Same place where someone started using the word "verbiage" (or "verbage") when they mean "copy", "text", "words", or "language".
I have the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary sitting on my lap... but Mark Walters already beat me to the post!
Vinyls is like scroes. Some fool misspelled it and it's propagated for one reason or another. The plural of vinyl is vinyl like the words fish or sheep. Oddly there is no word that describes this.
As for the word vinyl... I picked up this "slang" here at AK. I used to say albums and records before the introduction of CDs. Now it's just records when I speak about them, but vinyl when I write about them. Weird.
Actually, there plural of vinyl isn't vinyl. There IS NO PLURAL for vinyl, because vinyl is not countable. It's an amorphous substance, like tar, air or water. Would you say "There are more water in this bottle than there are in that bottle"? No, it is non-sensical, because water cannot be counted.
Records can be counted. LPs can be counted. You can count 33s, 45s and 78s (as commonly used to refer to records that play at those speeds (if you ignore the fractional part of 33-1/3

).
But "vinyls"? Sorry, no way! :nono: It is a mistake that should be corrected when a teenager or twenty-something person makes it, just as a parent should correct a toddler making basic grammar mistakes. How are people to learn, if on one tells them?
Of course, language is a changing and evolving thing, not a static thing, but if you use that as an excuse to not attempt to maintain some degree of consistency in the language over time, then very soon there will be increased mis-communication and an inability to correctly understand the legacy of prior communication, and a slew of problems will emerge from that. Changes that add specificity and accuracy, or which increase options for meaningful expression, should be welcomed, but changes that diminish our options for communication, or which may tend to cause confusion or misunderstanding, should be opposed.
I'll continue to correct every young (or old!) person I hear talking about "vinyls", because it is just plain WRONG.
Yes, if the mistake is repeated frequently enough and for a long enough period of time, then it may eventually cease to be considered a mistake. The word "kids" comes to mind as an example; no longer does it correctly mean only baby goats! But is this process of language change over time an acceptable excuse to allow every mistake that is made to go unchecked, so that mistakes can propagate among those who don't know better? Do we really wish to encourage and hasten the evolutionary change process of the language? I think not, if we want our children to understand tomorrow what we write today.