book or academic paper or even on a newsgroup. There's always WT:LOP if you are itching (no pun intended, heh) to add it without attestation. Equinox ◑ 19:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And so this thread comes to a close...for now, anway. Here is the link to the were I have saved the definition.KlappCK 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)