Talk:Yiff

If it's going to be a lazy link to Wikipedia, why not just copy the content over with that wikipedia content tag? --Xax 01:17, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Because I'm lazy! I also feel that Wikipedia is more likely to keep an eye on it than us. If you feel it's the right thing to do, though, go ahead. -- 01:22, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Can we protect this page or something?
Because it's just a vandal magnet. Sslaxx
 * I'd like to hold off on that for now. It seems that there's only been one attempt in the last 3 days, which isn't that bad.  My understanding of the protection system is that it's only used when there is repeated vandalism on an article in a short amount of time.  --Dmuth 15:40, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * So if I want it to happen that's what I should do? --202.180.83.6

petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?yiff Add "Yiff" to the Oxford English Dictionary. I don't know if it should go here, but here it is. SleepAtWork 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Morte Arthure
I'm not at all sure that the linked page is an accurate recording of the text. Others have either 3iff or just iff, and the latter appears to be the "meaning" - it's an older version of the word "if". I'm no expert, but I suspect it may be an attempt to represent a character that is not present in the current English language. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Doh!, beaten 63.204.227.202 22:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Le Morte d'Arthur and Yiff
I don't think this bit of information is relevant, as Yiff is just old english for If ("Yiff thou mean..."->"If you mean...".) 63.204.227.202 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, maybe it could be reworded as a Did you know? =) Spirou 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't find "yiff" in the Project Gutenberg version of the book("Volume 1""Volume 2") --EarthFurst 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Project Gutenberg version looks to be a modern translation of the text. To find "yiff" in it I think you need to look at an old Middle English version. (example) As "yiff" in the ME text is just an old form of the word "if", I don't know if it is particularly noteworthy.--Higgs Raccoon 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yiff up for deletion on Wikipedia
At Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yiff_%28second_nomination%29. If it succeeds, there won't be a Wikipedia article for this article to fall back on.

Here's some sources that should meet Wikipedia's standards for defining yiff:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,10488,1387766,00.html http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/041201/cover.html

Also, give http://news.google.com/archivesearch a shot. Try searching it for other forms (yiffy, yiffing, yiffed, yiffable, yiffer). --Rat 00:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it does get deleted, we need to salvage as much of that article as possible to bring over here for posterity.--Kendricks Redtail 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Young Incredibly Fuckable Fellow
Looking through google this phrase only shows up in relation to defining the term yiff, and it only shows up five times. If it were truly gay slang from the '70s it should (IMHO) show up more. I think this can be safely removed from the article. -WhiteFire 05:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the earliest reference I found to something similar on Groups, from 1997, but they don't say exactly where, and it's possible they just made it up: Young Incredibly Fuckable Fox. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was in use (primarily as a joke) by furries at that point. I had heard that term (foxes, rather than fellows) used on FurryMUCK before '97. I don't believe I heard anyone call it anything except a backronym however. I don't think a thread from '97 with the furry connotation really does anything to help the '70s gay culture claim. -WhiteFire 06:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't really, just providing additional information that wasn't in the article itself. Probably best to be bold and take it out - if someone manages to dig up a reference for it, they can always put it back. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to fall on the side of caution when editing someone else's site, so I wanted to give people a chance to bitch before I pulled out a knife and started cutting. But if you insist... Have to admit I'd find it quite interesting if there WAS some truth in the '70s culture reference, which is why I started poking around. -WhiteFire 07:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the actual origin. It was one of the words used in mixed orientation bars to make others aware that you're gay, and it predates the furry culture by at least fifteen years. Early on, there was much overlap with furry and gay cultures, so the word must've carried over. Saying that it's the sound a fox makes was just some nonsense made up on alt.fan.furry, but that usage stuck. Source: Nothing printed, just memories of my youth. Ahem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.22.135.152 (talk • contribs).

Foxen/littlefox definition
AFAIK this is the correct one, based off my experience in fandom at the time (real early 90's). This in fact caused a great deal of friction between the nonsexual and sexual crowd, the theft of the term was not exactly appreciated by those playing innocent foxes. -WhiteFire 06:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Links
further reading on the word 'yiff' [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=yiff]

"Motives for yiff"?
I think that whole section is superfluous, unlikely to be true, and uneccesary. Also the statement about monogamy is largely inaccurate. Trying to "rationalize" yiffing would involve touching on why people cyber in general, and in the end, several books with opposing view points could be written on the subject. I suggest removing it. Equivamptalk 13:30, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't see anyone stopping you. The section around The Yiffy Guide to Safer Sex was around before that section, though, and mention of it should probably remain, if only as a see also. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 * He is right, there way too many duplicate explanation paragraphs. It needs to be conduced, even maybe on an Onomatopoeia section along a sexual conotation one - Spirou 04:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)