Talk:SMOF

	Speculative fiction portal 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Verbing[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Origin[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've added both a proper citation and a fact tag to this section. - Dravecky (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand why. There is a specific, published book that is considered a source within the field whose name, editor, and edition are given. What more are you looking for in a citation? 104.186.132.216 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous[edit]

There is far too much of this rubbish here - it would never get in a real encycopedia. 80.7.238.150 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

All Google proves is how many idiots there are in the world. 80.7.238.150 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a member of LASFS since 1980 and it was in use there when I first showed up. JDZeff (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]