From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I think we should add smofing as a verb in there somewhere. We use it as one all the time. - hurtstotouchfire

Went ahead and added that in. Based the definition on the 2006-09-15 penguicon blog page. Feel free to fluff it up. Being nice of course. See how I managed to avoid the words "gossip" and "power-play"? Very delicate. --Hurtstotouchfire 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The section on verbing doesn't make much sense as it stands. The only real distinction I've seen in use is that when "SMOF" is lowercase, the "f" is doubled: smoffing, smoffish, smoffery, etc. --TNH


We have a problem. We can't say the term dates to a 1955 book if someone notes that that book doesn't mention it. Modifying. -- Akb4 09:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The original article text in question: The term SMOF dates back at least as far as 1955, when Wilson Tucker referred to it in Neo-Fan's Guide to Science Fiction Fandom. Even as early as that time, the term, which could refer as easily to fanzine fans as well as convention runners, could be used as a verb to refer to the process of discussing con running and fan politics. (This term does *not* appear in the original 1955 edition of the NEOFAN'S GUIDE or in the 1966 edition. The author of this caveat does not have the 1973 and 1975 editions, but it *does* appear in the 1978 edition.)--Hurtstotouchfire 11:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added both a proper citation and a fact tag to this section. - Dravecky (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


There is far too much of this rubbish here - it would never get in a real encycopedia. (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Subcultural terms have a place in an exhaustive encyclopedia, I disagree. And I've seen this term used in practice for over 20 years, you should check google to see how prevalent it is, before making such a sweeping statement. You would be surprised! Timmccloud (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
All Google proves is how many idiots there are in the world. (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)