Talk:Panty line

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 March 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

old talk[edit]

I moved it to panty lines because I realized that it's almost always used in the plural, not the singular.

I've experienced otherwise, and it's Wikipedia standard not to. Anyway, a redirect exists, so, it's not such a big deal. Dysprosia 08:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In earlier times I experienced exclusively VPL. "Panty lines" is a more recent distortion by illiterate civilians who even don't remember the origins of "OK". Mikkalai 15:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, so enlighten me: What is the origin of "OK"? I researched it long ago and my sources all concluded that the origin was obscure. Matt gies 11:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A brief google search surprised me with the comeback of the VPL acronym. No wonder it will be if some profitteer will attempt to copyright the term. :-)

Origin section - farfetched?[edit]

I'm very skeptical of the claims in the Origin section. The term panty line is self-descriptive and I have to imagine it was used independently by countless people before the strange political reference mentioned in the Origin section. This is worth taking a closer look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.99.61 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vpl[edit]

The term goes back to a Woody Allen movie of the 1970s, maybe further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.160.198 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 May 2008

G-string is not a panty[edit]

G-strings are worn so that the elastic-edged leg openings of panties are eliminated. It is these leg opening lines that give rise to VPL. So the image showing a woman's G-string really shouldn't be considered as revealing VPL since G-strings are not panties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.139.251 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atribution[edit]

I changed the quote attribution from Annie Hall to Tony Roberts rather than Paul Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcdc123 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rmvd personal attr'n altogether: since it the statement is referenced from the dcitionary, you cannot arbitrarily change it without providing a proof. - 7-bubёn >t 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's it called in the UK?[edit]

Pants and Knickers are the term, not panties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.4 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikipedia[edit]

I love that we have a pic of the elusive panty line. For science! 67.6.185.37 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "panty line" is also used in places where British English is favoured, such as the UK, Ireland, South Africa, India, and some other Commonwealth nations such as New Zealand, even though in those places panties are often referred to as knickers or "undies" in Australia."

i.e. all forms of English outside the USA and Canada! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.115.178 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creepshot?[edit]

The image in the article makes me a touch uncomfortable as it looks like it may have been taken without the woman's knowledge and consent. What are the guidelines on this sort of thing? --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern may be valid. The author's only two contributions appear to be candid shots of women from awkward angles. At least, that's what this page shows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Morbidvoy&searchToken=ay16me9ejlvcjq2beyof0n8iq 75.143.92.195 (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo once, but it's replaced by the creepshots over and over again.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely Devil's advocate point of view, there's WP:CENSOR, and Image use policy - none of which are broken by the uploads. It's just as arguable that due to the close cropping of the suggested replacement shot there is no way of knowing whether permission was gained for this image either. The target is not identifiable in either of the discussed uploads, so privacy rights are not an issue. I'd have to say I think the existing image has an advantage over the proposed image because it also shows the bra underneath the clothing - so is applicable to not just VPL, but as an example of how any form of underwear can be visible. But on the plus side for the new image - it's much higher resolution. I think there's positive arguments to have both images in the article, with a bit of rephrasing.

As a final point - it's not particularly Good Faith to label the images under discussion as "creepshots" without any evidence to support this, and tbh, one of the reasons I feel bound to defend them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by a diagram showing the definition of "panty line" as accepted by the respectable fashion publications (with sources). IMHO we put too much emphasis here into the "most egregious fashion crime" of VPL, while ignoring that the "party line" without an adjective "visible" is a perfectly neutral term in both fashion and medicine. Викидим (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bold font[edit]

In the introduction, the bold font is only used for "panty line" (as per title), but the abbreviation given is VPL, that is, it includes the word "visible". Was the article renamed in the past? Should "visible" be bold, too?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "party line" without "visible" is used in fashion and medicine (and is not associated with the backside, BTW). Викидим (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title and definition[edit]

It is easy to verify that the term "panty line" is used in both serious fashion and medicine. It is just an all-familiar (and unmarked!) line on the body where the regular panties settle at the bottom. As such, it is important for patterns in the clothing design and to surgeons looking for a spot on the body to make an incision for surgery in a way that the future scar is not very visible. I have added the medical aspect of the definition through {{about}} and tried to add the fashion sense, but was reverted. IMHO the clothing design definition should be put back, as it is obviously the root of the VPL expression, unsourced barracks in our text notwithstanding. Викидим (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about fashion problem: visible panty line and struggle with it. In English wikipedia an article is about a single subject. Other subjects are relegated to other articles, just as you did with {about}. As for tailor's (not "fashion") sense, you did not provide source with definition, just with a pictures, so there is nothing to put back. - Altenmann >talk 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a perfectly sourced definition from fashion (relegated the medical to the medical article). If you look beyond the Web pages into more serious publications like books and research articles, you would discover the term PL frequently used and not related to either panties or backside. I see no problem with the VPL, naturally (I like the cheeky - pun intended! - article titles). However, usurping the PN title assumes that the PL will also be described. Викидим (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was this recreated?[edit]

It was redirected per consensus at AfD in 2021. The new article isn't so similar that it qualifies for CSD, but I don't see where it overcomes the reasons for deletion (redirection). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has references and reasonable discussion of the concept. Nearly all !votes were WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which is clearly not applicable now. - Altenmann >talk 03:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the topic is not very controversial, and is actually related to clothing in general, not undergarments in particular. In many respects the clothing design aspect article is similar to Waistline (clothing) (and now much better sourced than the latter, albeit shorter). The VPL side of the story can be separated into section, but the anthropological side of this issue most likely meets the WP:GNG, as it is deeply related to the Second World War which saw US ladies donning the blue jeans en masse and corresponding advertising campaigns (cf. Gaposis). Викидим (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration[edit]

I did not find any free schematic depiction of the panty line, and simply drew a croquis myself by hand. I am proud of what I managed to create, yet anyone with experience in graphics arts (or access to good tools) can do much better. I will be happy to see my creation to be replaced by a better diagram (photos are not a good idea in the lead, IMHO, due to unnecessary introduction of racier material into a perfectly pedestrian article). To avoid possible misunderstanding, I am not against a tasteful photo of VPL (if one can be made given the location of the subject on the human body), but do not think one should be in the lead. Викидим (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one, right here, in talk page. It is as prudish as can be, and I have no idea why it was removed from the article. Restored. - Altenmann >talk 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]